What a busy week!! This week we have a practical piece from Roy Rosensweig called Digital History. He gives a step by step account of how to create a history website. In the process he discusses many of the issues that affect such sites. The problems are widespread, and include technology, storage, copyright, and other such issues unique to the proliferation of the internet. But Rosensweig fails to outright discuss what is perhaps the largest internet problem, that of authenticity. What distinguishes an article on the Holocaust from an article on Holocaust denial? In print that would be done by the medium in which the article is written. On the internet this is much more difficult to discover. That is the service given by the “gatekeepers” that Rosensweig and other historians so maligns. Perhaps a solution does exist, some sort of compromise between the for-profit companies and the presumably not-for-profit journals that they come from.
Digital History is a few years old, which isn’t usually a problem in the subject of history, but since this book describes the internet time passes much more quickly. In the words of Jeffrey Wasserstrom time on the internet is in “dog years”. Blogging—just beginning at the publication of the book has become an extremely popular form of communication. Jeffrey Wasserstrom describes this on Intersections: History and New Media in an essay called “The Mythology of Blogs: A Top Ten List for the Uninitiated Historians”. He explains various misconceptions about blogs including that they are not necessarily amateurish, nor the sole purview of younger people.
History websites need not be the normal journal articles or even blogs. While Rosensweig provides a template for a “standard” history website, others have done things that are extremely interesting and unique. Lisa Rosner has turned to a technology much like Google’s street view and developed an interesting way of exhibiting history. On her website (burkeandhare.com) one can take a tour of the 19th century city as it appeared to those involved. The problem with this, and all good internet products is that they are quite expensive. The technology required also often need specialized knowledge, and possibly the hiring of a specialist to do the work for you.
The digital turn is not a fad, it is the future, but the work required is specialized and difficult. Blogs such as mine and my classmates are an interesting project, but a simple one considering the possibilities that could be achieved. A historian must also be technologically trained today to function.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
review of the Eugenics Archive
The Eugenics Archive documents the history of the now-discredited scientific theory of eugenics. The archive is hosted by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) through its Dolan DNA Learning Center (DNALC). It has over 2,500 images and several “online exhibits” describing the different reasons behind and impacts of the eugenics movement. Eugenics corrupted true genetic theory; using a narrow interpretation to try and “better” the human race by encourage the “fit” to reproduce and discouraging the “degenerate” from doing the same. It also served to reaffirm white supremacy, by casting Western European whites (Caucasoid) as the most fit, and African (Mongoloid) as degenerate.
By today’s digital standards The Eugenics Archive is simple and low-tech. (The main site has not had significant changes since at least 2004). The images are primarily organized by “topic” although keyword and chronological searches are also available. Each topic has a passage explaining its history. There are also nine in-depth interpretive essays (called virtual exhibits) about eugenics, presented in “flash” format so a few images could be included alongside, these images expand when the mouse hovers over them. The text of these essays explain the social and political climate that helped foster the widespread acceptance of eugenics, and also describes the consequences of this theory—such as immigration “reform” and forced sterilization. These essays are written by scholars, but presented in such a way that those without a background in the subject can grasp the concepts.
Although the essays are well-written, the presentation is problematic. It requires several pages to read the essay, yet only one set of images is used for the entire essay. An opportunity to better integrate images into this text is lost, there are also no links between the essays and the rest of the images or the topics they discuss. The archive seems to have begun to address this lack of interactivity through the introduction of a new blog. This blog has sporadic postings on modern topics that relate to eugenics (such as heredity and the storm surround the 2009 health care debates)—and it does it in such a way as to encourage a “shared authority” between audience and writer, encouraging the visitor to explore the archive and make their own decisions.
The archive itself contains around 2,500 images. However the word “image” is somewhat misleading, as most of the items presented are digital copies of textual documents, although many pictorial images also appear. The archive collects a large variety of documents from archives in the United States and England, discussing mostly the movement in America (all the interpretive essays focus on this aspect), but there is also acknowledgement of how the Nazi’s took the ideas of eugenics and developed the theories of the “master race” from them.
The Eugenics archive is a useful repository of images about this dark period in American life. While it presently suffers from a lack of interactivity, the new blog, if used properly, can help to fix this problem.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Prosthetic Memory
How do we interpret memory that is beyond our own experience?
Landsberg suggests that voluntary memory is nothing more than a prosthetic, a portable, interchangeable, piece of equipment. Unlike involuntary memory which is shaped by personal experience Landsberg attempts to prove that voluntary memory is shaped by society and "implanted" into an individual.
Some of her evidence is quite compelling, however a large portion of it is not true evidence in my opinion. A large section of her book is dedicated to an analysis of science fiction movies. She does NOT analyze their impact on society but ANALYZES the movie an a very "in universe" style. She implies that these fictional movies are somehow a basis for the real design of memory.
In others it appears that she has suspended her "seichel" (street smarts) and thinks that she is being gassed within the Holocaust Memorial Museum. The idea that anyone could think that would occur is just ludicrous, for one thing, the security guard would not have been standing under the vent on his walkie talkie and the cattle car doors would have been closed.
I also disagree with her analysis of putting us in the "moment" of the Holocaust at that museum. One of her examples is the "shoe room" where thousands of shoes from gassed inmates at one particular camp are just piled on the floor. As you walk through that room you do not walk through the shoes but over them, putting you not in the moment, but in the present, looking back. to make sure that "Never Again" will the Holocaust happen. To throw a further wrench in her story I suggest she over-generalizes the impact of the Holocaust, and completely leaves out the battles between minority groups over "Warring Holocausts" (Slavery vs. the Shoah)
This leads me to another point about her book in general. While she seems to lament the idea of a collective memory, she does not specify any of the uses that collective memory can serve (both positive and negative). When she discusses the Holocaust not once does she use the phrase "Never Again" which is the main takeaway from Holocaust memory in America (especially in Novick's book). The same holds true for the rest of the book.
Winter's article also looks at the reflection on "collective memory" but looks specifically at how the state shapes this memory. His examples are much more concrete and understandable than those presented by Landsberg. His observations on how state influence shapes remembrance of the Battle of the Somme is interesting. The idea that memory commemoration must be positive (as the memory itself often isn't) is an interesting concept as a way to combat PTSD and other such situations.
