This Wednesday, we started our discussion of Museum Revolutions by thinking about six chapters in the first half of the book:
1--Establishing the paradigmatic museum: Georges Cuvier's Cabinet d'anatomie compareé in Paris (Phiippe Taquet)
2--William Bullock: inventing a visual language of objects (Susan Pearce)
9--Before 'Te Maori': a revolution deconstructed (Conal McCarthy)
10--Museums, social responsibility and the future we desire (Robert R. Janes)
12--History museums, community identities and a sense of place: rewriting histories (Sheila Watson)
13-- Museums and the shaping of cultural identities: visitors' recollections in local museums in Taiwan (Chia-Li Chen)
Elee began our discussion by describing the "4A" Protocol for approaching texts, which asks each reader to consider the following questions:
• What Assumptions does the author of the text hold?
• What do you Agree with in the text?
• What do you want to Argue with in the text?
• What parts of the text do you want to Aspire to?
Although most of us were definitely ready to Agree and/or Argue, we arrived at some consensus, I think, that probably the most important part of determining the role of and necessity for any kind of "revolution" is understanding and voicing what assumptions condition it. (As exhausted as we all were after a long work day, it's probably the part that we need to work on the most, too.)
While most of us began by questioning what was revolutionary about the cases of Cuvier and Bullock, Alex said that both made him wonder what had been happening in the world of anatomical and zoological classification before their respective exhibitions. That is, as Abby and Erin asked through some fascinating discussion of extremophiles, what assumptions do we make about the domains of life itself?
Claire, meanwhile, pointed out that Bullock's inclusion of a exhibition book was an important aspect of the visitor experience that could facilitate both the visit and the memory of the visit, not to mention the book's function as advertisement. This led to some discussion of what information we assume is most important, as well as what we assume visitors want. As McCarthy argues, the history of museums includes a long legacy of dissent and complex postcolonial representations--a legacy which is sometimes overlooked as we think about relating to cultures other than our own. In talking about Te Maori, we discussed how the experience of visiting the Maori Meeting House at the Field Museum had been different for most of us, with particular attention to the juxtapositions of other rotating exhibits and our varying levels of familiarity with Maori cultural history. In other words, what assumptions do visitors make about choices in display, and what feeds those assumptions? Furthermore, what assumptions do museum professionals make about how spaces will be interpreted?
The problem of assumptions was particularly knotty with respect to Janes's chapter. As our discussion began to vortex into a series of specific sticking points, it was with some irony that we began to consider his section entitled "The assault on meaning." What we eventually came to was, as Elee put it, the tension between what "should be" and "the thing that actually happens." Nonetheless, Stephanie noted that this kind of tension is often a productive force. Although many of us took issue with specific statements in the chapter, Janes's call for "thinking about the way things could be, and then taking action" (see p. 141) seemed to strike a chord. At the same time, it became fairly evident that an important first step to any substantive change is considering and interrogating what we believe about the way things are.
We closed the evening by talking about the connections between identity, landscape, and myth in both Watson's work and Chen's. As Genny noted, more familiar connections exist in American historical sites of slavery, where past events might be alternately highlighted, whitewashed, or reimagined depending on the narrator; what goes unsaid is as important as overt messaging. In both chapters, any assumption about "the way things are" must be considered in relation to the emotional and political needs of those telling the story.
We will continue our discussion next week with a focus on the following chapters: 15 (Davis), 21 (Kelly), 23 (Lindauer), 24 (Golding), 25 (Cameron), and 28 (Hooper-Greenhill). Until then, happy (and critical) reading!
DH
1--Establishing the paradigmatic museum: Georges Cuvier's Cabinet d'anatomie compareé in Paris (Phiippe Taquet)
2--William Bullock: inventing a visual language of objects (Susan Pearce)
9--Before 'Te Maori': a revolution deconstructed (Conal McCarthy)
10--Museums, social responsibility and the future we desire (Robert R. Janes)
12--History museums, community identities and a sense of place: rewriting histories (Sheila Watson)
13-- Museums and the shaping of cultural identities: visitors' recollections in local museums in Taiwan (Chia-Li Chen)
Elee began our discussion by describing the "4A" Protocol for approaching texts, which asks each reader to consider the following questions:
• What Assumptions does the author of the text hold?
• What do you Agree with in the text?
• What do you want to Argue with in the text?
• What parts of the text do you want to Aspire to?
Although most of us were definitely ready to Agree and/or Argue, we arrived at some consensus, I think, that probably the most important part of determining the role of and necessity for any kind of "revolution" is understanding and voicing what assumptions condition it. (As exhausted as we all were after a long work day, it's probably the part that we need to work on the most, too.)
While most of us began by questioning what was revolutionary about the cases of Cuvier and Bullock, Alex said that both made him wonder what had been happening in the world of anatomical and zoological classification before their respective exhibitions. That is, as Abby and Erin asked through some fascinating discussion of extremophiles, what assumptions do we make about the domains of life itself?
Claire, meanwhile, pointed out that Bullock's inclusion of a exhibition book was an important aspect of the visitor experience that could facilitate both the visit and the memory of the visit, not to mention the book's function as advertisement. This led to some discussion of what information we assume is most important, as well as what we assume visitors want. As McCarthy argues, the history of museums includes a long legacy of dissent and complex postcolonial representations--a legacy which is sometimes overlooked as we think about relating to cultures other than our own. In talking about Te Maori, we discussed how the experience of visiting the Maori Meeting House at the Field Museum had been different for most of us, with particular attention to the juxtapositions of other rotating exhibits and our varying levels of familiarity with Maori cultural history. In other words, what assumptions do visitors make about choices in display, and what feeds those assumptions? Furthermore, what assumptions do museum professionals make about how spaces will be interpreted?
The problem of assumptions was particularly knotty with respect to Janes's chapter. As our discussion began to vortex into a series of specific sticking points, it was with some irony that we began to consider his section entitled "The assault on meaning." What we eventually came to was, as Elee put it, the tension between what "should be" and "the thing that actually happens." Nonetheless, Stephanie noted that this kind of tension is often a productive force. Although many of us took issue with specific statements in the chapter, Janes's call for "thinking about the way things could be, and then taking action" (see p. 141) seemed to strike a chord. At the same time, it became fairly evident that an important first step to any substantive change is considering and interrogating what we believe about the way things are.
We closed the evening by talking about the connections between identity, landscape, and myth in both Watson's work and Chen's. As Genny noted, more familiar connections exist in American historical sites of slavery, where past events might be alternately highlighted, whitewashed, or reimagined depending on the narrator; what goes unsaid is as important as overt messaging. In both chapters, any assumption about "the way things are" must be considered in relation to the emotional and political needs of those telling the story.
We will continue our discussion next week with a focus on the following chapters: 15 (Davis), 21 (Kelly), 23 (Lindauer), 24 (Golding), 25 (Cameron), and 28 (Hooper-Greenhill). Until then, happy (and critical) reading!
DH
No comments:
Post a Comment