In this section of his book, the author examines the way of historic preservation development through the prism of various trends, organizations and the government/public involvement.
In presenting the development of historic preservation as a science and movement, as well, the author describes how, after the era, which was premised on the aristocratic (elite) view of the past, historic preservation attained public attention. First groups, which received their development at the end the nineteenth century and continued before the WWII, differed by their structure and approach. There were those, who advocated for “preserving of tangible remains,” by saving actual historic properties; those, who dreamt of the “golden days” of the power of their ancestors in certain old city centers (Charleston); there were, of course capitalists and entrepreneurs (Rockefeller’s Williamsburg). Finally, there were representatives of the art nouveaux with their ideas of “independent culture” (pp. 181-83). However, analyzes the author, although the involvement of the government, inserted certain funds into various projects, lots of property, especially in1960s, was subjected to a re-development and industrialization.
After that period, preservation approached a new era of “adaptive reuse”, which was looking for “recycling” of the old buildings that could be utilized for business/public usage (p. 189). It assisted to prevent destruction of historical objects and helped legalizing the system of preservation. But the appearance of a “new urban gentry” brought a class distinction; in pursuit for the tax break, wealthy buyers pushed away established communities and historical landmarks, as in the case of a legal battle over NYC Grand Central Station, for example.
But, as continues the author, the healthy pragmatism soon overcame the historical significance and now we see the cases of renovation old plants, offices and buildings (“facadism”). Partly, it happened because the reach corporations saw economical avenues in preserving the past rather than social. Displacement continues, but what does the author suggest? It appears that “historic preservation can survive without corporate backing” (p. 209) only in conjunction with populace activity and non-profit organizations. What should be added to this list are legal entities and scholarly professionals; I, however, second the author’s statements that the issues should be addressed with more resources and consider more adequate redistribution of commodities.
In the second part of this section, the author continues debates on “property vs. preservation” issue. Various acts were adopted, both pros and cons, when finally it came to the conclusion as to what to call “historic” (p. 231). Should it be a cultural diversity, or a rejuvenation of the minority sites or abandonment of old buildings in favor to the modern ones? The solution came with the idea of “economic revitalization of the cities”, which should assist poor and enrich the housing projects, hence the plans for improvement, rather than preservation. Finally, the environmentalists came along, thus producing an alliance with preservationists helping them in broader regulation of the land use and protection. And although the author questions on permanence of this alliance, which is widely diverse in goals, this is the way the author sees the future.
Point of interest: Florida’s Bureau of Historic Preservation “provides architectural technical assistance to the public on historic rehabilitation projects, provides architectural support for all Bureau programs (especially important in the review of grant applications), reviews applications for federal tax credits for the rehabilitation of historic properties, reviews applications for ad valorem tax relief projects in communities not qualified to review locally, and administers the Florida Main Street Program (downtown area).” http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/
Friday, September 28, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Wallace’s (Section IV); Post and Launius articles
The era of Ronald Reagan brought “revision” of history to rectify the actions of his administration, whether home, or abroad. In the search of the truth, Reagan wanted to “reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs” (p. 253). However, lots of his endeavors were based of the mythical assumptions of the dramatic past (partly, due to image that Hollywood created), which should be given a new meaning. True, it created some kind of coverage (or privilege?) from the harsh reality, but, motherless, remained political for years to come.
To see how the high political agenda could interfere with history interpretation, Wallace reveals the controversies, which arose at the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) displaying exposition on Enola Gay in 1990s. One of the crucial questions, which this exposition brought, was: To what and for which audience the museum’s works should be devoted?
The original script to the proposed exposition, which underwent five changes, attracted not only WWII veterans, museum curators, but the public historians, as well. However, in the pursuit for political correctness, supposedly educational exhibit on “Enola Gay’s mission had became an effort to justify it.” (p. 281). Historians, who were opposing the partial representation of “irrevocable facts”, went along with the public voice to improve the expo but their voices, obviously, weren’t heard.
