The MEDG doesn’t need to make an exhibition of itself

I was very pleased to see your recent airing of the introspection in the museum designers’ profession (VoxPop, DW 15 September). Tim Molloy is only partly correct: if we have been introspective it is only temporary, but I don’t think we have been defensive. We want to build on the multidisciplinary nature of our profession.

Stuart Macdonald queries the need for exhibitions without giving thought to the fact that exhibitions are the only communication medium about objects that actually communicates with the object. Whether it be for a museum or trade fair, this fact gives exhibitions a truth that is their greatest strength. The Dome is devoid of objects; hence its failure. It is not an exhibition but another form of communication device, suspect because the truth is told and not demonstrated.

Lois Jacobs is, of course, right that we need to raise our profile – hence our current navel-gazing – but we know that the Museum and Exhibition Design Group is about museums, heritage and public and corporate exhibitions.

Neal Potter is also right that it depends on its members, but that is a bit rich coming from a past chairman, elected because of his high profile, who deserted the three-year position after a few months because of pressure of work.

We have always tried to draw our membership from across the range of designers in the profession, from the humblest to the grandest, and that has meant keeping our subscription rates far lower than those of the Chartered Society of Designers. In truth, over the past 25 years the group has done more for less money than the CSD ever did in all my 17 years as a fellow.

Giles Velarde

Founder member

Museum and exhibition design group

Start the discussionStart the discussion
  • Post a comment

Latest articles