Essay Project Interpretation LouisePDF3

Louise Williams

1

Interpretation 1: Fieldwork

Visitors Perspective: How interpreting our expectation through the use of stereotype reflects

the concept of identity

“Heritage is gradually effacing History, by substituting an image of the past for its reality.”

(Hewison, 1989)

Within the heritage sector there is always an expectation and an actuality within the interpre

tation that is either expected or shown. The meaning of what is communicated to the visitor,

will differ. Hence, the interpretation, is not always consistent, especially when the intended

attraction is based on a built heritage, such as Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery.

Which is far from the stereotypical castle. The misconception of the term 'castle', already

generates an expectation based on previous knowledge of the castle, prior on visiting the

castle. For visitors who already have an aesthetic interest in the castle, the visit would be of

an emotional interest.

This essay will divide into four sections based around Falk and Dierking’s ‘Contextual

Model of Learning’; personal context, ideas of motivations and expectations; physical contex

t of the site and building, in addition to the marketing of Robin Hood as a stereotype.

Through the use of ten photographs, an assessment will be made on whether the latter’s

framework aids understanding of the complexities of learning from museums. These images

will emphasise the over-reliance of stereotypes in order to generate visitor numbers.

In addition, this essay will argue that stereotypes are more significant in fulfilling the

idealistic interpretation, of the visitors’ expectation, than authentic. Looking through the

perspective of the visitor, we are better able to observe the motivations, the reasons behind

their activities; “the totality of the experience” (Falk & Dierking, 2012).

PERSONAL CONTEXT

A museum visitor’s personal context is unique, incorporating a variety of experiences and

knowledge (Falk & Dierking, 2012). As Falk & Storksdieck (2005) states:

Louise Williams

2

“…the view of learning embodied in this framework can be conceptualized as a contextually driven

effort to make meaning […] best viewed as a continuous, never-ending dialogue between the individu

al and his or her physical and sociocultural environment.” (p.20)

The Contextual Model of Learning portrays this contextually driven dialogue as the process/

product of the interactions between an individual’s (hypothetical) personal, sociocultural and

physical contexts over time. None of these three contexts are ever stable or constant; all are

changing across the lifetime of the individual (Falk & Storksdieck, 2005) notwithstanding its

familiarity and popularity, ‘authenticity’ is a highly contested and unstable concept (Adu-A

mpng, 2010, p.13).

Nevertheless, symbolically, similar to the photographs, the image of a 'castle', will have a

different meaning, and interpretation to the individual. The influences of prior knowledge

and experience on museum learning have been widely described and documented […], so,

too, the role of prior interest. (Falk & Storksdieck, 2005). One should expect learning to be

highly personal and strongly influenced by an individual’s past knowledge, interests and

belief (Falk & Storksdieck, 2005). As Koskowski (2006) suggests:

"There is already a strong image of castles in our minds, which sums our beliefs, ideas, impressions

and knowledge, associations.” (p. 3).

A castle is defined as a “large building typically of the medieval period fortified against

attack with thick walls, battlements, towers and often a moat (Oxford Dictionary, n.d.).

Hence, this obstacle which Nottingham Castle has in overcoming. Although its fortifications

are ‘medieval’, including the caves, the majority of the castle walls and its content, are not.

This lack of awareness by the visitor, emphasises to the naivety of the individual. McClellan

(1998) states that awareness is considered to be essential component involved in the creation

of attitudes, perceptions and behaviour (p. 284). The perceptions are based on prior

knowledge, whether through literature or education. What one knows about history, is

primarily based on what is read, whether its narrative is indeed a fact or myth. Although his

Louise Williams

3

torically, it is rare to find a non-biased source. However, what one interprets to be

authentic, depends on the personal, social, cultural background, in essence what one believe

s is their identity. Anything other than the latter, and it is dismissed. Hewison (1989)

suggests:

“Heritage is a source and vehicle for myth […]a great deal of historically accurate […] transformed in

to a touchstone of national, local, even individual, identity.” (p. 17)

The History is adapted and modernised to suit the current market, which affects the

authenticity. The expectation of a visitor already exists. However, what is being interpreted,

depends on the audience. Adu-Ampong (2010) states that authenticity or inauthenticity is

therefore dependent on individual perspectives and interpretations (pp.15-16).

