Month: March 2011

For things he deems so important to contemporary American culture, Luke certainly doesn’t seem to find many strong points in the museums he cites as examples in this book. I have no trouble agreeing with his basic premises of the book that he reinforces in his conclusion–essentially, that museums are educational (and re-educational) tools that depict biased or politically influenced narratives of history, culture, etc. I do, however, have some issues with the hyperbolic criticisms that he inflicts on the museums he has chosen to examine.

I do not believe that the purpose of the Holocaust Museum, as Luke defines it, is to stand “forthrightly against all of the far-right or neofascist attempts to deny that the Holocaust even happened.” I think the museum’s purpose is simply to educate the public regarding the facts of what happened, and I don’t think there are truly enough Holocaust deniers in the world to warrant that statement. I also do not agree that the museum is too entertaining; it is shockingly compelling, but not over the top in its efforts to inform. Luke’s criticism of the images displayed there as being too horrific and shown too often so as to make them taken for granted contrasts with his previous criticism of the detractors of the Enola Gay/American West exhibits who wanted the exhibits to be overly politically correct. Luke neglects to suggest what type of balance he believes should be instated for museums exhibiting controversial subjects such as these.

On the other hand, his depictions of how the Museum of Natural History and the Missouri Botanical Garden define discourse and cultural realities seems quite exaggerated. I have no doubt that, upon its establishment, the Museum of Natural History provided an unprecedented and influential glimpse into “the disorder of beings, ordinarily known as ‘life.'” (Make it stop!) However, his implication that “people probably learn much more about art, culture, history, nature, and science from museums” than they do elsewhere is entirely unfounded.

Finally, I found it hard to understand why Luke seemed to be able to accept the Missouri Botanical Garden’s “florapower” narrative while rejecting that of the Sonora Desert Museum. Surely the Botanical Garden must not be completely accurate in its representations either. However, since it seems that Foucault would have absolutely loved the Missouri Botanical Garden, I guess his self-appointed apotheosizer is obligated to do so as well.

After reading “Southwestern Environments as Hyperreality: The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum” by Timothy Luke there are a lot of contradictions and unresolved issues I would love for him to explain.  I agreed that the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum romanticized the desert landscape of Arizona perpetuating a cultural landscape myth of exotic mystery emanating from the dirt, rock formations, and cacti.  The danger of having visitors or residents in Arizona believe in this hyperreality of an engineered landscape attracts more people to this fragile environment and encourages residential over-development.  Bringing more residential and commercial development to the area starkly contrasts with the museum’s desire to promote conservation and environmentalist policies.

Luke seems to be affronted by the museum for Nature itself (or herself).   He claims, “if [the] tourists went elsewhere, and if the developers closed out their many construction projects, the Sonoran Desert might well thrive as it did during the four millenia prior to the Arizona territory’s acquisition by the United States of America (162).”  This particular quotation sums up many of the issues I had with this chapter.  I will try to ignore Luke’s oversight in assuming that only white Americans have ever had any influence on the environment of Arizona, but he even seems to classify humans as non-human nature in this chapter.  Luke also fails to offer any solutions on how this unique environment could be interpreted for a wider audience who don’t have the stamina to wander around the desert and fend of snakes for days at a time.  Luke made some interesting points about how the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum struggles to live up to its environmental and conservationists aims and the dangers posed by presenting a hyperreality to the public.  However, he fails to offer a viable solution (other than shutting down the museum completely) that would help this museum defend the environment it is trying to portray.

A theme in all the readings included, the ways in which a museum is to display and inform the public while being historically accurate as well as sensitive to a variety of groups.  A museum wants people to come to the museum, because it requires patrons and donations or earnings to keep the museum going.  However, after completing the reading it seems impossible to meet everyone’s expectations.  For example, at the Air and Space Museum there was a great deal of arguing as to the display of the B-29 bomber the Enola Gay.  Its pilot, Brigadier General Tibbets was angry that the Enola Gay was being displayed in parts, and was not fully restored.  Also, when deciding the script that would accompany the display, there was some debate as to the discussion on the use of the atomic bombs as well as photos of women and children’s’ burned bodies after the bombings.  Some images or displays some may believe to be too graphic or shocking.  However, as a museum it should be able to display images that are relevant to the history of the artifacts.

How are historians and museums able to dial down the horrors of war and other tragic events, and be historically accurate? In my opinion, they can’t, tragic events in history can’t be dialed down to better suit the public.  In the text there is the mention of the Holocaust Museum as a horror tour.  For example, the museum has a display in which the process of arriving and then being processed to the gas chambers.  It is a display based on actual events, so it is educational not a horror tour.  There is not a way to make the Holocaust Museum less graphic or shocking to some because it is teaching about the slaughter and genocide of 6 million Jews.  In contrast, the Fred Harvey Museum displays Native American art, however does not include the information including; death marches, reservation systems, and any information about Native American culture.  The focus is only on the artwork.

I love museums, and as an art history minor, I was required to read several institutional critiques similar to Luke’s. While I have never felt personally assaulted by this wave of political overture during any visit to any museum, I am aware that these political threads do indeed run deep. When you start to pick apart the pieces of any institution, such as the Heard Museum in Phoenix, we can begin to understand the subtle nature of the normalization, discursive persuasion, and commodification of cultural heritage.

Strange that as Mrs. Heard and Mr. Harvey were busy gathering “authentic” native artifacts, which were supposed to represent an authentic past, they were also requiring that these artifacts accommodate a new end, the tourists of the American Southwest. These objects, then, no longer represent their previous utility, yet they continue to define the “authentic” works produced by Native Americans.

It makes me think, how should I represent the history that I want to tell? Are there any political ‘land mines’ that I should be aware of? Will my representation neutralize, expand, or explain any particular perspective over another? Should it?