Preservation

The readings for this week focused on themes of preservation and revitalization. While the scope of the readings differed vastly, I think they work together in a strange way. Thinking back on my reading of the texts, I would have read them in a different order. I would have read Diane Lea's "America's Preservation Ethos" first. Lea quickly traced the history and evolution of preservation in American culture. Her writing would have placed Lowell into a larger historical context of preservation.

As with most fields, preservation has gone through a maturation process in which core values changed to reflect those of society. According to Lea, preservation in America started with the goal of preserving and "memorializing the heroes of the Revolutionary War." In the early days, preserved sites were places such as Independence Hall and George Washington's Mount Vernon. Lea discussed how preservation transformed into a field which eventually saw value in preserving entire sections of cities, as well as sites of marginalized people. I saw this shift as being reflective of shifts in history. History has shifted its focus over the decades; histories about mythic figures have given way to an exploration of history from the other end of the social spectrum. What we find now are factories and neighborhoods being preserved because we deem them to have significance and necessary to preserve.

In The Lowell Experiment, Cathy Stanton examined this phenomenon in practice. Her book is an ethnographic look at the transformation of Lowell, Mass. Lowell used its industrial past as a catalyst for revitalization. Stanton wrestled with how successful Lowell National Historic park was as a vehicle for revitalization as well as how they framed the industrial history of the area.

There was one section of the book which actually took me back to last week's topic, slavery and public history. A discussion arose about the role of historic sites and should they address tough issues. On the "Run of the Mill" tour, one of the guides talked about globalization and the world economy and how labor played into the situation. Stanton wrote how the unexpected tough issue shocked the patrons. Again, I'm confronted with the question but I don't have a good answer. Should sites which are meant to instill pride tackle these thorny issues? I have no idea if I will ever reconcile this to myself.

I think preservation will continue to grow as we expand as a nation. Preservation allows us to keep the past present. As a country, we could easily cannibalize our past and build new but this would strip the significance of the past away. Preservation places importance on our past and how the public should interact with it.

Does the Tough Really Get Going?

This week's readings provided a lot of food for thought. The central theme for the readings was dealing with challenging subjects. Both sets of readings took a different approach in addressing the issue but each was critical of the concept.

In Slavery and Public History, James and Lois Horton compile eleven essays which address the ways in which public historians handle the topic of slavery within the scope of American history and how its presented to the public. The Hortons chose slavery as their focus because they see slavery as being "the nation's most enduring contradiction." (p. vii) Each essay tackles the issue of slavery and how it can be controversial in the production of national memory. How do we handle "historical sites of shame?"

In "The Public History of Science", Roger Launius discusses how museums, specifically The Smithsonian, contribute to the creation of national memory. Launius traces how the goal of the museum has changed as the focus of academic history has evolved. Launius writes about walking the line of a more encompassing depiction of history versus consensus history which just highlights American exceptionalism.

I think the readings brought up a number of points to explore. The broadest issue in this weeks' readings was the role of museums and historic sites. This is a topic we've been discussing a lot in class and I see it as being the over-arching theme for our entire class. In preserving history and memory, what stance do sites need to take? Does a site need to present a more full version of history; one which presents some of the dirty laundry. Or, are tough topics glossed-over to present a nationalist myth which is meant to encourage pride? I have to admit I see historical sites as needing to do a bit of both. One question this issue raises for me is how prepared are these sites for facilitating the discussion of challenging topics? This was never addressed in any of the essays. It is one thing to present tough historical realities but a site needs to posses a staff which can discuss how it has played a part in constructing a national narrative. Also, I see historical sites as tools for establishing national pride. Many of these sites commemorate major events within American history and they should leave patrons with a sense of pride. It is imperative for sites to walk this fine line.

Neither readings discuss the savviness of the historical consumer but it is definitely an underlying theme. Visitors to many of these sites have a greater understanding of history and they realize there is more to history than just myth. History which has been more critical of the traditional narratives has filtered its way to the public. Because of this reality, historical sites see a necessity in presenting difficult subjects. For example, Launius writes about the increase in "controversial exhibits" in the 1990s. While I struggled with his use of the term "controversial exhibit" because he never qualifies controversial, I think this speaks to the sophistication of the audience. Regardless of the direction in which the controversy emanates, clearly someone is questioning historical presentation. Traditional narratives aren't just being taken for granted, they are being challenged by sites and the public.

