MCN 2014 Recap: Nomenclature/ Content

There were a number of fruitful conversations about nomenclature this year at MCN. I thought I would write down some thoughts should I hope to remember them in the future. As a practitioner, I understand the desire to just get the work done rather than focus on the details of naming the work you are doing. But, conferences offer a useful juncture to break with active practice and instead focus on fruitful reflection on said practice.

Content

One major topic was what the ideas being generated should be called. Content is a term that is field agnostic, used by marketers and museums alike. But, similarly, the backlash to the term is equally shared across fields. Angst and straight up hatred of the term interpretation was also expressed in conference hallways. There were the story folk, who felt at essence like Homer, we are but spinners of tales. Idea-men also shared their thoughts about the correct term. For all of this discussion, I wonder if the issue remains the uneasy relationship between information and delivery. We are in the midst of a point where the revolutions of delivery methods were hot and heavy in our minds. Most museum professionals remember a time when you still needed a computer to access the internet. The aged amongst us remember the zzhhhding of the dial up. (I wished a word had been coined for that sound.)

In many ways, we are still enthralled with the idea of mobile, and so it looms as large as the information being conveyed. I wonder if in the first years of the printing press people sat amazed that their books required not a single scriber’s labor. To me, the see-saw screams that content is king or that design is the point are really manifestations of our residual excitement about the media. While we might cite the printed page, we mostly refer to the actual story.

In terms of content and interpretation though, another underlying issue is about the democratization of information/ text creation. More and more museum professionals are responsible for offering visitors inroads into the collection, either through text or imagery. Videographers, digital media professionals, social media professionals, and educators all share the work of making collections accessible. This onus is one that these professionals welcome, but one that certain traditionalist might not quite want to part with. Therefore, finding the right word for our interpretative labors is a political act—one in which we are advocating for our value.

Advertisements

One thought on “MCN 2014 Recap: Nomenclature/ Content

  1. Pingback: MCN 2014: Performative Participation and Diversity | Museum Means

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s