Landsberg suggests that voluntary memory is nothing more than a prosthetic, a portable, interchangeable, piece of equipment. Unlike involuntary memory which is shaped by personal experience Landsberg attempts to prove that voluntary memory is shaped by society and "implanted" into an individual.
Some of her evidence is quite compelling, however a large portion of it is not true evidence in my opinion. A large section of her book is dedicated to an analysis of science fiction movies. She does NOT analyze their impact on society but ANALYZES the movie an a very "in universe" style. She implies that these fictional movies are somehow a basis for the real design of memory.
In others it appears that she has suspended her "seichel" (street smarts) and thinks that she is being gassed within the Holocaust Memorial Museum. The idea that anyone could think that would occur is just ludicrous, for one thing, the security guard would not have been standing under the vent on his walkie talkie and the cattle car doors would have been closed.
I also disagree with her analysis of putting us in the "moment" of the Holocaust at that museum. One of her examples is the "shoe room" where thousands of shoes from gassed inmates at one particular camp are just piled on the floor. As you walk through that room you do not walk through the shoes but over them, putting you not in the moment, but in the present, looking back. to make sure that "Never Again" will the Holocaust happen. To throw a further wrench in her story I suggest she over-generalizes the impact of the Holocaust, and completely leaves out the battles between minority groups over "Warring Holocausts" (Slavery vs. the Shoah)
This leads me to another point about her book in general. While she seems to lament the idea of a collective memory, she does not specify any of the uses that collective memory can serve (both positive and negative). When she discusses the Holocaust not once does she use the phrase "Never Again" which is the main takeaway from Holocaust memory in America (especially in Novick's book). The same holds true for the rest of the book.
Winter's article also looks at the reflection on "collective memory" but looks specifically at how the state shapes this memory. His examples are much more concrete and understandable than those presented by Landsberg. His observations on how state influence shapes remembrance of the Battle of the Somme is interesting. The idea that memory commemoration must be positive (as the memory itself often isn't) is an interesting concept as a way to combat PTSD and other such situations.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
This weeks readings concern various topics, from gentrification to the end of history museums.
The Mirabal reading on gentrification is a fairly standard polemic against the process. Gentrification is the latest form of urban renewal—just with more private investment than in periods past. Basically a neighborhood is targeted because of its proximity to workplaces and becomes “upclassed”. The reason for the inclusion of this article in the Public Historian is that Mirabal achieves her work through an oral history project of the people that are being forced out—mostly Latino. It is heartening to see that San Francisco has begun to push back, to try and manage its development in a way that keeps its existing communities intact, but still allow for some improvement.
The other major article for this week is an interesting study of the losing appeal of history museums. Admissions revenue—never a large part of most museums’ budgets, but still significant—is continuing to fall, as people find other things to do besides visit museums. Carson either does not, or can not, pinpoint the reason for this drop-off to occur, but nationwide statistics show that it is—mostly at older “destination museums”. As people make the “staycation” popular, museums that required travel are often the first to suffer. Those that connect with the person on an individual level are the ones that do the best. One example of a museum that is still booming is the Lower East Side Tenement Museum, dedicated to no special family (nobody famous ever lived there) but to the local community that many Americans arrived through in the late 1800’s- early 1900’s. Other museums that are doing well are ones that connect much with recent history, such as the International Spy Museum and the Newseum in D.C. It should also be noted that these are all private museums (and in the case of the latter two, quite expensive). As I’ve previously learned most people connect with history that is directly related to them, and museums that do that seem to have the best attendance rates are those that can elaborate on these connections—either through family history, or the people involved actually living through the times of parts of the museum.
That being said, his idea to revitalize older museums deserved some true interest. Although I doubt it would ever attract the following that could come close to what he suggests the idea of a television show based around historic sites has much merit. But instead of his ideas of regionality, I would propose one that is thematic, a soap opera, or even a long running children’s show based on the time period that the theme of the museums describes. PBS missed this opportunity several years ago with a show they did called “Liberty’s Kids” (the episodes are available on youtube). They had several elements that would make them successful bringing the kids in with a theme song by Aaron Carter, and also bringing the parents to the show by using Walter Cronkite to voiceover a “sage” Dr. Benjamin Franklin. It covers several areas that are involved in the Revolutionary War, but does not foster enough connection with the sites it discusses to try and forge a connection between the children who watch the show, and the sites that are showcased (too many in this show are fictional). However the weaving of the historical stories of several towns (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and others) could serve as a model for a true program of Carson’s design.
The article “Auctioning the Old West to Help a City in the East” is an interesting tidbit about how city budgets affect what could be a popular museum. The mayor of Harrisburg apparently decided to be a wildcat curator and acquire—without city council permission—over 7 million dollars of artifacts for a museum of the Old West—a period that does prove popular. The problem is that with this 7 million dollars in artifacts was no endowment, and no building. Harrisburg had all this stuff in storage, and had a budget shortfall. The council ordered the objects auctioned off to close the budget shortfall. The response to the auction has shown that if the proper channels were followed, the museum would probably have done well. The popularity of the auctions was high; showing that there is a demand for such a museum. I wonder what would have occurred if this museum had come to fruition, instead of being auctioned off, piece by piece.
The Mirabal reading on gentrification is a fairly standard polemic against the process. Gentrification is the latest form of urban renewal—just with more private investment than in periods past. Basically a neighborhood is targeted because of its proximity to workplaces and becomes “upclassed”. The reason for the inclusion of this article in the Public Historian is that Mirabal achieves her work through an oral history project of the people that are being forced out—mostly Latino. It is heartening to see that San Francisco has begun to push back, to try and manage its development in a way that keeps its existing communities intact, but still allow for some improvement.
