I need an oil change

I'm thinking about who owns history. Museums, historians, government, the public
I thought of this-

History is like a car, sometimes you need a professional to tune it up, and some people prefer to work on their own cars- but they don’t own it any more or less then the person who relied on the mechanic. Likewise, the mechanic does not own the car (probably has their own car), but rather knows how to make it run. Some people have expensive cars with well known names, some people drive old cars that still run, some people like to collect cars that don't run anymore because they just like them. They still own the car, they still make claims to it and it affects who they see themselves as and how others see them.

Ghosts, Museums and Spiritual residue

I am very excited about this. Ghosts and talk of them make me very uncomfortable and so do dead bodies, but within the confines of history I find it very interesting.

On page 86 in Handler and Gable’s controversial 1997 book New History in an Old Museum, they share a quote from a  Colonial Williamsburg interpreter- who says “I don’t interpert ghosts. I do nothing with ghosts.” The quote is used to explain how C.W. interpreters used a lack of concrete evidence to not discuss the miscegenation inherent in the 18^th century slave/ master relationship. But the quote also addresses the guests’ interest in the spiritual remnants of the historical town. Knowing that spiritualism and séances became popular at the turn of the 20th century as a way to reengage with lost loved ones- I began to think how ghosts allow contemporary people to engage with the past. How ghosts and spiritual culture influence public history.

Now, there is little value in debating whether or not ghosts are real. What I am going to deal with here is what ghosts do for/to history, especially historical homes, and places. I don’t care if they are real, I care that people go to museums thinking about ghosts. Ghosts a part of American culture and the way Americans look at the past.

            As an undergrad I wrote my senior thesis on Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for president. Before she ran for president, she and her sister, Tennessee-like the state, were traveling “clairvoyants,” meaning they talked to the dead. During that research I also came across the Fox children- not to be confused with feral children. The Fox children were clairvoyants as well, and while Woodhull and her sister worked for Comm. Vanderbilt the Fox children worked with Mary Todd Lincoln. Mrs. Lincoln, like many mid 19^th century mothers thought reconnecting with their lost youths would ease the pain of loss. Spiritualism, séances, and traveling clairvoyants became popular at the turn of the 20^th century, no doubt in response to the huge loss of life from the Civil War, and undeveloped germ and medical science which took many lovers and children.

            In the same way turn of the 20th cenutry Americans sought out clairvoyants to connect them with their past loved one, contemporary Americans seek out historical places hoping to reconnect with American heroes through the spiritual residue left in their objects and homes. [2]

            The argument taking place in my mind is whether museum guests are reading objects for their historical information or reaching out to these items to gain a closeness to their hero’s spiritual residue. I’ve argued for both, if you look in Conn’s book Museums and American Intellectual Life  you get an idea of how museums and the organization of the objects there in created knowledge. The guests who went there needed to be able to understand how to read the “visual sentences” museums presented them. On the other hand you have places like house museums, which take historical characters homes and recreate them as if they never died and time never moved on. Not unlike Great Expectations’s Miss. Havishm electing to keep her house, and dress the same as the day her groom left her.

               Is it simply a difference between the constructed museums, like the Smithsonian’s’ National American History Museum and house/place museums, Mt. Vernon? What about battle sites? What is left of them but the assumption of spiritual residue and the ability to connect to them? Do the objects behind glass at constructed museums have less spiritual residue? What sort of filter does the glass case present? OR Do cases keep in a kind of ghostly freshness? Would Lincoln’s Hat behind class have more spiritual residue and power then saw a pair of 18^th century pants laid on a bed at Mt. Vernon?

            What is the connection between museum curators’ ability to create knowledge by organization and display and the spiritual residue experienced by guests? 

If you are interested in reading up on old dead bodies, check out Drew Gilpin Faust’s This Republic of Suffering- one of my personal favorites.

I swear I am not obsessed with Lincoln, but here is an image for an exhibit at his Presidential Library and Museum which incorporates ghosts. Which I snagged from an article their cite.[3]  They use “Holavision,” (their word not mine) which allows guests to see ghostly figures. This created museum uses the power of ghost to bring their guests closer their loved ones. Lincoln being a lost love one for, I would argue, everyone. Again, not obsessed, just from Illinois.

