Category: Reading Reflections

This week’s readings offered an interesting examination of the ethical problems facing many museums.  The primary difficulty in dealing with these issues is attempting to determine what is ethical versus what is “legal”.  Ideally, the artifacts from Native American tribes should be returned to their rightful owners, whether that be the tribe itself or descendants.  Problems arise, however, when multiple tribes all lay claim to the same artifact or when there is no official, recognized group that represents the tribe in existence.  Do museums need to remove these objects from exhibits?  At what point does the educational benefit to the public outweigh the cultural traditions of the tribes?  If an item has no direct or easily discernible connection to a living member of the tribe, does it still need to be repatriated?

I also found the article on the issue of deaccessioning fascinating.  While all collections should be reevaluated in order to ensure that they are meeting the goals of the institution, I can see where problems could arise.  Something that could be viewed as having little to no value to a collection now could become quite a significant asset in the future.  On the other side, something that a museum elects to keep could later be found to be relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.  Additionally, what if something a museum elects to deaccession is later found to be culturally significant to a group of people who demand that the item be repatriated to them?  Although I think we would all argue that the terms ethical and legal are very concrete, there appears to be a great deal of grey area surrounding them in the museum world that many people are trying to clarify.

Phelan, Monroe and Echo-Hawk focus their essays on museum ethics and repatriation of artifacts.  Both pieces discussed the inherent issues behind the accidental or purposeful acquisition of stolen artifacts and then the repatriation of said artifacts to their rightful owners. While the issue can often have black or white examples, I feel that the authors did not explore the gray areas quite thoroughly enough. I know both essays had a word limit and all the authors involved needed to get their point across very quickly, and therefore would like to see if they cover the issue better in other works. The gray area, in my opinion, is that of preservation of the artifact. Repatriation from US museum artifacts back to American tribes is pretty cut and dry, but what about museums like the British Museum that contain artifacts from all over the world? Greece’s Parthenon is beautifully displayed in its own section of the British Museum, yet Greece has been trying to get their artifacts back for many years. Many countries have stolen Egyptian antiquities that obviously belong to the country of Egypt. In many cases, however, the artifacts repatriation would end in the destruction or damage of the artifact. Greece is completely broke and Egypt is a military dictatorship at the moment. Returning any artifacts to these countries would not bode well for the artifact’s continued existence.

 

These are extreme examples, to be sure, but should there be some question of ethics behind the preservation of artifacts as much as to whom they belong? To be honest here, I’m not sure what the correct answer is. A Crow headdress may belong to the tribe, but they may not have the ability or motivation to preserve the headdress in a way that it would survive the test of time. Should there be some guarantee of preservation or care? Or do the ethics of returning items to the original owner overshadow those questions and thoughts? Dr. Zahi Hawass was instrumental in the repatriation of many artifacts back onto Egyptian soil, yet most of his work has been damaged, destroyed, or stolen with the recent turn of Egyptian politics. Is there ever a guarantee of preservation when you’re letting one of your artifacts move to another space? I’m very interested to hear what you all have to say about this issue in class or perhaps in different articles for class.

The articles all dealt with an area of museums that I am very unfamiliar with which is how they conduct business. I always knew there has been a controversy over some museums, such as the British Museum, in what they take and whether or not it was taken lawfully. However, I never knew how in depth the process was and the laws put into effect because of it. “Deft Deliberations” confronted a very important topic with regards to the rights of Native American’s and the objects museum’s have acquired. Monroe and Echo-Hawk noted that “one of the many ‘trail of tears’ in American Indian history is the fact that U.S. museums and universities hold staggering numbers of dead native people who provide mute testimony to the pervasive violation of Native American rights.” (73) Knowing where, and how, a museum acquired its belongings is very important, I think the public should be aware of it as well. I have a hard time believing that the public would find museums dishonestly filling their displays as acceptable conduct. That being said, the article really set the stage for the coming articles in the sense that each one dealt with honest and dishonest methods museums used to acquire their items.

