Category: Uncategorized

In part two of Letting Go?, I learned important details about the African Americans of the U.S.A, and how they struggled with the challenges faced against racism. One example is the destruction of a prominent community known as Black Bottom, which was redeveloped during the 1950’s and 1960’s by white supremacists, whom did it all for ‘expansion’ of colleges, though I am sure there would have been another way to increase campus size of those universities. It is possible it was more likely college growth was just another excuse to enforce the separation of Caucasians and African Americans. I thought it was horrible that people, no matter their race, were treated with such disrespect, just for segregation to keep pushing both races farther apart. The Black Bottomers sought to insure that the story of their lives being destroyed before they were able to make a new life away from the tragedy. One way that I understood the Black Bottomers promoted awareness of what happened to their community was through theatrical production, most notably Black Bottom Sketches and Taking a Stand. These thought-provoking performances gave a brief description of what happened to the neighborhood of Black Bottom, and the former residents of Black Bottom acquired a sense of honor and pride for detailing their stories to future generations.

Besides African American life, the stories of Americans are recorded as well, such as the example of the company of StoryCorps. Storycorps is a company dedicated to the preservation of cultural history amongst varied Americans in the United States. Storycorps is depicted as a means for common Americans to tell their stories to the public; people who are not in the media such as radio show hosts or television reporters, just regular people who have their lives outside of the news. The main purpose of Storycorps would be to connect all people and events through historical content. This type of first person historical documentation is especially significant in capturing ordinary American life.

Another aspect of part two was Fred Wilson’s study in “Mining the Museum.” During his discussion with two history professionals, Wilson did an exemplary job of describing his work on studies of history and ethnography. For example, in Wilson’s own words, his main objective in archival study is to take notice of every detail, such as discussing with individual people and examining every artifact in museums. Basically, Wilson gathers as much knowledge he can by communication and study at museums, both within the U.S.A. and internationally, and puts it all into “research.” Wilson is questioned on what is left to do, and draws on the comparison of the checks and balances system of our government to say that there is an ongoing research, and there is always more to be explored.

I adore StoryCorps and was thrilled to see that it was included in this book, though I did have to really sit down and think about its relevancy in this particular regard.  I spent my own weekend elbows-deep in diaries, letters, and really personal primary sources that would not exist if not for one person choosing to put their thoughts to paper and contribute to the historical narrative. Of course, for most of these people, contributing to history wasn’t their primary goal… but I couldn’t be more grateful for it today. I see StoryCorps and other user-generated historical content in the same way. One hundred, two hundred years from now, historians will, I think, feel the same way about programs like these that I feel about my sources right now. (That is, if our profession still exists…) But I think it’s here where we also have to heavily rely on trained historians, who can synthesize the material: the “facts” with the individual stories, and really look at the way that stories can be edited to tell a story, for better or (usually) for worse.

I too had a difficult time picking out the source of contention between art and history. I think if one is worried about losing relevancy, or keeping attendance numbers high, then art could be the very first place to look for new perspectives and to bring a new, more broad audience into the room. I mean, this is why we have art historians, right? Stories can be told in a multitude of ways, and all throughout history we have primary sources from artists who chose to make a statement about their own world, their own era, their own perspective…

I struggle a little more with contemporary artists’ work being used to seriously interpret the past, but I also know that I have more to learn about artists such as reenactors, and how they bring their knowledge into play. Good thing there’s a real pro in the room to help me understand 🙂

The idea of having artists collaborate with history museums at first glance seems like a good idea. Into reading the essay by Melissa Rachleff it would seem that in order for a museum and its staff to work with an artist the artist must first be tested to see if they would make a perfect pair before allowing them to collaborate. “There is a risk in engaging an artist within an institution…. The institution should approach working with an artist as a relationship that evolves over time—they need to get to know the artist.”[1] In order for the artists’ project to work the museum staff needs to allow the artist to use his creative process instead of giving them rigid parameters to follow.  I think that artist could work with museums and help in attracting different crowds as well as questioning societal norms. I think that some artist are better to work with and collaborate on projects than others. I still feel that the museum should have the ultimate say in what happens in their exhibits because they do have to report to government and board officials on what they can and can’t do. Historians do not like to be challenged when it comes to history just like artist do not like to be challenged when it comes to their art. Expression and creativity is good but when the museums start to look like the living embodiment of the History Channel I have issues. As with technology I think a middle ground can be reached with artist and historians where both sides can be comfortable but in the end, it depends on the individuals involved.