“In a mysterious way, these original objects connect us to the people and events of history and make them real. It is almost as if we can momentarily see their world, as though they were here”

Great Stuff!

---

[2] Unlike, Ghost Buster ectoplasm, I would argue there is very little to no physical spiritual residue view able at museums. http://ghostbusters.wikia.com/wiki/Ectoplasm

[3] http://www.alplm.org/museum/ghosts.html

Ringling Museum

Coming Soon! The Ringling Museum, and high brow, middle brow, and low brow entertainment!

Abe Lincoln Vampire Slayer

(This is not a museum, but the movie fits into the larger discussion on Public History and I included a photo of me at a museum, so there is that.)

One Christmas my father asked me who my favorite president was. Instead of answering him I explain that I did not have a favorite president and I don’t care for choosing favorites, and would rather we all recognize the presidents’ humanity. (ya, I read Loewen in high school)

 

Fast forward to my first year of graduate school. While exploring IMDB.com I came across the trailer for a film called “Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter.”  Oh man, I love Lincoln. Considering that I was born and raised in Illinois I like to think this is a natural reaction.

That same spring I took a class called “Our Founding Fathers.” Instead of reading historical monographs about the men, we read about their creation, (Check out Inventing George Washington by Edward Lengal) The class discussed the presidential images as cultural constructions and the power related to these characters. For example, we looked at what the proliferation of the Cherry Tree myth meant in U.S. culture.

The stories' validity are debatable, but they become true as the men who we consider our Founding Fathers fade away in place of the character we make them into.

Back to Lincoln- the movie, and book (which I did read, more on that later) uses the character President Lincoln to tell a story about the link between the Civil War and the 18^th century vampire eradication in the United States. This movie, and book gives Lincoln a new story which speaks to 21^st century culture.  

In “Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter,” the Lincoln image turns into an uber masculine hunter. The elements previously recognized as “Lincoln”, the axe, severe depression, honesty, and “freeing” slaves, are reconstructed in this film/book to support Lincoln’s masculine heroism. Politicians are not known for action hero type deeds. Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, he did not personally enforce it. Our 21^st century culture places a lot of significance on masculinity- look at our military, our movies, our toy stores, anything really. Masculinity’s definition changes throughout time, and “ALVH” allows one of the nation’s favorite presidents to take part in the newest definition.

Why not give all the presidents a gritty re-boot?

I happily saw a Funny Or Die clip proposing more presidential gritty re-boots. Which I support completely. I am not interested in the validity of the claims made by the Lincoln movie, and the others that will hopefully follow, but rather the fact that people are using historical characters to tell new stories. I know some people will worry about other people thinking stories like “ALVH,” being taken as fact. That is a certainly a valid worry, but what will that do? Well, it will support the current definition of masculinity, and maybe make people think there are vampires. Looking at “ALVH” we see 2012’s cultural- it is more a story about us than the 19^th United States.

The Book

I really liked the book. I enjoyed seeing the author convince his readers that he used primary documents. He used footnotes and engaged in a discussion about the document’s validity. And it was funny, the movie was funny too. Great stuff.

Lastly-Neat stuff- Fun facts

President Harding first used the phrase “Our Founding Fathers”

Abraham Lincoln is still alive and protects us all from vampires...because he is one!

"The America Trunk Come Home"

 Greetings!
I recently read Round-Trip to America: The Immigrates return to Europe 1880-1930. by Mark Wyman. His book is about the percentage of European immigrants who came to the United States to work, build a savings and return to their land of origin in order to achieve their dreams at home. His work, and works like his (the grandfather of this thought being Frank Thistelwaite) shatter the concept of American (US) excetionalism based on the United States' immigrant foundations, or the idea that poor immigrants came to the United States because they thought it was the greatest place on earth because of "opportunity" and "freedom," ect ect.
 Wyman's book says  immigrants did not move to the United States to start their dreams lives, but rather came here to work, and went back home, because they liked it better there. What he does that is unique is allow the hole left by this new (I am using that word broadly ) concept to be filled with a new image- of the the European immigrant going back home with the United States with him/her. This is best explained in his concluding chapter "The American Trunk Comes Home." Where he describes immigrant's bringing home things both physical and mental to the benefit (some to the  shegrin) of their home lands.
SO what we have here is Wyman allowing the US to still hold on to the idea that immigrants came to the US (no matter if they stayed ) and wanted the kind of lives they saw while stateside. Neo-exceptionalism?

