Critical Elements of a Good Review

Everyone believes it is important to review exhibitions. These presenta­tions represent major investments of time, intellectual effort, and money for the individuals and institutions involved in the process. The tremendous pressure to produce these shows on time and on budget can make it hard for their creators to have an objective view of how well or how poorly they met their inter­pretive goals. Oftentimes an outside observer who can offer thoughtful analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of an exhibition can provide a useful and welcome perspective. When offered in the right spirit these observations can clarify which ideas and techniques work or do not work within a specific exhibition setting. Out of these observations lessons can be learned which offer guidelines for use in future endeavors.

The teaching role which exhibit reviews can play are particularly important if we think of exhibitions as experimental in nature and constantly in need of fine tuning. There are no pat formulas for success in this medium. Hard work, careful planning, inspiration, and luck are needed, but do not guarantee a successful out­ come. Given this reality, exhibition developers should look to stretch the medium, testing various approaches, and searching for new ways to make exhibits more effective educational tools. Reviews are a crucial element in that process. They assess the effectiveness of one at­ tempt to present a topic, theme, or concept. When these critiques are offered by peers who understand both the limits and the possibilities of this medium, they become important benchmarks for measuring where work in the field is headed and how effective it is in communicating with the public.

Within this column we want to continue to emphasize the importance of reviews as road maps for future efforts. They can be useful learning tools for everyone interested in creating exhibitions if handled properly. To attain this end, we believe reviews need to be constructive rather than destructive in their intent and emphasis. A review should indicate the strengths of the exhibitions as well as provide useful ideas and suggestions for ways in which the creator could improve the show. The reader should receive new ideas to ponder insights which may cast the show in a new light, or challenges which encourage further discussions about how ideas, artifacts, or images are presented. Criticism aimed purely at dismantling the exhibition or attacking the creators have only very limited usefulness. They often tend to be more personally self-serving for the reviewer than useful to the reader or the creators of the exhibition. It can stifle meaningful dialogue rather than encouraging it. We hope exhibit reviews have the opposite effect and will encourage thoughtful dialogue and stimulate continuous reevaluation of individual exhibitions and the field in general.

Reviews further serve a useful purpose as records of the event. Most exhibitions tend to have short life spans of three to six months. Small museums may have limited exhibit space, forcing them to have two or more exhibitions a year in the same area. Even large museums have mixes of temporary and permanent shows, so, especially when a catalog is not produced, the review may be the only lasting record of the exhibit’s existence. Reviews, therefore, should provide the reader with key elements about the exhibition and its content. These elements should include a discussion of the thematic focus of the show, the types of artifacts included, how the artifacts are presented, the effectiveness of the use of images, and how well the design reinforces the intellectual content. Readers should also know when and where the exhibition occurred, who were the people key to the show’s creation—designer, curator, project manager, etc.—its size, and its budget. When this data is consistently recorded reviews become a permanent memory of the vital statistics of exhibition which can serve as a reference source for individuals interested in the topic or the specific exhibition after it has disappeared.

Underlying our views on the most effective use of exhibition reviews are certain assumptions about the medium and its mode of presentation. Creating exhibitions is very different from writing books or articles from our perspective and consequently exhibit reviews should not replicate book reviews. The questions asked of exhibits should be different. The amount of detailed explanation available to label writers is one difference. Exhibits do not have the luxury of long, intricate explanations and cannot always convey complexities in detail. They can and should make references to the nuances of historical interpretation, but their presentation of the issues needs to be straightforward and succinct. Exhibition audiences generally are not primed to read long labels or wall after wall of shorter labels. They are standing and reading, rushing to take in as much as they can quickly as possible, They are not generally interested in learning everything about the topic, but trying to obtain a handle on the idea and it’s overall importance is much like a freshman introduction course college. A wise approach to follow is to give students a good basic grounding in the topic ; to whet the appetite for more without 01 whelming them with information. In essence, best exhibitions convey a mood or an impress that will enhance the visitor’s understanding of the subject. Reviewers need to consider I reality of label writing as they critique labels of historical content and sophistication.

Also with an exhibition one must consider the effective use of artifacts. They should not just serve as illustration to brighten the exhibit, but should have a primary role in the process. What makes a museum unique is their possession of authentic artifacts which give the public an opportunity to interact in a different fashion with historical ideas, events, personalities, and perceptions. The opportunity for visitors to have a visual, environmental or tactile encounter with history is a unique aspect of the educational experience available in museums. The manner in which artifacts are presented and used within an exhibition, consequently, is a critical issue. If used properly they can in certain instances replace words as effective means of conveying information about lifestyles and standards living, how people worked, what they thought, and their belief systems. When used improperly, artifacts can convey a meaning totally at odds with the intellectual intent of accompanying labels. Exhibition reviews must consider how well artifacts are employed as an integral part of the exhibition. It also must recognize how well the ideas and themes in the exhibit as expressed in words blend with the artifacts. The combination of these two elements is the essence of the uniqueness of exhibitions as educational tools.

In addition, exhibition reviews should inquire about other elements which are integral but not always obvious aspects of the exhibition experience.  Are there environmental sounds? What purpose do they serve? Are they only there as fluff or are they historically accurate and appropriate? Many discussions have recently developed concerning the use of music as a floor for an exhibit to create the proper historical context for the space. It should not be used “muzak” to create a pleasant interlude for the visitor. The review also should comment on the audio visual  materials in the exhibit, asking similar questions about its appropriateness. Does it enable the exhibit to better present its thesis, or is it there as an aside essentially for amusement? If there are performances in space, it is critical to know what they are, when they occur, and what role they play as a learning experience for visitors. If there are experimental or nontradi­tional aspects to the exhibit, this also should be reported, noting the hoped for results and reac­tions to its utility for visitors. One must also learn of the educational programming connected with the exhibition, again asking appropriate ques­tions. Are there public concerns that offer other avenues for learning more about the topic? Are there public lectures, symposia or other events that offer additional sources of information? Also the existence of a catalog must be noted and the reviewer should if possible look through it. Catalogs are important places to include addi­tional information, and provide an opportunity to fill in areas and concepts that could no be ex­plained in full detail in the exhibit.

It also is essential that the reviewer talk with the curator about his/her view of the exhibition. The reviewer should at least learn about the curator’s expectations for the show, understand what factors influenced the final product, and what role money, time restrictions, and/or other pressures of any sort had on the final outcome. Exhibition creation is very public in its opera­tion, and all of the above factors can have a major impact. There are many other factors to consider, such as how to discuss controversial issues about a company or individual whose artifacts or finan­cial support is crucial to the completion of the product. This is a factor which the reviewer should at least know about as they are creating the review, but which they do not have to accept as excuses for areas of concern they might have. This knowledge, however, does provide insight into the entire process, and allows for a more knowledgeable review.

So too, does examining the overall design of the exhibit. Do the ideas and themes of the curator fit well with the design? Is the show a col­laborative effort where these two elements work well together? This relationship can make or break the success of the show. Determining the success of this collaboration means more than seeing if the exhibition looks nice. It means determining whether the design elements com­plement the main goals of the exhibition.

So the essence of what we want exhibition reviewers to do is to take a holistic approach to understanding the collaborative nature of the process, to have a sense of the strengths and weaknesses of the medium, and to assess exhibi­tions on their own merits, not in comparison to other means of expression and education. The fields of film and literary criticism have created their own language and perspectives which in­ fluence the dialogue, shape the presentations, and inform the content within these media. If we can do this, we can begin to generate our own critical mass of literature which will benefit future his­torians and scholars as they create exhibitions.