Article Rankings - last post!

Okay, so here are my rankings for the articles in the Museum Studies book.

I'll be honest like I have been in our meetings, this book is not my favorite. But it's mostly because of the rather random arrangement of articles. Some of them were very insightful, it was just hard for me to wrap my brain around how they fit into the big picture. I put them in chronological order rather than putting them in my own personal order, because I couldn't choose "favorites"... they all served a different purpose.

Top 15

#3: The Universal Survey Museum by Carol Duncan and Alan Wallach

• Great comparisons of museums to historical architecture and how they flow naturally out of human experience.

#9: At the Holocaust Museum by Alice Friman

• Poignant poem about the experience of a gut-wrenching history exhibition.

#10: To the Citizens of the United States of America by Charles Willson Peale 

• Example of curator asking for objects from "friends of the museum."

#17: Ambiguous Messages and Ironic Twists by Enid Schildkrout 

• Good example of what NOT to do as a curator.

#18: Thinking and Doing Otherwise by Mary Boquet

• The anthropology behind designing exhibitions.

#21: The Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford by James Fenton 

• Nice imagery, a poetic interpretation of a museum. Nice change of pace. 

#26 -- Melodrama, Pantomime or Portrayal? by Gaynor Kavanagh

• Discusses the history museum and being careful with its accuracy, scope, and limits. 

#29 Museums, National, Postnational and Transcultural Identities by Sharon J. Macdonald 

• Concerning museum identity in general, and how they might be changing.

#30 - Architecture and the Scene of Evidence by Catharine Ingraham 

• Slightly unclear but makes interesting claims about the architecture design representing the museum.

#31 - Some Thoughts about National Museums at the End of the Century by Roger G. Kennedy

• Insightful points about the nature of museums here and now, in our postmodern society. 

#34: Reality as Illusion, the Historic Houses that Become Museums by Mónica Risnicoff de Gorgas 

• Great examples of house museums, and the authenticity that is necessary within them. 

#38: Indigenous Models of Museums in Oceania by Sidney Moko Mead 

• Great example of a "specialized" museum, and the respect that is due the original culture of the objects. 

#39 - Museums and the Native Voice by Gerald McMaster

• Honoring the voice of the native people in your museum because it's easy to mix cultural assumptions with the truth. 

#42 - Aims and Principles of the Construction and Management of Museums of Fine Art by Benjamen Ives Gilman 

• This is probably the best introductory article, deals with how to handle and display objects, and the visitor's understanding of the art. 

#55: Museums, Corporatism and the Civil Society by Robert R. Janes

• Great article on the public purpose and function of the museum.

Bottom 10.... or 3?

So I actually don't have any more than 3 to put on the "bottom" list... but it's because all the rest of the articles in the book I either skimmed or didn't read because it looked boring or too long for the concept that it was dealing with. So I don't have a huge opinion on those. The three below are really the only ones where I would say " please don't make them read these." Hopefully all of this helps, and you can use the book in a way that truly aids the study of museums. 

#2: The Museum: It's Classical Etymology and Renaissance Genealogy by Paula Findlen

• Far too involved for this class.. all about the meaning of the word museum. Only good if you are interested in etymology or have way too much time on your hands. 

#23: Presidential Address to the Museums Association, Maidstone Meeting, 1909 by Henry Balfour

• I'm sorry, this was just plain boring. Super long speech in which he talks in a roundabout manner, only hitting a few significant points. 

#27 -- Artifacts as Expressions of Society and Culture by Leone and Little 

• This was my absolute least favorite. They made a variety of clams that didn't seem to tie together at the end, and I was confused almost the entire time. 

Thanks for a good semester, and for the grace you showed us while we figured out how to do this "studying independently" thing.  I hope you have a wonderful time with the students in the spring semester! 

p.s. I don't know whats up with the funky formatting in the bullets... I can't fix it for some reason! Oh well....



FIN 

Ethnology

eth•nol•o•gy

: a science that deals with the division of human beings into races and their origin, distribution, relations, and characteristics. 

Article #16 -- Ethnology: A Science on Display by Fabrice Grognet. 

This article was all about the transition that ethnological and history museums have made along with that field of science that is ethnology. Grognet talks about how specifically the Musée d'Ethnographie du Trocadéro and ethnology took three huge steps: 1) Just objects and their stories, 2) institutionalizing those objects and employing professionals, and 3) ethnological research began to loose interest in the objects themselves. The author illuminates that the original intent of ethnological museums is "to educate the public about alien cultures" (Grognet 165). Then he goes on to say that in order to actually attain this goal, there needs to be a step taken back to focusing more on the objects. "How then can it [the object] be made to communicate? 'First and foremost by ridding ourselves of the notion of art work. The object must shed its invasive aesthetic dimension!'" (Grognet 165). It's this line that made me think the most from the whole article. 

I do agree that ethnological museums should not cease to use their objects as a first reference point, but the thing I don't like about this statement is that it assumes art is intrinsically and inseparably based on its aesthetic value, and that if you were to strip something of its "aesthetic dimension," it would cease to be art. We have all seen art that is not pretty, and nor is it meant to be pretty. Each object has an aesthetic whether is it meant to have one or not, and so I'm not sure what the author is proposing here. I tend to be more on the side of believing that almost everything could be considered art, and anything that pours out of a person as expression and records history is art. So if it was an object made by a person, I don't think you can strip it of its aesthetic values. 

That's my little tangent for the day. haha. Until next blog! 

Curator Snafus

#17: Ambiguous Messages and Ironic Twists by Enid Schildkrout

First of all, Enid Schildkrout. What a name. I should give one of my future children a middle name like that, because then when I'm angry and I use their full name, part of their punishment will just be the reminder that they have a middle name like Schildkrout. 

Secondly, this poor Ms. Cannizzo. (Cannizzo? Another unique surname.) Poor, poor Jeanne. I don't think she even knew what she was doing when she created such a controversial exhibition. For me, this article really illuminated the importance of a thoughtful and educated curator, or at least the importance of having curators on staff who are trained to design exhibitions for a specific category of art. In this particular exhibition at the ROM, Cannizzo failed to think about her audience, and to communicate clearly what she wanted to communicate. She wanted to create a dialogue, and instead the exhibition came off extremely biased. She did not give both parties being examined (people involved in colonialism and the people being "colonlized," or in this case, people in Africa) an equal voice. She, even if it was unwittingly, made it so it "appeared that colonialist-collectors were being allowed to speak for themselves (although, even here many observers felt words were being put in their mouths), while Africans were not" (Schildkrout 171). Since her audience was a good amount of African-Canadians, this put her in a bad spot, and also made the museum look bad.

Another quote from the article: "Tracing the life history of objects from Africa takes one through many minefields of history."
I would assume that it's like that in many specific art historical fields of knowledge, but ESPECIALLY when it comes to Africa. Cannizzo opened Pandora's box when she handled the topic of the colonization of Africa in the manner that she did. She shouldn't have tried to be so broad if she was not going to be able to research thoroughly, and accurately give voice to both people groups. It's the museum's job to identify these minefields, and I guess the lesson learned is to choose your curators carefully.

The comparing of the exhibition The Other Museum at the WPA gallery drives this point even further, since the exhibition dealt with colonialism, racial stereotypes, and misinterpretations of these. I mean, you are kind of asking for it when you do such a bold exhibition. Everyone has different ideas of these things! Even when there are stereotypes, people have slightly different ideas of what those are. I like the guts, and I think those things need to be discussed, but maybe framed as an art show of one particular artist, so it's that artist's voice and not the museum's.

Things to think about. Great article. Another blog to come, tonight if possible :)