Category: Reading Reflections

Having read Tony Horwitz’s Confederates in the Attic, I had a very superficial understanding of reenactors before reading this week’s articles. Horwitz experienced a civil war reenactment with some ‘hardcore’ reenactors. His perspective on the men was rather different from the opinions of Kowalczyk and Little. Horwitz, while originally seeing their reenactment as playacting and childish, eventually comes to respect the men who devote their time to authenticity and history. Kowalczyk and Little look at the reenactors through the lens of a historian while Horwitz observes as a journalist. This juxtaposition brings up an interesting thought. While historians may not appreciate what they see as play acting at history and escapism, a journalist respected the men and developed a new found appreciation for the history depicted. It’s no secret that certain reenactments are popular draws for tourists. Just how different is reenactment from a museum using reproductions of Tutankhamun’s funerary artifacts in order to draw them to their museum? I personally see little harm in reenactment of certain events, especially if they history is depicted in good faith.

Wikipedia, ironically, worries me more than reenactors. Famiglietti does a great job of pointing out the fault in Messer-Kruse’s argument. The depiction of consensus as Truth is not history to me. How often to historians all agree on one version of history only to eventually reject their earlier convictions? The ‘history’ written during slavery was likely a consensus but not truth. Every teacher and professor in the academic world warn their students not to use wikipedia as a source but not even that is a good enough disclaimer for the website. With the inclusion of footnotes, now, different pages may appear legitimate enough. With the power wikipedia wields on the internet I believe there needs to be more responsibility. Wikipedia needs to reevaluate their motives and influence. They are a website of consensus, not facts or truth and, in my opinion, certainly not history.

Historical re-enacting and living history attempt to provide both educational and informational opportunities for a broad public audience. However, despite this reality, and possibly because of the complicated nature of recreating the past, this type of historical interpretation is not always appreciated or considered a viable option for explaining historical events. The articles for this week brought up many issues and concerns regarding the re-enacting of historical events and tried to shed light on the issues that have limited the success and approval of this form of history.

One of the issues that both Nick Kowalczyk and Ann M. Little mention in their articles revolves around the desire (or obsession?) to re-enact the traumatic and bloody experiences of war. How does recreating a war as a “G-rated” version trivialize the original event? And since there is so much emphasis on ending the wars the United States is currently involved in, how does the American public reconcile with re-enactors’ desires to commemorate past battles through recreation? I did think that it was notable that Little acknowledged that the re-enactors discussed in Kowalczyk’s article were not Civil War re-enactors, but rather the Seven Years War re-enactors. However, her discussion of this distinction was somewhat lackluster. In my experience, re-enactors of past wars approach their roles in similar ways, and their actions mimic each other. In other words, while their uniforms might be different, their desire to re-create battles is markedly similar. Aside from the limited conversations I have had with Corey, I do not know any other “war re-enactors.” I have, however, had the opportunity to meet Clay Jenkinson, who is an author and humanities scholar, and also a Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt “impersonator.” The work that Jenkinson does, mostly in the form of Q&A interviews while in “character,” provides a tangible and useful method of incorporating the ideologies and personal experiences of influential historic figures into current debates about a multitude of issues. I feel that the readings should have reflected the different means of re-enacting in order to reflect on this particular approach. Knowing that Jenkinson is an expert scholar on both Jefferson and Roosevelt, I consider the work that he does as an “impersonator” extremely useful, entertaining, and insightful for both academic and public audiences. I think this particular approach will replace battle re-enacting as the popular form of living history.

I have added some links to some of Jenkinson’s interviews and performance if anyone is interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nSnRCHyXOY

http://www.jeffersonhour.com/

http://www.odytours.net/

As for Wikipedia….

