Reading #17 is about the struggle to preserve both the physical location and the legacy of the Losheng Sanatorium in Taiwan, which was a segregated residential and medical facility for people with Leprosy, now called Hansen’s disease. People infected with leprosy were removed from society and forced to live in this and similar institutions before a successful treatment was discovered. A very heavy stigma has always been attached to leprosy, and even after patients were treated and allowed to return to their homes and families, manyb opted to continue to live at the sanatorium because they had developed a strong familial relationship and support group with other patients. Added to that is the fact that some of them had been completely isolated from society and had no way of successfully rejoining it. When the government gave notice that the sanatorium would be leveled for transit development, a grass roots campaign exploded into a major issue of saving that place and preserving the story of the people who lived there. The site was eventually designated an historic landmark, which bought some time for students to work with the Losheng patients to establish a museum honoring them. The museum incorporates the voices of the patients in delivering their history to visitors, and patients also interact on-site with people to connect their past to the history of Taiwan. At the time this book went to press, there were plans for the museum to be moved and re-organized to highlight Taiwan medical history. How do you think this change
will affect the Losheng patients’ authority as stakeholders?
News article with more background information:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/09/18/2003513573/1
Reading #18 is about the Norwegian Museum of Deaf History and Culture. The theme of this chapter is inclusion—whom to included in exhibits as part of Deaf Culture and how to include hearing people as part of the target audience. Deaf Culture is not just centered around people who can’t hear, and hearing loss doesn’t automatically make you part of the Deaf community. The use of sign language is the connecting factor. Anyone who uses sign language to communicate can be considered part of Deaf Culture. To create a museum that is inclusive of hearing visitors, the choice was made to focus on Deaf Culture and its relationship to mainstream culture, in order to challenge prejudice, in general, as well as to spotlight controversial causes related to deafness. Should museums stick to what the author calls the ‘neutral truth’ and report historical information, as has been a topic in previous chapters, should museums take the risk of promoting social change?
Reading #19 discusses how museum professionals and disability scholars can mutually benefit from collaborative efforts to explore the nature and history of disability.
Disability scholars have much more knowledge of topics related to disability, but museums have the ‘stuff’ related to disability. In what ways can they work together to deliver their combined experience to the public via museum exhibition?
The author, Katherine Ott, is a museum professional specializing in disability and medical history. The following links refer to a past exhibition on disability, which was curated by her.
http://www.adaaccessnow.org/struggle.htm
http://americanhistory.si.edu/disabilityrights/exhibit_menu.html
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Re-presenting Disability Discussion Quesrtions: #14-16
Reading #14 “Out from Under” gives us a close look at the development of an exhibit created by Disability Studies faculty and students at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada. The exhibit was created to be part of the Abilities Arts Festival, which celebrates disability art and culture. The faculty and students all come from
backgrounds in community organizations and working with disabled people. They developed strong communication ties with disability groups throughout the planning process. Their goal from the start was to make the exhibit progressive and activist, pushing visitors to reconsider their views of disability. A key point to make is that the exhibit was developed in isolation of historians and museum professionals, and it was a huge success. Do you think that involving museum professionals would have hindered the creative efforts of Ryerson’s team, by imposing too many concerns over controversy or political correctness?
You can view a virtual recreation of the exhibit HERE.
Reading #15, “Transforming Practice” focuses on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and an exhibit about Nazi treatment of people with physical and mental disabilities. They were either killed or sterilized to prevent them from adding ‘defective’children to society. As part of programming to supplement this exhibit, the museum hosted a series of talks under the title INSIGHTS. Harriet McBryde Johnson, a disabled lawyer and activist, was invited to participate, and the museum made a major push to increase its accessibility in preparation for her visit. Many physical features of the museum were updated for better access, and staff also received much informative training on serving visitors with disabilities. I’m speculating that the museum would not necessarily have taken such initiative, if Johnson were not slated to be a guest for the INSIGHTS series. Using this example as ‘food for thought’, should high profile disability activists pursue
museums as venues to spotlight causes, and subsequently bring accessibility into the consciousness of more museum professionals, who have much power and authority to set high standards of accessibility?
