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.
That's an interesting observation on the City Museum. Reading that chapter, I felt that the author was perhaps deliberatly disorienting the reader with his haphazard description of the museum, to simulate the experience of attending such an over stimulating institution. I, too, wonder at the appropriatness of giving the museum name to what sounds like an indoor carnival.
ReplyDeleteYour comment on how the public trusts museums because of the word's association with larger institutions. When a museum attempts to "create" memories of something that never truly existed we have to question where the responsibility of the curator as a public historian comes into play. And with the changing perspectives over time and between individuals, how can anyone make a judgment on subjective exhibits as long as the facts are correct? How far can a curator go in skewing the visitor's view of an event or place, and when does it become irresponsible history? The inclusion of attractions like the one in St. Louis is also problematic because it goes under Levin's broad definition of "museum" yet like you said it does not focus on educating the public, but rather entertaining them.
ReplyDeleteI found the chapter on collective memory interesting because it seems that regardless of the objective or the plan that the curator has in setting up their exhibit, the audience usually creates their own in view. In that the audience takes away what they want to and relate to the museum in ways that are important to them. Memories made in the museum by the community seemed almost a more important factor about these smaller community museums because it gave te public a place to create memories along with learning something new and exciting.
ReplyDelete