Noam Cohen alludes to the problem of gender gaps within the larger community of Wikipedia contributors. I was under the assumption that because of the twenty-first century, digital nature of Wikipedia, the contributors would represent a more equal male/female ratio. I was obviously wrong. And while this particular article highlighted the problems of gender inequality in regard to Wikipedia, this is an issue that all women in the workforce are currently facing. Sheryl Sandberg, the current COO for Facebook, has stepped up as a crusader fighting for equal opportunities for women in the workforce. As part of a TED talks series from 2010, she mentioned multiple statistics that show that less than 15% of women are reaching high-level positions within any profession anywhere in the world. These numbers mimic the percentage of women contributors at Wikipedia. She goes on to explain that there are specific reasons why women are not making better strides in the workforce, and she encourages women to take risks, and reach for opportunities. I feel as though this approach is worth hearing, and if it is to be successful for women contributors at Wikipedia or for women in other professions, it must be attempted whole-heartedly.

If you are interested in hearing this TED talk, the link is below. I have also added some additional links regarding Sheryl Sandburg and her stance on this issue.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2013/03/03/sheryl-sandberg-is-right-women-must-lean-into-risk/

Who gets to decide what history is valuable enough to be presented to the public?  Who gets to determine how that history will be interpreted?  These are questions that ran through my mind as I read all of the articles this week.  In this case the focus was on the British representation of the French and Indian War and it was their “truth” that was presented.  For those representing this view the siege of FortNiagara was a pivotal event in American history because the British won.  Without a British victory at this battle the French would have controlled the Northeast and the Revolution would not have occurred.  Although this is the only truth that was presented in this article, it is not the only view of this particular battle.  The French have a completely different opinion of the French and Indian War.  They see it as the beginning of a time of oppression by the British.  Their truth is not considered relevant to men dressed up as Rogers Rangers.  The response to the bitterness of the French people regarding a traumatic event in their past was that they are a “bunch of asshole French separatists.”  I also wonder what modern day eastern Native American tribes think as the watch the reenactments.  Their opinion is not sought out by those representing the American truth but I’d be willing to bet it’s not happiness that the British defeated the French in this particular war.

The Civil War reenactors have some of the same issues.  They represent a specific idea of Confederate history and have not updated that view in years.  This outdated stand is apparently driving new members away from joining the fun.  No one wants to be part of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.  If they don’t change the way they approach the Civil War, change their truth, then they will simply fade away as their members die.

This representation of a narrow “truth” is one of the issues facing history and historians.  Without looking at how an event shaped all involved, how can we honestly say that we understand the past?  The single focus interpretation becomes dangerous ground when people want to spread ideas that confine minority cultures to the fringes of society.  I am also bothered by the response of Andy Famiglietti who stated that: “Consensus, then, is an important mechanism by which we judge the validity of certain truth-claims.”  This is troubling.  I agree with Famiglietti that Wikipedia “demonstrates that it holds a deep respect for a collaborative scholarly process that is collectively more capable of producing “truth” than any individual scholar.”  However, when one organization, even one created collaboratively by the people, controls that much information the possibility for twisting “truth” exists.  Famiglietti is not a historian so maybe he doesn’t remember that the Americans twisted facts and created a consensus “truth” that the Japanese needed to be rounded up and placed in internment camps for national security.  Consensus does not always mean that those with coinciding opinions are correct.  Sometimes it just means that ignorance and hate are easy to spread.

This week’s articles examined the business aspects of the museum world.  While I understand the need to develop business models to adapt to changing times and interests, it seems too far to suggest that museums have to become more corporate in order to survive.  As others have mentioned in their replies, if business and profit become the only concerns, the heart of the museum disappears.  What then determines what is preserved for future generations?  History as it actually happened or a sensationalized, over the top version designed to draw more visitors/customers and money into the museum?  The move towards a more corporate model focusing on profits and losses presents a new set of problems that must be navigated.

The issue that must be first examined is how to better engage the visitor with the museum experience.  Once that has been accomplished, the museum can then move on to devise new ways of presenting information and artifacts.  The internet offers so many different ways to captivate an audience and draw them into the magic of museums.  Spock’s article offered an interesting approach towards embracing the nostalgia that many hope to find when they visit museums.  We live in such a disposable society that most people are searching for a connection to either their own personal history or our collective heritage.  That is a factor that cannot be easily quantified in a business model.