The other major article for this week is an interesting study of the losing appeal of history museums. Admissions revenue—never a large part of most museums’ budgets, but still significant—is continuing to fall, as people find other things to do besides visit museums. Carson either does not, or can not, pinpoint the reason for this drop-off to occur, but nationwide statistics show that it is—mostly at older “destination museums”. As people make the “staycation” popular, museums that required travel are often the first to suffer. Those that connect with the person on an individual level are the ones that do the best. One example of a museum that is still booming is the Lower East Side Tenement Museum, dedicated to no special family (nobody famous ever lived there) but to the local community that many Americans arrived through in the late 1800’s- early 1900’s. Other museums that are doing well are ones that connect much with recent history, such as the International Spy Museum and the Newseum in D.C. It should also be noted that these are all private museums (and in the case of the latter two, quite expensive). As I’ve previously learned most people connect with history that is directly related to them, and museums that do that seem to have the best attendance rates are those that can elaborate on these connections—either through family history, or the people involved actually living through the times of parts of the museum.
That being said, his idea to revitalize older museums deserved some true interest. Although I doubt it would ever attract the following that could come close to what he suggests the idea of a television show based around historic sites has much merit. But instead of his ideas of regionality, I would propose one that is thematic, a soap opera, or even a long running children’s show based on the time period that the theme of the museums describes. PBS missed this opportunity several years ago with a show they did called “Liberty’s Kids” (the episodes are available on youtube). They had several elements that would make them successful bringing the kids in with a theme song by Aaron Carter, and also bringing the parents to the show by using Walter Cronkite to voiceover a “sage” Dr. Benjamin Franklin. It covers several areas that are involved in the Revolutionary War, but does not foster enough connection with the sites it discusses to try and forge a connection between the children who watch the show, and the sites that are showcased (too many in this show are fictional). However the weaving of the historical stories of several towns (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and others) could serve as a model for a true program of Carson’s design.
The article “Auctioning the Old West to Help a City in the East” is an interesting tidbit about how city budgets affect what could be a popular museum. The mayor of Harrisburg apparently decided to be a wildcat curator and acquire—without city council permission—over 7 million dollars of artifacts for a museum of the Old West—a period that does prove popular. The problem is that with this 7 million dollars in artifacts was no endowment, and no building. Harrisburg had all this stuff in storage, and had a budget shortfall. The council ordered the objects auctioned off to close the budget shortfall. The response to the auction has shown that if the proper channels were followed, the museum would probably have done well. The popularity of the auctions was high; showing that there is a demand for such a museum. I wonder what would have occurred if this museum had come to fruition, instead of being auctioned off, piece by piece.
Friday, October 30, 2009
through interpretation, understanding; through understanding, appreciation; through appreciation, protection
Freeman Tilden's quote about the importance of interpretation fifty years ago still rings true today. If people do not understand why something is important, they often do not appreciate it, and therefore don't see the need to protect it.
In Tilden's theory interpretation is the front-line defense, protection stems from this, and not the other way around. But, as is a common theme through many of these readings, interpretation must be more than just providing information. It must provide a means of understanding and appreciation of a site, whether it be historic or natural. The interpreter must care about and understand the site themselves before they can impart that knowledge to others.
Interpretation is important not only after a site is founded, but even to found the site in the first place. Patricia West shows us that politics is interpretation. In order to get a site preserved it must be interpreted as something worthy of saving. Some of these are easier "sells" than others. The preservation of Orchard house was an easy to sell to preserve, although the reason for why it was protected was not the reason many people thought it should be protected. (It emphasized Mr. Alcott's utopian dreams, and not his daughters writing.
the past is the stories we tell is what Handler and Gable call what people discuss about history. History is fact, the past is the story woven from the "important" facts. Tilden would say that a compelling story is not enough for good interpretation, you must go beyond the story and find some way to compel the interest of the audience Handler and Gable show how that is done in Williamsburg, and how it is also prevented. The story is highly commercialized and sensitized, one must feel that things are better than they once where--the scripted idea of progress.
But these all also discuss that history is not static, the stories we tell change, and interpretation must change with new experiences.
Freeman Tilden's quote about the importance of interpretation fifty years ago still rings true today. If people do not understand why something is important, they often do not appreciate it, and therefore don't see the need to protect it.
In Tilden's theory interpretation is the front-line defense, protection stems from this, and not the other way around. But, as is a common theme through many of these readings, interpretation must be more than just providing information. It must provide a means of understanding and appreciation of a site, whether it be historic or natural. The interpreter must care about and understand the site themselves before they can impart that knowledge to others.
Interpretation is important not only after a site is founded, but even to found the site in the first place. Patricia West shows us that politics is interpretation. In order to get a site preserved it must be interpreted as something worthy of saving. Some of these are easier "sells" than others. The preservation of Orchard house was an easy to sell to preserve, although the reason for why it was protected was not the reason many people thought it should be protected. (It emphasized Mr. Alcott's utopian dreams, and not his daughters writing.
the past is the stories we tell is what Handler and Gable call what people discuss about history. History is fact, the past is the story woven from the "important" facts. Tilden would say that a compelling story is not enough for good interpretation, you must go beyond the story and find some way to compel the interest of the audience Handler and Gable show how that is done in Williamsburg, and how it is also prevented. The story is highly commercialized and sensitized, one must feel that things are better than they once where--the scripted idea of progress.
But these all also discuss that history is not static, the stories we tell change, and interpretation must change with new experiences.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Preserving America
The idea of preserving historic America is well over one hundred years old. However the movement as really accelerated in the past fifty years. But what impact does this historic preservation have on the surrounding area? Do “historic districts” really accomplish what they say they will accomplish? And what exactly is “historic preservation”.
Both Cathy Stanton and Diane Lea leave out building codes that while do not preserve the historic character of a building; do preserve the historic vista of the property. The District of Columbia has such a rule, keeping the height limits of all buildings with D.C. below that of the statue on top of the Capitol Dome. All this code has done is pushed the towering behemoth from the center of town out into nearby suburbs such as Bethesda, MD. and Rossyln, VA.
