This week the readings are a number of ones that discuss historic sites and outdoor museums. In Gardner and LaPaglia’s Public History: Essays from the Field there were a number of readings. They were Antoinette Lee’s Historic Preservationists and Cultural Resources Managers: Preserving America’s Historic Places, At Historic Houses and Buildings: Connecting Past, Present, and Future by George McDaniel, William Pretzer’s At Historic Sites and Outdoor Museums: A High-Performance Act, and At Historical Parks: Balancing a Multitude of Interests by Bruce Noble. The others were Margaret Lindauer’s The Critical Museum Visitor and chapter 3, Fear: Terrorism Memorials and Security Narratives in Erika Doss’s Memorial Mania: Public Feeling in America.
In her work Lindauer traces how to be a critical museum visitor. To do so she uses the example of the Heard Museum (Phoenix, Arizona) exhibit “A Revolution in the Making: The Pottery of Maria and Julian Martinez”.
Early on during the article she poses the question of what the word museum means to the reader. This is an intriguing question to me. One reason is that I believe that depending on the reader, the answers could run the gamut. And I would guess that if that same question was posed to those who might not necessarily pick up that work to read that the answers would range even more.
Lindauer states that after analyzing her study of this exhibit that she “generates a thesis statement that the heard Museum is immersed in and manifests multiple paradoxical relations, which collectively inhibit its potential to put new museum theory into practice” (222). I have to wonder if this is true in other museums as well. I would imagine it does so. Earlier in the work she poses the question of whose history is told. And that is a relevant thing to be pondering when examining museums. There is the wondering of what is the best thing to present to the public, what will interest them. That needs to be balanced by the demands of telling the truth in the story presented.
In her work Doss examines terrorism memorials in the United States. She focuses mainly on the 9/11 Memorials and the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial, while pulling examples of other memorials in to highlight key points of her analysis. She provides a critical analysis of the decision making process that goes into them and the views that others hold on them.
Early on in this chapter Doss states that “Local deaths and regional tragedies become the register of an official national culture, and acknowledging them becomes the purview of national political claims on their meaning and memory” (121). With my experience, this is quite true. When these tragedies happen there is a belief that it was the country that was attacked, that it is personal for everyone in the United States, regardless of what actually occurred. It is why in many, the ultimate decision of what occurs is not the decision of the people most closely effected, but by politicians who never met the victims of these acts.
Doss references the New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston, which is along the Freedom Trail. Doss states that it “combines towering monolithic forms and unexpected physical juxtapositions to evoke the ineffable” (134). During a visit to see a friend who was living at the time in Boston, we walked the Freedom Trail. We came upon this memorial, and it really makes people speechless. We didn’t realize what we had come to until we found a sign for it. Even without knowing what it was for, I still felt the reverence for the location.
“Terrorism memorials are among America’s top tourist attractions” (147). That’s it though, they have become attractions. It can in some ways be easy to understand why families and loved ones of those who died in these attacks do not always feel connected to the memorial or what it is evoking. I know more people who are not from NYC surrounding area who have gone to the memorial when on vacation in NY than those who were in NY or the surrounding area during that time. My friend’s cousin was in one of the Towers and her family did not go to the dedication for it. They felt that would be making public their private grief. Granted, they are one family of one person. But I do have to question how many others feel that way. This is not to say that these memorials do not need to exist. Quite the contrary actually. There is a need for them. But there does need to be discussion about the impact of them on survivors and families of victims.
Doss addresses the use of the names of the victims on these memorials. I feel like it is a humanizing aspect of the memorials. Names are powerful, and having names on something can give it a human touch. The Vietnam Memorial is an excellent example of that. It has the names, and provides a view of just the size of lost American lives.