What are the possible solutions to the successful museum exposition? To paraphrase Wallace, there should be “serious analysis on the national historical development” rather than “trumpeting [its] great deeds” (p. 305). One of the approaches would be creation of the pros and cons exhibit, which demands questions and welcomes discussions; setting up research scholarships and communal projects with the assistance of the other museums and cultural associations. Now, it is time when museums are not only should display, but provide the teaching of history, as well.
Robert G. Post, “A Narrative of our time”
Continuing on the subject, Post reexamines, partly, the exhibit on Enola Gay in his quest to answer the question: how should modern museums portray historical events? The expo, which, in agreement with Wallace, presented much controversy, was obviously destined to chose between “veterans feeling good” and “consequences of the atomic bombing in Japan” (p. 374). After much debates, certain “heroic” slogans from the nonexistent National Armed Forces Museums were still on display, despite the involvement of the historians producing “extensive historiography on the decision to drop the bomb” (p. 375). At the end there was a dilemma as to how the portray a historical event: as the U.S. engineering achievement to build a plane, which could carry the first atomic weapon or the devastation of its aftermath. It met obvious lobbying from the different parts of the society, who saw in the exhibit what each of them wanted to see. As to the historians, they also parted in their opinions. Although, since 1970s and 1980s the Smithsonian called for a “non-celebrity attitude” the exhibit produced “apolitical” tone of an official presentation of history (pp. 383-84). It appears, argues Post, that the exhibit brought a sense of “practicability” (talks of a “magnificent technological achievement” for one), rather than a historical significance of the occurrence. People should not be given “basic facts concerning… history” (p. 390), concludes Post, but a chance for evaluation and fulfillment of a meaning from all points of view, including that of the public historian’s.
Roger D. Launius, “American Memory…”
This article could summarize the above two installment, for it outlines the question on what, in fact, is right or wrong in the today’s world of the museums. In other words, what do museums signify to individuals who visit their big and small halls?
As an example, the author uses the Smithsonian, the most attended museum in the U.S.
Moving from a simple compilation of themed objects to its broader representation, the history of the past transformed from its “triumphant view”, to a “dismantling of one-nation, one-people consensus” (pp. 15-16). More than ever there is a controversy between “official” and “vernacular’ memory (p. 22). To support his argument, the author offers a gradation on how people today do comprehend history.
It comes from the personal experience and involvement of a particular individual, to the family/friends sphere and finally, to the generalities of historical past, which has no immediate connection to the person. It appears true, but still, certain groups, practicing “living history” have their own image of the past, which allows them to create “their own spheres of collective memory”(pp. 24-25). But will they allow stranger with a different opinion to become a part of their “sphere”?
Finally, Launuis offers a countdown of the proposed exhibits, which less likely will take their place at the NASM. In his call for an “intellectually honest and politically acceptable” exhibits, the author suggests that each individual will re-thing his place in the history where museum and public historians could assist to overcame myths.
To see how the high political agenda could interfere with history interpretation, Wallace reveals the controversies, which arose at the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) displaying exposition on Enola Gay in 1990s. One of the crucial questions, which this exposition brought, was: To what and for which audience the museum’s works should be devoted?
The original script to the proposed exposition, which underwent five changes, attracted not only WWII veterans, museum curators, but the public historians, as well. However, in the pursuit for political correctness, supposedly educational exhibit on “Enola Gay’s mission had became an effort to justify it.” (p. 281). Historians, who were opposing the partial representation of “irrevocable facts”, went along with the public voice to improve the expo but their voices, obviously, weren’t heard.
What are the possible solutions to the successful museum exposition? To paraphrase Wallace, there should be “serious analysis on the national historical development” rather than “trumpeting [its] great deeds” (p. 305). One of the approaches would be creation of the pros and cons exhibit, which demands questions and welcomes discussions; setting up research scholarships and communal projects with the assistance of the other museums and cultural associations. Now, it is time when museums are not only should display, but provide the teaching of history, as well.