Cathy Stanton’s book on Lowell, Massachusetts is an interesting look at urban historic preservation in America’s oldest manufacturing city. The book is combination of an anthropological look at the people involved in preservation, and a critical look at modern urban planning. Lowell, like many urban preservation projects, is a living city, while at the same time is also a historic entity. Stanton finds that many of those involved in the preservation of Lowell—both guides and consumers—have an insular existence when it comes to interacting with the city itself. Many want to do so, and think they are (such as those who take the tours of residential neighborhoods) but they just look, and do not interact. It becomes a situation in which tourists are served by a small number of community members, and you hope that the prosperity somehow trickles down to the rest of the city. As we have seen in Lowell—and elsewhere, just across the Anacostia River from the National Mall is Southeast Washington D.C., (a poverty-stricken neighborhood that a tourist only enters if their GPS badly routes them)—that isn’t always the case. Even with the Lowell Museum and Lowell NHS the city is still reliant on the boom and bust of the manufacturing industry, its attempts to create a post-industrial economy lagging behind the rest of Boston metro—with millions spent on an entertainment industry (including tourism) that doesn’t seem to have the benefits promoters believe it does.
Lowell is not the only urban preservation project in this country. Many cities all across the nation have developed historic districts and urban historical parks. The difference is historic districts remain in private hands, but any decision regarding renovation is subject to review by a historic preservation committee, often an intensive and expensive process. Originally developed as a counterpoint to urban renewal, historic districts have become the new urban renewal poster boys. They do cause property values and rents to rise, because history makes it “hip” to live and shop there, but as we also see in Lowell, housing usually isn’t affordable. In these cases it also isn’t new housing created, it is old affordable housing taken off the market as rents rise. On the other hand, it does preserve the character of an area and keeps America interesting.
Dorothy Lea laments that preserving America isn’t as natural as saving endangered species. Maybe it shouldn’t be. There is such a thing as too much of a “good” thing.
Both Cathy Stanton and Diane Lea leave out building codes that while do not preserve the historic character of a building; do preserve the historic vista of the property. The District of Columbia has such a rule, keeping the height limits of all buildings with D.C. below that of the statue on top of the Capitol Dome. All this code has done is pushed the towering behemoth from the center of town out into nearby suburbs such as Bethesda, MD. and Rossyln, VA.
Cathy Stanton’s book on Lowell, Massachusetts is an interesting look at urban historic preservation in America’s oldest manufacturing city. The book is combination of an anthropological look at the people involved in preservation, and a critical look at modern urban planning. Lowell, like many urban preservation projects, is a living city, while at the same time is also a historic entity. Stanton finds that many of those involved in the preservation of Lowell—both guides and consumers—have an insular existence when it comes to interacting with the city itself. Many want to do so, and think they are (such as those who take the tours of residential neighborhoods) but they just look, and do not interact. It becomes a situation in which tourists are served by a small number of community members, and you hope that the prosperity somehow trickles down to the rest of the city. As we have seen in Lowell—and elsewhere, just across the Anacostia River from the National Mall is Southeast Washington D.C., (a poverty-stricken neighborhood that a tourist only enters if their GPS badly routes them)—that isn’t always the case. Even with the Lowell Museum and Lowell NHS the city is still reliant on the boom and bust of the manufacturing industry, its attempts to create a post-industrial economy lagging behind the rest of Boston metro—with millions spent on an entertainment industry (including tourism) that doesn’t seem to have the benefits promoters believe it does.
Lowell is not the only urban preservation project in this country. Many cities all across the nation have developed historic districts and urban historical parks. The difference is historic districts remain in private hands, but any decision regarding renovation is subject to review by a historic preservation committee, often an intensive and expensive process. Originally developed as a counterpoint to urban renewal, historic districts have become the new urban renewal poster boys. They do cause property values and rents to rise, because history makes it “hip” to live and shop there, but as we also see in Lowell, housing usually isn’t affordable. In these cases it also isn’t new housing created, it is old affordable housing taken off the market as rents rise. On the other hand, it does preserve the character of an area and keeps America interesting.
Dorothy Lea laments that preserving America isn’t as natural as saving endangered species. Maybe it shouldn’t be. There is such a thing as too much of a “good” thing.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Which Launius exhibit do you want?
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/tph.2007.29.1.13
For those of you who aren't in Managing History here is a link to an article, at the end is a list of 10 exhibits that Launius wishes he could create at the National Air and Space Museum
which is your favorite?
Mine is Thinking about the Unthinkable: Cold War and the Nuclear Triad
although most of them look good.
For those of you who aren't in Managing History here is a link to an article, at the end is a list of 10 exhibits that Launius wishes he could create at the National Air and Space Museum
which is your favorite?
Mine is Thinking about the Unthinkable: Cold War and the Nuclear Triad
although most of them look good.
Controversial History
How do you deal with controversial history?
Do you shove it under the rug? Give it some tame euphemism? Confront it outright?
These are the questions that this week’s readings on slavery and technology discuss.
A history museum must do more than simply exist. It must engage and enrapture the visitor, while at the same time being aware that it cannot blaspheme or overtly distort history. If visitors do not enter the doors, the museum is not serving any purpose at all. As Slavery and Public History and The Public History of Science show controversial history is often overlooked, tamed, or forced out of the museum.
The difficulty is compounded when one tries to create an overarching national narrative. There is usually not one narrative of history, but several, each more controversial than the ones that were promulgated before. There is also the problem of trying to invoke a past that the entire nation doesn’t share. Rosensweig and Thelen have shown us that most people care about their family history, and those parts of the narrative that they can see themselves, or their family in, but do not care to share those parts of history where they do not see involvement.
Slavery has always been controversial in American life—although it didn’t solely cause the Civil War it didn’t help things any. There is no easy way to interpret slavery. Calling them “servants” or totally ignoring the subject is just bad history. But it is a difficult topic to approach. My personal feeling is that slavery should be portrayed as accurately as possible—a benevolent master (where credit is due) or cruel or indifferent one, some representation of slave quarters (even if it’s a diorama), and of course, if it is a “living history” museum, slaves themselves.
Funny side story: While walking through Old City Philadelphia a black interpreter approached me and asked if he looked like Thomas Jefferson—I asked if his last name was “Hemings”, but the reason he asked was somebody said he looked just like Thomas Jefferson.