She spends a long time discussing the emotions, feelings, and thoughts which are brought up when examining these memorials. Doss discusses how there is a belief about what is the “proper way” to present these memorials. Excellent example is Doss’s of Eric Fischl’s sculpture Tumbling Woman. I was curious to see more pictures of it so I went to his website (http://www.ericfischl.com/html/en/public/tumbling/TW_01.html). It is a haunting and thought provoking image, especially after having seen countless images of people falling from the upper stories of the Towers. I can understand the uproar over its September 2002 showing in Rockefeller Center. On the other hand, I think it is counterproductive to providing a clear understanding and reckoning of what occurred. Many times Doss mentions that there is a heroic resuce and survival narrative which exists in these memorials. And that is shown in the reaction to this work. I do wonder though, would there be a different reaction now, more than a decade after the initial devastation, then there was 1 year post 9/11.
In her work Lee traces what preservation historians and cultural resource managers are. The most important line in this article is the last. She states that “While academic historians may leave books to posterity; preservation historians leave preserves historic places for the public benefit” (139). This sums up the key role that these people play in the larger world around them. They help enable others to see the history that has helped lead the country to the place that it is now. They help provide context and understanding.
McDaniel discusses issues and areas where public historians, specifically those in house museums should focus. This work opens with discussion of the bifurcated culture that exists in America today. “As we Americans lose our history, up close and personal, we are pushed all the more to look elsewhere for it” (234). We reach out to these public places, read books and articles, yet there is a disconnect with our own personal history.
McDaniel believes that public historians “are called not just to think about history but to act. We are called to strive to connect people with their history and to help them thereby achieve a sense of belonging to a larger community, of belonging to those who came before and to those who will come after” (234). They provide a key role in creating this connection that can help them understanding their level of belonging.
At the end of the article McDaniel states that he hopes “that as the field of possibilities expands and as different types of places are preserved and opened to the public, they will touch more people and engage them in learning about history and in doing something about the preservation of our heritage” (254). He believes that it should not, and cannot just be the professionals doing the preserving and advocating. He sees there being a role for those who members of the community to do this work. They provide a level of accountability and care that is necessary for the most effective use of these resources. They also provide another resource for funding and support.
In his work Pretzer traces the roles that public historians have in their lives and with those who they work with. These works include politician, diplomat, performance artist, teacher, and knowledge worker. “I often feel that the work of a public historian is, at its most productive levels, a high-wire act, balancing risk and comfort” (258). There is a balancing of all the various demands of many types, with risk to create new opportunities, while still providing a high level of service. It is a place where you want to please everyone and that is generally just not possible.
When speaking about working on a site which discusses Thomas Edison, Pretzer states that “our job was to understand the issues that interested people, research those issues, and develop an experience or interaction with environoments, artifacts, and people that addressed those issues” (262). This seems to be something that would apply to many public history sites. This goes back to the balancing act of this field. You want to provide the experience that the visitors want, and one that they will enjoy. But there is also a need for there to be presentation of facts and information.
One area of this article that was enjoyable was about the public historian as diplomat. Pretzer states that “No small part of this work as diplomat is to represent the people of the past to the people of the present” (265). They are those who are reaching out to the world of the day and representing what occurred in the past. They are the ones who make sure to portray the truth and to lead to an understanding of what had occurred in the past.
In his work Noble discusses parks and their role, how to balance many interests, and the roles which are covered by those who work in them. They include research, interpretation, and cultural resources management. He talks about how they often times are a combination of natural and cultural resources. Noble also discusses how there is a relationship between cultural resources management and interpretation.
When discussing that relationship Noble states that “it is important for managers to ascribe proper value to essential activities that may takes place partially out of the public eye” (290). The activities which take place outside of the public eye are what allow those that take place in the public eye to occur. They work together to create the experience for those visiting.
At the end of the article Noble has a great point about these parks. “A park is not just a museum, or a resource preservation laboratory, or a place to conduct historical research, or a venue for presenting interpretive programs. Parks represent an amalgamation of all these things and more. Therein lies the challenge and the excitement of parks both as places to work and as places to visit” (293). The park provides a number of resources for those who visit and research. They are something which can provide a unique experience for those who choose to utilize them for the resource that they are.
Reflections on Public History 