Category: Reading Reflections

I found the readings this week really worked well together to introduce preservation and apply it to areas of Boise that have yet to be preserved.  I have always taken for granted the politics behind preservation and the various arguments for or against preservation of various buildings or historic districts; why shouldn’t we just preserve everything?  While the readings gave a lot of insight for and against preservation of different historic landmarks I was able to fully understand both sides of the debate.

I read the “Preservation Nation: What’s Endangered in Boise?” blog post first, followed by Historic Preservation, and then reread the blog post (I am usually not this much of an over achiever).  On my first read through the blog post I was ready to preserve all eleven things cited for Boise, but after reading the book, I became a little more discriminating.  I agreed with the blog that many of the areas seemed to have a lot of history and were worth preserving.  However, I struggled to feel any angst about losing the University Inn or the Sambo/Tepanyaki steakhouse.  The blog did not give a compelling argument for preserving either, beyond the fact that they were old (University Inn) or that they were unique architecturally (Tepanyaki), which does not seem sufficient.

Historic Preservation also did a great job of articulating the different options for those that wanted to preserve historic buildings or areas.  I like the idea of letting a building age naturally without updating this.  It reminded me of a hotel in Silver City, ID that still doesn’t have electricity and has not actually been updated since its mining days and I loved seeing the progression it has made in the last hundred years.  However, this does not always seem to be a practical solution, so I liked the idea of maintaining the façade of the building but updating the interior.  This type of preservation seemed the most applicable to Boise’s downtown area and one the best compromises between history and practical business concerns.  Eisenman’s arrow eloquently portrayed this idea of contextualism and historic buildings as moving on a continuum rather than fixed on one spot in time.

While the reading selections for this week were not the most engaging reading, they did provide a nice break from the Lukian style of weeks past. I found parts of the history of preservation fascinating. One thing I especially liked was the was the description of preservation in the antebellum period. The focus on preserving buildings for patriotic purposes was fascinating. I wonder how much the emphasis on preserving sites connected to great men or events in our past can be connected to the veneration of saints and holy places in Europe. While the Catholic church was a minority throughout much of the antebellum their was still a tendency to deify elements of our nations past – especially the founding fathers. The tendency to canonize our nations founders was especially true of George Washington who was often portrayed as a divinely appointed emissary.

The agitation of the Mt. Vernon Ladies Association is a good example of what might be termed an American ‘cult of the saints.’ The founding fathers–and especially Washington–had already been baptized into the narrative of our nations sacred history and mission. The Mt. Vernon Ladies Association–which seems to have been part of the broader evangelical reform movement–took the step of not only canonizing Washington, but of also extending his sainthood to his place of residence.

I just have some random musings about the reading this week and the role that historic preservation plays in making cities more livable. The theme that I pulled out is that historic preservation has the most influence on the local level, and it is the only place that protection can be effectively regulated. It is also the only level that can provide the most economical and environmental benefits to the community. Several sources are beginning to rediscover that historic preservation is important to the local economy, as well as the cultural tourism economy. The new ‘green’ initiative (well new to some but it can be traced back to the 1960s) is beginning to discover historic preservation as part of the key to combat sprawl and save natural resources. Many historic buildings were designed with their environment in mind and took advantage of natural sunlight and heating and cooling techniques, making them as efficient as any other building, minus the new LEED certified buildings. For a resource of ‘green’ historic buildings, go to www.boiseartsandhistory.org, click on History, and then go to Tours and Maps. There is a walking tour brochure about historic buildings downtown that use geothermal heat. 
In addition to this, I just want to comment on the BAP post about buildings in danger here in Boise. BAP’s work plays an important role in garnering local support for historic preservation. It takes almost an entire community to preserve their historic character, and it takes constant education and outreach to build the type of support needed to get required ordinances and partnerships in place that can assist. Education plays such  a crucial role in this mix because you first have to have the community find value in the buildings before they will be passionate enough to fight for preservation. If we can continue to build local support, then the cultural tourism economy in Boise can begin to florish because we will have intact historic districts that are lively and contribute greatly to the local sense of place.

For the second week in a row, the reading provokes me to recall Intro to the Study of History…. Dr. Walker would be proud.

Chapter 3 in this week’s reading focuses on a similar aspect of political correctness that was the focus of last week’s discussion on the Enola Gay. How can you properly pay homage to an event that was so devastating for an entire nation, and is still recent enough in our history to raise concerns about offending direct decedents, or those who actually experienced the atrocities. I will not focus on that, though… (as I’m sure it’s going to be a popular blog subject)

My focus for this analysis is in the role history deniers play in the public’s perception of an event such as the Holocaust. An overwhelming majority of the global population acknowledges the Holocaust had happened, and with little dispute to the facts and figures attributed to the event. However, a small percentage of individuals claim that this never happened. These people are a part of a larger group known as ‘historical deniers’, and can also range from those who think that 9/11 was an inside job or other conspiracy theories involving national or global events.