Reading #16, “Reciprocity, Accountability, Empowerment” describes emancipatory disability research practices. People with disabilities have often been the subjects of research, but have not had the power to participate in shaping and guiding it. That power has always been in the hands of the researchers, as the true ‘experts’ on disability, but emancipatory practices push to empower disabled people as experts on their own lives and experiences. Involving disabled people in
the research process enables their questions and concerns to be addressed, not just the specific objectives of non-disabled participants who tend to fact-gather and analyze results without input from the disabled subjects of their research. In what ways can museum professionals use these emancipatory practices to increase accessibility and responsibly represent disability in museums?
The following link is a brief overview of emancipatory
disability research in use at the Museum of Science in Boston: http://informalscience.org/research/show/3084
backgrounds in community organizations and working with disabled people. They developed strong communication ties with disability groups throughout the planning process. Their goal from the start was to make the exhibit progressive and activist, pushing visitors to reconsider their views of disability. A key point to make is that the exhibit was developed in isolation of historians and museum professionals, and it was a huge success. Do you think that involving museum professionals would have hindered the creative efforts of Ryerson’s team, by imposing too many concerns over controversy or political correctness?
You can view a virtual recreation of the exhibit HERE.
Reading #15, “Transforming Practice” focuses on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and an exhibit about Nazi treatment of people with physical and mental disabilities. They were either killed or sterilized to prevent them from adding ‘defective’children to society. As part of programming to supplement this exhibit, the museum hosted a series of talks under the title INSIGHTS. Harriet McBryde Johnson, a disabled lawyer and activist, was invited to participate, and the museum made a major push to increase its accessibility in preparation for her visit. Many physical features of the museum were updated for better access, and staff also received much informative training on serving visitors with disabilities. I’m speculating that the museum would not necessarily have taken such initiative, if Johnson were not slated to be a guest for the INSIGHTS series. Using this example as ‘food for thought’, should high profile disability activists pursue
museums as venues to spotlight causes, and subsequently bring accessibility into the consciousness of more museum professionals, who have much power and authority to set high standards of accessibility?
Reading #16, “Reciprocity, Accountability, Empowerment” describes emancipatory disability research practices. People with disabilities have often been the subjects of research, but have not had the power to participate in shaping and guiding it. That power has always been in the hands of the researchers, as the true ‘experts’ on disability, but emancipatory practices push to empower disabled people as experts on their own lives and experiences. Involving disabled people in
the research process enables their questions and concerns to be addressed, not just the specific objectives of non-disabled participants who tend to fact-gather and analyze results without input from the disabled subjects of their research. In what ways can museum professionals use these emancipatory practices to increase accessibility and responsibly represent disability in museums?
The following link is a brief overview of emancipatory
disability research in use at the Museum of Science in Boston: http://informalscience.org/research/show/3084
Re-presenting Disability Discussion Questions: #11-13
Reading #11 This chapter describes a photo exhibition hosted by NYC’s Museum of Sex. Its focus was disability and sexuality, and the photographs represent disabled people ‘s views of their own sexuality. In general, the topics of sex and disability can stand alone as controversial subject matter, and together, they can work to make the public very uncomfortable. An unexpected reaction to the exhibition actually came from local disability groups that were very upset with the use of the word ‘handicapped’ in marketing materials. They were also offended by
the labels in the exhibit which identified each person’s disability, even though the people portrayed in the photos all agreed that it was important to provide that information because many of their disabilities are not apparent. Disability groups threatened a boycott of the exhibit and museum. According to the author, disability organizations were contacted during the planning stages, but communication between the museum and organizations slowed, eventually dropping off completely. The museum assumed that the organizations were not interested in being consultants. Did the disability community react too harshly, especially since the museum tried to include them in the planning process? In a situation like this, whose responsibility was it to keep the line of communication open?