Robert G. Post, “A Narrative of our time”
Continuing on the subject, Post reexamines, partly, the exhibit on Enola Gay in his quest to answer the question: how should modern museums portray historical events? The expo, which, in agreement with Wallace, presented much controversy, was obviously destined to chose between “veterans feeling good” and “consequences of the atomic bombing in Japan” (p. 374). After much debates, certain “heroic” slogans from the nonexistent National Armed Forces Museums were still on display, despite the involvement of the historians producing “extensive historiography on the decision to drop the bomb” (p. 375). At the end there was a dilemma as to how the portray a historical event: as the U.S. engineering achievement to build a plane, which could carry the first atomic weapon or the devastation of its aftermath. It met obvious lobbying from the different parts of the society, who saw in the exhibit what each of them wanted to see. As to the historians, they also parted in their opinions. Although, since 1970s and 1980s the Smithsonian called for a “non-celebrity attitude” the exhibit produced “apolitical” tone of an official presentation of history (pp. 383-84). It appears, argues Post, that the exhibit brought a sense of “practicability” (talks of a “magnificent technological achievement” for one), rather than a historical significance of the occurrence. People should not be given “basic facts concerning… history” (p. 390), concludes Post, but a chance for evaluation and fulfillment of a meaning from all points of view, including that of the public historian’s.
Roger D. Launius, “American Memory…”
This article could summarize the above two installment, for it outlines the question on what, in fact, is right or wrong in the today’s world of the museums. In other words, what do museums signify to individuals who visit their big and small halls?
As an example, the author uses the Smithsonian, the most attended museum in the U.S.
Moving from a simple compilation of themed objects to its broader representation, the history of the past transformed from its “triumphant view”, to a “dismantling of one-nation, one-people consensus” (pp. 15-16). More than ever there is a controversy between “official” and “vernacular’ memory (p. 22). To support his argument, the author offers a gradation on how people today do comprehend history.
It comes from the personal experience and involvement of a particular individual, to the family/friends sphere and finally, to the generalities of historical past, which has no immediate connection to the person. It appears true, but still, certain groups, practicing “living history” have their own image of the past, which allows them to create “their own spheres of collective memory”(pp. 24-25). But will they allow stranger with a different opinion to become a part of their “sphere”?
Finally, Launuis offers a countdown of the proposed exhibits, which less likely will take their place at the NASM. In his call for an “intellectually honest and politically acceptable” exhibits, the author suggests that each individual will re-thing his place in the history where museum and public historians could assist to overcame myths.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Mike Wallace's essays (Part I)
Although admitting that “we prefer the present”, the author (professor of history at CUNY) nonetheless, explores in the series of essays the importance of the past history for Americans, whether it would be a new or old reconstructed monument, genealogical research or reincarnation of a particular individual in the CW battle reenactment. He examines “the way Americans have grappled with the preservation of history in public settings.” Today, we have a new interpretation, which shifted from the traditional, classical view of the past to the controversial one, based on the new era of civil rights movement and sometimes, a struggle. It includes new exhibits in the museums, theme parks, such as Walt Disney’s, as well as “historical revanchism” being brought by the powerful political figures.
Starting with two controversial pictures (Gov’s Palace of 1967) and Black History Program (1990) at the Colonial Williamsburg, the author shows various examples of how, through the generations, people saw their own history. It came from the Americanization of the historical past, esp. in early 1900s NYC in purpose of to make” good citizens of these many foreign youth”, to the Skansen, an artificially created outdoor museum, which brought mainly a romantic nostalgia on disappearing crafts and rural traditions. Sponsored by Rockefeller, the first installment of the colonial Williamsburg commemorated “the planter elite” as it was seen by its creators and sponsors. It took bitterness of the social crisis of the 1960s to acknowledge that the history belongs to all parts of the society.
Giving the example of MCNY, the author discusses that museum should not only try to tell the story, but to make people as the actual part of this story. One of the solutions Wallace sees in a closer interaction of the local population with museum authorities including the actual donation of memorable objects. It should involve more of oral history, interviews, video and sound clips, that is a creation of museums without walls, a “living history” of our past (good example is an exhibit at the Chicago Historical Society, “Chicago goes to War” ).
