RAF Museum – An Interesting Development

Is that really true or has society markedly changed pretty much down to the internet where people are looking for different ways of gleaming information quickly and without the need to have it spelt out to them ? In terms of ‘brutish’ society -its probably no worse now than when we used to dunk people to see if they were witches !

But I absolutely deplore aiming only at the lowest common denominator of attention span, understanding and interest – that’s building disengaged citizens and a nasty, brutish society.

.

I applaud that sentiment, wholeheartedly, and it can be applied to so much else besides museums.

On topic, it’s interesting that you can effectively ‘disappear’ and forget a national museum Director with only a note in a local provincial paper.

QR codes point is a good one Bruce. Some would rightly point out that even today ‘not everyone can access them’; apply that argument however as ‘not everyone is only interested in a superficial experience’ though.

I should add that I mostly agree with nuuumannn, of course – he knows what he’s talking about.

But I absolutely deplore aiming only at the lowest common denominator of attention span, understanding and interest – that’s building disengaged citizens and a nasty, brutish society.

Museums must be education with entertainment, not entertainment without meaning.

Odd that the 2013-14 accounts don’t seem to be available yet though – given that the previous year’s were published in July

They are usualy filed towards the end of January, a few days before the deadline at the end of the month. Watching and waiting… 🙂

These days, there’s no excuse for limited information. Using a QR code on each display board could easily give those interested more information, and display it on their own devices, and they would have the option to read it at their leisure later on.

Personally, I feel that interpretation is everything. It doesn’t matter if the artefact you can see is painted as a fire bomber (if that is what it was primarily used for), if the interpretation gives the bigger picture. Too much time and effort is wasted on portraying artefacts as something they never were.

Bruce

As usual, lots of interesting stuff in the Annual Accounts if you trawl through it

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/annual_reports/RAFM_2012_13_Published_Accounts.pdf

Odd that the 2013-14 accounts don’t seem to be available yet though – given that the previous year’s were published in July

Just picking up on this.

Lets steer away from this for a bit and look at display boards, since they do attract comment at most museums. Like wot has been pointed out before, effective interpretation of objects is what makes them relevant to the visitor. Display boards cost money to make. First they have to be written in accordance with guide lines, you pitch them at the lowest common denominator. There is a standard by what information you put on them. You describe the object, put it into an historical context then mention relevant history about that particular item. Research shows that the public doesn’t stand and read every display board – that’s unavoidable. You cant put everything you want to put on a display board. They have to be kept brief; people’s attention spans won’t tolerate it. Its a bit of a catch 22 situation. You want lots of people through your facility, but having lots of people around lessens an individual’s ability to concentrate and read displays because of the distraction of people milling about. One answer is multimedia displays, plasma boards, audio tours etc. These, however, cost money and introduce to museum staff a new technical challenge that has to be addressed when things go wrong, which adds to the financial side of things.

No you don’t (shouldn’t). 😉 A ‘good’ museum has three-level interpretation; the headline (what it is) the brief note (what you’re talking about) and then more depth for those who stop and are interested.

Despite claims to the contrary, more info *is* of interest to many visitors – all won’t read all, but many will read some, and *if* they get it, they’ll find their experience enhanced.

However if it’s not available, they won’t realise they’re missing it, but the museum will have failed on its core mandate of (proper) interpretation.

I’m a Reithian (John Reith, first BBC director. A man from another time in many ways. Look him up ~ fascinating, and with some odd stuff too.) Treat people like they want and need to grapple with bigger concepts, and they will. Make it simple (not even going as far as dumbing down) and you’ll be degrading society to a low common denominator. Sound familiar?

A for-example. I left the museum ‘Steam’ steaming because there was literally no information beyond the ‘this is a steam locomotive’ level of signage. As an interested visitor, I wanted more engagement – what was I looking at? As a museums pro, I know I’d been sold short.

Regards,

A refreshingly objective, realistic and well thought through contribution. Thank you.

You’re welcome. 🙂

At what cost did the acquision of Concorde put funding into the site at East Fortune? Maybe some clear figures on the actual cost of its move Vs the loss of exhibits disposed of because of it and the real figures of how many people visit East Fortune just to see Concorde would be appropriate.

