Preservation and Restoration.

The articles for this week both touch on the various interpretations of what preservation really means and what the process should entail. The Nolan and Buckman article focused on the differences between Jefferson’s Monticello and Madison’s Montpelier. The authors focus of the contrast between interpretations of preservation and restoration. Monticello serves as an example of restoration, as the goal there is to present the property just as it was when Jefferson was living there, freezing it at one moment in time. On the flip side, the caretakers of Montpelier strive to preserve the property in the state it was in when the National Trust received it in 1984. There are arguments over which of these methods is ‘better’ when dealing with historic sites. It is suggested that not showing all of the history of Monticello is a form of censorship, but some say Montpelier’s inclusion of the whole history of the property is confusing.

The Lindgren article addresses how preservation has evolved over the years, moving from a female-dominated, personalized approach to a male-oriented, professional presentation. When groups first began preserving historic sites, the members (mostly female) leaned toward a romanticized version of the past: an idealistic history used to teach youth good values and morals. In a way, one could compare this period of preservation to the presentation of Monticello. Both chose to focus on particular aspects of history, leaving gaps in time. As males entered the field of preservation, they wanted to bring the focus to the facts of history rather than ideals.

Both articles deal with the interpretation of the ‘truth’ of history. When preservation was a largely female profession, the preservation of sites focused on the romanticism of the past. They took a more personal approach to presenting history, which makes me consider them sort of precursors to modern-day public historians, trying to build a bridge between the layperson and the academic. Unfortunately, their version of history was not always representative of the time. At Monticello, it’s all about Jefferson’s era, down to the unsightly green painted floors. It ignores the rest of the history of the property, preferring to fix it in a specific moment in time. There are advantages to this practice as well as downsides. At Montpelier, they are preserving the changes the house and property have endured over the years. Nolan & Buckman quote Larry Dermody (director of preservation at Montpelier) stating, “Monticello is a snapshot and Montpelier is a videotape” (259). I feel that neither article really reaches a conclusion on how preservation should be approached. There needs to be a co-mingling of preservation and restoration, of personalism and professionalism. The difficult part is in figuring out how to present history in a clear manner without hiding parts of the past. 

“At what point do angles become slants?” (Dubin, 237)

I was looking forward to reading this article, as the topic has come up in our other readings. Until now, I was not familiar with the controversy. Everyone in the museum world knows about the dispute regarding the Enola Gay exhibit at the National Air and Space Museum. It is strongly suggested in this particular chapter that museums have become considerably more cautious in their staging of exhibits, therefore producing bland or even boring work since. It stems from the flak The Last Act and other exhibits of its kind received: exhibits that tried to present more than one viewpoint rather than just the popularly held perspective. The need for positive reviews is strongly tied to funding issues, and everyone knows how tight that area is right now.

This chapter stresses the generational conflict behind the response to The Last Act. I found myself irate as I read, disbelieving of the (what I perceived as) narrow-minded opinions of the veterans, a position that “…precludes them from even looking at any new versions” (Dubin, 192). I made myself take a step back. It’s true that I wasn’t there; I’m far removed from 1945 America. My generation is disillusioned by the notion of a proud, patriotic America; we tend to look at things a little more cynically. I tried to consider the background of those that fought in WWII, tried to see things from their point of view. I still kept coming back to the meaning of ‘museum’ and what the general public believes museums need to present. This question has been brought up in our previous readings and discussions, but I’m still curious. I agree with Martin Hartwit’s stance to “…tell everyone as complete a story as possible, bolstered by the hard copy of that time” (195). A museum may be a sort of memorial, but it is not a memorial in its entirety. The responsibilities are different. Dubin quotes Michael Neufeld: “Memorials are one thing. History is another” (217).” A memorial tends to be commemorative, but is a museum supposed to be as well? To present multiple viewpoints is a way to prevent bias from appearing in an exhibit in an attempt to find some sort of balance. Isn’t that what we want to do as public historians?

The author also stresses the strong influence of the media when it comes to controversial topics. For the most part, he did not look kindly on the media’s actions in regard to The Last Act. Out-of-context quotes were used to amplify the drama of the situation, and journalists did not do their research to confirm sources. The media, like museums, needs good reviews, needs subscribers to stay afloat. Highlighting disputed issues is one way for them to attract more attention. The public loves drama, so the media provides it, sometimes at the expense of the full story. “People would rather argue about some lofty thing like patriotism…They won’t tell you that it’s all about money” (Dubin, 212). And that seems to be what it eventually comes down to, no matter what you are talking about.