The readings this week talked about the need for museums to change.  While I agree that the internet and technology is a tool that should be used, I am a bit concerned with the idea of museums as businesses with customers.  When used as a tool to help define the role of the administrative and financial area of the museum, a business model can be highly effective.  However, should museum visitors truly be considered “customers”?  I have my doubts on that.  Museums need to be separate from the “profit at any cost” ideals that have taken over the corporate world.  While making a profit is not in itself a negative, I fear that by opening the door to a corporate identity, museums risk becoming soulless entities focused not on nostalgia but on profit.  Museums should be places where art and history combine to raise questions and create thoughtful conversation.  They should help us remember those things that bring shame and those things that bring us pride.  They should be a place where people come to look upon that which is beautiful and that which is profane.   This is what all museums should aspire to.  When profit becomes the very reason to exist I fear that those ideals will be left behind.  By using technology museums can give access collections that have not been available for years.  People living as far away as India could see the FieldMuseum in Chicago.  A student in Alabama could visit the Egyptian section at the BritishMuseum.  As technology advances, those connections will become more and more powerful.  I would hate to see those connections lost because they are not profitable.

I really appreciate the Kotter’s comments on what is really necessary for change in a museum. As Falk and Sheppard said, the changes we are experiencing today are revolutionary (385). Museums can no longer maintain the status quo without being left behind. That change, however, is in no way easy. Kotter points out that even when the will is there the odds are against you when wanting to change your museum. Instead of becoming discouraged by this perspective, I find myself encouraged. It will take people like us – fresh, motivated, and willing to work hard to make things happen – to move aid motivated museums into this revolutionary era.

The common theme I noticed in these pieces was a need for cooperation among a number of different people. I appreciate that Kotter especially pointed out that it takes more than a motivated curator or director to make change happen. It take the board, directors, curators, interns, and the community to really revolutionize a museum. I have been lucky enough to work with a museum that actually managed to bring everyone together and revitalize their museum. It was hard, there were a some patrons who were unhappy with the change (they were the type of people who were upset with *any* kind of change so I wasn’t too worried by their comments), and the work isn’t finished even 5 years into the movement. If we can adopt a simple majority of the skills laid out of us starting on pg 500, then I think each of these articles holds hope as much as realistic warnings for future museum workers and patrons.

The theme fit perfectly for this week, there needs to be change within the museum’s and how they conduct their business operations.  Like everything in life, things change, and museums need to change as we are in the twenty-first century. Falk and Sheppard’s section on “Creating a New Business Model” showed the importance of strategy within a business. If you do not have a strategy, the business is not likely to succeed. One of the things they brought up that seemed most relevant concerned the notion that museums, or non-profit organizations in general, need to follow the models of the for-profit organizations (383). I loved how they kept reminding us of the importance of change, nothing can stay static for very long in a society that is constantly evolving. They also stated museums once lived in a world free from the “tawdry demands of the marketplace.” (381). Well, that is not the case anymore and therefore changes must be made to cope with that changing market.

However, as Kotter noted in “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail,” change is not easy and it takes a certain individual to make it happen (521). Leadership is required for change to take place and it makes sense because not everyone thinks they need to change, so it takes a leader to make it occur. The eight steps Kotter addressed to transform an organization were insightful and seemed relevant and logical approaches to tackling such a task. Simply by looking at what he claimed an organization needed in order to transform, it did seem a daunting task, but a necessary one in many cases where organizations have fallen behind in the twenty-first century.

The chapter “Museums and Libraries in the 21st Century” discussed the three shifts having effects on museums and libraries in this era: the economy, societal needs and audience expectations (497). With the changing society, technology, economy, etc, new skills are needed. In a country and a century that many consider technologically advanced, more interactivity is expected by the audience. As our society changes, the expectations do as well, therefore our organizations must change. A very enlightening set of chapters that stressed the need for change which it seems many are either fearful of or not prepared for.