David, I’ve (at least tried to) answered this in the recent East Fortune thread.

Would that be Estuary English?

Nahhh, Jamekya Eengleesh, mon.

” I did once a pon a time” [nuuumannn].

Would that be Estuary English?

At what cost did the acquision of Concorde put funding into the site at East Fortune? Maybe some clear figures on the actual cost of its move Vs the loss of exhibits disposed of because of it and the real figures of how many people visit East Fortune just to see Concorde would be appropriate.

Couple all that with the notion that the aircraft was a financial and commercial disaster and its pretty hard to justify the damage done to the collection.

A refreshingly objective, realistic and well thought through contribution. Thank you.

However, I don’t imagine for a minute that RAFM have even the slightest interest in our comments. They never have and they never will (even if they might claim otherwise). Enthusiasts are not RAFM’s core audience. They cater for the “general public” and this is why RAFM is (like so many other places) becoming less of a museum and more of a theme park. Enthusiasts are a minority and a minority that don’t need to be catered-for because we will go to Hendon anyway, no matter how lamentable RAFM might become. It sounds a bit harsh but it’s the truth of the matter.

One thing that always makes me smirk about enthusiasts – let’s face it, I’m one too, is that we do tend to get wrapped up in our own subject of interest that we often fail to appreciate the bigger picture outside. Having worked in the museums industry for nine years – I’m not employed in it now – I have seen this first hand. Yes, museums are turning into theme parks as is often a criticism of them, which has been around for a very long time; nothing new in that comment then, but what option do they have? Hendon is located in London, one of the biggest and most frequented cities in the world. There’s lots to do in London for visitors and locals and like it or not, museums are visitor attractions and thus get lumped in with the theme parks and such like. How does a museum like Hendon attract people who might otherwise go visit something like the Tower of London, or Madam Tussauds or the London Eye, or even IWM and the Science Museum, which are conveniently located within a short tube ride from the West End? Let’s not forget that Hendon is nearly an hour’s tube ride fromn the centre of London.

With technology rapidly advancing and attention spans getting shorter by the minute, a stuffy room full of old planes has to be made attractive to the public. Not just any old public, but when in the position Hendon finds itself, you target the public that you know won’t be interested in the subject matter, like bored wives accompanying their husbands on a nostalgia trip, rowdy children etc. Why? because you want them to come back. repeat visitors are the hardest to attract because they’ve been before, so don’t need to come again. But your job is to try and get them back. Despite being in one of the world’s largest and most frequented cities, you have only a finite number of people who will visit over a period of time. Regarding enthusiasts, yes, you don’t need to try too hard to attract them, but they shouldn’t be under valued – no visitors should. But are they the largest number in a broad cross section of the public? Definitely not. Bearing this in mind, you do know they are going to come back again, despite whining on forums and in magazines. Museums like Hendon are the only places in the world where you can see a (insert favourite aircraft type here) and a (insert relevant and relative type here) in the same facility, let alone building. But the hard part is getting uninterested parties to come back – the broader general public (in America this has a different meaning!); the motivating factor behind this is money. Museums are relying on it to remain valid and at the very least to stay open.

Effective marketing of a museum isn’t just about making your leaflet stand out on a rack in a tourist information office surrounded by 101 other visitor attraction leaflets, but about strategic planning for the future and how to remain relevant and attractive in an ever changing field. Countering this is availability of funding, as your gate takings are your largest source of immediate revenue. More people through the door means more money to upgrade exhibits, facilities etc. Go read the comments I made about Concorde being located at East Fortune. Many regard it with an air of cynicism, I did once a pon a time, but a few years later I’ve seen the results. It injected badly needed funding into the site, which has improved parts of it enormously over what it was like before Concorde.