Big debates opened in the mid 1980s re “interpretative approach” of relocation of the AMI from the State of Liberty to Ellis Island. The previous exhibit showed one-sided story of immigration; the renovated Great Hall expo stunned people with its sincerity, truthfulness and cry for emotions, as tourists – many of whose are actual descendants of the immigrants - follow the glassed stands and endless artifacts with the pieces of human history. Of our mutual history. But will it serve to us as an assistance today, discussing our recent immigration problems?
Starting with two controversial pictures (Gov’s Palace of 1967) and Black History Program (1990) at the Colonial Williamsburg, the author shows various examples of how, through the generations, people saw their own history. It came from the Americanization of the historical past, esp. in early 1900s NYC in purpose of to make” good citizens of these many foreign youth”, to the Skansen, an artificially created outdoor museum, which brought mainly a romantic nostalgia on disappearing crafts and rural traditions. Sponsored by Rockefeller, the first installment of the colonial Williamsburg commemorated “the planter elite” as it was seen by its creators and sponsors. It took bitterness of the social crisis of the 1960s to acknowledge that the history belongs to all parts of the society.
Giving the example of MCNY, the author discusses that museum should not only try to tell the story, but to make people as the actual part of this story. One of the solutions Wallace sees in a closer interaction of the local population with museum authorities including the actual donation of memorable objects. It should involve more of oral history, interviews, video and sound clips, that is a creation of museums without walls, a “living history” of our past (good example is an exhibit at the Chicago Historical Society, “Chicago goes to War” ).
Big debates opened in the mid 1980s re “interpretative approach” of relocation of the AMI from the State of Liberty to Ellis Island. The previous exhibit showed one-sided story of immigration; the renovated Great Hall expo stunned people with its sincerity, truthfulness and cry for emotions, as tourists – many of whose are actual descendants of the immigrants - follow the glassed stands and endless artifacts with the pieces of human history. Of our mutual history. But will it serve to us as an assistance today, discussing our recent immigration problems?
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
"Written in stone"
In writing the book, the author’s intention (who is himself a constitutional lawyer) was to demonstrate the meaning and importance of a cultural perception of people towards their past and present based on the monuments, commemorating various political events of their own history. Admitting that he is the expert on the southern culture “use of public space”, the author, nonetheless, is drawing a colorful picture on the monumental propaganda home and abroad, from Beijing to Moscow, from Tirana to Zimbabwe. For example, when discoursing on the pieces of the communistic “leftovers” it is possible to agree that the author properly determined the uselessness of the certain creations, which remains as symbols of oppression (or, in contrary, “to big to be noticed”). However, what the author is failed to see is that the old works serve as a most memorable composition for the older generation, which recent post-communist governments are still relying upon as their potential voters. On the other hand, in the case of Russia, a lot of Tsars’ monuments were preserved by the communists and some – which were destroyed – even built anew (but it is for a discussion at some other time; the book was written in 1998).
Interesting to note the solution on the “Liberty Monument” in New Orleans, with a plaque addressed to both sides, monument to Alamo, Gettysburg, and the like. “History became what the written text said it was,” cites the author. Well, this slogan could be attributed to almost any of today’s societies. The museums, theme parks would be one of the solutions, especially if they could absorb the numbers of monuments produced over time.
The author also explores the legality in certain matters, such as flying the Confederate battle flag (which still falls under the First Amendment). But, concludes the author, it should not violate the freedom a free speech. It is mainly for the US Constitution to change certain views in “the power in either national or state government.” But from the other hand, a real democracy is the right of an individual “to wave flag as well as to burn one.”
The end of the book covers Austin monument erected by 1901-03 where the author offers certain solutions/additions to rectify the situation with the slogan inscribed. Leave it as it is, for it was created in completely different time frame. I think today, especially after 9/11 and the “Katrina” the monumental erections serve as an aftermath remaining to the posterity of the strong spirit and valor, rather than preference to commemorate an event and/or racial or social distinctions in the way of an architectural structure. The future monuments are those which should unite us all.