Technological History can be almost as difficult to discuss. Especially when it comes to things such as the Enola Gay. (For those that do not know the Enola Gay was the bomber that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima) Having not seen the Enola Gay exhibit I cannot comment specifically on it, but my hope is that it involved a discussion—not an absolute—of the necessity of dropping the A-bomb in the first place. This problem can be viewed down the road at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM). While discussing the American response (or more lack of response), you encounter a massive map of the Aushwitz-Birkenau camp complex. The purpose of the map is to show that the Allies knew of what was happening there, and knew how to stop it. It gives a very negative analysis of the reasons why America did not bomb the camps without giving full credence to reasons why that did not happen. (It’s on their website too http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005182)
Controversial history is a tough nugget to deal with—especially in places where the history has been either obliterated or turned into office space—but it must be acknowledged. A museum with a one-dimensional narrative cannot properly evaluate all sides of a controversial problem. Perhaps this is the most important time when the final decision must be left to the visitor, all that can be done is ask thought provoking questions and provide as much evidence as possible.
Do you shove it under the rug? Give it some tame euphemism? Confront it outright?
These are the questions that this week’s readings on slavery and technology discuss.
A history museum must do more than simply exist. It must engage and enrapture the visitor, while at the same time being aware that it cannot blaspheme or overtly distort history. If visitors do not enter the doors, the museum is not serving any purpose at all. As Slavery and Public History and The Public History of Science show controversial history is often overlooked, tamed, or forced out of the museum.
The difficulty is compounded when one tries to create an overarching national narrative. There is usually not one narrative of history, but several, each more controversial than the ones that were promulgated before. There is also the problem of trying to invoke a past that the entire nation doesn’t share. Rosensweig and Thelen have shown us that most people care about their family history, and those parts of the narrative that they can see themselves, or their family in, but do not care to share those parts of history where they do not see involvement.
Slavery has always been controversial in American life—although it didn’t solely cause the Civil War it didn’t help things any. There is no easy way to interpret slavery. Calling them “servants” or totally ignoring the subject is just bad history. But it is a difficult topic to approach. My personal feeling is that slavery should be portrayed as accurately as possible—a benevolent master (where credit is due) or cruel or indifferent one, some representation of slave quarters (even if it’s a diorama), and of course, if it is a “living history” museum, slaves themselves.
Funny side story: While walking through Old City Philadelphia a black interpreter approached me and asked if he looked like Thomas Jefferson—I asked if his last name was “Hemings”, but the reason he asked was somebody said he looked just like Thomas Jefferson.
Technological History can be almost as difficult to discuss. Especially when it comes to things such as the Enola Gay. (For those that do not know the Enola Gay was the bomber that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima) Having not seen the Enola Gay exhibit I cannot comment specifically on it, but my hope is that it involved a discussion—not an absolute—of the necessity of dropping the A-bomb in the first place. This problem can be viewed down the road at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM). While discussing the American response (or more lack of response), you encounter a massive map of the Aushwitz-Birkenau camp complex. The purpose of the map is to show that the Allies knew of what was happening there, and knew how to stop it. It gives a very negative analysis of the reasons why America did not bomb the camps without giving full credence to reasons why that did not happen. (It’s on their website too http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005182)
Controversial history is a tough nugget to deal with—especially in places where the history has been either obliterated or turned into office space—but it must be acknowledged. A museum with a one-dimensional narrative cannot properly evaluate all sides of a controversial problem. Perhaps this is the most important time when the final decision must be left to the visitor, all that can be done is ask thought provoking questions and provide as much evidence as possible.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
What makes a good museum?
What makes a good museum? Are all museums good? How do you measure the quality of a museum? What is the value of an object?
These are all questions from the readings this week. Most are hard to answer, although the second should have an obvious one, NO. There are museums are bad, either because they do “bad history” or because they have not been able to articulate and make themselves matter.
A good museum is one with a clear purpose, adequate resources, efficient use, and good interpretation. A failure in any one of these areas will make a museum “bad”, and failures in multiple would probably put a museum under—or at least make it lightly visited.
Museums tread a fine line; they must balance the truth with what their visitors can stand to hear. A museum does not matter if it has no visitors, because regardless of how well they do any of the other factors, no one will know it exists. Often this can involve tempering the truth, offering it selectively, speaking in euphemisms. But sometimes one must stand up to the public, and surprise them with facts that might be troubling.
What is exhibited and how it is described is an important part of this equation. Whether it is a controversial work of art, or the “servants quarters” of a historic home, controversial exhibits bring questions, and often make people think about the past, present, and future in new ways. Today museums matter because they encourage thought and reflection in ways that the average person understands.
But how does one determine if a museum is meeting these new goals. One way is AAM accreditation, another is a new assessment program that helps museums compare themselves to each other, in a way this is beneficial, it helps one to understand what else the field is doing. But Stephen Weil points out a problem with this model, the resources of the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the South Cupcake Art Museum are entirely different, one simply cannot compare with another. SCAM may be the only cultural institution in town, therefore it must not only exhibit art, but serve the other needs of the community as well, it probably also has less resources to do this, so instead of staging massive art exhibits, SCAM would stage smaller exhibits, perhaps some live music shows, school programs, and other community events. But does the lack of a major collection (even one major work) make SCAM a scam? If its purpose is to serve the community in multiple ways, then it is doing its job well, but if SCAM wants to be PMA, then it truly is a scam.
These are all questions from the readings this week. Most are hard to answer, although the second should have an obvious one, NO. There are museums are bad, either because they do “bad history” or because they have not been able to articulate and make themselves matter.
A good museum is one with a clear purpose, adequate resources, efficient use, and good interpretation. A failure in any one of these areas will make a museum “bad”, and failures in multiple would probably put a museum under—or at least make it lightly visited.
Museums tread a fine line; they must balance the truth with what their visitors can stand to hear. A museum does not matter if it has no visitors, because regardless of how well they do any of the other factors, no one will know it exists. Often this can involve tempering the truth, offering it selectively, speaking in euphemisms. But sometimes one must stand up to the public, and surprise them with facts that might be troubling.
What is exhibited and how it is described is an important part of this equation. Whether it is a controversial work of art, or the “servants quarters” of a historic home, controversial exhibits bring questions, and often make people think about the past, present, and future in new ways. Today museums matter because they encourage thought and reflection in ways that the average person understands.