Lets steer away from this for a bit and look at display boards, since they do attract comment at most museums. Like wot has been pointed out before, effective interpretation of objects is what makes them relevant to the visitor. Display boards cost money to make. First they have to be written in accordance with guide lines, you pitch them at the lowest common denominator. There is a standard by what information you put on them. You describe the object, put it into an historical context then mention relevant history about that particular item. Research shows that the public doesn’t stand and read every display board – that’s unavoidable. You cant put everything you want to put on a display board. They have to be kept brief; people’s attention spans won’t tolerate it. Its a bit of a catch 22 situation. You want lots of people through your facility, but having lots of people around lessens an individual’s ability to concentrate and read displays because of the distraction of people milling about. One answer is multimedia displays, plasma boards, audio tours etc. These, however, cost money and introduce to museum staff a new technical challenge that has to be addressed when things go wrong, which adds to the financial side of things.

As for Andy Simpson, writing the histories on the Hendon website – he’s a great guy and a real enthusiast and there’s no one who knows Hendon’s collection like him, but when you are in the position he’s in, you only know what information you have to hand at the time you prepare something like what he’s done. The same goes for display boards, so with them you keep them as generic as possible owing to the cost and hassle of having to redo them if you get something obviously wrong. People will always find something else out that you haven’t considered or didn’t know. I contributed to a thread on East Fortune recently and mentioned that I’d heard the Desford had its wing spar savaged by a saw. Apparently that’s not the case. People know stuff contrary to what we’ve believed for years – even in a professional museum environment and its sometimes only if they come forward to mention it that it becomes known. The next thing is, is that information going to be of interest to the general public and so is it worth adding to a display board, knowing the costs, staff time etc involved?

I work in the airline industry. it is one of the most unforgiving public service industries in the world. Overheads are high and returns are minimal. In order for your airline to work you have to have a very smart team working the money for you. Like Branson once said, how do you make a small fortune in aviation? Start with a large one. Museums are much the same, but on an entirely different scale of course, but the drive for funding and the need to remain relevent and attractive in an ever changing world is the same.

Although many of us did not realise it at the time, Neville Franklin’s squirrelling away of what most considered absolute junk, was far sighted beyond belief.

RIP Nev.

Your comment took me to this thread to find out more on NF, Mark. TwinOtter – ‘Not Just NF!’: noted 🙂

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?60895-Neville-Franklin-has-died

There was a fuselage at Old Warden for years that I think was a result of this aborted film project.

I was approached in the early 80’s by some film people about a project to do a movie based around the first flight over Mt.Everest. Replica aircraft were being considered and a well known company I gather had been approached on this matter. The project never came to fruition.
Was there possibly not some connection between this and the fuselage that ended up at Hendon?

I don’t disagree with your comments but if I recall correctly (i.e. without going back to my 2007 photograph) the Wallace display board said “acquired from a private collector”, which as the information in the PDF states is not quite the case.

However I am encouraged that the record is now correct. 🙂

Thank you for that update and it’s good to note the details have been acknowledged in the history PDF – perhaps the letters worked after all. 🙂

And that seems the most appropriate place to record and recognise those who played a part in saving it, the remains appeared to have bedn puchased by the RAFM and hence a donors acknowledgement which might be present on a display board doesnt seem appropriate, and within the museum the objects display board is primarily there to explain the types story, relevence and the objects individual history. While this object has clearly survived through the efforts of a few, you could imagine another (like the RAFM Beaufort) have had many hands involved in its journey into preservation, and once you start acknowledging such things on the display board there will always be someone who claims they have been slighted and left off.

I quite enjoy Andy Simpsons format of history files on objects within the RAFM collection with the types History, the Objects history including its timeline through to preservation in the collection, as well as reference to other examples in preservation, and think its well worth others copying it.

Regards
Mark Pilkington

Thank you for that update and it’s good to note the details have been acknowledged in the history PDF – perhaps the letters worked after all. 🙂

it says at the RAf museum there were three. Did they build one out of the three airframes? If so they have parts in store which could lead to a reconstruction?

The RAF History (which I think they should link to with QR codes) acknowledges Newark’s role and also explains what happened to the other parts, which are still stored. (and why it remains wingless)

Wings not rebuilt due to cost and shortage of drawings.

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/collections/1988-0208-A-WESTLAND-WALLACE.pdf