http://www.mercurynews.com/tv/ci_13421123?nclick_check=1
There is a new museum dedicated to Walt Disney opening in San Francisco.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
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)