But how does one determine if a museum is meeting these new goals. One way is AAM accreditation, another is a new assessment program that helps museums compare themselves to each other, in a way this is beneficial, it helps one to understand what else the field is doing. But Stephen Weil points out a problem with this model, the resources of the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the South Cupcake Art Museum are entirely different, one simply cannot compare with another. SCAM may be the only cultural institution in town, therefore it must not only exhibit art, but serve the other needs of the community as well, it probably also has less resources to do this, so instead of staging massive art exhibits, SCAM would stage smaller exhibits, perhaps some live music shows, school programs, and other community events. But does the lack of a major collection (even one major work) make SCAM a scam? If its purpose is to serve the community in multiple ways, then it is doing its job well, but if SCAM wants to be PMA, then it truly is a scam.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
New museum reveals the man behind the mouse
http://www.mercurynews.com/tv/ci_13421123?nclick_check=1
There is a new museum dedicated to Walt Disney opening in San Francisco.
There is a new museum dedicated to Walt Disney opening in San Francisco.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Fairmount Water Works Interpretive Center
Located on the Schuylkill River side of the Philadelphia Museum of Art is the Fairmount Water Works. One of the oldest municipal water systems in the country Philadelphia's is quite interesting. Water was drawn from the Schuylkill originally to a pumping station on the site of City Hall. Unfortunately that station was under-capacity from day one. Bt 1815 a new pumping station was built below Fair Mount, a high plateau above any other site in the city at that point, so anything flowing down from it would do so by gravity. Over time the plant expanded and modernized-using the most effiecent water turbines of the era to power the pump up to the top of the reservoir.
By 1909 Fairmount Water Works was past ready to be shut down, because the river had gotten so polluted from upstream. In fact Fairmount probably should have been shut down several years before it was, by the time it closed only those who couldn't afford bottled water still used the water from the tap. Notably this is the only veiled mention of anything concerning class in the entire exhibit. It is next to the only mention of women in the entire exhibit both about the closing of the waterworks and the starting of a sand filtration program.
It doesn't show if class and women paid a part in the establishment of the waterworks-they probably did-it puts that story solely in the hands of the benevolent "city fathers".
That being said, it still is an interesting museum about the water supply of Philadelphia, because not only does it talk about the waterworks, it talks about present problems with water pollution-while being careful not to blame the city for any of it, possibly because it is funded with city money. I will find out more about this when I speak to the director (I hope to use it for my exhibit review)
One other interesting fact is that while the museum was used as the Philadelphia Aquarium many fish became ill and some died because they used the same polluted unfiltered water that closed the waterworks for human consumption for the fish.
It is free, and definetly warrants a visit, even if someone is just walking through fairmount, its a short hop up the parwkay from the Franklin Institute.
By 1909 Fairmount Water Works was past ready to be shut down, because the river had gotten so polluted from upstream. In fact Fairmount probably should have been shut down several years before it was, by the time it closed only those who couldn't afford bottled water still used the water from the tap. Notably this is the only veiled mention of anything concerning class in the entire exhibit. It is next to the only mention of women in the entire exhibit both about the closing of the waterworks and the starting of a sand filtration program.
It doesn't show if class and women paid a part in the establishment of the waterworks-they probably did-it puts that story solely in the hands of the benevolent "city fathers".
That being said, it still is an interesting museum about the water supply of Philadelphia, because not only does it talk about the waterworks, it talks about present problems with water pollution-while being careful not to blame the city for any of it, possibly because it is funded with city money. I will find out more about this when I speak to the director (I hope to use it for my exhibit review)
One other interesting fact is that while the museum was used as the Philadelphia Aquarium many fish became ill and some died because they used the same polluted unfiltered water that closed the waterworks for human consumption for the fish.
It is free, and definetly warrants a visit, even if someone is just walking through fairmount, its a short hop up the parwkay from the Franklin Institute.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
History repeats itself
http://www.patcopaexpansion.com/index.html
It seems that Philadelphia wants to get further into the act of rejuvenating the streetcar lines from older times. This project would create a new line in an area where one might not have existed before (did one), along the waterfront, with connections somehow to the downtown core.
San Francisco has done the same, using the same historic trolleys (in fact many are PCC from Philadlephia) from Fishermans wharf, along the Embarcadero, and then down Market Street.
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mfleet/histcars.php
It seems that Philadelphia wants to get further into the act of rejuvenating the streetcar lines from older times. This project would create a new line in an area where one might not have existed before (did one), along the waterfront, with connections somehow to the downtown core.
San Francisco has done the same, using the same historic trolleys (in fact many are PCC from Philadlephia) from Fishermans wharf, along the Embarcadero, and then down Market Street.
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mfleet/histcars.php
Sunday, September 20, 2009
reading of the week 9/21
Who and what is important in history?
How can history be used to construct an ahistorical world?
Rosenzweig and Thelen tackle the first question in their book Presence of the Past. What they discover is perhaps nothing new but it is interesting that they find the need to call it the “past” instead of “history”. In my mind much of what people described as the past (importance of family traditions especially) was simply family history. But perhaps the most startling fact in the book is who is considered a historical authority. Museums are trusted above all other public forms of history (including high school education). The problem with this is that most museums are episodic or thematic—focusing on one episode or theory and often leave out other contexts. At least most people realized the problematic nature of most movies—that even those that purport to be non-fiction or “based on a true story”—are barely based on fact, and have a huge amount of conjecture and sensationalism in them.
The association of the past with family is a very powerful one, my family included. The family history is perhaps one of the most unifying and non-controversial conversations one can have with relatives—or it can be the most contentious over the minutiae. The national narrative of history can be a large and abstract thing, but a family narrative is much smaller and often more concrete way of describing history. Apparently people seem to place the national narrative in terms of their family histories and use this to understand the past. It provides concrete explanations for the abstract—such as the Great Depression and the Cold War—but family history also provides something else. Family history provides an alternate account for those who feel left out of, or completely distorted in, the national narrative.
Kim and Jamal's article on the Renaissance Faire had another way of looking at the past. These faires have people that are “regulars” who take on fictional personas for the entire weekend. They often act essentially as volunteer docents, taking the more “tourist” visitors on a trip through this parallel world. In order to do this they take create an ahistorical world based on the “facts” of the Renaissance and the Middle Ages, but really the myths—like Camelot.
How can history be used to construct an ahistorical world?