This reliance on the strategic identities of the city, generates a gap in interpretation between

the visitors’ pre-visit and during of a visitor, which as a consequence, the expectation is

being unfulfilled because of this pre-owned image which already exists. The reason being,

from a visitors’ perspective, there is a build up to the expectation, as the aesthetics outside

validates the expectations. However, the downfall is within entering, and what is seen is not

what was expected (Fig. 5). Clarifying visitors’ expectations of on-site interpretation can

potentially improve visitors’ experiences of the site with the visit (Biran, et al., 2006, p.280).

Figure 1 Side of the castle at night. The photograph has been modified by increasing the exposure and brightening, in order to expose of the statue.

Louise Williams

4

As Figure 1 demonstrates, symbolically an imprint of the past is always visible, including a

shadow of one’s past. The contrasting of the shadows shows, that although the statue is not

physically inside the castle, it shares a commonality that is shares a part in the heritage of

the city, with the castle being the main stronghold. The individual’s perception of the site

relative to his/her own heritage is a key factor in understanding both motivation to visit and

expectations of the interpretation (Biran, et al., 2006, p. 279) provided.

IDEAS OF MOTIVATIONS & EXPECTATIONS

Tourists’ expectations of on-site interpretation can be grouped by three distinguished

factors; ‘recreational experience’, ‘educational experience’, ‘emotional experience.’ (Biran

2015, p.14). The role of interpretation in the context of the management of heritage sites,

emphasized two main motivations: educational and entertainment/social (Poria, et al., 2004,

p.9). Needs and expectations are, for a turn, built on images (Koskowski, 2006, p. 3).

Interpretation is an already established expectation/pre-conceived idea/in the purpose of its

mission. Interpretation is adaptable, based on the audience but not necessarily with the

intended effect. Our pre-conception and expectations is what one makes of it. Interpretation

is what our own personal understanding is. Falk and Dierking (2012) states that there are

Figures 2 & 3 Iron door located outside the castle walls/Knight located inside the gift shop.

Figure 4 & 5 White door located within the walls/Victorian mannequin located inside the museum.

Louise Williams

5

visible differences in individual interests, attitudes, and motivations for visiting (Falk & Dier

king, 2012). One’s own expectation of a heritage site cannot be fully fulfilled without

satisfying, one’s own expectation of a pre-existing knowledge of a site. Figures 2-5 contrast

with each other, by seeing both sets as the past and the present. The ideology of the

portrayed medieval 'past' seen in Figures 2 and 3 can be seen as the image visitors expect

when visiting Nottingham Castle, medieval period. Both doors and mannequins (see fig.

2-5) represent a different time period which in essence represent the ideology of the visit,

and on the other, the reality of the visit. The lack of consistency may be confusing to the

visitor, whose expectation would be to see the content such as Figure 2 and 3 rather than

Figures 3 and 4

When interpreting the predicted expectation and the reality, we cannot expect an accurate

and unbiased interpretation account of the past. We can only create an assumption based on

the narrative that is given by Nottingham Castle. Koskowski (2006) argues that our image of

a castle can be often idealised, stereotyped, unreal and sometimes even totally surrealistic.

But still it is a ready image of a castle (p. 3) (See. Fig. 4).

In terms of our attitudes to authentic interpretation, Biran, Poria & Reichel (2006) states, that

some would prefer an interpretation that provides many facts and is perceived as more

authentic - while others prefer a more entertaining interpretation (p.283). It is argued that to

urists are motivated for emotional reasons, as Biran et al (2006) adds it may be reflected in

the interpretation provided (p.28). However, one disagrees with the notion that the interpret

ation provided is dependent on an emotional motivated visit alone. Reasons include the

notion that, the interpretation has already planned in line with the historic narrative of the

'castle'. Otherwise any change to the interpretation would dramatically affect the historic

credibility of the narrative, and as a result, the authenticity of the visitors’ experience.

