As is the case of many institutions, public interest has its rise and fall. Within the world of history, living history museums, often unwilling or unsure of how to adapt in order to maintain relevancy and intrigue, find themselves in a difficult position. The issue of trying to evolve while creating enough of a revenue to support projects that will hold a long-term engagement with the public is where many museums struggle. While others are too set in their ways to feel the need to change their aging presentations. Those are the faults of Old Sturbridge Village. Though there have been small steps taken towards integrating more modern approaches, similar to the ones described in Richard Moe and Cary Carson’s articles entitled, “Are There Too
…show more content…
However, once the museum had hit a certain concept of portrayal, mostly involving third-person interpretation and show-and-tell presentations, the evolution of concepts came to a halt. The reason why could not be any better encapsulated than it was in Carson’s article in which history museums were described as “tired and antiquated—disconnected both from current issues and from their own communities,” and for having, “too damn many spinning wheels and too few examples of 20th-century lifestyles.” After its peak in the 70s, OSV has not made many attempts to change its interpretive approach, despite the very clear changes in public interest and learning style. The antiquated style of interpretation appeals mostly to older age groups who are comfortable and familiar with basic textbook history that consistently overlooks more complex topics. By retaining such approaches, the museum has unknowingly created a barrier with large demographics based on the lives it portrays and the environment it creates. In Carson’s article, he argues that museums need to, “entertain the real possibility that rising generations of learners since, say, the 1970s acquire and process information very differently than previous generations did.” People are becoming tired with seeing the tried and true methods of interpretation placed in an environment that seldom implements new information, unlike other museums that constantly evolve to accommodate new concepts and
However, once the museum had hit a certain concept of portrayal, mostly involving third-person interpretation and show-and-tell presentations, the evolution of concepts came to a halt. The reason why could not be any better encapsulated than it was in Carson’s article in which history museums were described as “tired and antiquated—disconnected both from current issues and from their own communities,” and for having, “too damn many spinning wheels and too few examples of 20th-century lifestyles.” After its peak in the 70s, OSV has not made many attempts to change its interpretive approach, despite the very clear changes in public interest and learning style. The antiquated style of interpretation appeals mostly to older age groups who are comfortable and familiar with basic textbook history that consistently overlooks more complex topics. By retaining such approaches, the museum has unknowingly created a barrier with large demographics based on the lives it portrays and the environment it creates. In Carson’s article, he argues that museums need to, “entertain the real possibility that rising generations of learners since, say, the 1970s acquire and process information very differently than previous generations did.” People are becoming tired with seeing the tried and true methods of interpretation placed in an environment that seldom implements new information, unlike other museums that constantly evolve to accommodate new concepts and