Jesuit-Guarani Interpretation and Recreation Center

(February 2015) Before entering the Jesuit Ruins sector itself, visitors encounter an old building, seemingly in the colonial style, which functions as the Jesuit-Guarani Interpretation and Recreation Center.

The Visual Guide to the Iguazu Falls and Ibera Wetlands (Clarín), on page 81, states: "At the entrance, there is an Interpretation Center with nine rooms displaying a good portion of the history."

On the web, a site related to tourism in the province of Misiones reads: "At the entrance to the Ruins of San Ignacio Miní, the most prominent and recognized in Misiones, the Jesuit-Guarani Interpretation and Recreation Center features nine rooms that, acting as a historical narrative, reconstruct the past from the arrival of the first Spaniards—including a scale model of what the reductions were like—and culminate in an exciting and educational show that, through lights and sound, brings to life the events of the 17th and 18th centuries." http://www.misionesturismo.com.ar/ruinas-jesuiticas.htm

The first thing I must point out concerns the name: it is unclear, and it can be found defined in various ways. The National Museum Guide, 2009, published by the National Secretariat of Culture and the National Secretariat of Tourism, defines it—along with the ruins—as a Site Museum. At the end of the tour, a sign, just before mentioning the credits, clearly titles it the San Ignacio Miní Interpretation Center. On the web, it appears as the Jesuit-Guarani Interpretation and Recreation Center. In tourist guidebooks, it is simply called the Interpretation Center, and on the provincial government's webpage, the Visitors Center.

The second thing to note is that nine rooms are spoken of and mentioned; however, when we visited, only three rooms were available to tour. The route was horseshoe-shaped: a small first room, a large central second room, and a small final third room. This means six rooms were missing. Where were they? I do not know if they were being renovated, if modifications were made, or if the tour was shortened. Apparently, as one can read online, this Interpretation Center comprises "almost two-thirds of the former 'Living Museum'." This implies that the place is constantly mutating and changing, perhaps being reconditioned for current times. I do not know, nor was I familiar with what the Living Museum used to be or what it involved.

In our case, upon arrival, we were greeted very cordially by a young man who welcomed everyone arriving, even though there were not many visitors that day, as it was past midday. Inside the large room, another young employee also approached us and fixed one of the broken headphones on an audio device. And when we left, the greeter had changed to a young woman, whose only job was to say "do not take flash photos" and nothing else.

This museum, now converted into an interpretation center, was founded in 1987 in what used to be the building of an old provincial elementary school in San Ignacio.

One of the devices visitors could interact with—so to speak—was a machine with headphones that visitors could use to listen to period music performed by contemporary artists. I found it interesting; it was a box with 4 banks of push-buttons, each with 3 buttons. The catch was its poor state of repair: 2 of the button banks had only 2 working buttons, 1 bank had all 3 working buttons, and 1 bank had no buttons at all (as can be seen in the photograph). Furthermore, out of the 4 button banks, there were only two sets of headphones. In other words, of the Jesuit missionary music or Guarani music, one could listen to very little of what apparently should have been accessible.

It gives the impression of being neglected, offering very little, and failing to be what it claims to be—namely, a true interpretation and recreation center. When considering the cost of admission, the fact that the ruins were declared a World Heritage Site, the relationship between the Interpretation Center and the actual ruins site, and the number of visitors they receive annually—both domestic and international—presenting an Interpretation Center as I am describing leaves much to be desired. Investing a little would greatly improve it, and I hope they are doing so, because given the positive things some websites say, particularly about that place, visitors arrive with high expectations only to be disillusioned.

In the first room, some figures are protected behind glass. Visitors then immediately move into the central hall or large room, where they can walk through and view practically the entire Interpretation Center. Aside from a couple of photos and a map, there are quite a few writings on the walls and some objects—typical museum artifacts such as vessels, a sundial, a mortar, carved stone, musical instruments, and not much more.

Personally, I struggle a bit with the concept of "Interpretation and Recreation." As for "recreation," in none of its meanings could one find anything related to recreation—nothing producing amusement or serving as leisure, nor was there anything physically recreated to represent life back then, much less anything new or novel to discover. Honestly, I saw none of that. Browsing the web, I found photographs taken by visitors several years ago, back in the "Living Museum" era, showing "recreated" human figures from that past and constructions of those times; for something like that, the word fit well. Today? Nothing.

On the other hand, regarding the word "interpretation," the question I ask myself is: Who interprets? The management of the site or the visitor? Clearly, there was a top-down agenda here; the interpretation was already established on the walls. The little the visitor could interpret was what they read on the walls—an explanation of the exhibits was already provided. Ultimately, one encountered walls with very few period photographs of when the ruins were rediscovered, a map, and quite a bit of reading material. These texts already presented conclusions about something that had already been interpreted by someone else, who then hung it on the walls for visitors to read. These texts did not stimulate questions or spark curiosity.

By this, I do not mean to say that panels with written material are completely useless or wrong; they are adequate enough. One can briefly read the concepts presented there; they are not boring, are easy to read, and appeal to any visitor. However, I am not sure if they create a connection or if all of them are understandable to the general public. For example, a panel titled "Advantages and Disadvantages" states in part: "...due to the noble savage dreamed of by Jean-Jacques Rousseau..." Focusing on domestic visitors (and even many international ones), the questions that arise are: Does the average visitor even know who Rousseau was? What was his philosophy? What works did he write? What does "noble savage" allude to? And many more questions (are we talking about epistemology, philosophy, or theory of the state? Did Rousseau dream it, imagine it, or believe it?, etc.). Is this understandable to the average visitor? I think not; the average visitor does not grasp that when reading it. That phrase is fine for someone who has previously studied Rousseau, but what about everyone else?

Even assuming that all visitors understand it perfectly and know Rousseau and his work inside and out, returning to the issue of the "Interpretation Center," a phrase like that clearly directs the manner of interpretation. The interpretation is already given and presented by "someone" who associated "Rousseau and his noble savage" with what they intend to explain and convey. Consequently, the visitor's own interpretation no longer exists as such; instead, the interpretation is handed to the visitor. Is this correct? I think not. If we talk about interpreting, and we grant that faculty to the visitor, then the subject should be presented as neutrally as possible so that the one doing the interpreting is the visitor, and not the person who drafted and/or wrote the panels. Of course, nowhere does it state whether the interpreter is the visitor or the Center's management. And what I mention is just one example of the many panels available to read.

The brief tour ends in the final, small room, which contains only a scale model large enough to occupy almost the entire space—a model of the reduction. A screen and a panel are available. From there, one returns to the entrance lobby, this time through the exit door. And thus concludes the visit to the Jesuit-Guarani Interpretation and Recreation Center. Afterward, the tour continues fully into the actual grounds where the Jesuit ruins are located.