Clifford’s Tower in York has been closed for 5 years but has just been re-opened in 2022 by English Heritage. The tower has always been unpopular with visitors as, despite its heritage, it has always been an empty shell of an attraction. However, the site has now been fitted with aerial walkways, interpretation techniques, guidebooks and a base for those unable to ascend the tower. This begs the question… How important is the choice and appropriateness of interpretation at attractions? Equally, does the nature of the attraction itself impact the methods available? E.g. a heritage attraction v new build?
Northampton Museum has recently opened an exhibit on the history of trainers at its town centre site. Possibly, a slight, modernised twist on the town’s long and treasured shoemaking heritage and history? Is this an attempt to bring a potentially, previously unattractive part of the town’s heritage to a younger audience? If so, should interpretation techniques applied be dictated by projected audience, age, gender, culture, ethnicity, etc or be driven by cost, space and more pragmatic considerations? Or both?!
Discussion Points:
Several questions around the merits of interpretation are embedded in the post above. What are your views on how to chose between display panels and audio guides, actors and pre-recorded videos, interactive technologies or tangible artefacts? plus all of the other types of interpretation methods available.
Visit the Northampton Musuem and look at the trainers exhibit, whilst considering the above.
The Attraction 