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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think you bring up an interesting topic examining the remodeling of Ellis Island and the new immigration issues that the US faces, currently. If the purpose of the re-designed Ellis Island exhibit is to highlight cultural differences and the obstacles they faced in coming into our nation, one cannot help but wonder if there could not be a contemporary exhibit that focuses on today's issues. Although this idea is problematic, posing the questions of the fact that Ellis Island is not used by immigrants today would this even be revevant and whether or not the National Park System would be open to this exhibit? If Wallace's beliefs are to represent the most accurate portrayl of history to the public, it would make sense to relate the past experiences with context the American populace can relate to.
A common theme this week in our realm of the blogosphere is how museums can succeed by best relating to their constituency. It can be, no doubt, a contentious issue when a curator has to decide between the standard narrative and a radical departure. Like any business though, a museum has to decide whether it wants to take risks or take it easy. When I interned at New Bedford, Massachusetts's Whaling Museum back in the fall of 2004, I noticed an attempt to create a varied portfolio, to continue the business metaphor. The support base for the museum naturally came from established Yankees who wanted to learn about their cherished, privileged past. Naturally, then, the museum had to include substantial exhibits to satisfy its top donors. Yet, the curators devoted significant space to investigating more diverse topics...local Portugese and Cape Verdeans, Manjiro the first Japanese-American, or even marine science. In most cases, a diverse museum will be a financially successful one.
Post a Comment