Letting Go of the Single Story: A New Era of Museum Interpretation
Why museums must embrace multiple perspectives to stay relevant and trusted
Introduction
Museums are in the business of storytelling. Every exhibit, every object label, every curatorial decision is part of a larger narrative—about art, culture, history, science, and people. For much of museum history, those narratives were presented as definitive. Authoritative. Singular.
But the world has changed. Visitors now bring a broader range of identities, experiences, and expectations into museum spaces. They ask more questions. They notice what’s missing. They want to understand not just what the museum says, but who is saying it—and who isn’t.
In this new landscape, the idea of a single, fixed interpretation is no longer sufficient. In fact, it can be counterproductive—limiting trust, dampening engagement, and narrowing the relevance of the institution itself.
This article explores how museums can shift from a model of singular storytelling to one of layered, multi-voiced interpretation—and how digital tools can support that shift without sacrificing curatorial integrity.
The Risks of a Singular Narrative
Interpretation is never neutral. Every label reflects choices: what to highlight, what to omit, what voice to use, what context to include. For many years, those choices were guided by a small circle of experts—and presented without ambiguity.
This approach had advantages. It projected confidence. It made scholarship accessible. And it kept museum messaging consistent.
But it also carried risks.
Singular narratives often flatten complexity. They may elevate one cultural perspective while ignoring others. They may focus on the object while silencing the maker. They may emphasize formal aesthetics while erasing political or social context.
Even when done thoughtfully, singular narratives risk alienating visitors who don’t see themselves—or their communities—reflected in the story.
The result? Engagement gaps. Trust gaps. A sense that museums are “for someone else.”
Why Plural Interpretation Matters Now
Today’s visitors are not passive recipients of knowledge. They’re interpreters in their own right—reading critically, connecting personally, and expecting museums to acknowledge the complexity of history and culture.
They want to understand not just what something is, but why it’s being presented in a particular way. They want to hear multiple voices, including those historically left out. They want space to form their own relationships to the material—not just absorb someone else’s.
Plural interpretation helps make that possible.
By offering layered content from different perspectives—curators, artists, community members, scholars, and visitors themselves—museums can foster deeper connection, intellectual honesty, and cultural relevance.
This approach doesn’t reject expertise. It expands it. It creates room for lived experience, contested histories, and diverse worldviews—while still honoring the research and rigor that underpin curatorial practice.
The Role of Community Voice
One of the most powerful ways to diversify interpretation is to invite in voices from outside the institution. This might include:
Artists reflecting on their own work
Descendant communities contextualizing historical material
Local partners offering personal or place-based perspectives
Visitors contributing reactions or memories
These voices don’t need to be edited into the main label. In fact, separating them from the “official” interpretation can preserve curatorial clarity while still expanding narrative scope.
The goal is not to create chaos, but to create context. To acknowledge that meaning is not fixed—and that objects and exhibits often resonate differently depending on who’s engaging with them.
When done thoughtfully, community voice enriches interpretation. It makes museums feel more porous, more human, and more open to dialogue.
Rethinking Authority Without Losing Trust
Some museums worry that adding multiple perspectives will erode institutional authority. If everyone has a voice, will visitors still trust the museum?
But trust doesn’t only come from authority. It comes from transparency. From acknowledging limits. From showing that the museum is willing to wrestle with complexity rather than reduce it.
In fact, many visitors trust museums more when they see curators acknowledge controversy, include alternative viewpoints, or share the process behind decisions.
Letting go of the single story doesn’t mean letting go of expertise. It means embracing interpretive humility—the idea that no story is final, and no perspective is complete.
This is not a loss. It’s an invitation.
How Digital Tools Can Help
Plural interpretation doesn’t have to mean longer wall text or crowded signage. In fact, one of the best ways to support multi-voiced storytelling is through digital platforms—especially mobile interpretation.
Digital tools allow museums to:
Offer multiple content paths (e.g., curatorial voice, community voice, artist voice)
Include media formats like audio, images, or video interviews
Translate interpretation into multiple languages without spatial clutter
Let visitors choose the level or angle of depth they prefer
Add new voices over time without reinstalling physical content
Because digital interpretation is modular and flexible, it’s ideal for layering complexity without overwhelming visitors. It also allows museums to respond to changing needs—updating content in response to feedback, events, or new partnerships.
And critically, digital tools allow contextual separation: visitors can clearly see who’s speaking and why, rather than blurring every voice into a single paragraph.
This clarity of authorship builds trust and invites reflection.
Telling More Stories Doesn’t Mean Telling Every Story
Of course, no interpretation—digital or otherwise—can represent every perspective. Museums will still need to make choices. But those choices can be more transparent. More inclusive. More dynamic.
Letting go of the single story doesn’t mean giving up on coherence. It means giving up on the illusion that one voice can—or should—speak for everyone.
By embracing plural interpretation, museums can:
Reflect a broader set of experiences
Acknowledge the complexity of history
Deepen engagement with diverse audiences
Reinforce their role as spaces of dialogue, not doctrine
This shift doesn’t dilute the museum’s mission. It fulfills it.
Conclusion: From Authority to Authorship
Interpretation is not just about information. It’s about relationship—between the visitor, the object, the institution, and the wider world.
By moving beyond the single story, museums honor the richness of that relationship. They show that knowledge is shared. That meaning is negotiated. That the museum is not just a speaker, but a listener.
This is the future of interpretation: layered, responsive, inclusive, and alive.
About Footnote
Footnote is a mobile interpretation platform designed for layered storytelling. Built specifically for museums, it enables institutions to include multiple voices—curatorial, artistic, community—without cluttering physical space or sacrificing clarity. With easy-to-use tools for modular content, multilingual support, and audio narration, Footnote helps museums deepen engagement and tell more complete stories.
Learn more at tryfootnote.com