Is It Still Relevant?

A Look at Natural History Museum’s Dioramas

Summer 2020

For the Introduction to Museum Course at Arizona State University

Many museums have gone through at least one period of change as they rediscover what and who they are in a world that is constantly changing. The interests of their visitors combined with the initial purpose of the museum is what drives these changes. Museums, in a way, begin to question whether their content, displays, and purpose are still relevant. This question is what changed most Natural History Museums from ‘collections of natural curiosities’ displayed in a hierarchical, scientific identification method to groupings based on habitats, species, and types. These changes have existed for quite a long time now in the world of museums, and as of the 21st century where the world is filled with new advances in science and technology, the question arises again; is it still relevant?

Natural History Museums got their start as research centers during the 16th and 17th centuries, discovering the natural world we live in. “By the end of the [19th] century, advances in taxidermy allowed for more “natural” displays of habitat groups” (Alexander, Alexander and Decker 2017). Initially, Natural History Museums were displayed based on the collectors preferences and later were influenced by “Publications such as Museographia (1727)[, which] provided schematics for organizing collections” (Alexander, Alexander and Decker 2017). With advances in taxidermy, scientific understanding from Darwin and Wallace, and a desire for a less crowded and overwhelming display, Natural History Museums were ready for a change.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the first dioramas were born. Inspired by Wallace’s grouping of animal species by habitats and Zwecker’s accompanying illustrations, Gottlieb von Koch created the first dioramas at Darmstadt in Germany. These dioramas were “an artificial world of stuffed animals, imitation plants, and fake rocks… Spread over a sequence of room-sized compartments each scenery displayed the fauna and flora of a distinct biogeographical zone” (Voss and Sarkar 2003). Visitors to this museum walked along a dark tunnel, while the displays of biogeographic habitats were in full daylight. Koch’s dioramas were applauded by visitors and the scientific community, as these displayed “specific evolutionary and ecological settings” (Voss and Sarkar 2003). This method of display was so popular that it spread across Europe and America.

As we entered the 21st century, the dioramas that were created almost 100 years ago are still seen today. In fact, today, they are marveled more for their historical aspect and artistic techniques and skills used and are still loved by many Americans. However, they are also seen as “old-fashioned and not as engaging as newer, technologically advanced exhibit styles” (Knutson, et al. 2016), and after viewing the dioramas a few short times, the appeal tends to wear off. A study done in the Hall of North American Wildlife at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, which contains 13 dioramas, revealed that about “20% of families spent less than 1 minute, 40% spent 2-5 minutes, 33% spent 6-9 minutes, and only 6% spent 10 minutes or longer” (Knutson, et al. 2016) in the hall. Though these dioramas show the natural world and habitats that were once not very, or at all, accessible, today we now have more access due to advances in science and technology. With the help of National Geographic, BBC Earth, Zoos, Aquariums, and streaming videos and channels, such as WildEarth (formerly SafariLive), the natural world is wherever we want to see it. So, after about 100 years, the question resurfaces; is it still relevant?

For Natural History Museums today, this question can be tough to answer and solve, as dioramas still educate the public on evolution and natural habitats, but their ‘old-fashioned’ style loses visitors after their first visit. There are other problems faced by many Natural History Museums in the attempt to change their dioramas. First, the architecture of the museums was defined by the dioramas, and second, the cost to change them is not always feasible. One way museums like the Smithsonian Institute’s National Museum of Natural History has done this, is to digitize their collections. This works great for flora but is a lot harder when it comes to fauna, which is still a work in progress. This will give the public access to their entire collection of the natural world from their own homes.

The National Museum of Natural History also has been redesigning their exhibitions to show more typical, natural positions of animals amongst other animals within their regions in a simpler walk-though experience, like the Hall of Mammals. Another series of display and interactive interventions were tested at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History with the help of the University of Pittsburgh. These cost-effective “Interventions included new signage, hands-on activities, and human facilitation” (Knutson, et al. 2016), which brought the dioramas out into the space of the visitor. This method would be more feasible for most Natural History Museums who have smaller budgets and want to engage their visitors more. These last two examples break the glass wall of the traditional diorama and bring the habitats and environments into the realm of the visitor. Even with these possible ideas, the solution or need to change can be difficult to see and do, though not impossible.

By breaking the glass wall that now separates the visitor from the diorama, Natural History Museums would then have the opportunity to expand upon their original purpose of educating the public on the natural world. One way to do this would be showcase their research, which has always been a behind-the-scenes part of the Natural History Museum. Their competition includes Science Museums and their hands-on exhibits, other institutions like Zoos and Aquariums, and the media, which asks the question, what are Natural History Museums? By answering this question, Natural History Museums may have to change their purpose beyond that of just education. What do they teach? What is part of their collection? What is their goal? What is their purpose today? These are all questions that arise from the initial question of ‘is it still relevant?’ 

Bibliography

Alexander, Edward, Mary Alexander, and Juilee Decker. 2017. Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Functions of Museums. Rowman & Littlefield.

Flannery, Maura C. 1998. Looking into Dioramas. Vol. 60. 5 vols. The American

Biology Teacher.

Knutson, Karen, Mandela Lyon, Kevin Crowley, and Lauren Giarratani. 2016. Flexible

Interventions to Increase Family Engagement at Natural History Museum

Dioramas. Vol. 59. 4 vols. Curator: The Museum Journal.

Rogers, Nala. 2016. Museum Drawers Go Digital: New Technology Speeds Efforst to

Display Billions of Natural History Specimens Online. Vol. 352. 6287 vols.

Washington, D.C.: Science.

Voss, Julia, and Sahotra Sarkar. 2003. Depictions as Surrogates for Places: From

Wallace’s Biogeography to Koch’s Dioramas. Vol. 6. 1 vols. Philosophy &

Geography.