joe phelan

There's an interesting story in today's Washington Post about a new training program for docents who work in natural history museums. Some science museums see the need for training their staff to deal with questions about evolution, Darwinism and intelligent design. Doug Maclennan didn't seem to pick it up for the "current art news headlines" but its worth a read if you are a docent (many of our readers are) or in the education department in any kind of museum.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122500675.html

joe phelan

Re Joe Phelen's coment:
> >
> > I read the article Phelen posted and it supports
> the
> > view that museums are neutral regarding values.
> But
> > the article is about natural history museums which
> > tend to display materials in evolutionary context.
> > That doesn't prohibit discussion of 'intelligent
> > design' or creationism but it does stress that a
> > natural history museum maps science, not religion
> or
> > politics.
> >
> > Fair enough. An art museum, on the other hand,
> might
> > be a good place to exhibit the values of
> intelligent
> > design/creationist advocates as well as scientific
> > values in a neutral (unbiased) setting.
> >
> > Simply recasting the issue as an art issue instead
> of
> > a science issue or a religious/political issue
> enables
> > free debate. That was my point originally. If
> you
> > want free and open debate in a democracy, the only
> > place it can occur anymore is in art. Since now,
> > almost everyone agrees that art can be anything
> (in
> > representation), all we need to do to ensure a
> truly
> > open society and free debate is to recast
> difficult
> > issues as art and put them in a setting that is an
> > 'official' safe haven. This is not a cynical
> outlook.
> > It may be the salvation of society. The old
> idealism
> > of the Town Hall or public square is replaced by
> the
> > Kunsthalle.
> >
> > Somewhere (in Kansas) a private 'museum' exists
> that
> > displays skeletal artifacts, etc., according to
> > 'intelligent design/creationist viewpoints. I
> think,
> > for example, a dinosaur is shown in the same
> > historical setting as an early human, according to
> > Biblical timelines. Never mind that an
> > evolutionary/geological timeline places dinosaurs
> and
> > even protohumans millions of years apart. Yet I
> could
> > see the exhibit as an art work quite easily even
> > though I happen to be deeply opposed to the
> > psuedo-science involved. It might be better, too,
> for
> > me to see a natural history display as art, at
> least
> > to be reminded that much is yet to be learned in
> that
> > area. Now if both were placed side by side in an
> art
> > hall, perhaps the natural smugness among both sets
> of
> > advocates -- ID/creationists and the
> > evolutionary/geological scientists would be
> evident
> > enough to send them all home with a bit more
> modesty
> > and wonder.
> >
> > William Conger
> >