The handling of tough topics will never disappear as an issue. No history is perfect. With every good a historian will uncover something which is not so good. The responsibility for the public historian is to present the public with an accurate depiction on what transpired.

Historic Site Visit

Before 1836, the options of burial for the deceased were limited in Philadelphia. Most people were either buried in churchyard burial grounds or in small family plots. Just within the center city, there were over seventy of these types of burial grounds. Overcrowding in the churchyard burial plots became a serious problem and it was common for previous burials sites to be accidently uncovered while digging new sites. Burial grounds also had to contend with the expansion of the city, numerous burial grounds were sold in order to make room for new construction. Unfortunately, this did not sit well with Philadelphians who had loved ones buried in these cemeteries. In fact, it was reported that on April 2nd, 1836 a riot broke-out at Arch and Fifth Streets over a church burial ground which had recently been sold for development purposes.

It was at this point when John Jay Smith, a librarian at the Philadelphia Library Company, and amateur horticulturalist, offered Philadelphians another option for the deceased. His rural cemetery would be located well outside the city, allowing it to be safe from development. The site would be expansive, which would keep congestion to a minimum. The setting would also be picturesque; it would include verdant plantings, large monuments and breathtaking vistas of the Schuylkill River. Originally developed on twenty-acres of land, Laurel Hill has grown over time and currently spreads across almost eighty acres.

Laurel Hill is currently open to the public on a daily basis for multiple uses and this has actually been the case since the cemetery’s founding. Entrance to the cemetery is free of charge and the public is encouraged to use the site for running, dog walking and even picnics. The cemetery does still serve as a burial site with approximately thirty burials per year which provides a consistent flow of revenue for the cemetery. The cemetery also has an affiliated non-profit organization, The Friends of Laurel Hill Cemetery, which organizes various fundraising events such as: Halloween nighttime flashlight tours, family fun-days, spirit-channeling, dinners, a 5-K run and their annual Gravediggers’ Ball. These events serve a dual purpose. First, they provide the cemetery with extra revenue to maintain the site. Second, it allows the public to interact with the space because a cemetery is not the first place people think of as a historic and cultural institution. This provides Laurel Hill with a level of exposure that hopefully encourages more people to interact with the space.

Museums....What are they good for?

This week's readings have taken a bit of a shift in regards to their focus. All three of our readings focused on museums. The American Association of Museums annual report presented the current state of museums and its initiatives for moving the field forward. In Making Museums Matter, Stephen Weil takes a critical look at assessing the value of museums in America. In essence, he is trying to argue if an objective value can be placed on museums. He also seeks to explore how is it that some museums become valued more than others. Amy Tyson, pushes the conversation from the abstract into the actual. Her journal article, "Crafting Emotional Comfort" explores how two different living history museums address the issue of slavery in their past. Both sites choose to handle slavery in different ways. One addresses it head-on. They host a ninety-minute reenactment where patrons pay $16 to role-play the experience of being a fugitive slave in the early nineteenth-century. On the other hand, the second site chooses not to actively engage in the discussion of slavery. She brings the discussion back to of each site wanting to provide a comfortable experience for their patrons. She argues that since they are first concerned with comfort, they never truly achieve the experience they set-out to present.

The annual report had an immediate importance which i didn't find in the other readings. Though the piece was brief in its length, the section which discussed "communicating the value of museums" resonated most strongly. I believe this was most relevant because of the unique economic shape our country is in at the present. We find ourselves in a moment where cities are contemplating leveeing greater taxes on cultural institutions and in some places closure is a distinct possibility; a concerted effort by the greater governing association is a necessity.

There are sections of Weil and Tyson I believe weave together very well and they present us with a most important question. In Weil's first chapter, he explicitly states that a museum must clearly state their purpose for them to be truly effective. This ties into her discussion of Conner Praire (CP). CP chooses to wrestle with the issue of slavery but according to Tyson, they don't address it in a manner that facilitates a more true understanding of slavery. This is what leads back to the central issue of explicit definition of purpose. But, a second question to address is how to manage a true experience, wanting to keep interest high, without alienating patrons?

I think this raising an important issue. How can public institutions such as museums handle sensitive issues and give a true experience? I believe this puts museums into a tough situation but museums need to challenge themselves to give a true experience to their patrons. Regardless of how uncomfortable patrons might become, public perception of museums is a place of true information. If museums can stay true to this belief, they can make themselves matter.