Slavery and Public History.

Slavery and Public History examines how the general public views slavery and its connection to the creation of our country though ten articles illustrating examples of how slavery is portrayed in public spaces and how it is being discussed. The overarching argument that facing the difficult issues and events from the past can promote healing and discussion about their connection to today’s issues of race and class is one that’s hard to contend with after reading about the success many of these places have achieved by encouraging discourse through the presentation of various points of view at their sites. The emphasis is on more integration of the story of slavery into historic sites: museums, battlefields, parks, etc. By recognizing the not-so-pretty part of the past and bringing it in to the open instead of glossing over it, we can recognize a more truthful portrayal of history and be open to new discourse and education on the topic. It was encouraging to read about Brown University’s open discussions on its connection to slavery, forming a committee meant for “study and education program” (Melish, 124). I found it astonishing that some people are practically inventing the past to justify certain actions, such as in the final chapter, “In Search of a Usable Past” by Bruce Levine in which he looks at the Black-Confederate campaign and its supporters. He writes, “They will not acknowledge any of these things because they are determined not to do so” (Levine, 211). This goes to show that education needs to be a major focus in places portraying the past, that we have a responsibility to try and present all sides of the story.

There were a few instances in which the authors noted the argument some people have about keeping the discussion of slavery in a school setting rather than bringing it into exhibitions. I disagree, especially after our talk in class about learning about the Civil War in school and from reading books such as Lies My Teacher Told Me (which includes two chapters on the discussion of racism and the Civil War in classrooms). There is definite power in the physical place where history happened, and those places have the potential to spark intelligent conversation about their place in the past. In the epilogue, Linenthal writes, “The conviction is that somehow places speak…” (223). In the chapter about the NPS, I was encouraged when I read about their goals to present more on the topic of slavery in relations to battlefields and the like. Another example of a positive educational event is the reenactment of a slave auction at Williamsburg and the feedback the institution received in the chapter “Slavery in American History.” One of the conclusions the book draws is that we are moving in a positive direction when it comes to discussing slavery and its implications. Considering the examples given here, I tend to agree.

Defining memory.

Defining Memory made me want to visit each and every museum described, as well as to go out and discover some quirky piece of local history for myself. While I thoroughly enjoyed this book and its exploration of unique museums across the country, I am a little unclear about the choice of ‘defining memory’ as the title. Levin chose articles that explore the place of small museums in this country, the contributions they make to local communities, the problems they face, and the discussions and controversy they provoke as they evolve (or choose not to, in the case of the DUP ladies). There is some deliberation, notably in the chapter by Gable and Handler entitled “Public History, Private Memory,” about the creation of a collective memory. The authors discuss how a museum can leave a visitor with a memory that may not have anything to do with the narrative of the exhibits, but rather with the physical space and how it changes over the years. In the article “The Small Town We Never Were,” Jay Price tells us the story of a museum rooted in a sense of nostalgia for something that never was. Here, as well as in Arthurdale, the spaces encourage the creation of memory of or nostalgia for a simpler time that may have never existed. We might take comfort in the idea that it existed at one point and may not look too closely to discover the façade. Museums have the power to create memories that we trust because of the confidence we have in a space associated with the word ‘museum.’ All of the museums described in this collection represent the eclectic background of this country, unique, sometimes chaotic and unpredictable, each with a different viewpoint but bonded by the desire to spark something inside of each visitor, to awaken a memory or to create a new one.

Near the end of the book, Levin chose articles that have to do with the changing definition of museums. As a St. Louis native, the section on the City Museum by Eric Sandweiss peaked my interest. Having been a visitor multiple times, I have questioned the use of the word ‘museum’ in its name. While there is an odd collection of things housed there, I cannot recall this collection. My memories are of a gigantic playground for children and adults alike and of a Ferris wheel ride on the roof of the building. They differ from the memories that I associate with other museums such as the Art Institute of Chicago or the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum. It is over-stimulation to the extreme, fabulous and fun, and entertainment-driven. It challenges the traditional meaning of ‘museum.’ It’s historical in the sense that parts of it are constructed out of pieces of St. Louis, but that aspect is not brought to your attention as a visitor. You marvel at this Gaudi-esque space, have a drink at the bar, and wait until 10 PM when they turn out the lights and give everyone headlamps. It seems to be less about learning and more about the creating memories and instilling a desire to return. Defining memory in relation to museums becomes even less clear in spaces such as these.