Zooplantman, while I deeply respect your years of work in the zoo business and thus also your well-thought opinions, I have another take on the goals of this (and every) zoo exhibit. One of my favorite quotes on such things is from none other than Walt Disney:
“I would rather entertain and hope that people learned something than educate people and hope they were entertained.”
While that may sound heretical on the surface, I think Disney has something that zoos should learn from. To take your point, Zooplantman, as an example, if the kids leaving this exhibit say that what they learned is that "Orangutans are cool", that may not be so bad. If they learned that in the midst of having a super time, that probably means that they and their families will be back. They will come back to the Zoo to learn more things -- consciously and subconsciously, and they will also be inputting more money into the Zoo's budget when they do come back. Perhaps in the future these "Orangutans are cool" kids will choose to go to the Zoo instead of the video game arcade, and maybe on their next family vacation this family will visit another zoo, instead of a more expensive coaster park. On the other hand, if they were not entertained, but had some good orangutan education force-fed into them, they will likely forget what they learned, and they will not come back to be force-fed again. This, I believe, was Disney's message.
We have disagreed on these pages over this in the past.
But as to this Indianapolis experiment and your comment: in the meantime, orangutans will disappear. Had those kids learned to love the animals and Nature (as Dr. Bill Conway has put it) and connected the palm oil industry to the destruction of orang habitat then the world would be better AND they would have a great time. I do not advocate one as opposed to the other. I only keep my priority clear.
When Bronx Zoo's Congo Gorilla Forest was being planned, one of the primary goals set forth for it was to "turn zoo visitors into conservationists." Perhaps it succeeded some, or not, but you'll agree it is a great and popular exhibit while it puts conservation education first. That philosophy could (should?) inform all zoo exhibit design, IMO.
Thank-you for the kind words: my work has always been founded on conservation EDUCATION.
Were wild places to disappear yet zoos thrive I would count it a cataclysmic failure.
I still prefer the one at Jersey, surrounded by appropriate vegetation, lots of climbing structure, and the Orangs pick their own blackberries in the autumn.
Not the Sumatran forest, but pretty idyllic, with lots of good interpretive displays.
I disagree. This is bad, kitschy architecture. It is also, from all accounts, poor exhibit design: rule 1--allow visitors to clearly see the animals--the poor design of the glass structure will make this very difficult, and the chance of seeing an orang for your $3 skyride is rather low. Is it a good, enriching environment for orangs--quite possibly. But does it say anything about the amazing rainforest that has shaped these animals and that must be protected if they are to persist as a species?
One true test of a great exhibit is if it inspires other zoos to copy it or attempt to do it better--I simply cannot envision another "Back to the Future" orang cathedral being built anywhere. full stop.
Zooplantman, while I deeply respect your years of work in the zoo business and thus also your well-thought opinions, I have another take on the goals of this (and every) zoo exhibit. One of my favorite quotes on such things is from none other than Walt Disney:
“I would rather entertain and hope that people learned something than educate people and hope they were entertained.”
I respect your work, Allen. However, if we assume that Walt Disney Imagineering carries on Walt's creative spirit and imagination, then we can extrapolate that any orangutan exhibit he we would have built would likely resemble a naturalistic exhibit like the gorilla exhibit at DAK, not a Las Vegas style megachurch with a carnival ride on top of it.
Zooplantman, while I deeply respect your years of work in the zoo business and thus also your well-thought opinions, I have another take on the goals of this (and every) zoo exhibit. One of my favorite quotes on such things is from none other than Walt Disney:
“I would rather entertain and hope that people learned something than educate people and hope they were entertained.”
While that may sound heretical on the surface, I think Disney has something that zoos should learn from. To take your point, Zooplantman, as an example, if the kids leaving this exhibit say that what they learned is that "Orangutans are cool", that may not be so bad. If they learned that in the midst of having a super time, that probably means that they and their families will be back. They will come back to the Zoo to learn more things -- consciously and subconsciously, and they will also be inputting more money into the Zoo's budget when they do come back. Perhaps in the future these "Orangutans are cool" kids will choose to go to the Zoo instead of the video game arcade, and maybe on their next family vacation this family will visit another zoo, instead of a more expensive coaster park. On the other hand, if they were not entertained, but had some good orangutan education force-fed into them, they will likely forget what they learned, and they will not come back to be force-fed again. This, I believe, was Disney's message.
Disney understands better than most the effects of subconscious messaging in design. The Disney theme parks are specifically designed to play on one's emotions. It is often said that Main Street, U.S.A. is based off of Marceline, Missouri where Walt grew up. This is not quite true. The design of Main Street U.S.A. is based off of Walt's FEELINGS about Marceline, Missouri. Everything from the scale of the buildings to the paint scheme play on positive and nostalgic emotions. As David pointed out, you don't see any patently artificial settings for animals at Disney's Animal Kingdom, as those environments are designed to emotionally connect you with nature through animals. Meanwhile, guests can play tug-of-war with tigers who lounge about on a golf course at Busch Gardens and be heartily entertained. Personally I find Disney's Animal Kingdom far more emotionally impactful than any other animal themed amusement park I have visited.
Now let's bring this back around to Indianapolis. If the apes are disassociated from nature as it very much appears that they are, what subconscious messages are being perceived? I would be surprised if those messages promoted any sort of connection with nature.
From the photo it looks like there is only one way up and down to the skyline. I wonder just how frequently the Orangutans will actually go up without reward?
Is there a pulley system to get treats along the skyline?
This really is a case of have to see it in person to really get an understanding of what the designers wanted to achieve!
