I feel the most important aspect of open-air and house museums in the United States is their ability to transport the viewer into a sort of virtual world in which they can experience, touch, smell, and interact with a museum exhibit. It is one thing to stand in front of a glass case and peer into the miniature representation of what the culture and life was like, but this makes it feel almost fake and story like. This effort shows areas otherwise unknown or unable to explore such as a Wisconsinite viewing tropic or Amazonian cultures. But when there is the ability to experience first-hand how earlier generations of your culture lived; this is a learning opportunity that would be otherwise lost.
As important as these museums are it is also important to note the downfalls to them as well. As mentioned by Murtagh in Keeping Time open-air and house museums are mostly at best a strict re-interpretation of how the culture lived. What may be most important in house museums is not as much the exterior of the house but the interior and along with that how the interior is decorated or furnished. As discovered on our tour of the Pabst Mansion, many of the original pieces within the house have been moved out and have had to been replaced or repurchased for the house. Without pictures, portraits, or first-hand accounts much of the décor work and layout of house museums are up to the museum’s historians and directors.
Another item of concern with open-air museums is much of the same issues, except a concern for exterior appeal and layout of buildings must be heavily considered along with interior representation. Many open-air museums in the United States feature a rural culture setting usually in days of horse drawn vehicles and farm equipment. The concern is how these structures are laid out and how to do so in a way that portrays a sense of accuracy while promoting education and interest but without making it feel too much like an amusement park. One other concern of open-air museums is the use the buildings that are not native to that area but similar enough to be moved into that setting or having to create a replica of a building that would have appeared in that time. Though similar to the time period, structures from different areas may have interpreted a structure differently from the one it has been placed in. After all many of the museums portray a time when it was very rare for local folk to travel long distances from their home, so much of their culture centers around how things were done in their particular area.
I agree with your stance on open-air museums, they often have become a commodity and a vacation destination rather than a learning experience. It brings me back to when I visited Williamsburg, and there was a Starbucks right in the middle of the town. And I didn’t find out until this class ( I was very young when I visited) that the town was arranged in that way to work ascetically.
ReplyDeleteI also felt that way about the Pabst Mansion, although they are working extremely hard to get everything back to the way it is, but you have to remember that it is a laid out house. I also feel that the Pabst Mansion does have some learning possibilities but it has become a location for events, such as weddings and wine tastings, moreover than the learning experience about Grand Avenue and the Pabst family. I think the lecture that we got prior to the tour was a big help in making the Pabst Mansion more interesting.
I agree that actually being inside a place where you can interact with history is an excellent way to understand it. You made an interesting point about how the Pabst mansion is somewhat lacking when it comes to original décor. While some rooms are not as accurate or put together as they could be, I think it is important to remember that the intentions is to make them as they once were, but acquiring these items or having enough money for renovations can often stand in the way of this.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of open-air museums, I agree that bringing in buildings from different locations may be a cause for concern when it comes to historical accuracy. When I volunteered at Old World Wisconsin, they informed me that the small “towns” they created were actually a collection of houses that they had either acquired or people donated. They tried to group houses together as accurately as possible, but you can tell that some seem out of place. This raises the question: is it better to be one hundred percent historically accurate, or better to preserve multiple aesthetics and example from the past even if they do not really go together? Personally, I could go either way with this question, but I think it is something that a lot of people struggle to answer.
You bring up a very good point with the fact that a lot of open air museums provide contextual evidence of the culture of an era. It would be wonderful if there were more of that contextual evidence available to us on Wisconsin Avenue currently. It is very unfortunate that the entire area was basically decimated by "progress." That is why I get a little annoyed when people soapbox about progress and how we should make way for the new by tearing down the old. I'm a designer, of course I understand progress, technology especially. But it is a fool who does not try to learn from history. And was it really worth it in terms of Wisconsin Avenue? Putting up used car lots and gas stations...sorry, I just don't see how those were better choices in any way. Mostly, I think that people who do not understand the importance of preserving certain things do not understand, when it all comes down to it, the benefits on the local economy and long term gain, versus short term gain. That gas station polluted the air, clogged the traffic pattern of the neighborhood, cost money to build, most likely was owned by one person who profited from it and employed only a few people who no longer are employed there. The gas station did not put money back into the economy, aside from the taxes the owner paid. By preserving more of the original buildings on old Grand Avenue, the street could have been a huge tourist attraction. Instead, it is mostly a ghetto, with a university in the middle of it. Long term thinking would have been beneficial to the city and its inhabitants in this situation. But, it really is the duty of the citizens to make sure these things don't happen, and they obviously did not raise enough support. Sad social commentary on our times, but accurate. You had a great post - these were the things you brought to mind. But I appreciate that you actually answered the questions posed in the blog assignment concisely. Good job!
ReplyDeleteI was not on the class trip to the Pabst Mansion, but hearing from your post about how many original items have been moved out of the house makes me feel disappointed about the museum. When I go to a house museum, I want to SEE what things looked like in the past, not be told about what is missing. If someone tells me something used to be there, there is a void in my mind about the history and it makes me skeptical about the accuracy of representation, and when I'm skeptical, it makes it difficult to enjoy and take the learning experience seriously. The unfortunate thing is that you have to be able to trust whoever is in charge of creating the representation or explaining the history of the house museum.
ReplyDelete