Back when I was in Girl Scouts I found out that my hometown has up kept a house museum. Although I knew bits and pieces about the town I was unaware of where it started. Park Ridge, Illinois started as a brick industry town and was formally known as Brickton, Illinois. The majority of what I remember is a lot of old furniture and standing behind ropes looking at things. I do recall the house being set up like any other, except there were oil lamps. The house sits on a former farm, which has been paved over and is now the sight of the local farmers market. Park Ridge is a town of about forty thousand people and almost nothing resembles the brick industry any more. In the case of the Brickton House Museum I don’t see how it is important to the cities culture. Anything that is in the house could be communicated, if not better, in a room at the local library.
The Brickton House Museum was a good Girl Scout trip and it did contain all the important historical parts of the town. It was a small hub of the history for Park Ridge. Unfortunately the museum went under since the time I had been their last. I could not find any information on the place or locate its previous address. For me the Brickton house will just be a house with oil lamps and ropes.
House museums in general are hard for me to understand in the stance of small towns. The museums do preserve the history and the heritage that of the town, but they often go underutilized and unnoticed in the 21st century and the Internet. I have never been a huge fan of house museums. They often feel cold and stagnate. Since the intent of the house was to be lived in, walking through the staged set up often seems wrong. It doesn’t help that everything is roped off and you are unable to interact with the history. I understand why it would be a liability to allow people to interact with the artifacts, but when presented in the manor of a home it seems contradictory.
When we visited the Pabst mansion, this was the second time for me within a year, I found my self quite interested in the simplest things. Although the Christmas decorations were quite gaudy and over done, the branches in the corners of the entryway were one of the most interesting parts for me. I felt I was intruding on the house when we went to visit and I felt that I had to tread lightly, almost as if I were breaking in. This is how I’ve felt at the Pabst Mansion both times. Since the house was well kept as a house and could still be functional, by only adding a fridge and a stove, it never felt right to be taking a tour of someone’s living space.
I think it is interesting that you don’t think that the Brickton house is important to the city’s culture. From how you described it, it seems like this house represents the entirety of how the town was formed, and is perhaps the last remaining mark of heritage that people can see. Without it, would there be anything to remind the people in that area of their heritage?
ReplyDeleteI also think it is interesting that the concept of a house museum is somewhat strange to you. Personally, I love visiting these types of places because I like to see how other people live and what sorts of items interest them. In the case of the Pabst mansion, I thought this was especially true because I was able to get an accurate sense of how the Pabst family would have lived. Do you feel that the overall concept of a house museum is not needed in today’s world? I think it provides a visual learning experience that the Internet alone can not fully convey.
I can see your point with your example of the Brickton House. I have also been to house museums where everything of interest was roped off or in a glass case. To me, that just made me think those items would be better enjoyed and more educational in a museum or a library. I enjoyed the Pabst Mansion for the very reason that things were not visually separated. We know not to touch things, and hopefully most people have the same sense and respect - but my point here is that within the original context, or as close to original as historians can piece it together, we can learn a lot more than if everything was sectioned off or in those ugly mammoth cases. When you go to visit someone's house, you form opinions on them, regardless of whether you are conscious of it or not. This is what the Pabst Mansion makes me think of. It feels like people still live there, and it makes me want to know all about them. When I go to the other kind of house museum you have described in your blog, I just feel like I'm being forced to behave as though I were in a library; it is forced, and out of context. There's not much to relate to there, but in the Pabst Mansion, there is plenty to relate to. Part of preservation is learning about the past, and the glass case set up doesn't make me want to learn about anything. When I go to a more tradition museum, I am prepared to look at things in glass cases...when I go to a house, that is not what I want to see.
ReplyDeleteI completely understand your feelings on museum homes. I too feel like they are just for show and have little ability to teach if just looking at. There are things about the Pabst Mansion that I do seem to be important though and I wouldn't want it to be demolished for another Marquette Union or something else. The area that surrounds the mansion isn't very safe and I feel it to be a something special within such a bad part of town.
ReplyDeleteDuring our visit I did find the details of the house to be more interesting than the stories that were told. All of that information could be told from a book at the library or even the internet. There is something about standing in a house that old though that I think completes the experience. It is nothing more than curiosity of what the interiors look like that intrigued me. I feel that is something that can't be obtained by reading about.
I can agree with you that walking through a house, meant to be lived in, that is staged for people to look at and observe seems a bit strange. I however, find house museums extremely engaging, much more engaging than reading about a house in a text-book and looking at pictures. Being emerged in an environment can teach a person a lot about the history just by experiencing it.
ReplyDelete"I understand why it would be a liability to allow people to interact with the artifacts, but when presented in the manor of a home it seems contradictory." I think taking items out of context to showcase them elsewhere could potentially ruin the accuracy of history.
Never quite thought about the house museum as breaking and entering on someone's home...or at least feeling that way. Very interesting insight as to how when the house, such as the Pabst Mansion, is still so well put together that it feels almost still lived in. I too found the branches in the main hall to be quite interesting of a decorative piece for the holiday season, I suppose people but lights on branches outside, why not inside as well! I can also understand what you mean about visiting house museums when at a younger age. My hometown also has an old school house that the historical society uses today. The building is very well preserved but all I can remember about the school house is roped off areas, rooms that had been set up to look like general stores or black smith stores, and other trinkets lying on tables so you can see them, but not interact. The coolest thing about the tour was when we were going to get to ring the bell, but the rope broke after the first kid rang it. Places like those that are going to be used as house museums definitely need to take into account the original set up and how people can interact with the house beyond standing outside a room behind red velvet ropes.
ReplyDelete