What does this have to do with museums?
Ah yes, I think this would be a great exhibit! Say the National Hist Museum in DC. Get a few "America trunks" for display and explain the concept of "remigration"(as Wyman calls it), as wells as what migrants were taking back with them and what impact is had on their home lands. Maybe, tell the story of one man or woman, and follow their journey from their home land and back again. The exhibit could talk about work conditions, migration ,urbanism, , really nearly everything. (talking about everything would be a mess so choosing a few would work well.)  I think this would be an excellent way to introduce the destruction of the US exceptionalism myth with a soft hand.  I also think that telling the story of migrant workers throughout history might lessen the social and political prejudice against migrant workers from Central America.

Tada!

Holding on to the past: Hoarders and Collectors?

The alternative title is “Why I Watch Hoarders”
            Last week my boyfriend came home to me lying on the couch watching Hoarder: Buried Alive.  He despises all reality T.V. and for the most part I agree with him, but Hoarders I watch for scholarly reasons! On Hoarders a psychologist confronts a hoarder (someone who does not throw stuff out, and often lives in filth dangerously surrounded by their possessions and rotten food ect ect) The show follows the psychologist and the hoarder’s family attempting to clean the hoard up, thus allowing some designated outcome. Every episode the hoarder goes through their things explaining their value. The psychologist and family members usually spend the majority of the show baffled by the hoarder’s wide allotment of significance.  Today’s post is about significance!
            Museums began displaying objects in thematic collections under glass. Early curators hoped the items would encourage critical thinking. Guests were encouraged to draw their own conclusions from the thematic organization thus imbedding the objects with their own significance. This experience not only exposed guests to different prehistorical tools, Egyptian jewelry, ect but taught guests that items held certain significant meanings. Meanings, significant enough to save and display.
I first began thinking about this on the ride back to Tampa from a military turn history museum with my professor and a fellow Pub. Hist student. The place went was result of a private collector’s dedication to military material history. (I’ll talk more about this museum in another post.) This man’s collection turned museum got me thinking, out loud, about the differences between hoarders, collectors, and museums.
Unlike the collection/ visitor relationship I discussed in my Smithsonian post, the relationship between private collectors or hoarders (two different-yet related groups) and their objects appears more personal. (One could argue the personal connection comes from their ability to touch the objects) Collectors own items significant to their culture, and hoarders collect items significant to themselves. A hoarder might keep their favorite outfit despite its tattered unwearable shape. A collector might own a Civil War soldier’s torn up coat. Both articles are torn up outfits, but one has the advantage of being associated with a historic event, the other represents what the show Hoarders and its psychologists would define as an inability to “let go” or a fear of losing a memory or oneself. Arguing whose significance is better is not really worth doing.
Also, hoarders usually don’t have a recognized organization system, the space nor glass cases to display their items. Ultimately the level of professionalization and organization separates the hoarder form the private collector from the museum. As stated earlier the first museums used organization and categorization to display their items to the public. In order to achieve accepted organization through categorizations a collection needs an expert (I use this loosely) to interpret the objects into their proper places. The difference between hoarders, collectors and museums are the viewers’ perception of professionalization in organized display.
(It should be noted that all my information on hoarders comes from the show, take or leave it.)
We live in an interesting time we have shows about hoarding, and shows about picking through people’s hoards in hopes of finding valuable items for resale. On one hand these shows lament the collecting and the loss of control over consumption and on the other hand we watch ‘experts’ explore the depths of their rag tag collections for re-consumption, thus giving extreme consumption approval.
I justify watching Hoarders because 1.) the show makes me want to clean my house, and 2.) it exposes a unique side of consumer and material culture in the United States, which correspond to the museum world, and public history- The connection people feel they have with their history and their personal responsibility to preservation the past.
If you want to look more into the relationship between collectors and professionals Take a look at Benjamin Filene’s 2012 NCPH article Passionate Histories: “Outsider” History-Makers and What They Teach Us. Filene discusses the relationship between professionalized museum workers and history fans, he argues in favor of museums finding inspiration in history fans, attempting to foster a more personal, less academic relationship between visitors and museum, thus creating a relationship like those felt by history fans.

