Week 6 reading post

The first article centers on the historical preservation movement and its move towards professionalization. Historic preservation takes another change in face, because as the movement gains, men take over the field and push aside the women that helped start the field of preserving historic homes, such as Mount Vernon. The article focuses on the different viewpoints on the themes in the historic homes between men and women.  The author shows that women in the field spotlight on a perspective called personalism, which focuses on the material culture and its relation to the people and the time and therefore was a more personal view of history. On the contrary, men tended to focus on the buildings and architecture from a particular time and place, rather than the people and stories inside.

                Nolan’s article presents two different historic preservation houses, the Monticello and the Mont, to show two different ideas and philosophies on how to restore projects. Monticello, Jefferson’s house, is remodeled to a specific time period when Jefferson lived there in the early 1800s. The Monticello is rid of all of its recent additions and is restored with current methods to its previous state. One problem shown by the author is that the Monticello shows only one part of the houses history, which focuses on Jefferson, even though he did not reside in the house the longest. The other house, the Montpelier, at one point was the house of President Madison. The curator at the Montpelier does not restore the house, but instead preserves it in its current state. Therefore the house is described to have layers that allow for multiple stories to be told from each era the house has existed. One down side to this style of preservation the visitors complained about was they got confused to which part of the house was in which era, because the house is not broken up by period, and instead is scattered through the house.

Week 5 reading post

The major dilemma discussed in the two chapters from Dublin’s article focuses on the content of the presentation of the Enola Gay exhibit by the National Air and Space museum in the Smithsonian. The opposing sides include an association of veterans, the government including congress as well as the Air Force against the curators at the museum. The author’s main point lays in the argument over whether public domain, such as an airplane from a major war, can be displayed in a confrontational mode outside what the opposing sides stated was against the wants and desires of the public of the United States. Another key issue in this article introduces the problem of outside sources involvement in the creating phase of an exhibit in a somewhat publically funded institution. The author sarcastically addresses the issue of the involvement of Air Force representatives going through the exhibit and checking what could or could not be included in the display. The article hits on how the government wants to present the American armed forces in a positive manner rather than focus on the issues on how the war was fought as well as presenting the Japanese point of view, in this case. Presentations of war and other confrontations involving in the military appear to have to choose between two different style of design, which includes a patriotic view point that does not question the decisions of wartime and confrontation or a democratic view point that brings in outside issues that break past the conservative version of war. I found a major problem in the National Air and Space museum separates this museum from most progressive stances on presentation that allows for an open forum for discussion, and in this case there is no room for discussion, but only a patriotic version of the Enola Gay exhibit.

Week 4 reading post

The book “Slavery and Public History” deals with the dialogue of slavery in public places and tells of different places that were instances of the sensitive issue of presenting slavery.  In recent years, portraying slavery in a public venue creates different emotions for different people, but in the end it stirs up controversy. Slavery and the African American community before the civil war have been left out of the public eye for the most part, until the later part of the 20^th century when some curators and community leaders sought to give voice to the population under slavery in America. The problems of the presentation of slavery vary depending on the area as well as the community. The book describes that all areas of the United States administered slavery in some point in American history, but the problems of presenting slavery were different depending on the area. The northeastern portion projects a heritage of democracy and freedom and pushes the story of slavery away from memory because of the areas long times to the pursuit of independence. Areas such as The Library of Congress and The Liberty Bell book suffered problems of displaying a section of the history of slavery because of the rich tradition of the heritage of revolution and afterwards that the idea of the founding fathers owning slaves appeared to be a an unwanted exhibit. The south uncovered other complications on portraying history in that the relationship between slaves and white plantation owners were well known. Neither ancestral side knew the correct way of showing the true history without stirring up controversy or bringing up unwanted memories. In conclusion it seems that portraying the true history of slavery in an area without leaving any groups out appears to be one option to the question. It seems that communities want a just and full representation of the past without it being distorted or not shown.

Week 3 reading post

The book, Defining Memory, confronts the fact that memory can challenge the direction of museum and argues the question if culture is public or private property. The author makes the argument that, “Memory contests and resists official history (60).” In the chapter about Arthurdale, citizens picture in their mind how the house looked back in the 1930s and contested some of the decisions of the set up of the house, while they missed the bigger mission of the site. It seems when dealing with people’s memory, museum personal continually encounter problems with the local population about the real details of the past. This seems true in the chapter about the Dickson Mounds Museum when the Native Americans in the area had a problem with the archeologist for digging up remains at their burial ground and wanting to put a museum on the site. Communicating and having a say in the display of the museum solved the problem for the Native Americans of the museum along with stopping the digging of the burial grounds. The split in the view of the community of the Native Americans sparked the issue because of the view that Native Americans portrayed as primal. Government groups often bring problems in the creation of an exhibit because of image. The John Dillinger museum and the Enola Gay exhibit proved controversial because it showed the armed forces and the police department in a questioning perspective. Local officials accused the museum of championing John Dillinger as a criminal and therefore changed the museum’s focus to showing that crime pays and lifting up the law enforcement. Similar in the Enola Gay exhibit, the army forced the National Air and Space museum to change it’s exhibit to glorifying the plane whether than questioning it. Therefore nostalgia for the past inhibits museums because the public does not want museums to show the messy past and instead people only tell of the good memories they have in order to show their town in a pleasant perspective.