A popular notion is that history is written by the victors. While true in the case of the Enola Gay and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there weren’t any true ‘winners’ in the Holocaust; the Jews were submissive, and the Nazis eventually surrendered. This is one of the truly tragic events that require a great deal of care when telling the story. Because of the timidness of the event itself, this leaves room for deniers to gain a sense of proof in their claims.

Deniers not only hold lectures, write books, and appear on the news and talk shows, but they also influence pop culture. Controversial images can be seen in art work and other mediums, such as music. A group that seems to embody the historical denier stance in regards to the Holocaust is the pop duet, Prussian Blue. This set of fraternal twins of Aryan descent sing largely about white supremacy, but also recall a history that they not only didn’t live, but also likely were taught a distorted view from like-minded individuals. Even their name, ‘Prussian Blue’, is referring to the blueish residue left in the gas chambers by the chemical Zyklon B, of which history deniers claim that the lack of this residue in the chambers prove that this execution style never took place. Rather than looking at the large picture, such as the millions of Jews who went ‘missing’ during this era, they find miniscule details and attempt to discredit the case of scholarly Historians.

My hope in bringing this up, is to reaffirm the point that history is largely bias. When reading a text, listening to a lecture, or viewing an exhibit, keep in mind that both the original event or document as well as the analysis were written by people – and by nature, people are bias to their own cause. While our case may sound sane and correct, there will always be someone out there who views it differently. Who knows, we may be the crazy ones who are out of touch with society. Even us noble Historians…

This week I opted for skimming the week’s chapters in Museum Politics. I read the parts that interested me about the history of each museum’s inception and about the exhibits. When Luke started sounding too forceful or negative I quickly jumped ahead. Last week I felt like Luke was a movie critic. He purports to love museums but certainly makes one wonder.  I realized this week I was choosing to approach Luke’s museum choices my way. I want to visit them and have my own experience and make my own decisions about what I think of them. I understand that what I get to see and experience often has a political backstory, but I can choose if that curbs my interest or not. I wonder what Luke would think if he knew that this week I only wanted to glean the entertaining parts of his writing.

In  1979 I took a course at my college in Portland taught by a Rabbi about the Holocaust. In the summer of 1983 when I visited a friend who lived in Munich we went to the Dachau concentration camp site. When I lived in New York City in the 1980s I knew a woman who was working with a group on the beginning ideas for the Museum of Jewish Heritage. I haven’t had a chance to see the Holocaust Museum in D.C. or the Museum of Tolerance, but they are of great interest to me. I am grateful for their websites and am annoyed by Luke’s description of a “theme park about genocide”

I have been to the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum on a few occasions. I visited with my uncle and cousin who are both biologists. I cherish my time with them seeing things through their eyes and their passion for the beauty of the desert. I visited the Mitchell Park Conservatory in Milwaukee, Wisconsin where the Botanical Garden is housed in 3 geodesic domes each with a different climate. How cool for people to be able to visit a desert or the tropics in the crazy cold northern U.S.  The New York and Brooklyn Botanical Gardens were oases for me from the concrete of the city. The Missouri Botanical Garden sounds no less spectacular. Hurray for florapower!

Timothy Luke’s Museum Politics brought back a lot of memories for me from my time in the political arena of Idaho.  As a history teacher elected to three terms in the Idaho House of Representatives, I was afforded both the historical and political perspectives.  As Luke described in his book, any school, agency or museum that received any taxpayer dollars was subject to the scrutiny of the political leaders.  If a museum was found to have a display that could be seen as offensive to any one group in Idaho and that museum was receiving state funding, you can be rest assured that a legislator would get involved.  All it would take was one call, email or letter from a constituent complaining about an offensive display at BSU or the Idaho Historical Society or any other museum in Idaho and that constituents legislator would be on the phone to the director of that museum asking for the display to be removed. 

I was also heavily involved in the Idaho Historical Society’s attempt to strengthen the process for identifying historical landmarks and/or buildings.  The proposed law would have allowed the Historical Society a chance to review any plans for the demolition of any  city, county or state owned buildings to see if there was any possible historical value.  Although this seems somewhat innocuous, I found out from my fellow legislators that it was NOT!  They were sure this would give the Historical Society enormous amounts of power that they would use to eventually take over Idaho and the rest of the world.  I had to pull the bill back to committee or face a public flogging of some sort!  Thanks Timothy for the stroll down memory lane!!

The chapter that resonated the most with me this week was chapter 8, “Southwestern Environments as Hyperreality: The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum.” Luke brings up a valid and important point when he discusses the dangers of romanticized (or hyperreality) landscapes and how it can encourage the destruction of authentic nature. While Luke seems to think the very idea or attempt to preserve a natural landscape is ludicrous, I think it’s admirable. Perhaps I’m naive but I can’t imagine Arthur Park and William Carr set out for the result that the museum would perpetrate a false image of the Sonora Desert and thus result in widespread development and urban sprawl. Like last week, Luke’s dissection of this particular example, like a 3-2 zone in basketball, only made me want him to concede just a little and provide an example where this type of preservation was successful.

