Aircraft museums - are the blind leading the blind
Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:59 pm
Hi all
I think we are all aware that I try to get around to as many aircraft museums as I can and I think I have seen most of the prominant ones in the world several times.
One thing that occurs to me is the trend to break away from the more traditionalist presentation of aircraft to a more trendy / "modern' style.
I used to love the RAF Museum and all that it represented in that it displayed aircraft in the context of history in historic surroundings - in short it had character - the hangers that were housing the aircraft are in essence a part of the display. Likewise with Duxford
I was critical of Hendon on a number of fronts last year for in my opinion mucking up the rearrangement of airframes during the redevelopment but I must say now that it is over i have more longer lasting reservations . I do not single Hendon out in this respect I think the redevelopment at Duxford is slowly destroying the character of that place as well and it has to be said that the Seattle museum of Flight has all the Character of a disused slaughterhouse.
The issue here is not funding - the root cause of all of this s total misunderstanding of the context of what a musem should be about. People on this and other forums quite rightly complain about museums lacking character and acting as mueseleums to dead aircraft.
When you view a period aircraft, the setting is all important to the context in which you are viewing that machine, the surroundings should reflect the era of the machine, there should be appropriate equipment and accessories around the machine to reflect the overall impression of the period in which the machine is from and the environment in which it operated. I think the idea of having the appropriate noises and smells adds vastly to the viewers experiance. Viewing a machine in the new Hall at Hendon or the American Building at Duxford or MOF Seattle is like looking at a new TV at Dixons or Kmart - there is no sense of occasion or environment to the exhibits.
On the one hand Hendon builds this new abomination of a hall and hangs the machines like beef in the butchers then they creat a real gem like the Graham White exhibit which is what I am on about - excellent.
For me the ultimate experiance that I am talking about is represented by The FAAM and the carrier experiance - again excellent
I would love to see the basis upon which the specifications for all of these facilities is compliled. Do the architects / project directors / custodians give a toss or are they more interested in the fee and in creating a monument to their artistic legend in their own lunchtime status.
I would just like to see a lot more effort go into the integration of development at historic sites in a way that is in context with the culture of that environment.
My two bobs worth
Kindest regards
John Parker
I think we are all aware that I try to get around to as many aircraft museums as I can and I think I have seen most of the prominant ones in the world several times.
One thing that occurs to me is the trend to break away from the more traditionalist presentation of aircraft to a more trendy / "modern' style.
I used to love the RAF Museum and all that it represented in that it displayed aircraft in the context of history in historic surroundings - in short it had character - the hangers that were housing the aircraft are in essence a part of the display. Likewise with Duxford
I was critical of Hendon on a number of fronts last year for in my opinion mucking up the rearrangement of airframes during the redevelopment but I must say now that it is over i have more longer lasting reservations . I do not single Hendon out in this respect I think the redevelopment at Duxford is slowly destroying the character of that place as well and it has to be said that the Seattle museum of Flight has all the Character of a disused slaughterhouse.
The issue here is not funding - the root cause of all of this s total misunderstanding of the context of what a musem should be about. People on this and other forums quite rightly complain about museums lacking character and acting as mueseleums to dead aircraft.
When you view a period aircraft, the setting is all important to the context in which you are viewing that machine, the surroundings should reflect the era of the machine, there should be appropriate equipment and accessories around the machine to reflect the overall impression of the period in which the machine is from and the environment in which it operated. I think the idea of having the appropriate noises and smells adds vastly to the viewers experiance. Viewing a machine in the new Hall at Hendon or the American Building at Duxford or MOF Seattle is like looking at a new TV at Dixons or Kmart - there is no sense of occasion or environment to the exhibits.
On the one hand Hendon builds this new abomination of a hall and hangs the machines like beef in the butchers then they creat a real gem like the Graham White exhibit which is what I am on about - excellent.
For me the ultimate experiance that I am talking about is represented by The FAAM and the carrier experiance - again excellent
I would love to see the basis upon which the specifications for all of these facilities is compliled. Do the architects / project directors / custodians give a toss or are they more interested in the fee and in creating a monument to their artistic legend in their own lunchtime status.
I would just like to see a lot more effort go into the integration of development at historic sites in a way that is in context with the culture of that environment.
My two bobs worth
Kindest regards
John Parker
Re: Aircraft museums - are the blind leading the blind
Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:54 am
setter wrote:Viewing a machine in the new Hall at Hendon or the American Building at Duxford or MOF Seattle is like looking at a new TV at Dixons or Kmart - there is no sense of occasion or environment to the exhibits.
I have to agree with you. I think the occasion of fundraising or the legacy the wealthy benefactors want to leave behind (i.e. the building) overshadow what actually would compliment the displays.
After all, the benefactors aren't the draw, the airplanes are. How would a wealthy benefactor (or fundraising commitee) get noticed otherwise if not for the architecture of the building? Surely if you only noticed the displays and not the building itself they will have failed in bringing recognition to their own tireless efforts.
