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.
The difficult part will always be in figuring out how to present history in a clear manner without hiding parts of the past. I believe that multiple sources need to be referenced when preparing for some type of historical presentation. But, no matter what happens, everyone will see the story in their on light. So, the intention has to considered the patrons.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading Nolan and Buckman, you see the benefits and disadvantages of preservation and restoration. When thinking as a visitor to a historical site, most people hope/plan to see the building as its most important resident would have seen it. Monticello and Mount Vernon accommodate the public's desire for this kind of history. I admit that this presentation of history, the romanticized, personal history, would attract me to a site if I were on vacation. After the readings on Independence Hall and other sites where complex histories with multiple narratives are presented, the preservation approach taken at Montpelier represents a better way to approach historical preservation. Rather than focusing on Madison's period in the house (though this was not a feasible task), the preservationists use the structure to tell its entire history.
ReplyDeleteI agree that neither article made a very strong case for how history should be approached, although I got the sense that the Personalism/Professionalism article was leaning towards a big hooray for male professionalism. This is the annoying thing about post-modern history scholarship, no one's right or wrong, each approach has difficulties, and we're just trying to represent the facts. Well that's all good and fine, but ideally these public history sites will have an effect of education and cultural identity formation on the public, shouldn't there be studies of how different approaches are succeeding or failing in these tasks?
ReplyDeleteI like how you've presented the dichotomy of Monticello and Montpelier, but then I wanted you to make a choice as to which one you prefer. You seem to not be so impressed with the "green floors" of Monticello, and their snapshot version of history, but you never come out and say this explicitly. That seems to be a lot like the postmodernists you are critiquing of being unclear/confusing.
ReplyDelete