Lowell: What to do?

I will admit that I had a hard time reading Stanton's work (The Lowell Experiment: Public History in a Postindustrial City) on Lowell, MA mainly on how she broke up her novel. That being said she did bring several valuable insights into how to create a historical site in an urban area that is still actively used and evolving. This hearkens to what we have been discussing in class, is how to create a balance between professional (publicly focused or not) historians and a public. Although Lowell is a so-called success story both as an urban park and community involved preservation, Stanton does an excellent job at showing the flaws and faults being too 'publicly' focused (i.e. pleasing the surrounding population and basically being accountable to the community). By making Lowell almost a warning against using a public opinion, there is a call for historians to man-up and take responsibility for what history is present, how it is presented and recognizing what is ignored. Lowell is an admirable experiment but there are cautions to be heard.
I am not sure if there is a solution for Lowell and similar sites. There needs to be books and essays on consequences of 'doing' history as the "Slavery and Public Historians" did. Hypothetical situations are great starting points but reality serves a better guide for ways to do and not do history. Lowell's conception and practice is perfect in an ideal world where there are no agendas and limited risks. But the reality of Lowell is one where a city is stuck in a perception that is neither true nor false, and one that is difficult to copy in another city. I'm still not sure if Stanton's book serves as a caution to public historians, a case-study almost isolated from other cases, or an optimistic approach on how to or how not to engage a public. (Hopefully I can figure that out through class tomorrow.)

I loved Stanton's explorations into how the community labels people who work and/or live in Lowell. Gaining that insight into the attitudes and opinions of 'true locals' verses visitors or professionals, gives a more tangible evidence for the problems in Lowell, what is at stake, and why/how Lowell has become what it has become.

One area where I think Stanton could have been clearer was in her discussion of Turner's liminal states. Perhaps my issues with how she uses it is simply because I learned of Turner's theory in an anthropology setting, and I don't think clearly stated how she was modifying and using his theory. There are times when she stresses one part of his ideas (like a crisis which cause a redress) to make her point but ignores or does not fully incorporate other aspects (a group reintegration into society who has retained the status quo). Stanton only flushes out the parts that work for her and leave the rest behind (even though the rest could still useful). Which can be fine but knowing a little more of Turner's (and others) works on states, she leaves something to be desired.

So Is There A Slavery Answer?

Horton and Horton raises some important questions but provides few answers for them. Most of the case studies show the problem, question the policy and public reactions, but provides no judgement about the attempt to discuss slavery or possible solution to that problem (issues of discussing slavery in public venues). It seems the book simply wants to bring up the question of how to handle slavery in the public for future discussions rather than actually attempting to create solutions or guides for both public historians and/or a general audience to use. By simply showing the failures of numerous exhibitions it unintentionally suggests that there is no feasible or possible answer. That no matter the intentions of an institution factions of the public will always be unhappy and a minority can change an entire exhibit's context or purpose (for better or for worse). I guess my concern is to what public do public historians play to? Do we focus on presenting the accepted facts of a topic or do we challenge/portray them in a manner that is contrary to what people think they know about something? Do we allow minority groups to dictate how museums conceive, portray, and show history or do we simply give them a small voice of consideration or can we/should we ignore them? How far can public spaces force people to confront their knowledge of historical events without overstepping perceived boundaries? The book implies that slave relations and the public are changing or evolving but how much are they actually changing rather than simply playing to a crowd? I wish the book had attempted to solve or create ideas of how to solve some of these questions. It stated what has happened and plotted a potential course of the future but resolves very little. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the articles and what they showed but there could have a been a little more to bring this problem of public relationships to slavery full circle.

Out On A Limb: Life in the Trees

I really admire the creativity the Morris Arboretum of the University of Pennsylvania used in its new exhibit Out On A Limb. It's a massive structure that enables its visitors to view nature from a new perspective: from the bird's eye within the trees. Visitors wild 50 feet above the ground, walking between tree branches and looking out into the wild. Bridges, a bird's nest, and a climbing net are all designed to show the importance of trees and how they support people. It's truly an innovative way to make environmental issues be more alive and show how it directly impacts an average person. That being said, its primary aim is at children not adults. While they attempt to make adults interested in it by the incredible views, the signs and activities are more geared to children. Overall its use of space, the natural surrounds, and the financial undertaking it took to make this project come alive, makes this a very worth wild experience.

How to be Public Matters

While I enjoyed reading Weil's book and loved his idea of somehow creating a grading system, I wonder how and through what organization he envisions would be effective in creating/enforcing one. My big concern is getting a wide range of museums to agree, adhere and enforce some sort of rubric. And what current (if there is one) body has the power to do so? In theory it has potential but how does that translate into reality is a concern. The shift towards the museum as a public service was interesting to read since I can't say that I've ever not though of a museum being an educator/service provider. It's hard to envision another ideology in practice. The AAM report does provide a glimpse into the progression becoming a public servant that the AAM continues to deal with. It seems the end goal is present but how to get there is still an ongoing discussion and gradual process to develop. The article really raised, I think, a critical question of what is the negatives of being consumer/customer driven? Profits, marketing, and making the visitor comfortable does impact what materials and how history can/will/should be presented. Tyson brings up a lot of questions that AAM is trying to solve in some aspects, how to be good public servants.

Effectiveness, efficacy and the attempts to balance or choose one is where museums are at. The need to modern yet be historically responsible is situation museums are at now. These aren't new choices but the responses and influences by the public are. Ownership of the past, present, and the future are being decided by a combination of curators and the community. While I really think the public needs to be more hands on (so to speak) and museums need to be aware of what they showcase influences how people learn/engage in their space, neither (in my opinion) should dominate. Fear of being too community base may negatively affect how and what is shown. But being too removed from the public creates alienation. Weil's discussions on museums being public servants is a great start for shaping responsibility both in the museum world and in the community.