A diorama... Ha! Anyone can do that for next to nothing. Who needs plastic grass and mannequins when you can confound photographers with all glass buildings and black painted rooms!
Maybe I'm just another cynic...
New Museum Old Guys
Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:58 am
Wangaratta Airworld is now a officialy a Museum.
I was having a bit of a smile watching the old vets mixing Bondcrete with dyed sand and spreading it on the concrete.
Where the bosses P-40 sits and then stomping thru it leaving boot prints and tyre tread marks thru it.
I recon a few of them would have got an ear bashing from the missus when they rocked up at home with that stuff stuck all over them.
There is reventments sandbags, dust,Messy buggers.
I was having a bit of a smile watching the old vets mixing Bondcrete with dyed sand and spreading it on the concrete.
Where the bosses P-40 sits and then stomping thru it leaving boot prints and tyre tread marks thru it.
I recon a few of them would have got an ear bashing from the missus when they rocked up at home with that stuff stuck all over them.
There is reventments sandbags, dust,Messy buggers.
Mon Aug 23, 2004 4:33 am
Well Mick
You better start filling sand bags for thr revetments and polishing up the Bofors Guns and don't forget we will want to see the searchlight polished up too. I will arrange for a couple of hectares of Camo netting as well - and we will need lots of sound effects a few blokes firing Vickers guns and lots of good old cordite smoke ......AHHHHHHHH I can see and smell it now. Get that Tony flying and you can scramble a couple of flights of P40s and P39s to fly Top cover for the Bostons and the Vengance with the Kingfisher flying reconasance - you can create your own Airshow- Better get riveting ...........
Seriously good on you, congratulations to Murray and all concerned down there I and all of us wish you well for the future.
Kindest regards
John Parker
You better start filling sand bags for thr revetments and polishing up the Bofors Guns and don't forget we will want to see the searchlight polished up too. I will arrange for a couple of hectares of Camo netting as well - and we will need lots of sound effects a few blokes firing Vickers guns and lots of good old cordite smoke ......AHHHHHHHH I can see and smell it now. Get that Tony flying and you can scramble a couple of flights of P40s and P39s to fly Top cover for the Bostons and the Vengance with the Kingfisher flying reconasance - you can create your own Airshow- Better get riveting ...........
Seriously good on you, congratulations to Murray and all concerned down there I and all of us wish you well for the future.
Kindest regards
John Parker
Museum settings
Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:21 pm
John, I had the good fortune to visit the Seattle Museum of Flight last weekend. I think you would be impressed with the new "personal courage" wing (an odd choice of name at that). Each airplane is set in it's own mini-diorama and I noticed that they went to the trouble of putting oil stains on the decking around the Corsair, amongst many other details. Literally night and day from the main wing of the museum, as the new wing is dark and emotive. I was pretty upset when the move from my erstwhile hometown of Phoenix was announced. I used to visit the Champlin museum several times a year, even though the displays never changed. I will readily admit that the new museum is better and very much in the character you are appealing for.
Rob Coussens
Rob Coussens
Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:57 am
Hi Rob
Well that is great news - I really loved the museum (aircraft that is) and thats why I have been there a few times - especially the old Boeing "Red Barn" but I always disliked the way the aircraft were displayed so badly when a little bit of vision could have made it so much better so it is good to know they are addressing the issue. If you ever go to New Zealand I can reccomend Wigram RNZAFM - it is quite well done on a tight budget.
Anyway I will have to go back to Seattle soon and look up these aircraft and mr allens new show as well.
Thanks for the info
Regards
John P
Well that is great news - I really loved the museum (aircraft that is) and thats why I have been there a few times - especially the old Boeing "Red Barn" but I always disliked the way the aircraft were displayed so badly when a little bit of vision could have made it so much better so it is good to know they are addressing the issue. If you ever go to New Zealand I can reccomend Wigram RNZAFM - it is quite well done on a tight budget.
Anyway I will have to go back to Seattle soon and look up these aircraft and mr allens new show as well.
Thanks for the info
Regards
John P
Wed Aug 25, 2004 4:58 am
Setter,
It's a big topic. What most people miss is that museums are subject to fashion as much as everything else; and as fashions in museum display and theory change so do the museums.
Most museums can only 'do' or 'redo' one area at a time; due to funding and the detail required of the work. This is often left as it is for 10 years.
A museum professional, or museum historian can date a gallery and museum display to a half-decade by picking up the fashion cues in the display.
And you and I fall into the same trap. What we prefer, or are used to, or remember become the way we prefer a museum to be; and other approaches are regarded with suspicion.
For instance, the museum in which I work has is arranged thematically (we have a 'Romans' gallery, a 'Technology' gallery and a 'Countryside' Gallery among others) trying to convince a couple of 70 year old visitors that this was a legitimate way of displaying the collection was impossible - for them, it HAD to be chronological or nothing! There's nothing wrong with either approach, but on the other hand, believing one way is the right way is wrong!
Context is important for artifacts; but I've yet to see a display that is undoubtidly so right all the others are 'wrong'; but I have seen a variety of approaches which are as good as the museum can manage, and some which are lazy.