In Malaro’s article on deaccessioning, she explained the issues museums have with removing items from their exhibits. Where do they go? The codes listed by the AAM included some vital rules for museums to abide by, especially number 2 “When considering disposal, the museum must weigh carefully the interests of the public that it serves.” (80) One thing that really troubled me was the idea that since museums are a nonprofit organization, the governing board has the authority to dispose of what they want to get rid of, without getting permission from anyone else. What troubles me about that is they might overlook how the public feels or the historical significance of certain items in the museum and get rid of them. Like Malaro pointed out on page 84, they should use outside opinions to decide what to get rid of. Fiona Cameron’s article “Museum Collections, Documentation, and Shifting Knowledge Paradigms” included another troubling feature to me, that museum collecting “are rooted in 19th-century empiricist modes of thinking.” (223) The fact that many of them did not upgrade to keep up with the changing technology seems odd to me. If, as Cameron mentioned “collections management databases are the primary means in which museums document their collections,” (224) why haven’t they upgraded their methods? It seems, after reading these articles, there is a lot of work for museums to do in order to keep up with the 21st century.

 

 

 

I found this week’s reading very insightful and relevant to the current legal debates, concerns over ethical practices, and changing methodologies within the field of museum studies. I also felt as though the readings really complemented one another, thus reinforcing the significance and importance of each article. I was very excited to read the piece co-authored by Walter Echo-Hawk. Because I have had the opportunity to meet him and read his other works, I was expecting a very detailed and knowledgeable assessment of NAGPRA. After reading the article, however, I was somewhat disappointed. I thought that the article succeeded in providing a brief introduction to NAGPRA and a general framework through which to discuss and analyze issues of repatriation. However, I felt as though the article was extremely one-sided, examining this issue from the standpoint of museums, and that the article disregarded many of the current problems that the Native people still contend with as a result of NAGPRA. In claiming that, “we are confident that museums and native people will succeed in resolving questions regarding collections and enriching the interpretation of Native American life and culture,” both authors overlook the extreme controversy that is still associated with this piece of legislation.

 

American Indian scholar Greg Johnson has done extensive research regarding this piece of legislation, especially as it pertains to Native Hawaiians. One of the main points that Johnson mentions as problematic revolves around the legal language of NAGPRA. In his book, Sacred Claims, Johnson asserts that the term “cultural affiliation” is too vague and will lead to future confrontations between tribes and museum representative. Although Monroe and Echo-Hawk explain the ramifications of this piece of legislation, their assessment of the overall effects of NAGPRA fall short thus rendering their article superficial in many ways.

 

In addition to “Deft Deliberations,” I also found that Corrin’s article, “Mining the Museum: An Installation Confronting History” really resonated with me. I think that this is due to my recent visit to the Idaho Historical Museum. The instillation described in this article lead me to further contemplate (or dislike, criticize, loathe?) the obvious and numerous problems within the exhibits in the Idaho museum. I find it extremely frustrating and sickening to think that such innovative ideas, methods, and design concepts are nurtured and encouraged at some museums, while other museums deliberately disregard any new practices within the field of museum studies.

This week’s readings raised some interesting issues. Admittedly, I had never given much thought to the level of engagement that museums offered. I have had the opportunity to visit a lot of museums in many different locations and I don’t know that I can pinpoint that one thing that made something a “good” museum versus what made another a “bad” museum. Some of my favorites have been the ones that encouraged a great deal of interactivity while others fall in line with the “don’t touch, just look” attitude. The “bad” museums don’t really share anything in common.  I think the difficulty that most museums face falls in trying to incorporate too much into exhibits and overshadowing not only the significance of the artifact or event that they are trying to preserve, but also overwhelming the visitor with SO much information that they cannot possibly take it all in.

Where the arguments in the readings were largely against the status quo of current museum practices, I don’t know that throwing the old way out completely is the best course of action. In attempting to correct the dichotomy between the temple and the forum, there seems to be a tendency to swing too far to the other extreme. Silverman and O’Neill note that there has been a competition between museums as tools for learning and museums as a means of preservation. It would seem that somewhere between the two would be the best utilization of a museum, but that concept wouldn’t include Black’s argument for museums as a tool of civil engagement or elements of the social participation that Simon’s article covered. Attempting to be all things to all people will inevitably leave someone out.

Sorry I didn’t get this posted before class yesterday.

Trying to bring the museum to the public, as this book has shown, is a real challenge.  The authors in Reinventing the Museum really covered that well, especially Lisa C. Roberts in chapter thirteen. How can you be honest, while at the same time present the information clearly enough for the general public to learn from it? Roberts showed what a struggle that can be when interpretation is concerned. The key sentence in that chapter for me was on page 147: “just because visitors look does not mean that they learn.” George E. Hein, when he talked about the Constructivist Museum, stated one of the keys was to present the content in way that makes it easiest to understand. However, does that make it any easier to learn? In a museum where there is an abundance of exhibits and a wealth of information, someone can be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of knowledge. How can you be sure anyone will come out of the museum feeling like they learned something? I think there is more to it than just effective communication, like Roberts suggested. Hein talked about the need to focus on the visitor, not the content of the museum. In class we talked about selling out when creating history the general public wants to see. Well, how do you not sell out by focusing on the visitor? If you cater to the visitor, isn’t that the same as the History Channel catering to the viewer? Just some thoughts I had. One thing I did find very intriguing was John Cotton Dana’s desire to create a museum for the immigrants and the housewives. Dana was from the 19th, early 20th centuries, which made it unusual for a male of that era to focus on groups such as immigrants and housewives.

