This week we read "The Great Historic House Museum
Debate", an article by Ruth Graham in the Boston Globe, and the May 2015
issue of The Public Historian, devoted
to historic house museums - which featured an article by our professor, Dr. Hilary
Lowe. As you've probably guessed, this week was all about historic house
museums. Graham's article brought to light not only the problems that house
museums are facing, but also the triumphs that I believe are largely ignored by
critics. House museums have been called the "go-to preservation
strategy", but does that necessarily mean it doesn't work? Underneath all the questions about how many house museums are
enough house museums, or if they can continue with little funding and few
visitors, I found the true question to be: what is the worth of the house
museum? I believe that house museums are like little jewels dotting the
country, telling stories that would otherwise be forgotten. The house museum
has the opportunity to tell stories about women, family, and the home; subjects
that are often neglected in larger museum settings. Not only does the house
museum tell women's stories, but also potentially the story of women within
preservation. At the Powel House, we learned that many historic homes and other
sites were preserved in the early twentieth century by individual women,
women's clubs and ladies aid groups. This sphere of preservation became a place
for women to have authority and express creativity in a world where they were
often silenced. The destruction of house
museums would be like the silencing of women whose stories unfolded within the
home, because they could not anywhere else.
While I love house museums, I do agree that many would
benefit from new strategic programming to bring in more visitors. Not only
could more visitors result in more funding and donations, but also the chance
to serve the community more. It is true that house museums that are only open
by appointment are not serving their community to the fullest, but what choice
do they have with little to no public funding? The ideas for new programming
outlined in the May 2015 issue of The
Public Historian were inspiring! The Introduction raised the idea of
"radical hospitality", which is "throwing open the doors of a
house museum to welcome new audiences and intimate experiences with history".
(11). This really set the tone for me for the rest of the articles. The new ideas
to revitalize house museums all involved calculated risks. By taking risks, the
house museums were able to expand their network of visitors and welcome new
faces to their sites. One example that really stuck with me was the museum in the article Playing House that was owned by an art school and operated by the
students. The Roger Brown Study Collection, a resource of the School of the Art
Institute of Chicago (SAIC), has operated as an “artists’ museum” for the SAIC
community and the public since 1997. This was a house museum of an artist,
which was then turned into like a haven for art students. It is an example of a
house museum being actively used by the community. The students can touch and
use the objects in the house for their art projects, they can reflect and draw
there, and they can even reinterpret the house for others in the community through their showcases. This reminded me
of last week's readings and the idea of turning a preserved building into a
community center or youth center instead of a traditional museum. What a
remarkable idea! Spaces were created to be used right? Though this artsy
example does have one drawback that could be improved if brought to another
city; the building was really only being utilized by the community within the school. Art students and
faculty were reinterpreting history, while the community at large was still sort
of left out.
One final thought that stuck out to me was from Dr. Lowe's
piece, Dwelling In Possibility. This
article dealt with the problems historians have with the use of narrative in
history. While it is true that narrative must literally be used because
historians transmit their knowledge through the medium of language, it still
makes academic historians cringe. The truth of the matter is that visitors are
compelled by complicated narratives, and these narratives can be put together through academic historical methodology. If we
are not interpreting history in a way which is accessible to the visitor, what
are we doing? I believe "the ivory tower" is something that should be
pushed back against, not perpetuated.
 |
| Click HERE to read a supplemental article about women in preservation! |
Comments
Post a Comment