Levins edited works, Defining Memory: Local Museums and the Construction of History in Americas Changing Communities created a unique look into the world of local museums. The concept of identity appears in a series of chapters, displaying how local museums bring light upon techniques and methods not traditionally associated with well-known museums.
For example, Embry and Nelsons article “Such is Our Heritage” created a view into a museum system very different from more recent trends in curation. Embry and Nelson discussed a system that focused less upon creating a view of the whole story, but allowing the public to create the interpretation from the exhibited items. (Levin, 162) This more unorthodox style directly challenges the more modern idea of telling an entire story or creating a more encompassing view of the historical event.
The Daughters of Utah Pioneers style developed in the late 1800s and essentially remained frozen in this technique. (Levin, 167) While many museums adjusted to the new ideas and interpretation techniques, the D.U.P.s approach remained the same. While major museums altered and created a view of various groups involved in events, the D.U.P.s technique created a very unique example of holding onto older techniques. This adherence to the older techniques created a sense of uniqueness, allowing this local museum to stand out even on a national level.
Within these exhibits, the D.U.P. also created almost a sense of overflow with artifacts. (Levin, 168). They realized that their main audience comes from donors and their families, whose ancestors stories displayed there. (Levin 168). This setup and lack of heavily describing labels formed a much less understanding and comprehensive sense of the time period, but also created a more personal sense and targeted their audience much better. With this development, the D.U.P.s exhibits heavily defied the modern views on curation and displayed how local museums differ in story telling and even techniques on disseminating their information to the public.
Your target discussion on identity was interesting, and I think, ultimately to the point of these museums who are nontraditional (or, in the case of the DUP, very traditional) in their exhibits. The encompassing narratives which are the current trend in curation and exhibition, themselves, are presenting an identity of the museum which is then impressed upon the visitors resulting in either validating their own identity or challenging it. The DUP exhibit, however, does this too, albeit in a very different way. Regardless of the technique, it would seem that identity, as far as museums and their target audience/local population are concerned, is not that different (if at all) from heritage which is ultimately what the DUP is preserving for their members. While the DUP did have a brief moment with current curation and exhibition trends, the museum reverted back to its traditional style because of issues between their heritage and identity and that of the larger community. Does one sense of identity have to be sacrificed for the other? How would a change in technique really benefit the museum’s identity and that of the local population?
ReplyDeleteThe defiance and hold on the past of D.U.P. creates a real difference between them and other museums. However, is this done to create that view, and focus on the past and differences from today, or is it merely an accidental hold-over that works for them? The visitor gets a sense of wonder from walking through these unique exhibits, do they also lose something from the lack of expansion on the material that a more modern museum would do?
ReplyDelete