Domological Ch-Ch-Changes

A group of us were talking about the evolution of planetariums last night over a nice dinner at the Outback Steak House. I’ve mentioned before how the whole planetarium community is facing a great many challenges in the digital age, and to the outside eye they may look like technological challenges only. But there are associated sociological changes that are starting to crop up, some within the community and a few outside of it.

One of the topics on the table (along with dinner) last night was a press release we all saw within recent weeks put out by a group in a university trumpeting a new “planetarium” show they had created with NSF funding. Among their claims was that their show wasn’t like the old-fashioned planetarium shows (implied to be dull and dry), with “voice of god” narrators and the like. I had somewhat mixed reactions to their commentary for several reasons: they aren’t associated with the planetarium community (the group isn’t, the planetarium they’re using as a test bed is though), their show isn’t about astronomy (which isn’t bad, more on that in a moment), and they seem to be rebelling against a show style that hasn’t been in vogue for a while as many of us have moved to more creative approaches using single narrators and well-written scripts along with multimedia visuals. More to the point, none of the planetariums in their immediate vicinity have run shows like that in quite a while.

The style (single-narrator science show) they inherently slapped in the face (because I suspect that one of the team leaders once saw a show like that a long time ago) is used along with many other show styles across the community, and in fact, in many IMAX and Discovery Channel films. I chalked their boasting up to just that: boasting. There’s no doubt the group has created an inventive program and for that I applaud them. But there’s no need to take down the rest of the community in order to build up their own institutional ego. They may very well have to depend on the rest of the community’s good will to get their show into other domes.

Aside from that, the technological connection of their show to the dome is that it runs on a fulldome system, and while it doesn’t have a tie to astronomy, the show is a perfect use of the new fulldome technology. And this does open up planetarium theaters to other science presentations. Some may argue that using a planetarium dome for anything other than astronomy is something of a perversion of the historical use and development of the planetarium. And they’d be right. But they’d also be wrong, since astronomy is so interconnected to so many other sciences, I don’t think it’s at all inappropriate to show other science presentations in there.

Of course this changes the definition of the word “planetarium.” Mark Petersen goes into this in a lot more detail in his recent musing article posted to a planetarium listserv called “What the Heck is a Planetarium, Anyway?” And that’s a definition we’ll all wrangle with for a while.

Related to the hubris of the press release I cited up above, we’ve heard tales of museum administrators so totally buying into the new fulldome technologies that they’ve issued edicts like “We don’t want to see anything like a planetarium show in there anymore! We want razzle-dazzle.”

Ooohhhkaaaayyyyy… it’s a valid viewpoint. It may be a bit misguided, since science is not always about razzle-dazzle. But apparently science museums are more than just about razzle-dazzle. They’re also about fannies in the seats, how many folks can we get into an exhibit/show/lecture/etc. and fulfill the museum’s mission statement (and satisfy the bottom line)? These are tough issues to bring together if one wants to run a successful museum and planetarium complex. But, to say that a show must have razzle-dazzle is putting style above substance. In my mind the two should be co-equal, because I’ve also seen what happens when substance is put above style. You get dry and dull offerings, and even the most exciting science results can be rendered impossible to understand by a boring presentation style.

So, one of the sociological divides in the planetarium community could well get boiled down to “Hollywood-style entertainment” vs. “Your Father’s Planetarium Show Style.” If you’ve been to the movie theater lately, you know what Hollywood style is like. To my mind there HAS to be a way to take the best of Hollywood style and the best of science and make it into an educational and entertaining piece of work. Not necessarily razzle-dazzle for its own sake, but solid work that satisfies on many levels.

Guess what? I’ve done it for many years, and so have others in the field. We don’t always get the recognition we deserve, except perhaps in letters of thanks from our colleagues for creating shows that appeal to the public. And we didn’t have to run anybody else’s work down in the process.