South Florida Museum aka Snooty's House

The South Florida Museum is a strange museum. (strange is good, in most cases) The museum contains a history/archeology museum, a manatee aquarium, and a planetarium, and hosts various community events and fundraisers.
I love manatees, but I am going to go over the museum’s non-manatee related aspects before I gush over Snooty. Knowing where Snooty lives in the museum I tried to avoid him until the very end- and was delightfully surprise with what I saw.
Entering the museum guests first see a Wooly Mammoth. My first assumption was that the museum was going to take me through the evolutionary process that created manatees, knowing elephants and manatees are related in some way. Turns out I was wrong (surprised, nope). The exhibit begins in prehistoric Florida, introducing guests to archeology in the area, displaying dino bones, and engaging graphics. The exhibit leads into pre-European contact Florida and filters outside into a Spanish style courtyard representing colonization. From the Mammoth to the Spanish courtyard the exhibit uses recognizable objects and scenes to build an association between change over time and advancement of material construction.

On the second floor the museum focuses on more modern Floridian history. The exhibits on the second floor include maritime history, medical, an art gallery, and a few taxidermy aquatic sea creatures.
 My favorite part of the second floor is the Visual Storage. Steven Conn famously discusses museum’s move away from displaying historical objects, preferring more hands on or educational displays. The majority of the SFM takes part in this trend. The new museum style places object collections in storage. (Recall the storage hanger at the end of Raider of the Lost Ark.) However, The SFM’s Visual Storage exhibit allows guests access to the museum’s unused collections. While this may seem very innovate the actual set up is a classic. (Things in glass cases with informational cards) Reverting back to old museum displays in this area allows the museum to use modern exhibit techniques and still satisfy their guests desire to see objects. The museum is an excellent place to learn about museum history and get a visual understanding of the trends Conn and others are talking about now.

I got this from the museum’s page.http://www.southfloridamuseum.org/
Snooty is the world’s oldest manatee. He was born in captivity sixty four years ago and does not have any skills for taking care of himself outside of the tank. He is a lot like an indoor cat, or someone who has never been camping. However, Snooty is not doomed to a life of solitude!  The museum takes in and rehabilitees other manatees who share the tank with Snooty. Snooty eats from his caretaker’s hands, and loves broccoli, he also has amazing back muscles and can pull himself up-on the edge of the pool. Snooty is a buff manatee.
Enjoy these.


He fears NO speed Boats!

The Smithsonian Part 1: History Museum

The National History Museum houses items embedded with a near magical quality of cultural significance. On my visit I began to ask myself why we kept all this stuff.
 My group and I stopped at The “Star-Spangled Banner” exhibit first. The flag made me think about the rationalization behind the museum’s collection. The exhibit’s full title (The Star-Spangled Banner: The Flag That Inspired the National Anthem) tells us that this flag inspired the national anthem. But what of it now? Why do we still keep it, why preserve it for future viewing? (On Hoarders they would ask “do you plan on using it again?”) Though it failed to inspire with me renewed sense of patriotism it did make me think about my Catholic upbringing. Catholics excel at holding on to old things. The museum keeps the flag for the same reason churches have mummified saints (or fingers, jewelry, teeth, cloth, personal items) on display: to inspire the masses and hopefully transfer a spiritual power to the views. i.e. If the flag inspired one person once, we ought to keep it just in case it works again!
Mission
The National Museum of American History’s mission statement reads “The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History dedicates its collections and scholarship to inspiring a broader understanding of our nation and its many peoples. We create opportunities for learning; stimulate imaginations, and present challenging ideas about our country’s past.” I can’t argue against that, the museum brought me a broader understanding of the nation’s deep attachment to material culture. The museum collects the objects that represent the United States.  That is not to say that museum simply collect and display them in glass boxes, there are some exhibits that are fashioned in the 19^th century style, and others are modern museum display. The display variety allows the museum to showcase museum history, alongside US material culture.
Favorite
“Communities in a Changing Nation: The Promise of 19^th-Century American,” discussed Industrial workers, Jewish Immigrants, and newly freed Black Americans at the turn of the last century. A short display introduced each vignette in the exhibit, explaining what the guests were going to encounter, what they were expected to learn. This exhibit contracts nicely with uncontextualized or lightly contextualized item displays.

