When a Place Overshadows Interpretation
Can the subject of your interpretive program be overwhelming?
In other words, is the site or the symbolism of the place, just TOO BIG for something as a standard interpretive experience?
I would say that in some cases…YOU BET!!!
Glacier Bay National Park
Recent research by the author (see the blog, “If the Mountains Could Bark”) found that the majority of recall of visitors who experienced Glacier Bay National Park via cruise ship was visual:
We were just totally overwhelmed at the majestic feeling of being there, you know surrounded by all of that magnificence.
I think the scale of it was the thing that was the hardest to get my arms around [it] was so huge- much like Denali, the scale, it’s just so huge… it is just so big. Really when you come up on some of the glaciers and they are hundreds of feet tall and the scale is just hard to get your arms around.
…Jaw dropping….for eight hours…viewing mountains and glaciers that one had only seen on the Travel Channel or on a poster in the AAA office. A visual display that at times seemed surreal as the ship would glide past bits of ice and glacier till. Yet despite the enormity of it all interpreters attempted to offer information – ecological and historical – related to this magnificent spot. Content that, at least from our research, showed virtually no recall:
I don’t remember the details very well…but I’m sure it was a good program.
Yeah- the park service brought rangers aboard. And they gave a presentation in the auditorium and then I talked to them a little bit about Muir’s book on Alaska.
Do you recall anything that they may have spoken about? Very long pause.
Trying to remember right off hand- no… it has been a while.
The power of the subject – Glacier Bay – literally and figuratively overshadowed the interpretive message…whatever it may have been.
So then a question arises as to whether there is a need for interpretation at such a site. And if there were to be interpreters present maybe they best be used by roving and experiencing the jaw dropping experience on a one on one basis. My reaction then as it is now…YOU BET!!!
Where is there a requirement that interpreters MUST interpret? Why not just share in the moment. If the site or subject is so overwhelming why can’t the best interpretation just be…being there to share in the enormity of it? Our research has shown that places like Glacier Bay, Yosemite, and Haleakala may be better served with rovers who listen and enhance the experience rather than talk or tell about the wondrous place that surrounds them.
Share in the moment…not compete with it!!!
I am a Tour Guide at Hearst Castle and the place has quite the WOW factor. Often the guests on tour are so overwhelmed with the estate, they cannot really listen what we say and interpret on tour. Keep in mind, the estate sits up on a hilltop at 1,600 feet elevation looking over the Pacific Ocean. It has a Main House with 4 stories, 115 total rooms and 70,000 square feet, along with 3 smaller Guest Houses – one with 2 stories 10 rooms/2,500 square feet, the second with 3 stories, 18 rooms and 3,600 square feet and the third with four stories, 20 rooms and 5,350 square feet.
The estate house an antique art and furnishing collection spanning over 3,500 years and over 22,000 pieces. Add in over 100+ acres of formal gardens, an outdoor Neptune Pool an indoor Roman Pool, the quarter million acre ranch that it once was.
Is the need there for live person interpretation – yes, it is. Must we interpret every aspect and object – of course not. Some times I do not say anything for a few moments so that the visitors enjoy and soak in what they see and comprehend what I might have recently said.
I totally agree with the last sentence of the article above …. “Share in the moment … not compete with it!!!”
I agree. I think unstructured interpretation (like roving) is often left by the wayside for, seemingly more valued, higher-profile interpretive opportunities (like programs). Tilden talked about being humble as interpreters – I think a huge part of interpretation is facilitating experiences with the real deal, not mediating the experience. More isn’t always better (although I’m sure it can be in the right circumstances). I was recently inspired by a similar revelation by some folks doing a study in Florida at the Museum of Science and Industry. They were finding that less was more – they call it scaffolding, but it is really about interpretation as a means to more personal experiences not an end. Not much is available right now, but an update of their current work is summarized here by another blogger (Nina Simon): http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2009/11/astc-recap-questions-colors-and.html
Thanks!