Although I took issue with the writing style and excessive use of passive voice within this week’s readings, the articles clearly and effectively outlined the multiple and varied questions and concerns that modern museums face today. Having had little experience working directly with museums I was intrigued to learn how museums are facing challenges of interpretation. I found the article “Changing Practices of Interpretation,” by Lisa Roberts, especially thought-provoking. By establishing a three-pronged approach to examining the changing methods of interpretation, Roberts succeeded in highlighting how museums are attempting to keep their audience engaged while at the same time acknowledging existing controversies. Roberts also alluded to the concept of interpretation as a “task of connection.” The combination of these issues made me question how private corporations contend with these changes in the field of public history. If visitor centers at breweries or other privately owned tourist destinations display exhibits recounting the company’s history, should visitors be expected to accept this version of interpretation as historically accurate? Or do visitors experience these exhibits in terms of their personal connections to the company or product? Are these public spaces held to different standards than museums in terms of expected standards/practices of interpretation?

After reading Cameron’s “The Museum, a Temple or the Forum,”  I was just envisioning a museum in this area creating a forum on a controversial topic. While I agree with several of the author’s argument for more critical commentary in museum exhibits, I feel that local museums, libraries and “societies” must tread carefully when adding voice to an exhibit. Lisa Robert’s call for more scholarship in museums seems like a good idea, and perhaps could be expanded with curators contributing to journals and professional associations, but is an exhibit the best platform for a curator to start an argument about the history of a community? I’m still not sure.

On another similar point: I didn’t see much discussion about museum’s relationship with local, state and federal governments in these articles – except Graham Black’s “Embedding Civil Engagement in Museums” article. Black mentions governmental concerns about the lack of civil engagement in current society, and offers some methods for museums to help bring more engagement to communities. Except for this article, the other authors seemed to deliberately ignore governmental agency in their work. Most of these articles emphasized relationships with the public and ways to increase participation and engagement with our visitors, which may be important, but without healthy and open communications with the legislator, these institutions will lose support from their primary source of revenue.

The importance of virtual tours is evident in the comparison of visitors and virtual visitors to the Smithsonian in 2010.  There were 30 million visitors, and 180 million virtual visitors. This example shows us how many people are accessing information through the use of technology.  They may be using their home computer, or mobile devices.  Students from any school may access information from the Smithsonian, regardless of their location.

I found the example of Amsterdam in 1952 using audio tours interesting because today many U.S. museums do not have audio tours, or are beginning to implement audio tours or virtual tours with the use of mobile devices.  I thought Nancy Proctor made a great point by saying that with technology/mobile devices increased use and being more available, museums do not have to hand out or purchase the devices, many of the patrons already have them.  If the museum relied on patrons to already have mobile devices this would keep their running costs low if they chose to have a virtual/mobile tour.  This system would save the museum money because they would not have to purchase devices, train staff, or hire tech support for problems.  Patrons could simply download or purchase an app from a site or the museum.  However, there would also be the issue of some patrons not owning a device, or that they can’t afford to purchase one.  Then the information would not be accessible to everyone.

For the River Street Project, the use of mobile devices is basically a plus, because the mobile device is portable, and users could learn about the project from any location.  Also users may read the blog, and later use it as a reference to go to the location at River Street and look at the neighborhood and reflect on how it looks today, compared to images on the blog.

Mobile devices would work well in several subject areas.  For example, in a History class if a professor is discussing a specific city or town, the students may look up maps during the presentation to learn more about the region.  It is useful to look up information, however some students may get distracted so that would be a drawback.

Public history projects that use mobile devices are basically moving with the times, and making their content more accessible to users.  With the portability of the devices, people are willing to look up information they are curious about because it is convenient.  The average person who goes to a museum may not find some information they want to know, but with a mobile device they may search the museum apps/directory for topics they want to learn about and do that with their mobile device (a learning tool).

In my opinion mobile devices = winning !