Month: February 2015

Museum Critique and the Participatory Museum

Liu Bolin: Hiding in the City

I entered the museum with the intent to see how the art museum integrated participatory elements to its exhibits. I had not been to the art museum in years, so I was interested to see the changes that have occurred in the last 10 years. Surprisingly, despite the museum adding big screen TV’s; there was nothing particularly new or exciting in regards to a participatory museum. Using the chart on page 26 of The Participatory Museum, the gallery might reach stage two, since there are very few opportunities to participate with the content or with other museum visitors.

To the immediate left, as visitors enter the exhibit space, there is a small television that plays a four-minute animated cartoon describing social skills needed for museum etiquette. Even though the cartoon is cute, the television is in an awkward space – right in the way of traffic, and it is hard to stand there for the full film. It might be more appreciated and appropriate in the children’s section.

The first thing I noticed about Bolin’s work is that the pictures are hyper glossy. I spent about 3 seconds at each piece, sometimes straining to find the artist. (Bolin is painted in order to blend with his background.) A docent, Alize Norman, must be a regular face in the museum- there was a line of people milling around waiting to ask her questions. She was caring and kind to the visitors. The other docents, meanwhile, just walked around and looked too busy to help. My experience in the first room was pretty superficial; the artwork was neat, but I did not realize that there was a “message” to the art.

In the second room, the large picture of Cancer Village was the first sign that there was something deeper to the exhibit, that Bolin was more than a gimmick. In the corner of this second gallery is a screen that has interviews and a Ted Talk with the artist. The 7.5-minute Ted Talk is imperative to get the deep message of the artwork. It turns to the art from a really neat “Where’s Waldo” type game to a very meaningful and thoughtful experience. Unfortunately, the set-up is uncomfortable. The seats are low and the screen is too close for me to see comfortably, and the seat hard on the behind. Since it is in a dark corner, I kind of felt like I was in trouble. I would never have used this set- up if it weren’t for the class. Other people would stop and watch me watch the screen, but while I was in that gallery, no one else watched the films. It is a missed opportunity, for the films are so good. Maybe if the films were available to watch on a coffee-shop type countertop with high stools and laptops and headphones, the station would be more welcoming and popular.

The Boise Art Museum definitely is highly participatory in regards to its children’s program. In this, the museum achieves every step of social participation. It is also careful to ensure that each age level is given opportunity to interact with art. The Art Experience Gallery has solitary activities such as blocks and jigsaw puzzles to a highly participatory art class that is based on Bolin’s exhibit. The hands-on class was filled with 15 children and 10 adults who were busy sharing art supplies and encouragement. Also, at the entrance of the museum, Family Activity Packs are available for checkout. These packs include: a book on what to look for in museums, a list of things to search for in the museum, and drawing pads where children can draw a picture of their favorite things they see. This pack provides a great way for parents to interact with their children as well as the museum.

For adults and teens, the only digital opportunity to create comes from a set of computers that are located in a tucked away space. Here, there are three activities visitors can do to interact with the museum. The first activity is to create a new “label” for a piece of art displayed on the screen. I did not understand the purpose of this activity, since the art shown already had the official name of the piece, its description, etc. I could not see why anyone would want to create a new label, unless it was to be snarky. There are no example of anyone else who had done this activity, so I was not sure what the expectations were or where other visitor’s were going with the activity. The second activity is to create a postcard that would be e-mailed to the creator. The final option is to leave a comment about the user’s museum experience. I realize that there is a big push to integrate digital components into the museum, but the activities are shallow and the second activity, in particular, is confusing. The computers go against what Simon admonishes – digital and participatory elements need to have meaning, not just be fun or be there for the sake of being there.

Why is there such a discrepancy between the opportunities to participate between children and adults?

In the reading, I am concerned about the use of perks to increase the number of memberships. I understand that most museums are in a financially precarious situation and need to increase revenue, but how does this not go against the quest to democratize public history? Thoughts?

Public History Career

I had a conversation with Ken Swanson about a public history career. Ken has been involved in museums for over 41 years and has been a member of the Idaho State Historical Society for 31 years. He has held positions at every level in Idaho, from volunteer to the director of the Idaho State Historical Museum. Ken was the Executive Director of the Idaho Military Museum for five years before he retired, but still fills in as a volunteer when they are shorthanded. We talked about the job of a curator generally, but with an emphasis on smaller non-profit history museums.  Ken considers himself a “backdoor historian” who had a youthful infatuation with museums and artifacts. Because of this, he volunteered at local institutions eventually pursuing a degree in archeology.  He got his master’s at Idaho State University and while there, he also oversaw the university’s archeological collection.