Rumble (1989), argues that a past can only be inadequately represented (p.24). This is a valid

assumption, when considering that not all interpretation can be covered. The photographs

demonstrate, that even though the reality of a 'castle' is not visible, the ideology is. On the

other hand, successful interpretation must do more than present facts (Tilden, 1977).

Louise Williams

6

However, both authenticity and interpretation, when it comes to the concept of history is

very difficult to achieve, as history itself is varied and biased.

lf can often be misguided and bias. Deciding whether a particular interpretation of the past

is ‘wrong’ relies on understanding or defining what heritage actually is or should be

(Sherriff 2003). Deciding whether a particular interpretation of the past is incorrect relies on

understanding or defining what Heritage actually is or should be (Sherriff, 2003). On the

other hand, Adu-Ampong (2010) states, that there is however no absolute and objective

criterion with which to measure authenticity. (p. 14). Figures 6 and 7 demonstrates the

comparison of both outlook of the castle, from the visitor expectation, to the reality of the

interpretation. One would determine the above image of the surrounding caves, would

perceive more of an authentic when reflecting the medieval interpretation that surrounds

the castle.

PHYSICAL CONTEXT OF THE SITE & BUILDING

The museum is a physical setting that visitors, usually freely, choose to enter. (Falk &

Dierking, 2012). This emphasises that the motivation to visit is visible, and knowing these

Figure 6 & 7(Top-Bottom) View of the caves; View from the entrance.

Louise Williams

7

motivations is all the more important in order to provide an 'authentic ' experience.

Originally castles dominated the landscape (Koskowski, 2006). Which is vital in our

understanding of ‘physical context’, based on the visitor’s relationship to the architecture,

objects on display, and atmosphere (Francis, 2015).

However, despite the external outlook of the castle, and its magnitude, the grounds and the

physical space inside Nottingham Castle generate an opposite expectation in comparison to

the pre-visit. It is highly un-imaginative, with no relation to the aesthetic outside. Contained

yet again, is the stereotype identity of Robin Hood. The fact that the same historic artifact or

space is perceived differently by different people cannot be ignored (Shackley 2001) for

example, argues that apart from worship, sacred historic sites are visited because they

present great works of art, architectural merit, provide attractive settings and atmosphere, a

nd “simply as part of a great day out.” (p.1).

ROBIN HOOD: MARKET PLOY

“The statue stands proudly outside Nottingham Castles Gatehouse for everyone to see and is probably

the most photographed landmark in the city.” (Nottingham Castle Museum & Art Gallery, n.d.)

Figures 8-10Robin Hood statue outside the castle; Robin Hood wood statue inside the castle; stone plaque depicting Robin Hood outside the castle.

Louise Williams

8

Interpretation is varied. It can emphasise the authenticity of a built environment by

narrating its history, or a myth such as Robin Hood, who is depicted both outside and inside

the castle, including the gardens. (fig. 5). What this image demonstrates, is the emphasis

that there is too much dependency from Nottingham Castle surrounding the ‘mythical’

individual, such as Robin Hood. However, this is a challenge when coming up with a

realistic interpretation. Without pre-existing knowledge, the visitor has to deal with the

unavoidable fact that what they are visiting, is not what is stated, i.e. a castle. The aftermath,

the visitors’ expectation is left unfulfilled. This common misconception is unavoidable, and

yet a regular occurrence. We all have a pre-conceived idea on what the idea of a 'castle' is.

However, due to the recent economic pressures, the built environments are nothing more

than a marketing tool. Almost any interpretation has to be selective and incomplete

(Rumble, 1989, p.30).

Hewison (1989) argues that museums – and the rest of heritage – in addition to being objects

of consumption are also units of production (p.20). The reasons are valid. The marketing

‘ploy’ of promoting a ‘castle’ when in actuality it is not. In the current climate when

modernisation and development in the heritage sector is a regular and needed required

occurrence the value of the history authenticity decreases. To continue the sustainability,

the heritage itself must be seen as a product. In this current climate, built environment do

get ‘modernised’ or renovated, in order to keep up the demand. However, adding

something that is irrelevant takes away a part of the identity.