This photo illustrates old items in a context and story heavy exhibit. In the photo you see a Jewish immigrant’s trunk, shoes, and books.  Though it is possible to display items as they would have looked new, (or lightly used) in the 19^th century, the display plays on the authenticity of the collection. The items look 100 years old, because they are. The visible authenticity fosters a relationship with museum guests and the 19^th century immigrants. An intimacy only achieved by relative closeness to culturally defined significant objects. Imagine putting those shoes on, would they allow you time travel? Probably not, but I didn’t put them on so maybe. Fostering an intimacy with the past allows modern visitors to place themselves with in a story that, by the existence of the museum itself, is worth telling and saving.
Truthfully, not all guests think about the items in terms of historical significance or their own relationship with the items; however people justify their visit to the museum by citing the collection. “I want to see________.” Lincoln’s hat, Kermit, the First Ladies’ tea sets, Washington’s uniform, Greensboro lunch counter, ect ect.  The want to see things “in person” reveals a need to associate with items that carry a larger significance than oneself.

Here i am associating myself with Kermit the frog. Lastly-My disappointment
The World War One vignette in the U.S. war exhibit was painfully small, and under contextualized.

This guy needs more explanation. Why the gas mask? How did this war create the “lost generation?” SO much left!

Virginia

Ferry Farm

I spent June in Fredericksburg VA doing archeology and interpretation at George Washington’s Boyhood Home. Though my research is focused on the late 19^th/early 20^th U.S., taking part in the Ferry Farm field school allowed me to explore different museums, and develop a better understanding of historical archeology, and why not?

The Ferry Farm dig started about a decade ago. Their original goal was to find the foundations of Washington’s boyhood home. They found the foundations in the early 2000’s and today they focus on small finds, like the wig curler I am holding in the photo. Along with a few wig curler we found some broken ceramic sherds, various building materials from the 18^th-20^th centuries, 20th century toys, a rodent burial, and other fun items.

Ferry Farm is a unique Washington site because it focuses on the land opposed to buildings, or furnishings. Visitors learn the story of the landscape-who lived there, what it was used for, its significance in early Fredericksburg, and the interaction with the Washington family.  

Ferry Farm has an unique advantage-there are no 18th century buildings on the entire site! FF's missing buildings enable it to incorporate creative and educational additions to the landscape. There are a lot of exciting things on the horizon for Ferry Farm.

Kenmore

Kenmore is Ferry Farm’s sister site (literally). Originally Washington’s sister’s house, Kenmore showcases a traditional house museum in a new and rather innovative way.

When I visited Kenmore with the other students from Ferry Farm we tested their newest tour.  Each room in the house showcased various chairs, cloth swatches, and any number of cabinets and tables.  With the docent’s help guests pick the furniture they believe belonged best in the room. The tour engaged the guests to think critically about material culture and allow them to play curator in a house museum.

  House museums are like a department store's furniture section,( but most of us don’t get to buy the furniture we see in museums). For the most part when guests go to a house museum and admire the furniture they are simply admiring the furniture and judging it based on their own 21st century tastes. Kenmore understands their guests desire to pick furniture for themselves, and challenges them by asking their guests to pick out and understand 18th century furniture.

Instead of glorifying recognized historical objects, (or object that look like items from the past) the museum encourages guests to think about the furniture in terms of its cultural definitions throughout time. The tour allows the house museum to transcend the stale stereotype house museum are known for and become an interactive learning site.

Lastly- Something I thought was neat-Fun Fact

The recently restored walls in Kenmore were painted using period paint brushes in the 18^th century style. If you have ever painted a room (in the past 100 years or so) you would know we use a “W” pattern when painting the walls in order to blend the strokes. In the 18^th century painters painted in vertical strokes leaving behind lines in the paint. For the 21^st (and 20^th)century lines mean carelessness or a general disregard for the “W,” but 18^th century home owners recognized the difficulty of painting in vertical strokes, and paid a lot of have people do it.

Welcome

Welcome to Museming,
With this blog I will explore my thoughts on the museums I visit and the public history I encounter.
I will try to include photos, and make reading enjoyable!
 Also, I moved here from tumblr so I have a few posts from there I will post here before I start writing new posts.