I was impressed, or more correctly, intimidated by the breath of responsibility a curator in a small non-profit museum has.  In this position, you may have responsibility for presenting ideas to the board, fundraising, planning exhibits, building exhibits, publicity events, staging reenactments, bringing exhibits to schools and civic groups.  Furthermore, as the only full-time staff member in a small museum you need to understand museum collections, including conservation, storage techniques/environmental criteria, collections record keeping and how to work with conservators, specialists, technicians, volunteers, interns and obviously the board. Additionally, you have to know something about the legal aspect of accepting donated objects and the law concerning museum governance.  When I told Ken this sounded overwhelming to me and would scare me away from a career in a small museum, his reply was that it is one of the best training opportunities for learning about every job and position a museum has to offer, despite its grueling nature.

The biggest hurdle Ken identified for small museums is probably the same for all history museums—funding—seeing as it is easier for art or science museums to receive patronage than history museums. Art has a cachet for a certain social set and industry sees potential profits in supporting science exhibits. As a 501(c)(3), educational non-profit institution, all the museum’s activities, are entirely funded by charitable donations, gift shop sales and special events.  This is very common except for those organizations that are specifically designated as state or federal museums.  An indirect consequence of school funding cuts, in the last several years, has made it less likely that schools can go to museums. In order to provide children with the opportunity to learn about their exhibits the IMHM has gone to schools to make presentations increasing their workload and expenses.  I wonder how many other museums would be willing or able to go to schools, or what the rules are from a school’s perspective on allowing museum staff/volunteers/exhibits in their schools.  Ken said they even have gone to senior centers.  It seems to me this is a form of outreach, a going to the audience, rather than waiting for them to come to the museum that is participatory in one sense we have talked about in class.

In talking about the push since the 1960s to include voices that previously have been excluded from history, Ken told me that the IMHM had included more women’s exhibits to help bring women’s role in the military more to the fore.  However, he explained that any exhibit costs time, effort and money, resources that your organization wants to see a return on in terms of an audience who comes to see the exhibit, and your area may not have an audience to support such an exhibit.  While understanding Ken’s point of view I still believe it is incumbent upon us to include those voices that may not get a large audience.  And are we sure, say an exhibit on Mexican-American/Hispanic contribution to the military would not garner a large audience?  Or how about an exhibit on Japanese-Americans’ whose families were interned in Idaho, or were from Idaho who served in WWII.  How many people know the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, made up of Japanese-Americans is the most decorated US military unit ever, and many were recruited from internment camps?  Ken’s experience was that sometimes the board or others would be the active agent for a project, but for the most part, he discovered that if he was proactive and brought ideas to the board, with a rough plan of how to bring a proposed exhibit to fruition, his ideas were endorsed.  Given this possibility, perhaps what might be perceived initially as a low interest event could be birthed with the right kind of preparation.

I saw Ken become most animated and enthused when we talked about the power of the internet to facilitate participation versus seeing an artifact in person.  He told me he still sees himself, even after 41 years in museums as a “carny barker” using an artifact as a “hook” to enthrall visitors with a history story.  His enthusiasm made me think again about how to get artifacts out of the museum and to people if they can’t or won’t go to museums.  Where is the artifact and the passionate storyteller in any museum that could leave the building to go to others and inspire them.

Ken’s advice to anyone interested in a public history career is get as much experience as you can through volunteering and internships. Firstly, this will help you assess whether it is something you really want to do; secondly, it gives you practical experience and knowledge in the field; thirdly, it helps you build your resume and fourthly it earns you recommendations from your supervisors. He also advised getting as broad an experience in all facets of museum work as possible because you never know where a job opportunity might arise.  Based on course readings, class discussion, and life experience this seems like reasonable advice.  In terms of formal education, his opinion is a BA or BS in history or anthropology/archeology is sufficient for entry-level positions,  a master’s degree for more senior positions, but not necessarily anything more advanced as it becomes too specialized, unless you are absolutely sure of your goal.

