Wow! My little remark there seems to have stirred up a bit of whirlwind. 😮
I was not pouring indiscriminate scorn on Hendon for the light levels, I was merely making a wistful suggestion that a touch of extra light might increase the enjoyment of that particular hall. Indeed my main motivation for making the comment is that like Creaking door, I too have not visited since the glass, and simply wanted to hear how much difference Rocketeer thought it made, be that postitve or negative.
Of course I apprecate that intensely lighting the exhibits does them damage and causes them to fade, and on the other hand I fully applaud the “theatrical effect” that they’re trying to create. I was just wondering idly if they’ve maybe overdone it a touch. I am not quite sure either way-everything is a compromise, and so a museum is going to get slammed by someone whatever they do.
I find the Bomber hall is lit in a more or less perfect fashion for its subject: the soft glow around the Lancaster, Vulcan, Wellington, etc gives it a quietly respectful and peaceful atmosphere, which I think is very appropriate, without obscuring the aircraft from view in dense gloom. However, varying the lighting is important, as it gives differing atmosphere. The bright daylight in the Milestones of Flight section also works well for its subject and message, in my opinion.
As regards the sound and light show in the BoB building, I am undecided. Yes, they have to dim it like a cinema and perhaps disturb with the noise the thoughts of those looking at the other displays, but then think about getting ordinary people to learn about the BoB. Isn’t engaging all of people’s senses with a film instead of making them read dense information boards the best way of enthusing them about this seminal piece of our history?
Sign In