Going back to Park and Carr and the development of the museum, the fact that the museum was built in close respect to a park made me wonder if park politics were at play. Park management and administrators can sometimes wear “park goggles” (like tunnel vision) and can concentrate on issues they deem supremely  important e.g. picnic tables. It would have been interesting if this impeded the original vision Park and Carr had for the Desert Museum.

On a completely different note, I think Museum Politics as a whole could have greatly benefited from the use of photographs to supplement the text. In describing the Desert Museum and the Holocaust Museum it would have behooved Luke to include some visual evidence instead of relying solely on his unique turn of phrase.

 

The main aspect of this week’s reading that intrigued me is still the claim from Timothy Luke that museums are places of power, that they can “fabricate a nation’s consciousness.” Perhaps I am finding it difficult to come to the same conclusions as Luke is because I have not visited very many large musuems, and have not witnessed exhibits that were controversial. I have visited mostly small museums, the largest being the Oregon Trail Center in Oregon. I can begin to see how such a large exhibit like the Oregon Trail one can begin to shape a nation’s consciousness, but what about exhibits in smaller musuems? I think I better go visit some more musuems with Luke’s conclusions in mind, and see for myself. What type of power plays become evident in a small museum?

The other interesting part of the reading hit me while I was reading about the United States Holocaust Museum.  Luke appears to value low-technology museums more than the high-technology ones, as far as the values participants could garner from those types of exhibits. What does this mean for museums trying to engage their audiences with a variety of technologies? Are participants getting the same value from an online exhibit as they would get in person? What if they are using a mobile device to explore the museum? Thinking about these issues, I started to wonder what it might mean for our digital projects, and whether or not we could expect our projects to serve as valuable learning experiences. I believe that they will, but taking into consideration what Luke said about the United States Holocaust Museum, could our technology fail to send our participants away with valuable information, or a significant moment of epitome? Knowing this, what can we do in our individual projects to help solve this and allow our audience to have a connection to our project/message? I feel that this week’s reading from Luke has left me with more questions than answers, and the desire to go explore the exhibits at the Idaho State Historial Museum and the Capitol to see what types of values that they are trying to instill in me.

The readings for this week question how museums use entertainment to draw in visitors. Timothy Luke questioned why people go to museums?  Is it to be “entertained” or to actually learn something and then analyze and reflect on the displays and information at the museum.  Luke is also critical of museums that use Disneyland like forms of entertainment to draw in patrons, and in this way the focus is heavily on the entertainment factor and not on the education experience.  He used Disneyland as a comparison to the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., and called it a horror tour.  Luke was also critical of the museum because of its shock value, and he questioned whether the violent film footage of atrocities playing over and over, is overexposed.  He also had an issue with the museum’s focus on Jews, and the limited information about the millions of Roma(Gypsies), handicapped, Poles, homosexuals, Jehovah’s witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, and political dissidents who also suffered under Nazi rule.

There is also a comparison of the Holocaust Museum and the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angles. Lukes is somewhat less critical of the Museum of Tolerance over the Holocaust Museum.  He said, “the Museum of Tolerance far outclasses the Holocaust museum in the scope and depth of its comparative analyses..” (pg.51)  In my opinion he preferred the Museum of Tolerance because of their choice of exhibits, as well as the balance and portrayal of racism in society, and extreme acts of violence by individual people as well as political figures.  One exhibit I found interesting, is in the Hall of Testimony, there is a section “…recounting forty-nine representative accounts of the eight thousand good souls recognized by Israel’s Yad Vashem as those who aided the Holocaust’s victims under Nazi rule.” (pg.53)

In Chapters 7 & 8 about the Missouri Botanical Gardens & the Sonora Desert Museum, I was thinking about them as treasures, and how great it is to live in communities that have gardens or “open habitat” zoos and museums.  However, here comes negative Lukes again….he sounds like a pessimist to me.  After completing those readings, it sounds as if Lukes is saying that because of places like the botanical gardens and desert museum people are less likely to be interested in nature in their own backyard, or preservation.  In my opinion, when you visit a local botanical garden you would learn more about native plants.  Then, you would likely plant more native plants in your yard or community because you would have learned about; which plants are drought resistant, which plants do well in what temperate zone, or which plants deter specific kinds of bugs or weeds.  To me that is a positive, however, Lukes seems to think if there is a designated “nature” area then people in cities may feel free to just go ahead and pour cement over everything.  He also referred to the botanical gardens and desert museum as “scientific simulations in the name of environmentalism.”(pg.164).

Lukes stated that much of nature is either dying or dead?  What is your opinion on this?  Do you think we have had more conservation efforts in the past 20 or 30 years or less?