Interesting to note the solution on the “Liberty Monument” in New Orleans, with a plaque addressed to both sides, monument to Alamo, Gettysburg, and the like. “History became what the written text said it was,” cites the author. Well, this slogan could be attributed to almost any of today’s societies. The museums, theme parks would be one of the solutions, especially if they could absorb the numbers of monuments produced over time.
The author also explores the legality in certain matters, such as flying the Confederate battle flag (which still falls under the First Amendment). But, concludes the author, it should not violate the freedom a free speech. It is mainly for the US Constitution to change certain views in “the power in either national or state government.” But from the other hand, a real democracy is the right of an individual “to wave flag as well as to burn one.”
The end of the book covers Austin monument erected by 1901-03 where the author offers certain solutions/additions to rectify the situation with the slogan inscribed. Leave it as it is, for it was created in completely different time frame. I think today, especially after 9/11 and the “Katrina” the monumental erections serve as an aftermath remaining to the posterity of the strong spirit and valor, rather than preference to commemorate an event and/or racial or social distinctions in the way of an architectural structure. The future monuments are those which should unite us all.
Friday, September 7, 2007
"Paradise Lost" - Part 4 (14,15)
While admiring the Florida’s historical heritage, editors note that “historians initially failed to gaze beyond the human activities.” The earlier attempts usually dealt with environment (Dovel) or with “human drama” (Hanna). The following works of 1970s and 1980s more and more drove their attention to connection between the past and recent changes of the Florida’s environment, especially re flora and fauna. The recent work is the attempt to explore “Florida’s past through the lens of environmental history.”
The installment composed by Bruce Stephenson, A ”Monstrous Desecration” (Ch. 14) discusses the devastating ecological situation of the lagoon at Boca Ciega Bay, which even provoked a political controversy in 1950s and 1970s. Giving the short history of the region and its resort, the author shows, how the “postwar building bum” damaged the surrounding environment, especially its water wells. Various committees tried to conserve national resources, regulate dredging operations and assist in proper planning. But the entire campaign turned out to be a dilemma (including legality as well as supervening illegality) of how to modify various projects on the expense of the opponent. As the result of the controversies between varies organization, the Boca Ciega lost much of its initial marine and landscape. Situation, concludes the author, still continues with the recent administration (by the time when book was published) and the lessons learned “have been lost.”
I always wanted to ask this question: is there a way to develop an area without damaging its environmental surroundings so pursued by the capitalistic entrepreneurs?
Gordon Harvey in “We must free ourselves…” (Ch.15) explores another involvement of politics into environment, referring to Florida as a “victim of its allure.” Taking as an example Everglades watering system, the author analyzes ecological problems in region, notably, an occurrence of “evapo-transpiration” thanks to the human intervention. Some places, such as Big Cypress Swamp, being under pressure from the developers, even lost governmental protection. As with the case of Boca Ciega Bay the biggest problem became a water supply for the area and necessity to balance economic and environmental needs. The author clearly specifies that the situation with Cypress became a vehicle to promote somebody’s political agenda (during the Nixon’s reelection of 1970s) where protection was substituted with acquisition. Thanks to the Florida’s governor Reubin Askew, legislative was actively asked to get involved in preservation of the state “for the people and all other living things, which makes Florida a place worth living.” However, it produced a huge controversy between the government and the private proprietorship. After much debate, involving system of government bond issues and federal involvement, in 1974 Congress voted to establish Big Cypress National Preserve, that is, a national park. It later was converted to the establishment of the Florida’s environmental policy for the years to come.
However, what seems to be omitted in this article is the voce of the ordinary people, who were living on the land; surely, not all of them should be referred as “communists taking over American lands.”
