This past Sunday, our musuem studies class embarked upon a field trip to downtown San Antonio. The ride itself was fun (but road trips always are); However, it's the thought provoking museums we visited I want to discuss here. Since we've been studying the orgions of musueuming, with Peale, Barnum, and the Dime Museums, Dr. S gifted us with this opportunity to visit Ripley's Believe It or Not, Louis Toissands Wax Museum, and as a after thought, The Alamo. Although I have visited San Antonio and the Alamo several times, I've never been inside any of these. I'd like to think my parent's had higher sensibilites, but the deciding factor was probably the exhorbiant ticket price.
My favorite theme for Ripley's: Confusion as Strategy. Much like the past Curiosity Cabinet's Dr. S goes on about, Ripley's collection was a conglomeration of random items. The layout directed you through walkways that twisted and turned. At every turn you thought you we almost to the exit, but there was another floor, room, hallway to go through. No map was provided and no other museum experience had taught you what to expect from this visit. An overwhelming abundance of visuals and sounds expounded the confusion. One minute you would be looking at "legitimate" exhibit on the Titanic and the next a Furry Trout. What was true? And what was not? This confusion irritates most of us who desire order and want to know what to expect, or even just want to know what's real and what's not. I would argue that not only is this misdirection and confusion deliberate, but it effectively presents the visitor with an experience not dependant on the artifacts or exhibits of the "museum". Of course, whether that experience was pleasant or not, is up for question.
The second most interesting theme: Human Delight in Torture. One of my classmates made an interesting observation that the only themes of the exhibits at Ripley's were focused on death or dying. While I think that this may be a little overreaching, he called out a large portion of the sights. Many were only horrific placed in today's context (and perhaps only by certain people) such as a bill of sale for 19th century sales and Hitler memorabilia. Some of it was just silly, making it easier to laugh at. A wonderful illustration, at the end of the Third Floor you find a skeleton hung up behind a glass case. Pull a lever and the torture instrument wrings a scream (very unrealistic sounding) from the skeleton. On the wall you see musical notes, so some of us took our places at the levers and the skeleton "screamed" the tune of "Mary had a Little Lamb". It was hysterically, but I kept wondering why we were laughing? Why did we think it funny that we were "torturing" this representation of a human? What made that okay?
I have several pages of interesting notes, so the silly field trip was actually quite productive.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
And the semester begins...
First week of class is almost over. I'm ecstatic, not only about my classes, but also by the overlap and the connections between at least 3 of them. This blog/journal is mainly for Dr. Stabile's museum studies class, but I'm sure my popular culture and visual rhetoric classes will chime into these musings. The title is from our first day of class (and I"m so happy it was available). Dr. Stabile teaches in English, so she had an interesting approach to defining museums. Did you know that museum is also used as verb? This action, museuming, seems to imply a more active role for visitors of a museum. No more wandering around the hallways with empty minds, soaking in the information in order to regurgitate those values verbatim. Don't you just love that? Now, that I've explained the basics, off we go!
Our first reading was from the 1970's and it showed. This is him, quoting an advert, but the word "hip" is used. Another indication of when it's written, I discovered talking with my prof after class about my questions. Cameron talks about the need for reform in museums and the need for the continuation of the museum as the temple, while enabling the public's voice in a forum. He maintains that the forum and the temple should be separate, even suggests separate buildings. Dr. Stabile mentioned that this, for the most part, seems to have changed. More professionals questioning and allowing exhibits/museums to be questioned. But while reading Cameron's, I had to stop and ask myself why I hated that idea of separating the roles.
My feelings are explained when I look closer at the words. The temple is untouchable. Cameron says, "the museum provides opportunity for reaffirmation of the faith (67) (emphasis mine)." Seriously? We have a building where we worship ourselves unquestioningly? Of course, I now believe that nothing should go unquestioned, because there is always another side of the story. What I believe is not absoultely right, because what someone else believes is not absolutely wrong. These thoughts, of course, are the consquences of rhetorical scholarship. Even in my PopC class today, we discussed how the desk may be real, but society created our understanding of the desk. On the other hand, the forum is the icon of democracy. A place where everyone's voice could be heard. I realize that this is idealistic, but impossibility of achieving the idea does not negate the necessity of the space. Especially in museums, where our identities as a citizens of a nation and of the world are fortified. The word signifies something inherently good and democratic.
Time's running out, but I must say that my understanding of the words temple and forum. Democracy and the forum, are some of those fabulous American terms that we don't usually question why they're so great, like freedom and dreams. My generation, especially in the last election, showed that we were susceptible to the feeling a kinship with the movements that seem to help us maintain these ideals. And in my personal life, blind faith has horrible repercussions.
Our first reading was from the 1970's and it showed. This is him, quoting an advert, but the word "hip" is used. Another indication of when it's written, I discovered talking with my prof after class about my questions. Cameron talks about the need for reform in museums and the need for the continuation of the museum as the temple, while enabling the public's voice in a forum. He maintains that the forum and the temple should be separate, even suggests separate buildings. Dr. Stabile mentioned that this, for the most part, seems to have changed. More professionals questioning and allowing exhibits/museums to be questioned. But while reading Cameron's, I had to stop and ask myself why I hated that idea of separating the roles.
My feelings are explained when I look closer at the words. The temple is untouchable. Cameron says, "the museum provides opportunity for reaffirmation of the faith (67) (emphasis mine)." Seriously? We have a building where we worship ourselves unquestioningly? Of course, I now believe that nothing should go unquestioned, because there is always another side of the story. What I believe is not absoultely right, because what someone else believes is not absolutely wrong. These thoughts, of course, are the consquences of rhetorical scholarship. Even in my PopC class today, we discussed how the desk may be real, but society created our understanding of the desk. On the other hand, the forum is the icon of democracy. A place where everyone's voice could be heard. I realize that this is idealistic, but impossibility of achieving the idea does not negate the necessity of the space. Especially in museums, where our identities as a citizens of a nation and of the world are fortified. The word signifies something inherently good and democratic.
Time's running out, but I must say that my understanding of the words temple and forum. Democracy and the forum, are some of those fabulous American terms that we don't usually question why they're so great, like freedom and dreams. My generation, especially in the last election, showed that we were susceptible to the feeling a kinship with the movements that seem to help us maintain these ideals. And in my personal life, blind faith has horrible repercussions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