While I agree with many of the points made in the readings this week, I’m happy we are finishing Reinventing the Museum. The arguments against top down management in favor of cyclical (383-384), or creating a guiding coalition for implementing innovation (524) are great, however these authors need more concrete examples of success in the 21st century. I feel these authors are reacting to the economic slump we have found ourselves in and are trying to shape a future for museums without many examples of what success looks like.

For example the article by the Institute of Museum and Library Services gives plenty of examples of the way the job market is changing and what skills are needed for the future, but the list they provided has no weight behind it because there is no evidence accompanying it. I would much rather read about a specific institution that is succeeding in 2013. What are they doing? What skills are they looking for? As far as I saw, these articles did not give enough examples from the real world. Even though they give great advice, if I was a museum director I couldn’t use this book to guide me in decision making because none of the models on these pages give examples of success. The blog we explored does give examples of emerging trends, however it is a blog and lacks the rigors of publishing. Again, if I was a museum director putting together a proposal for a major directional change for my institution, could I cite Reinventing the Museum or the Future blog as evidence for my decision? Why should I trust these sources if they can’t show some examples of their model working?

The reading this week reminded me of an interview on the Colbert Report with the Lt. Governor of California, Gavin Newsom. In his new book Citizenville, Newsom argues for similar changes in local governments to the changes advocated in Reinventing the Museum – open access, individualized interactions, two-way conversations, etc. While Newsom’s ideas seem great and point to a better model for governing, he spoke to Stephen only using mantras and techspeak. Colbert continued to ask Newsom what he was getting at, but the Lt. Governor couldn’t explain himself without using the 21st century abstract sayings. Colbert said,  “What do you mean? Again, every single one of these things could be carved on a stone and put in someone’s garden as like, as like a mantra.” This may be just what happens when we try to describe the future without really knowing what to expect.

I think we have some good ideas here, with reinventing our institutions for the 21st century. I think we need some more writing on some good case studies or examples from places that are making a difference in their community. The Denver Public Library for example, has some innovative programs worth studying. I would like see some ideas put to action!

Looking at museums from a business perspective is crucial to understanding the role that museum and other historic entities will play in the twenty-first century. Not having a business background I really appreciated the way that the articles for this week presented business concepts and models in a way that was very straightforward and relatable. Since most museums are considered non-profit organizations, many people do not think of museums in business terms, but rather in terms of what a museum can bring to a community or in terms of the importance and relevance of the artifacts. While this might be an understandable perspective for the general public, I found it rather shocking that in some instances professionals working with museums have yet to understand the importance of looking at a museum as a business. In the article, “Creating a New Business Model,” authors John Flak and Beverly Sheppard attempt to define the term business model and explain the importance of business models for museums. Within this article, however, they also explain with urgency that museums need to shift their perspective to include a more business-minded understanding of their role in the larger business world. Flak and Sheppard explain that, “nonprofits, like museums, have business models just as certainly as do for-profits; it’s just that they are not always aware of it” (p. 380). This example works as proof that museums need to reexamine their position as a business in order to ensure the continued existence and presence of museums as a necessary piece of a thriving community.

            As I began to search the Center for the Future of Museums blog, I tried to keep the idea of business models in the back of my head. As I searched I came across a post from January 17, 2013, titled, “For Your Financial Radar: Social Impact Investing.” I found this post very interested and directly related to the readings for this week regarding good business practices. The blog post focused on a relatively new mode of investing that combines for-profit, nonprofit, and government entities. This type of social impact investing allows for different entities to enter into a project with different levels of risk and payoff options. Although some of the financial jargon was a little over my head, I did appreciate that this type of investing intentionally brings together groups and organizations from different sectors of the economy and any sort of collaborative effort will ultimately yield positive results.