User Driven Content in museums can be a good idea in getting individuals interested in museums but needs to work in conjunction with exhibits in museums. If the User Driven Content can enhance a visitor’s experience and allow them to more explore an artifact or exhibit, then it is influential to the visitor and museum. Not only will it allow the visitor to interact with the artifact and exhibit it will allow them to discover things on their own making the experience more personal. “In the past few decades, the field of visitor studies has made substantial progress in studying and describing the complex interactions between and among visitors, exhibitions, objects, and programs, leading to a greater ability to engage in research-based practice, particularly in the area of exhibit design.” [2] This allows for better interaction amongst visitors it should not take fully away from the exhibit or artifact it is presenting either. Middle ground needs to be found so that there can be balance between the physical and interactive.

I understand slightly why the Sanford and Son script was put into the book as a further explanation of an artist’s creative way of influencing society and explaining creatively societal complexities according to race. It still seemed far reaching when comparing it to artists working with museums to explain alternate sides of history in an area.

[1]Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski, eds. Letting Go?: Sharing Historical Authority in a User-Generated World. Left Coast Press, 2011. Pg. 224.

[2] Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski, eds. Letting Go?: Sharing Historical Authority in a User-Generated World. Left Coast Press, 2011. Pg. 197.

When this picture was taken it was his first day on the job. He explained to us that his garb was representative of what was worn by both Native Peoples, as well as coureur de bois, the Europeans who lived among them as trappers and woodsmen. I offer this tidbit because as Koloski notes that these sort of interactive “performances” made “history/science more fun and interesting” (274). It definitely did for two of my four daughters who not only swooned while he was talking to us, but forced me to take that picture, and returned to his post several times through the afternoon we were there.

A large part of the assigned reading centered around the idea of having an artist in residence at a historical museum. I know several artists, and know that they can be difficult to deal with at times, because some of them believe that they are geniuses, that they could walk on water if they so chose to, and that their idea of art is the only true measure of it. And it is possible that this is the position that some museums have found themselves in. Now mix in a curatorial staff that also believes that they are geniuses, that the artifacts they are entrusted with are theirs, and their interpretation is the only true interpretation of them. Sprinkle in the questions of funding, and other capitalistic nonsense, and you have a recipe for disaster. Unless everyone is willing to talk, discuss their ideas, and what they want to get out of the exhibit.

I fail to grasp the inclusion of a never-before-seen episode of Sanford and Son. Was it included to be a counterpoint to the general acceptance of StoryCorps? StoryCorps offers a heavily edited message aimed at a specific (NPR/PBS) audience. Similarly Sanford and Son was also aimed at an audience. I think where we as a society have progressed (or maybe we haven’t) is that the Sanford and Son episode is included here, as are the excerpts of StoryCorps that are deemed too risqué for general consumption.

I will just leave this here for Shiann due to the amazing look on her face when the term “Alternative Fact” was mentioned.

My opinion on the book Letting Go? Sharing Historical Authority in a User-Generated World is that it provided me with a strong comprehension of how history is viewed in both the minds of the public, as well as understanding the evidence provided by the experts in the field of history. One such example of public opinion on history that I learned would be Web 2.0, during my study, has modified the internet from its original state, allowing users of the internet access to new websites to combine their own ideas with that of professionals in various academic fields.  For the benefit of historians, websites have become both tools for historians’ purpose and, conversely, competition for museums and historical groups.  In an available wide variety of sources, websites detail information that can be studied on various web pages, linking the information to multiple sources including historic sites and figures, but I also realize that it leaves no reason for museums to be visited if the information has already been placed on all these websites. Letting Go describes the internet more user-controlled since Web 2.0, since people can now purchase merchandise online, alter content in the form of photographs or articles, and even socialize through websites like Facebook and Twitter through the internet, something that museums can only offer an exhibition via their websites, but offer no real change from users. Besides the Internet, I have learned there are many other ways that professors, curators, and historians of all kind have found other means to introduce guests to a hands-on approach to history, such as the PhilaPlace project that has taken place in Pennsylvania, or even the Human Libraries that are setting up shop around the world. The PhilaPlace project was set up by Pennsylvania as a means to introduce oral historians to the public, and carefully explain the history of the state from the point of view of average individuals.  The Human Libraries serve as a substitute for regular libraries, the difference being you talk to people, learning history from someone who experienced the past, not just having read about it in a book or other source.

