June 1, 2010
New Exhibit Celebrates Tyrannosaurus “Sue”
Ten years ago Chicago’s Field Museum unveiled the skeleton of “Sue,” the most complete Tyrannosaurus rex yet discovered. She has been a sensation ever since. Tyrannosaurus skeletons are the stars of many fossil halls, but Sue is something special, and to honor her the Field Museum has launched a new exhibition which attempts to bring Sue back to life.
According to the exhibit’s website, Sue Escapes, the celebration of the Tyrannosaurus has several different parts. In addition to a gallery of animatronic dinosaurs (including Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, and Velociraptor), Sue gets some screen time in a 3D documentary called Waking the T. rex. Special events such as sleepovers and lectures will be tied to the celebration, as well, which will run through September of this year.
The new Sue experience certainly has a lot of flash to it—I can almost hear John Hammond, the tycoon behind Jurassic Park in the novel and films, saying “Spared no expense!”—but does it deliver on the science? Animatronic dinosaurs and 3D films can be a lot of fun (although, admittedly, they were more fun when I was seven years old), yet these forms of “edutainment” are often designed to be spectacles to draw in visitors with the secondary hope that they might learn something along the way. The late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould lamented this practice of modern museums in his essay “Dinomania” for the New York Review of Books, asserting that, all too often, it dilutes the core of what museums are meant to be:
I may epitomize my argument in the following way: institutions have central purposes that define their integrity and being. Dinomania dramatizes a conflict between institutions with disparate purposes—museums and theme parks. Museums exist to display authentic objects of nature and culture—yes, they must teach; and yes, they may certainly include all manner of computer graphics and other virtual displays to aid in this worthy effort; but they must remain wed to authenticity. Theme parks are gala places of entertainment, committed to using the best displays and devices from the increasingly sophisticated arsenals of virtual reality to titillate, to scare, to thrill, even to teach.
I happen to love theme parks, so I do not speak from a rarefied academic post in a dusty museum office. But theme parks are, in many ways, the antithesis of museums. If each institution respects the other’s essence and place, this opposition poses no problem. But theme parks belong to the realm of commerce, museums to the world of education—and the first is so much bigger than the second. Commerce will swallow museums if educators try to copy the norms of business for immediate financial reward.
By bringing theme park attractions into museums, especially when they are not well-integrated with the natural wonders such institutions contain, museums may undermine their own core purpose—to educate. Special effects may get more people to shell out an extra five or ten dollars for the museum, but do they really do anything to help people feel a sense of wonder about the natural world? Is simply increasing the volume of visitors to a museum doing anything to better educate the public? The new Sue experience sounds like a fun gimmick, but it appears to be another collision between theme park and museum culture in which the spectacular details of nature take a back seat to (relatively) cheap thrills.
Have you seen the new Sue exhibit? What did you think? Have your say in the comments.
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI























A friend hit it this past weekend. I asked him about Robo-Sue. Answer: “really cheesy.” I’ll make it up there at some point to check it out myself, though nothing will top the first time I saw Sue, I’m sure. Or when I saw the Archaeopteryx exhibition at the Field a few years before that…
seems like an effort to garner and hold interest. Animatronics are just models that move. If they can be effectively integrated into the exhibit, i say go for it.
But there other ways to do that. I have always loved museum exhibits that create a sense of environment. If i ever get my museum off the ground, i will look to lighting, color schemes, and model rocks and plants to create an immersive environment to lure visitors in to learn about this world and the creatures in it. Just as museums have been doing in recent times.
I honestly don’t have a problem with these types of exhibits. I see them as a primer to help spark an interest in the science. I think people get a little too caught up in the educational aspect of museums and forget that people don’t just go there to learn dry facts. In my opinion, people should be allowed to enjoy themselves.
Well, here’s my question: Have they fixed her wishbone yet?
While I can certainly see Gould’s point, it must be remembered that education does not happen in a vacuum or without money. Entertainment provides money and can be done to educate at the same time. As an example, the show Prehistoric on the Discovery Channel is entertainment, but because of watching that show, my six year old daughter walked into a museum last week, saw a skeleton on display and correctly identified it as Castoroides, and not just as “giant beaver”, but as Castoroides.
There is a big stigma from museum personnel against “Disneyfication” even as they try to copy the theme parks. However, Disney does try to put on educational exhibits and has the money to do astounding shows museums could never dream of. Imagine what they could do education-wise in a real museum under the guidance of trained professional curators.
It is not a competition. Education loses that way. It should be a collaboration. Our knowledge and training, their money and exhibit expertise. That I think is a winning combination.
I visited the museum this past weekend and wasn’t really impressed by the 3D movie. It contained a lot of useful information about the life-span of a T. Rex, but I think it was overshadowed by all of the 3D gimmicks.
However, the animatronic exhibit (Robo-Sue) was a thing of beauty. It was amazing to realize that the first dinosaur (a Velociraptor cousin) you encounter is actually reacting and responding to your movement. The Triceratops had two screens showing its field of vision, and when you place yourself directly in front of the Triceratops then it doesn’t see you (and you’re not in either screen), and it doesn’t react to your presence. The T. Rex is a bit more showy, but still definitely impressive with advanced animatronics and a convincing roar. We were expecting “cheesy” and got far more than that.
Then again, maybe that’s just the engineer in me geeking out about the technology. But I was genuinely impressed by the amount of information I gained from both exhibits.