Rosenzweig and Thelen tackle the first question in their book Presence of the Past. What they discover is perhaps nothing new but it is interesting that they find the need to call it the “past” instead of “history”. In my mind much of what people described as the past (importance of family traditions especially) was simply family history. But perhaps the most startling fact in the book is who is considered a historical authority. Museums are trusted above all other public forms of history (including high school education). The problem with this is that most museums are episodic or thematic—focusing on one episode or theory and often leave out other contexts. At least most people realized the problematic nature of most movies—that even those that purport to be non-fiction or “based on a true story”—are barely based on fact, and have a huge amount of conjecture and sensationalism in them.
The association of the past with family is a very powerful one, my family included. The family history is perhaps one of the most unifying and non-controversial conversations one can have with relatives—or it can be the most contentious over the minutiae. The national narrative of history can be a large and abstract thing, but a family narrative is much smaller and often more concrete way of describing history. Apparently people seem to place the national narrative in terms of their family histories and use this to understand the past. It provides concrete explanations for the abstract—such as the Great Depression and the Cold War—but family history also provides something else. Family history provides an alternate account for those who feel left out of, or completely distorted in, the national narrative.
Kim and Jamal's article on the Renaissance Faire had another way of looking at the past. These faires have people that are “regulars” who take on fictional personas for the entire weekend. They often act essentially as volunteer docents, taking the more “tourist” visitors on a trip through this parallel world. In order to do this they take create an ahistorical world based on the “facts” of the Renaissance and the Middle Ages, but really the myths—like Camelot.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The History of History
The book of the Week is Ian Tyrell’s Historians in Public: The Practice of American History 1890-1920. It is essentially a book about the history of the subject of History, and how it relates to the public—or didn’t. Tyrell claims that essentially American historians have had a blind spot when looking at the history of History—frequently claiming that the discipline of History is dying when all they need to do is look back and notice that it isn’t dead or dying, but constantly changing. I find it interesting how Tyrell does this; he uses a fairly rigid periodization of history, roughly analogous to periods used by other historians. His approach is also mostly that of “Great Men” style of history. The book can also serve as an institutional history of the American Historical Society because Tyrell focuses mainly on the policies of the AHA and how it affected and was changed by society.
Despite the fact that the project seems to be centered on the AHA and several leaders—and opponents—of the organization, it explains several problems with history through the years. I found it extremely interesting how Historians were involved in the World War II effort—often at the expense of other research—and how they fed into the propaganda machine. But was perhaps more interesting to me was the entrance of historians into government service as advisors. Today that field seems somewhat moribund, perhaps because of the problems experienced in earlier years (too much red tape, low salaries, etc.)
I find it interesting that many of our own worries about history (glut of historians, public disconnect, conflicts with politics), has been part of the profession for several periods during the last 100 years. The author of the book is also interesting. Tyrell is not from the United States; his major block of time here was probably part of his PhD as a Fulbright Scholar (http://iantyrrell.wordpress.com/). Perhaps this story is only one that can be told by someone disaffected from it, whose livelihood does not rely upon pleasing other American historians.
In what seems to be a prelude to this work—perhaps some if its inspiration—is a speech by Carl Becker, entitled “Everyman his own Historian”. It shows how the regular person “does” history, by using mundane daily events and putting them in a historical context. Becker says that “History is the memory of things said and done”. For the average person this is true, but for a historian there is often an added context, that of interpretation—linking disparate memories together, and finding a common theme, or a reason for a lack of one. There is a weird example of the historian’s craft that I developed on the fly in an English paper of all places.
Jane has gained 10 pounds over the last week.
Jane’s candy jar has been emptied in the last week.
Conclusion: Jane has gained 10 pounds from eating a lot of candy last week.
This is an example of how someone’s memory functions, the simple story of how Jane gained 10 pounds. However Jane claims she didn’t eat all the candy, and so another explanation must be found. Lets add a few facts:
Jane’s brother Michael also gained 10 pounds.
Jane is sexually active.
New conclusion: Michael ate all the candy and Jane is pregnant.
This is a simple explanation of what can be the historians craft—especially revisionist history, or even the “memory of things said and done”. If someone close to Jane was willing to believe her and investigate the claim further, they would be doing the work of the historian, but in a much more limited and immediate sense.
The job of the historian is to take this immediate history and place it in the context of larger events, such as an example in a history of unnoticed pregnancy, or a history of obesity. I know this is a humorous approach to the situation, but I feel it can be appropriate.
Despite the fact that the project seems to be centered on the AHA and several leaders—and opponents—of the organization, it explains several problems with history through the years. I found it extremely interesting how Historians were involved in the World War II effort—often at the expense of other research—and how they fed into the propaganda machine. But was perhaps more interesting to me was the entrance of historians into government service as advisors. Today that field seems somewhat moribund, perhaps because of the problems experienced in earlier years (too much red tape, low salaries, etc.)
I find it interesting that many of our own worries about history (glut of historians, public disconnect, conflicts with politics), has been part of the profession for several periods during the last 100 years. The author of the book is also interesting. Tyrell is not from the United States; his major block of time here was probably part of his PhD as a Fulbright Scholar (http://iantyrrell.wordpress.com/). Perhaps this story is only one that can be told by someone disaffected from it, whose livelihood does not rely upon pleasing other American historians.
In what seems to be a prelude to this work—perhaps some if its inspiration—is a speech by Carl Becker, entitled “Everyman his own Historian”. It shows how the regular person “does” history, by using mundane daily events and putting them in a historical context. Becker says that “History is the memory of things said and done”. For the average person this is true, but for a historian there is often an added context, that of interpretation—linking disparate memories together, and finding a common theme, or a reason for a lack of one. There is a weird example of the historian’s craft that I developed on the fly in an English paper of all places.
Jane has gained 10 pounds over the last week.
Jane’s candy jar has been emptied in the last week.
Conclusion: Jane has gained 10 pounds from eating a lot of candy last week.
This is an example of how someone’s memory functions, the simple story of how Jane gained 10 pounds. However Jane claims she didn’t eat all the candy, and so another explanation must be found. Lets add a few facts:
Jane’s brother Michael also gained 10 pounds.
Jane is sexually active.
New conclusion: Michael ate all the candy and Jane is pregnant.