There's a lot more to add, but that's just another point to consider!
Cheers
James K
It's a big topic. What most people miss is that museums are subject to fashion as much as everything else; and as fashions in museum display and theory change so do the museums.
Most museums can only 'do' or 'redo' one area at a time; due to funding and the detail required of the work. This is often left as it is for 10 years.
A museum professional, or museum historian can date a gallery and museum display to a half-decade by picking up the fashion cues in the display.
And you and I fall into the same trap. What we prefer, or are used to, or remember become the way we prefer a museum to be; and other approaches are regarded with suspicion.
For instance, the museum in which I work has is arranged thematically (we have a 'Romans' gallery, a 'Technology' gallery and a 'Countryside' Gallery among others) trying to convince a couple of 70 year old visitors that this was a legitimate way of displaying the collection was impossible - for them, it HAD to be chronological or nothing! There's nothing wrong with either approach, but on the other hand, believing one way is the right way is wrong!
Context is important for artifacts; but I've yet to see a display that is undoubtidly so right all the others are 'wrong'; but I have seen a variety of approaches which are as good as the museum can manage, and some which are lazy.
There's a lot more to add, but that's just another point to consider!
Cheers
James K
Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:28 am
Hi James
I agree with most of what you say but I guess what I objecting to is architecturally Lazy/ inept concepts - There are modern example of museums that work such as some of the FAAM, the Graham White display at Hendon , Wigram RNZAFM , apparently some of the new development in Seattle.
My point is that buildings such as the American monolith at Duxford are expensive , ugly and disfunctional adding little to the visitor experiance or the story of the displays inside. I am sure that statistically a lot of vistors are impressed but how much better could it have been if greater attention to aesthetics, form and function in the context of the environment in which it sits. Its a bit like the glass pyramid at the Louve - you like it or you hate it. The point is that the building can add to the environment of the exhibits contained therein or attempt to make a statement in it's own right.
I am on the board of several Government run Museums ( You can probably work out which) which are designed to enhance the Arts and they do this to various levels of sucess - the sucessful ones are the ones which are designed to show empathy for the function of the medium they contain.
You may remember the stuff up in the Sydney Opera House because essentially the Concert Hall was disfunctional in the context of it's role - One of the worlds great buildings but not much good for concerts!!!
As you say this is a big area and there are no rights or wrongs but I would just like to see a little more consideration as to the history and the context of the site before contracts are signed and in the grants process that is powering all of this much needed re development.
At the end of the day it is just good that they are built.
Kindest regards
John
I agree with most of what you say but I guess what I objecting to is architecturally Lazy/ inept concepts - There are modern example of museums that work such as some of the FAAM, the Graham White display at Hendon , Wigram RNZAFM , apparently some of the new development in Seattle.
My point is that buildings such as the American monolith at Duxford are expensive , ugly and disfunctional adding little to the visitor experiance or the story of the displays inside. I am sure that statistically a lot of vistors are impressed but how much better could it have been if greater attention to aesthetics, form and function in the context of the environment in which it sits. Its a bit like the glass pyramid at the Louve - you like it or you hate it. The point is that the building can add to the environment of the exhibits contained therein or attempt to make a statement in it's own right.
I am on the board of several Government run Museums ( You can probably work out which) which are designed to enhance the Arts and they do this to various levels of sucess - the sucessful ones are the ones which are designed to show empathy for the function of the medium they contain.
You may remember the stuff up in the Sydney Opera House because essentially the Concert Hall was disfunctional in the context of it's role - One of the worlds great buildings but not much good for concerts!!!
As you say this is a big area and there are no rights or wrongs but I would just like to see a little more consideration as to the history and the context of the site before contracts are signed and in the grants process that is powering all of this much needed re development.
At the end of the day it is just good that they are built.
Kindest regards
John
Thu Aug 26, 2004 4:53 am
Hi John,
I entirely agree with you! I'm also not implying that current is better than old (or vice versa).
You've put your finger on a key point though. The Sydney Opera house is the most famous opera house in the world; but isn't great for Operas! The Amerian Air Museum, though a stark, crowded building with little empathy for the contents (apart from keeping them dry - they still get dirty as oil / fuel is shed from one a/c onto another and there's a lot of dust around!) is a 'flagship' building for DX, and is used as a logo and poster icon to attract visitors. Good looks doesn't equate to good buildings, but often has an incidental high profile.
Cheers
James K
I entirely agree with you! I'm also not implying that current is better than old (or vice versa).
You've put your finger on a key point though. The Sydney Opera house is the most famous opera house in the world; but isn't great for Operas! The Amerian Air Museum, though a stark, crowded building with little empathy for the contents (apart from keeping them dry - they still get dirty as oil / fuel is shed from one a/c onto another and there's a lot of dust around!) is a 'flagship' building for DX, and is used as a logo and poster icon to attract visitors. Good looks doesn't equate to good buildings, but often has an incidental high profile.
Cheers
James K