 

The Fallibility of Memory

Since we have talked about history and memory in class, thought possibly this would be of interest. The National Council on Public History posted it, by the way: Public History News Update – February 11, 2015

The fallibility of memories. In light of the recent controversy surrounding news anchor Brian Williams, this article from the New York Times reminds us how slippery and fuzzy the human memory can be. http://nyti.ms/1uFoYan (And didn’t we talk about this memory thing before? Why, yes we did, in December. http://nyti.ms/1CG2lWx )

Was Brian Williams a victim of False memory? By Tara Parker Hope
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/was-brian-williams-a-victim-of-false-memory/?_r=0

Interview with Professor John Lutz

On Friday, February 6th 2015, I was privileged to speak with associate professor John Lutz of the University of Victoria. Professor Lutz teaches Native History, but is also heavily involved in several digital public history projects. His story begins around 2000, when Professor Lutz began collaborating with colleague Ruth Sandwell about a historical murder involving Native and Black Canadians. As they shared knowledge and dove deeper into the research, they discovered that there was enough evidence available to question the outcome of the trial; perhaps not enough to make irrefutable claims, but certainly enough to list several other suspects. Over the next several years, Lutz and Sandwell would develop their research into a murder mystery series, targeted for school age students (but also enjoyed by the general public). The Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History website was born, including dozens of other mysteries researched by collaborators all over Canada. The website would serve to not only teach the public about their Canadian history, but also to teach critical history skills; such as research, analysis, comparison of contradictory sources, and deductive reasoning.

Untitled

 

Professor Lutz has gone on to work with many other digital platforms such as Google Sketch Up, GIS, Wikis, and student published websites. He was fortunate enough to learn a coding skills before he began his tenure at the University and he has been a part of Web 2.0 from the beginning. I was delighted to have Professor Lutz’s expertise for this interview, because I am interested in doing exactly what he has already done. I would like to combine my teaching, historic, and digital skills to bring historic knowledge and methods to the general public. My questions to Professor Lutz focused on his interactions with the public and his involvement with digital tools.

Although he is primarily employed in the academic sphere, Professor Lutz has constant interactions with public entities. He emphasized the marriage of academia and public history, noting that history is not some frill to be kept in an ivory tower, but is instead a civic duty. It is a historian’s duty to educate the public and help fix misconceptions, but it also the civic responsibility of the public to deeply understand their roots and value the lessons learned from history. Professor Lutz is helping to develop a Public History Master’s program at his university, which will give practical experience in the community to the graduate students.

Professor Lutz encouraged me to develop several important skills to be a part of this field. A historian interested in digital projects does not need to be an expert in all technical aspects, but a certain level of comfort is necessary. He admitted that he has deficiencies in all the digital programs that he uses, but he has enough technical knowledge that he can recognize where he needs to go for help and who needs to be involved for the project to be successful. He also stressed how important pedagogy was. He encouraged me to tap into my experience as a teacher to become a public historian who could engage with the public in a real and relevant manner. He inspired curiosity. The digital world is constantly changing and if I want to be a part of it, I must be willing to get messy, make mistakes and try new things. His last piece of advice was really fascinating. He encouraged me to get in on the ground level of gaming technology in history. Simulated reality is one of the best methods for learning and the potential to develop history games has yet to be tapped in to.

Professor Lutz mentioned the difficulties of funding and encouraged me to seek many different avenues for finding money. He was fortunate to receive government grants for the Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History website, but he was still required to raise additional funds. Although he warned that it takes work and perseverance, he was optimistic about finding money for these types of projects.

The Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History website has around 2,500 visitors every day, ranging from Canadian students, to English language learners around the globe, to Australian students studying colonialism. He has created a history tool that is not only creative and interesting, but also useful. I hope to emulate him in my future endeavors.

An interesting idea….

http://camh.org/exhibitions/your-landmy-land-election-12

Here is an interesting exhibit by Johnathan Horowitz about elections.   I like how both sides are represented and that there is a place for discussion.   This exhibit took place in 17 different locations from around the country at the same time.   That would make for interesting compare/contrasts to see regional patterns.

