Re: In (premature) defense of the USNM

[Danvarner@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/29/02 2:27:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tholtz@geol.umd.edu writes:


<< I know that many of you find the idea of showing Dinotopia art at the
Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History a bit
disturbing. >>

       As I said, I believe there were more appropriate venues at the Smithsonian than the Natural History Museum. More disturbing, however were the quotes I furnished from the article.


<< I have not yet seen the exhibit, nor was I involved in its preparation.
However, I would like to point out that their recent exhibit on Beatrix
Potter did not, to my knowledge, confuse anyone as to whether or not British
rabbits, toads, and so forth really have a technological society.
(Actually, I was quite impressed by Potter's original scientific art: vastly
better than I could ever dream of doing, and truly indicating that she knew
her biology!!).  I would imagine (hope) that the Gurney display is similar:
clearly demarcating fact from fiction, but showing how the former was used
to create the latter.  (In the same light, I don't think that the
Smithsonian exhibit of the Far Side a decade or more ago caused any decline
in level of understanding by the visitors). >>

       Are we not comparing apples with oranges and pineapples here? I do not see how the exhibits you mention can effect children's knowledge of extant British animals and a hilarious, but extinct, cartoon. Neither Peter Rabbit nor the Far Side will have anything to do with the May ratings sweeps on American television. DV