Escrito de fecha 30 de junio de

Various types of visitor diversity have been discussed in earlier chapters. Visitors shape their experience in part by receiving stories transmitted by the museum, but also by making their own narratives in response to exhibition elements and

collaborating with the makers of exhibitions in order to negotiate shared meanings49_.

Visitors interact with exhibition elements using a range of learning styles50

. Different

123

interpretive communities respond to exhibitions in different ways51_{. Different visitors}

respond to different ‘voices’ and perspectives within the exhibition52_{. Many visitors}

make their own path through exhibitions, and a non-linear narrative field can better accommodate varied paths53

Diversity among team members developing the exhibition works in favour of diverse visitors, because different styles are advocated by different team members. However if the best range of opportunities for visitor meaning-making is to be achieved, team members should be aware of their intended narrative as well as being open to alternative opportunities for visitors who range more freely. The museum’s intended narrative assures cohesiveness within the team as they use it to navigate a logical path for themselves through the concept; but many visitors are keen to uncover that intended logic for themselves, and follow cues in interpretive signs in order to achieve that. Other visitors explore the exhibition in more impulsive or intuitive ways, and are more strongly engaged when material is included to accommodate their ‘grazing’. For some staff, the ability to construct less linear narrative-rich opportunities comes naturally. Fowler’s consideration of sightlines through cases and her identification of the power of iconic objects as attractors54 _{falls within this category.}

The notion of antenarrative55 _{- a sketchy and less ‘finished’ narrative form – has}

potential to broaden the view of staff developing narrative exhibitions.

Antenarrative is the fragmented, non-linear, incoherent, collective, unplotted and pre-narrative speculation, a bet. To traditional narrative methods antenarrative is an improper storytelling, a wager that a proper narrative can be constituted (Boje, op.cit., p.1).

52 _{See section 5.8} 53 _{See section 3.2.1} 54 _{See section 6.3} 55 _{See Boje, op.cit.}

124

Unlike the coherent narratives on which staff are usually focused, ante-narrative suggests a range of material from which different people will sample different parts56_,

an assemblage that can accommodate any number of visitor paths.

The challenge for exhibition teams is therefore to explore opportunities within a coherent, linear conceptual structure at the same time as they remain open to ante- narrative possibilities. Word-based elements have literal meanings and are useful for providing scaffolding, navigation, and coherent interpretation of the exhibition concept or embedded story. But other exhibits such as artefacts and artworks can be

understood in different ways, and therefore have the capacity to provide alternative meanings to different visitors, or to visitors taking different paths through the exhibition (see figure 17). The challenge is to provide a balance between the two modes. Another instance in which narrative scholarship can potentially enhance the effectiveness of exhibitions is when museums develop exhibitions about specific communities among their audience. In the case study for Qui Tutto Bene, Te Papa staff noted that there was ongoing debate as to how much ownership they should assert over the exhibition development, and how much they should empower communities in the exhibition development process57_{. Te Papa faces a potential}

dilemma in seeking to empower communities to tell their own stories58 _while

maintaining some level of strategic control in order to integrate community exhibitions into its overall exhibition programme. Irrespective of the balance it actually negotiates, the exhibition team can influence visitor perceptions about community empowerment by crafting how they present those stories.

William Nelles’ writing explores the complexity of telling the stories of others, and of embedding other stories within a larger narration. He identifies the border between

125

one narrator (for example the Passports exhibition where the implied narrator is clearly Te Papa) and another (for example Qui Tutto Bene where the Italian people are meant to be telling their stories) as requiring careful navigation. He points to the syntax of quotation – of devices like quotation marks, phrases like ‘he said’, or conventions like italics or bibliographic references – as useful to transfer the story-telling responsibility to someone else. These signals cue the audience that the narration is being deferred to a new character, and that they should pay attention to whose story is being told and who is telling it. In Qui Tutto Bene the label text consistently referred to Italians in the third person – as ‘they’. Irrespective of whose information the label was based on, the impression to the uninformed reader was that Te Papa was telling Italian stories rather than that Te Papa was presenting Italians telling their own stories. The video

interviews on the other hand showed members of the community enunciating their own words, and irrespective of what editing processes the footage was subjected to by Te Papa staff, the impression was undeniably Italian people telling Italian stories. To its credit, Te Papa invested considerable energy in developing terms of

engagement that were acceptable, and in robust consultation with the community it was representing. Further engagement with Nelles’ ideas could generate writing strategies that better reflect their collaborative spirit to the uninformed exhibition visitor. For some of the wrong reasons, the exhibition Out on the Street came far closer to being an exemplary narrative by post-modern standards. It was unfortunate that it took the level of conflict within the exhibition team to act like a prism in diffracting the exhibition concept into a highly pluralistic environment for audiences. A second factor was more acceptable, though probably equally incidental: the inclusion of so many elements that brought with them their own narrative and consequently their own narrating voice. A large number of archives – including video footage, booklets, persuasive posters, films, documentary photographs, magazine articles and cartoons – told their own stories using an encyclopaedic array of rebellious, gay, creative, experimental, theatrical, materialistic voices. The narrative voice of the museum

126

functioned through the signage and structure of the exhibition as an effective navigation aid through a contested site, but deferred frequently in the detail to exhibition elements that spoke for themselves.

The challenge remains for museums to form cohesive teams that can work in orderly and effective ways to achieve dis-orderly outcomes.