Museums, on the other hand, provide a visual display and people have the ability to walk-around exhibits which educate the public, and offer a general insight into the past of the artifacts or documents on display, which I personally prefer. Other than the artifacts, people like me can learn valuable information from the tour guides or staff who work at the museums about the different exhibits, and why the items on display are of such cultural and historic value, but despite its many offerings, museums and other forms of institution all have a major flaw – they are not controlled by the public, and instead are controlled by a select group that allows access to the exhibits through monetary fees, or other forms of payment. Museums are sometimes seen as establishments that visitors may not have an influence upon, and therefore, it does not affect them in general. Since they have not participated in the acquisition of the exhibits, and the artifacts on display, there is no connection to their lives. Even so, museums are described today as models of providing the public with information about certain subjects in the fields of art, history, and science. The use of participatory techniques, such as obtaining visitors’ opinions and ideas can help to draw visitors back in to museums.

Despite the differences, I see there are similarities in models of experts and visitors who both study the historical or scientific value of the artifacts and documents that are part of historical culture and without the other, they are both one half of a puzzle, and in my opinion, neither could coexist without the other.

The idea of a museum as “a place that would be a pleasure to visit on crowded days” (31) makes my skin crawl. I tend to turn away and resolve to come back another day if I see the parking lot full at places like museums, my anxiety heightened and my discomfort visible to everyone. It’s unfortunate that we’ve entered a reality where museums must be, as Joe mentioned in his response, “cheapened” by the flashy ability to connect to a social media platform, where your enjoyment requires cooperation between patrons, to have an app on your phone, or to speak face-to-face with an exhibit. Heaven forbid I have the desire to just wander through a museum and quietly experience it for myself.

Now, this isn’t to say that we should still be practicing the antiquated trend of separating expert from visitor (70-71). If anything is going to keep people from patronizing museums, it’s going to be that elitist environment in which you feel like you’re a part of the unwashed masses, wholly stupid and simply grateful to be allowed to tread on sacred ground. It is important, as well, to keep from petrifying a museum in one unchanging state, as people will only visit once, having already seen everything. (Two-headed calf, anyone?) So how can this be done without risking the alienation of those who don’t feel inclined to vocally or physically participate?

I think the balance comes from the integration of things like “dialogic museums” (83-95). Holy cow, do I love this idea. The style gives curators and historians the ability to shed old ways of presenting nothing but the facts, and, at the same time, also reject those old, exclusionary, historical narratives, by introducing new stories from those whose representation is often erased from the narrative altogether. They challenge visitors’ thinking, bring new ideas and faces into the museum, and, can still rely on technological advancements. By all means, encourage the public to submit their own voices, and suggest the stories that should be told. Solicit those untold stories via social media platforms, and engage in a dialogue about why exclusionary narratives are harmful. Make history accessible and worthy of a conversation. But most importantly, when it comes time to create a physical space to tell these stories, they can be curated in ways that allow visitors to enjoy exhibits and installations on their own terms. Now, obviously this isn’t the only solution, and not every museum can put something like this together or align this style with the primary goal of their establishment. But it’s a nice starting point to think about…

Reading through the different ideas and experiences in Letting Go? reminds me of countless conversations had with my cohort class about history and views of public history. The conversations about how History Channel was better when it first came out and now has been dramatized to keep the viewership numbers high. The web and virtual exhibits can be useful in getting people who would otherwise not want to go to museums to go and better enjoy themselves. The other side is that there has to be a middle ground between interactive and non-interactive to appease most people when it comes to exhibits. The article by Kathleen McLean see museums as a place to hold historical conversations and is community place of learning for all involved. “We need to think of visitor’s as partners in a generative learning process within a dynamic community of learners” (72). Instead of believing one is expert its better to learn as a community and have positive dialogue.

The use of the web and interactive technologies is good but should not be the overdone either. To much stimulus can ruin an experience. Digital collections enhance learning by allowing the historical community to see artifacts or photos not normally seen in public. This also allows for more information to be accessed to the community when needed for research.  As Mathew MacArthur saw that objects can be used as learning tool and resource. The art of using the object is what can make it successful as a learning tool. “Thus displayed, museum collections “cultivate the powers of observation, and the casual visitor even makes discoveries for himself, and, under the guidance of the labels, forms his own impressions”; further, objects are a ” powerful stimulant to intellectual activity” (58). With the use of both learning and thinking is achieved.