The installment composed by Bruce Stephenson, A ”Monstrous Desecration” (Ch. 14) discusses the devastating ecological situation of the lagoon at Boca Ciega Bay, which even provoked a political controversy in 1950s and 1970s. Giving the short history of the region and its resort, the author shows, how the “postwar building bum” damaged the surrounding environment, especially its water wells. Various committees tried to conserve national resources, regulate dredging operations and assist in proper planning. But the entire campaign turned out to be a dilemma (including legality as well as supervening illegality) of how to modify various projects on the expense of the opponent. As the result of the controversies between varies organization, the Boca Ciega lost much of its initial marine and landscape. Situation, concludes the author, still continues with the recent administration (by the time when book was published) and the lessons learned “have been lost.”
I always wanted to ask this question: is there a way to develop an area without damaging its environmental surroundings so pursued by the capitalistic entrepreneurs?
Gordon Harvey in “We must free ourselves…” (Ch.15) explores another involvement of politics into environment, referring to Florida as a “victim of its allure.” Taking as an example Everglades watering system, the author analyzes ecological problems in region, notably, an occurrence of “evapo-transpiration” thanks to the human intervention. Some places, such as Big Cypress Swamp, being under pressure from the developers, even lost governmental protection. As with the case of Boca Ciega Bay the biggest problem became a water supply for the area and necessity to balance economic and environmental needs. The author clearly specifies that the situation with Cypress became a vehicle to promote somebody’s political agenda (during the Nixon’s reelection of 1970s) where protection was substituted with acquisition. Thanks to the Florida’s governor Reubin Askew, legislative was actively asked to get involved in preservation of the state “for the people and all other living things, which makes Florida a place worth living.” However, it produced a huge controversy between the government and the private proprietorship. After much debate, involving system of government bond issues and federal involvement, in 1974 Congress voted to establish Big Cypress National Preserve, that is, a national park. It later was converted to the establishment of the Florida’s environmental policy for the years to come.
However, what seems to be omitted in this article is the voce of the ordinary people, who were living on the land; surely, not all of them should be referred as “communists taking over American lands.”
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
The Presence of the Past
The “Presence of the Past” by Rosenzwieg and Thelem could be a real stepping stone in our assessment of the past. We leave in the “digital society”, but our history, our human roots and personal experience is what makes what we are. The authors did a great job by undertaking such a project, which involved people w/different background and their reaction to the historical events. One of the striking examples is the conveyance of the past by the Native Americans and the Westerners, who, although living at the same time, responded differently to same events. People more and more concern about their cultural identities; form the other hand, more and more, especially the younger generation is trying to get “Americanized’. But generally, people want to know their history, and they want it for their children, so they could proudly bear the heritage of the ancestors.
However, for certain categories, this started only when they come to the US to look for better opportunities. It appears, that local grouping “consume” people’s identity and although they are part of the country now, their bounds to the mother-country are still strong. Some learn of the history through the big events, such as WWII, Civil Rights movement, Gulf War and the like. But mostly, the authors assembled “local” narratives, interviewing people for specifically designated questions about their family, work, marriage etc. Media played an important role as well and some respondents got “addicted” to various serials from which they’ve learned of the past, and compared it with the personal experience.
Overall, the book produces a very good analysis of the people’s involvement, “dealing” with the past (although some people feel excluded) as a part of their own heritage and importance of carefully preserving it, as such, for the further generations. This understanding moves slowly from the older generation to their posterity, because it is our “American collective past,” a true field for the public historian.
However, for certain categories, this started only when they come to the US to look for better opportunities. It appears, that local grouping “consume” people’s identity and although they are part of the country now, their bounds to the mother-country are still strong. Some learn of the history through the big events, such as WWII, Civil Rights movement, Gulf War and the like. But mostly, the authors assembled “local” narratives, interviewing people for specifically designated questions about their family, work, marriage etc. Media played an important role as well and some respondents got “addicted” to various serials from which they’ve learned of the past, and compared it with the personal experience.
Overall, the book produces a very good analysis of the people’s involvement, “dealing” with the past (although some people feel excluded) as a part of their own heritage and importance of carefully preserving it, as such, for the further generations. This understanding moves slowly from the older generation to their posterity, because it is our “American collective past,” a true field for the public historian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)