I have worked in the museum sector for 15 years, most of that time in interpretation. Over the years I have heard, and used, many metaphors and euphemisms to explain what I do. We are the “how”, the audience advocate, the glue, the bridge, the filter, the translator. So many ways to try and convey the meaning of interpretation.

This is a conversation I have had countless times with my peers: the challenge of explaining what we do and the value of it. The irony that, as expert storytellers, we are struggling to communicate what we do is not lost on me. Why are interpreters so often uncomfortable claiming professional authority? 

It got me thinking. As part of that reflection, I wanted to go back to basics and explore the origins of interpretation. Like many in the field, I fell into this career via a convoluted route rather than studying museum interpretation as a degree. 

I came across the work of Freeman Tilden, considered as the father of interpretation in the US. Although Tilden wrote in the 1950s, many of his ideas remain remarkably relevant to contemporary museum practice, such as his six principles of Interpretation:

  1. The chief aim of interpretation is not instruction, but provocation. 
  2. Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor will be sterile.
  3. Information does not equal interpretation, but all interpretation contains information. 
  4. Interpretation is an art which combines many arts regardless of subject material. Any art is to some degree teachable.
  5. Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part.
  6. Interpretation for children must be designed specifically for children, and not simply a dilution of programmes and information for adults. 

I was struck by the confidence and concision of the six principles. In a few, powerful, words they get across what I feel, and know, about interpretation. Yet I immediately felt uncomfortable with the idea of describing interpretation as an art at the start of a project or workshop. I doubt I am the only interpreter who feels like they have to tread carefully and with humility. 

Advertisement

It got me thinking further. When did we lose that collective confidence? Why? 

I have often heard interpreters describe themselves as “jacks of all trades and masters of none”. I have certainly used it myself to explain how interpretation lies at the crossroads between storytelling, experience building and audience advocacy.

In hindsight, I think it’s a disservice to position ourselves in this way. It makes it sound like we have no real expertise. But our expertise lies precisely in this grey area. It takes great skills to absorb large quantities of academic knowledge, to digest and analyse it to identify the key information that will most resonate with contemporary audiences, and finally to translate it in a way that is not only accessible but engaging and compelling. 

Tilden’s principles have reminded me of the passion I have for what I do and I want to bring this back into my practice. For myself and the people I work with, now and in the future, I want to shift the mindset from justifying my presence in a room to leading with confidence. And it might be all it takes to bring walls down. According to a recent study by the University of Birkbeck, confidence is contagious i.e. the more confident you come across, the more confident others will be in you and your abilities.

Perhaps it is time for interpreters to stop describing themselves as the bridge and start recognising themselves as the architects of meaningful museum experiences. We do not merely translate knowledge for audiences; we shape how that knowledge is understood, felt and remembered. 

Muriel Bryans is the senior interpretation producer at the Victoria and Albert Museum and a trustee of the Social History Curators Group