History can be presented through many methods: in the classroom, through scholarly texts and articles, and by the media. In the case of public history, i.e., history presented for public consumption, one of the major means of reaching numerous people is through museum exhibits. According to author Thomas Woods, academics may reach limited audiences because they present history based on theory.

People who chose to visit museums want to experience artifacts of history and use experiences to define their own concepts of what happened. Woods suggests that museum directors and curators may want to be mindful when setting up their displays not to project too much of their own theories, leaving little room for public curiosity, imagination, or experiential discovery.

Two museum offerings within the past several decades provide Woods with a platform for his discussion: “The West As America,” exhibited in 1991 at the Smithsonian National Museum of American Art, and the more recent Enola Gay (World War II) display at the National Air and Space Museum. In the first example, the curators presented a revisionist view of the American westward movement. They declared paintings celebrating western expansion were inaccurate, selectively showing positive aspects of the movement, while ignoring racism, greed, sexism, and failures of the era. What might have been an opportunity for the public to reformulate its own positions was compromised by the amount and theoretically-conclusive nature of commentary. In this instance, the problem was not that the curators sought to offer a revisionist view, but that they forced it down the public’s collective throat.

In the case of the Enola Gay display, again curators left little room for the museum-going public to make its own assessments concerning the dropping of the atomic bomb. The decision was controversial when it was made, and remains so to this day. The error, according to Woods, in setting up this display was the total neglect of public input, particularly from concerned groups such as veterans’ organizations. This contributed to the revisionist view appearing disrespectful or unpatriotic to some people. Woods explains that the controversy could have been avoided if a partnership had been forged between interested groups; diverse historical interpretations then might have been presented with agreement from various groups to show their beliefs and values. In the end, the public would have been the winner. It would have been able to visit a display designed to account for disparate, even irreconcilable, viewpoints without seeming challenged to accept just one historical approach over the others.

The relationship between museums and the public consists of a fine line. On the one hand, curators desire to present information that is compelling and will attract visitors. The public, after all, must choose between whether or not to visit museums over a myriad of other possible activities. Woods posits that, while there is nothing wrong with presenting history in a new light, indeed this is almost expected, the means will determine the ends. Museum curators should resist inserting too much of themselves and their academic theories at a display.

Otherwise, they risk destroying the creative moment that the public has, experiencing history and drawing its own conclusions. Likewise, if a topic is inherently controversial, diverse views can be presented, respectfully and with input from interested groups or individuals. If an exhibit fails in either of these methods, it may alienate the public to the point that people will chose not to visit that particular museum at all. The result is curators putting on a public display for their own private benefit. Public history, as presented in museums, need not be watered down. It should, however, allow for differing interpretations of the same event, in order to be accessible to its target, the public.