This is a simple explanation of what can be the historians craft—especially revisionist history, or even the “memory of things said and done”. If someone close to Jane was willing to believe her and investigate the claim further, they would be doing the work of the historian, but in a much more limited and immediate sense.
The job of the historian is to take this immediate history and place it in the context of larger events, such as an example in a history of unnoticed pregnancy, or a history of obesity. I know this is a humorous approach to the situation, but I feel it can be appropriate.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The pirates of history
The pirates of history—This is a tale about a different type of swashbuckin’ renegade that sailed the seven seas.
O.K. so most of these pirates only sailed one short sea, and most had education, and they often had the blessing of the governments of home and abroad—but they were pirates just the same. Go to almost every older city in the Western World and mostly on prominent display, or occasionally tucked away down some back street, you’ll find their booty. Hundreds if not thousands of Egyptian pyramids and tombs, even many Greek and Roman sculptures and edifices have been unearthed from their homes and put on display halfway around the world.
I have been to a bunch of these old museums and it has gotten old, it gets to the point where all the Egyptian rooms look the same. However, the magnitude of destruction remains. I always wonder, what does the place where these come from look like. In some cases, nothing remains, yet in others, like the removal of the Parthenon (Elgin) Marbles, their home remains, and is now waiting for their return. Rarely have I seen a museum exhibit address the fact that these items once had another home, and if I do, it is always about how it was an engineering marvel to move them—of course it was, they weren’t designed to be portable—but almost never anything about the affect that these moves have had on the place where they came from.
I will admit, that in many cases moving these objects was the only thing that saved them from destruction—that is not always the case. There was an article that I once read on the Elgin Marbles, and the “white man’s burden” mentality behind moving them from Greece to Britain—I wish I could remember the author. It involved the chance to return the Marbles back to their original home, the Parthenon. Lord Elgin had them removed originally because he felt that they were too beautiful to be left to the Greek government—at the time fairly primitive by our standards—to manage. In recent years Greece has asked for them back, but Britain claims they have become such a part of British culture it would be impossible to remove them.
I personally feel torn on what to do with these objects that have already been moved halfway across the world. They have often found good homes in their new locations, open to opportunities that the sometimes remote—admittedly not always—home locations would not be able to provide. However they are often the only bits reminding people of their culture of the past, what good is it in this respect if people have to travel from Greece to London, or from Egypt to New York to discover it?
What do you think?
O.K. so most of these pirates only sailed one short sea, and most had education, and they often had the blessing of the governments of home and abroad—but they were pirates just the same. Go to almost every older city in the Western World and mostly on prominent display, or occasionally tucked away down some back street, you’ll find their booty. Hundreds if not thousands of Egyptian pyramids and tombs, even many Greek and Roman sculptures and edifices have been unearthed from their homes and put on display halfway around the world.
I have been to a bunch of these old museums and it has gotten old, it gets to the point where all the Egyptian rooms look the same. However, the magnitude of destruction remains. I always wonder, what does the place where these come from look like. In some cases, nothing remains, yet in others, like the removal of the Parthenon (Elgin) Marbles, their home remains, and is now waiting for their return. Rarely have I seen a museum exhibit address the fact that these items once had another home, and if I do, it is always about how it was an engineering marvel to move them—of course it was, they weren’t designed to be portable—but almost never anything about the affect that these moves have had on the place where they came from.
I will admit, that in many cases moving these objects was the only thing that saved them from destruction—that is not always the case. There was an article that I once read on the Elgin Marbles, and the “white man’s burden” mentality behind moving them from Greece to Britain—I wish I could remember the author. It involved the chance to return the Marbles back to their original home, the Parthenon. Lord Elgin had them removed originally because he felt that they were too beautiful to be left to the Greek government—at the time fairly primitive by our standards—to manage. In recent years Greece has asked for them back, but Britain claims they have become such a part of British culture it would be impossible to remove them.
I personally feel torn on what to do with these objects that have already been moved halfway across the world. They have often found good homes in their new locations, open to opportunities that the sometimes remote—admittedly not always—home locations would not be able to provide. However they are often the only bits reminding people of their culture of the past, what good is it in this respect if people have to travel from Greece to London, or from Egypt to New York to discover it?
What do you think?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Star Trek at the Franklin Institute
Warning: This is a non-academic ramble
I am a big fan of the original Star Trek and Star Trek The Next Generation (TNG), so a few weeks ago I decided to visit the exhibit and see what it was about. It was amazing, and an interesting approach. The exhibit was designed with two intertwining narratives. Parts of the exhibit looked at how the show was filmed—including the different effects from the different time periods, the appearance of the alien races, etc. Other parts of the exhibit were treated as if you were in the future, looking back at the periods described in the different Star Treks—the narrative information was written in such a way that references to Star Trek being a T.V. show were left out, and it was a continuous period of actual history. The exhibit had the bridge from Star Trek TNG, Kirk’s chair, the mockups used for the scenes that need the entire ship. It also had samples of the uniforms and gadgets from each series—set up in a progression from beginning to end and described as if you were in a technology museum. Overall it was a very interesting and intriguing look at Star Trek, from those interested in cinematography, to die-hard Trekkies, and to even casual observers—its only downside is the steep admission price to the Franklin Institute.
I am a big fan of the original Star Trek and Star Trek The Next Generation (TNG), so a few weeks ago I decided to visit the exhibit and see what it was about. It was amazing, and an interesting approach. The exhibit was designed with two intertwining narratives. Parts of the exhibit looked at how the show was filmed—including the different effects from the different time periods, the appearance of the alien races, etc. Other parts of the exhibit were treated as if you were in the future, looking back at the periods described in the different Star Treks—the narrative information was written in such a way that references to Star Trek being a T.V. show were left out, and it was a continuous period of actual history. The exhibit had the bridge from Star Trek TNG, Kirk’s chair, the mockups used for the scenes that need the entire ship. It also had samples of the uniforms and gadgets from each series—set up in a progression from beginning to end and described as if you were in a technology museum. Overall it was a very interesting and intriguing look at Star Trek, from those interested in cinematography, to die-hard Trekkies, and to even casual observers—its only downside is the steep admission price to the Franklin Institute.
Welcome
Hello. I am a public history M.A. student at
Happy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)