In conclusion, only the visitor can make the determination of authenticity or fictional. As

stated in the introduction, the interpretation, is not always consistent, and predominately, it

will never be. Especially when taking into consideration, every individuals varied cultural

and social backgrounds, and attitudes

Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery, is not a stereotypical castle. It does however,

present an ideology to the visitor from in order to fulfil a gap in the visitors’ interpretation.

The ‘Contextual Model of Learning’ framework, does provide understanding of the complex

ities of learning from museums, as it does evaluate the visitor experience and motivations.

Lastly, stereotypes do fulfil the idealistic interpretation of the visitors’ expectation and

Louise Williams

9

motivation, due to clarifying and verifying their expectations, their experience overall will

be positive.

Bibliography

Adu-Ampong, E. A., 2010. The Visitor Experience at Sensitive Heritage Sites: A case study of the C

ape Coast Castle, Ghana. [Online]

Available at: https://www.academia.edu/4943331/The_Visitor_Experience_at_Sensitive_Heri

tage_Sites_A_case_study_of_the_Cape_Coast_Castle_Ghana

[Accessed 26 November 2015].

Biran, A., 2015. Segmenting future visitors to heritage sites: Perceptions, motivations and expectatio

ns. [Online]

Available at: http://www.esade.edu/cedit2005/pdfs2005/papers/biran_avital

Biran, A., Poria, Y. & Reichel, A., 2006. Heritage Site Management: The Link between Visitor'

s Pre-Visit Perceptions, Motivations and Expectations. natolia: An International Journal of Tour

ism and Hospitality Research, 17(2), pp. 279-304.

Experience Nottinghamshire, 2015. Nottingham Castle. [Online]

Available at: http://m.experiencenottinghamshire.com/discover/nottingham-castle-p357581?


Falk, J. & Dierking, L. D., 2012. The Museum Experience Revisited. United States: Left Coast Pre

ss.

Falk, J. & Storksdieck, M., 2005. Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learn

ing from a science center exhibition. [Online]

Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.20078/epdf










Falk, J. & Storksdieck, M., 2005. Using the Contextual Model of Learning to Understand visitor lea

rning from a science centre exhibition. [Online]


Louise Williams

10

Francis, D., 2015. Book Review, Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D (2013), The Museum Experience

Revisited. Visitor Studies, pp. 121-123.

Hewison, R., 1989. Heritage: An Interpretation. In: Heritage Interpretation. Volume 1: The Natur

al and Built Environment. London: Belhaven Press, pp. 15-24.

Koskowski, M. R., 2006. Castles as a Particular Tourist Product. [Online]

Available at: http://conferences.ncl.ac.uk/unescolandscapes/files/KOSKOWSKIMichal.pdf


Nottingham Castle Museum & Art Gallery, n.d. [Online]

Available at: http://www.nottinghamcastle.org.uk


Nottingham City Council, n.d. Nottingham Castle Caves. [Online]

Available at: http;//www.nottmcastle.co.uk/?page_id=567


Oxford Dictionary, n.d. Castle. [Online]

Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/castle


Poria, Y., Butler, R. & Airey, D., 2004. Links Between Tourists, Heritage, and Reasons for Visi

ting. Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), pp. 19-28.

Rumble, P., 1989. Interpreting the Built and Historic Environment. In: Heritage Interpretation.

Volume 1: The Natural and Built Environment. London: Belhaven Press, pp. 24-32.

Sherriff, N., 2003. What is exactly ‘wrong’ with interpreting the past in order to make it more accessi

ble and interesting to the visitor? Illustrate with reference to an actual example of a heritage site. Illus

trate with Reference to an Actual Example of Heritage site. [Online]

Available at: http://arasite.org/nshertge.htm


Spero, S. B., 2013. The Museum Experience Revisited. Museum Management Curatorship, 28(4)

pp. 430-432.

Tilden, F., 1977. Interpreting Our Heritage. 3rd edition. Chapel Hill: The University of North Ca

rolina Press.

Tilden, F. & Dickenson, R. E., 2009. Interpreting Our Heritage ed. 4th ed. United States: The Un

iversity of North Carolina Press.

Photographs

All images of Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery (Figures 1-10) were taken by the

author from the 10th-25th November, 2015.

Documents

Essay Project Interpretation LouisePDF3