 

 

Museums and a Culture of Justice

This week’s readings regarding the role of museums in responding to current events centered around ideas of social justice all came from a progressive, activist stance within the museum field. A fundamental question to the readings was “what is the role of museums?” in addressing social justice, current events, race, activism, etc. In this regard, they were all in agreement that museums do have a role. No one argued that they don’t. I thought the articles/blog entries were inspiring, but only a few times did they mention the landscape they are up against. Perhaps it is difficult in this time to find anything written from a staunchly opposite viewpoint, but I am interested in the type of resistance proponents of socially conscious institutions face. One roadblock that was mentioned surrounded funding, a reoccurring and discouraging aspect of museum work for us this semester. Writing about the invisible histories of privileged institutions which are linked to infrastructures of colonialism and slavery, Trivedi remarks, “Now that I’ve worked at a museum for some time, I have a better understanding of why these histories aren’t included in museums’ narratives. Museums and cultural institutions in the U.S. function in an economic system that requires us to make decisions that will lead to reliable monetary outcomes.” This theme of brushing difficult or disruptive subjects under the rug as to not upset the precarious balance of traditional values and big-name endowments to an institution is a reality in the field at large. How can it be overcome to allow for the type of engaging, productive, community-focused education that the institutions in these articles advance?

That said, I do agree that museums have a social responsibility to address difficult issues that are happening in their environment, rather than act as a utopian space of humanity and enlightenment. They should serve as forums for community discussion, key players in community building, provide opportunities for continuing education, and a safe space for questioning and healing.

Two articles or examples stood out to me the most. First, the Northwest African American Museum’s #Ferguson PechaKucha stood out as an innovative way to build community and address pertinent national issues in locally-driven way. The featured panelists didn’t act as authorities on a topic, but were chosen to open discussion and introduce ideas from a broad range of perspectives. The use of the hashtagging continued the conversation locally, allowed participants to broadcast their perspectives during and following the event, and allowed them to participate in a national conversation. In this event, the museum served as a safe space for people to connect with the issue, engage each other in addressing it, shape a broader conversation, and provide tools for activism. It can be easily replicated in other institutions, dealing with a variety of issues. It allows the institution to participate in community building and in social justice in a democratic way, making their resources available without defining the way they will be used. Heeding the advice of Adams in “Practical and Compassionate Advice on Museums and Community Conflict,” however, this model can go even further. Adams cautions against reactionary engagement,  arguing that “Exhibits and programs with a community focus should not happen only after a tragic community event, but take place throughout the year.  By providing a space for difficult conversations on issues of race, class, gender identity, and immigration, museums establish themselves as a place where communities can come together to discuss conflict and begin to find resolution.” This is in the same vein as dialogic musuems and something that Sites of Conscience especially keep as part of their mission, but I think it is something both important and possible for a variety of cultural institutions, which broadly aim to serve the public.

Non-complicit Neutrality and “Public Engagement”

(As a preface, I ended up reading a larger scattering of online blogs throughout this process so I’ve inserted links when I quote something rather than just referring to the author because I think a couple were actually linked in the readings but not the actual assigned readings)

Museums should be neutral institutions and they should reflect the public they serve and the communities in which they lie. Unfortunately, neither of these is true. First, I offer a definition of neutral that differs from the traditional concept. Here, neutral does not mean silent. It does not mean complicit. Neutral means providing the public with the opportunity to engage with all sides of an issue. Museums should not be afraid to engage with difficult issues and should certainly be venues for public discussions on such issues. “By providing a space for difficult conversations on issues of race, class, gender identity, and immigration, museums establish themselves as a place where communities can come together to discuss conflict and begin to find resolution.” (Melanie Adams) As public institutions they need to serve the public in a democratic (equitable) manner. I am hesitant to support the idea that museums should take a stand on one side of an issue or another because, in so doing, I wonder, is half of the dialogue shut down or turned away? I do not mean to suggest that museums should not challenge their visitors’ beliefs. Rather, they should be facilitating the public dialogue that challenges long-standing prejudices, on both sides of an issue. In order to have true democratic deliberations on tough issues, all sides must be represented. In the past, one side dominated the other and public institutions (schools, museums, libraries) served to perpetuate that side’s viewpoint. Museums must be sites for open dialogue. A neutral territory is needed. Museums are capable of filling this need. “How do we facilitate a conversation that may include opposing, and heated, perspectives? How do we maintain a safe space while allowing people to disagree? How do we correct misunderstandings and faulty assumptions that emerge in conversation? How do we guide these conversations to help people better understand each other and the world we live in?” (Rebecca Herz). By remaining neutral and by training frontline staff in facilitation of difficult discussion, museums can begin to answer these questions and begin to create safe spaces for conflict conversations.

