Monday, August 30, 2010
My thoughts on the readings for week 2
David Glassberg articulates a convincing argument that the ways in which individuals interpret history are so diverse that any attempt to classify an expression of historical consciousness, be it a museum exhibit, historical festival, public monument etc, as displaying a coherent “narrative” is simplistic. While the curator, festival overseer, or architect might design their project to communicate a particular narrative or theme, the public that experiences the end result may derive meanings utterly different from the intellectual thought process that led to the project’s creation. This goes well with Corbett and Miller’s explanation of “shared inquiry” as a process of shared intellectual authority between designer and receiver, along with their examples of museum exhibits in which the designer’s intended “message” was either missed or reinterpreted by those viewing the exhibit. In light of this reality, Glassberg suggests that the “task of the historian in these situations may be more to create safe spaces for local dialogue about history and for the collection of memories, and to ensure that various voices are heard in those spaces, than to provide an original interpretation of the past” (pages 13-14). I do not doubt the accuracy of these author’s observations regarding the futility of trying to communicate a cohesive narrative through a historical project that is shared with a public audience, but it somewhat disturbs me nonetheless. Coming from an academic background which drills into us the importance of narrative and, especially, “argument” in essays and presentations, how can these skills translate into presenting for a public forum which does not necessarily look for or place value in these fundamentals? Of what practical purpose is academic training in the world of Glassberg’s non-interpretive “safe spaces?” I have a feeling that these might be issues we will be examining all semester, but there’s no harm in hearing each other’s thoughts on it now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree. History depends on who is telling the story. Also, the artist and the receiver will not always have similar interpretations. For example, the history of Juan de Onate. In one light he was a hero, while in another a villain. It would be great if opposing sides could get together in "safe spaces" for dialogue. However, each side must be open to another's viewpoint and interpretation of the topic. History will always be up for a great discussion/debate. I love the dialogue history creates because someone always learns something (a new viewpoint or concept).
ReplyDeleteI was also interested in the public's interpretation (or lack thereof) of an exhibit put together with a certain narrative flow in mind. How can the creators of these narratives point the public in a certain direction without it feeling too forced? Is it something to strive for, or will the public continue to see what they want to see, no matter how something is presented? I think Glassberg's point about "safe spaces" is relevant. Maybe it is more about the creation of a place to stimulate discussion rather than about working to get the public to look at history in a certain way. I definitely understand the academic instinct (so to speak) and need to find meaning and argument in presentations. It's a vital part of our education.
ReplyDeleteI believe the message on safe spaces is more of an attempt to allow for multiple views within the community and allow for the audience not to be pushed in one direction or the other while observing the exhibits. I also understand that while erecting these displays the curator has a direction in mind about how they would like to educate the public. Taking away the narrative does not allow for the curator to present their perspective over the history being presented. I suppose this will be a continued discussion of presenting history while engaging with the local population.
ReplyDelete