As for the idea that museums should reflect and serve their communities – it is fairly clear from the readings this week that many museums struggle with this. First, the history of museums are tied up in the institutionalization that perpetuate many of the problems between races, ethnicities, genders, and classes. Museums began as the wealthy white man’s collections and many museums still maintain this depiction, although they are open to an increasingly multicultural public. “Oppression plays a role in the history and acquisition of all the works in our collections, and if we are to grow with our communities we need to move towards a place where we can honestly talk about even the unpleasant aspects of all our histories.”(Nikhil). Multiple blogs called for top-down self-examination to ensure that museums are not just preaching equality, but also truly practicing it. “Most museums are largely staffed by white people. They often evidence a difference in the color of administrative and support staff. They are run by boards made up of the “One Percent”. Until we can make change in our own institutions, any effort to address issues such as the Ferguson grand jury verdict will be artificial, and will be perceived as such.” (Rebecca Herz). This is the first step in the process of ensuring that museums become institutions of the public as well as for the public. The next step is to include the public. As Melanie Adams said, we need to begin talking “with the community” and not “to the community”. How can we hope to serve the community if we do not know what the community needs? Museums must begin by engaging the public before a crisis arises. Museums should be inviting the public to participate and partnering with local groups to build relationships. This must be part of the vision and mission of the museum and involve the entire museum, top to bottom. Jeanne Vergeront states, “Nothing less than a whole-hearted, sustained effort, guided by an aligned vision and mission and community outlook; with committed resources and activities; and support all across the museum from leadership to the newest hire is essential for relevant and meaningful action to issues like Ferguson.”

As a slight aside, but relevant to this discussion, did anyone else hear any of NPR’s This American Life this weekend? (I tried to find a link to the actual episode, but their website wouldn’t load on my computer. There is a free podcast you can subscribe to if you are interested.) It discussed police and policing across the US in light of the events in Ferguson, New York, and elsewhere. One of the points that struck me while I was reading for this class, is the simple fact that the police in the interviews were constantly talking about “public engagement” and building trust within the communities they serve. It was interesting to find out what that engagement entailed and if any part of it included addressing institutionalized issues and prejudices.

Also, this David Fleming tweet.

Museum Neutrality Doesn’t Exist?

Overall, the opinions of the bloggers, museum presidents, and associations that we read for this week were in favor of museum involvement in current issues. From mission statements that called for diverse and inclusive staff and exhibits, to increasing opportunities for engagement with the community, every reading reflected the need for museums to be involved in civic engagement; particularly in regards to the most difficult and polarizing topics. I did appreciate the realistic honesty promoted by Trivedi in “Museums and #BlackLivesMatter”. I never participate in social media campaigns (such as #BringBackOurGirls or #ALSIceBucketChallenge) because I am not convinced  that they are super effective or done for the right reasons. Many of my friends on social media get swept up in hash tags and trends, but there is no action to back it up. I agree with Trivedi that, “Making statements in support of the current movements won’t fundamentally change the ways in which we relate to black people in our communities… If our actions don’t match our words, do they hold any meaning?”

Should museums be involved in social and political issues? It seems that for public institutions the answer is absolutely, yes. As public education institutions, museums have the obligation to use public funds to engage their audience in relevant discussions about issues that matter. Museums should be an open space that provide an opportunity for the public to get information, have conversations, and then form educated opinions.

Yet, what is the answer for private museums? I would argue that as places of learning, they should participate in the same way that public museums do. However, private funds can do as private funds want. Although the public uses these facilities, private museums are not beholden to the public in the same way that public museums are.

After an hour of trying to complete the assignment to find an example of a museum who had stayed neutral on a current event, I began to suspect that we had been set up! Not only was I at a loss for how to find an example that fit that bill, but I also came across many editorials that insisted on the impossibility of museum neutrality (e.g Museums Are Neutral Public Institutions…I Don’t Think So! and The Political Museum). It seems that museums fall in two camps; actively engaged in issues by fostering discussions or passively quiet on current events. If a museum falls into the “quiet” category, I would argue that they have in fact chosen a side. I agree with Desmond Tutu who said, “If you are neutral on situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

I thought of our conversation a few weeks ago about if a climate change exhibit or discussion could ever come to the Idaho State Historical Museum. We decided probably not. That omission does not mean that the museum is neutral; in fact, it means the opposite. Choices are calculated. The decision NOT to discuss something is as telling as the decision to include it.