This link is to the photographer’s website, and a sampling of photos used in the exhibition is available under “Intimate Encounters.” Please be advised that some images contain full male or female nudity. http://www.belindamason.com/
Reading #12 is about an exhibit highlighting the life and work of activist and cartoonist Everett Soop, who was also disabled and confined to a wheelchair. Soop was a very straightforward kind of guy, and very deliberate and direct in voicing his ideals. His quotes supplement this chapter. One in particular grabbed my attention: “Self-determination requires healing, and healing means no longer pushing unpleasant realities under the carpet.”
How does this quote relate to museum professionals’ potential to act as active agents of social change in developing new ways of viewing and perceiving disability?
Reading #13 “Face to Face” describes using portraiture to document before, during and after images of patients undergoing reconstructive facial surgery. Paintings were made during a two year project and exhibited at the National Portrait Gallery in London, and a few other regional art galleries. Facial disfigurement is not an anonymous disability, and staring is often a sensitive subject for people with disfigurements. By separating the image of disfigured individuals from the living person using the medium of oil on canvas, do you think this is an effective approach to make it acceptable to stare? Do you think that providing a comfortable context in which visitors are allowed to truly look and reflect on the differences in visual appearance serves to change their perception of disability?
You can read more about the exhibition and see some of the
paintings HERE.
the labels in the exhibit which identified each person’s disability, even though the people portrayed in the photos all agreed that it was important to provide that information because many of their disabilities are not apparent. Disability groups threatened a boycott of the exhibit and museum. According to the author, disability organizations were contacted during the planning stages, but communication between the museum and organizations slowed, eventually dropping off completely. The museum assumed that the organizations were not interested in being consultants. Did the disability community react too harshly, especially since the museum tried to include them in the planning process? In a situation like this, whose responsibility was it to keep the line of communication open?
This link is to the photographer’s website, and a sampling of photos used in the exhibition is available under “Intimate Encounters.” Please be advised that some images contain full male or female nudity. http://www.belindamason.com/
Reading #12 is about an exhibit highlighting the life and work of activist and cartoonist Everett Soop, who was also disabled and confined to a wheelchair. Soop was a very straightforward kind of guy, and very deliberate and direct in voicing his ideals. His quotes supplement this chapter. One in particular grabbed my attention: “Self-determination requires healing, and healing means no longer pushing unpleasant realities under the carpet.”
How does this quote relate to museum professionals’ potential to act as active agents of social change in developing new ways of viewing and perceiving disability?
Reading #13 “Face to Face” describes using portraiture to document before, during and after images of patients undergoing reconstructive facial surgery. Paintings were made during a two year project and exhibited at the National Portrait Gallery in London, and a few other regional art galleries. Facial disfigurement is not an anonymous disability, and staring is often a sensitive subject for people with disfigurements. By separating the image of disfigured individuals from the living person using the medium of oil on canvas, do you think this is an effective approach to make it acceptable to stare? Do you think that providing a comfortable context in which visitors are allowed to truly look and reflect on the differences in visual appearance serves to change their perception of disability?
You can read more about the exhibition and see some of the
paintings HERE.
Final Thoughts
“Every public institution should always have before it an ideal of public service far above that which it dares hope attain. It should not have its eyes on the ground or be for a moment satisfied with what it has done” (p. 178). As an early museum theorist Dana’s ideas were radical. His views on education, worth, and composition of a museum were accurate in my opinion. I enjoyed reading his rationale as well as his basic museum ideology. His ideas on lending were intriguing and adventurous. However, the aforementioned quote was probably my favorite in the book. It is not only a good guide for museums but for life. However, in his writings on the Newark Museum, Dana seemed to be pretty satisfied with his work, and I wonder if that stunted any of his later writings. Granted, as a leader in the Newark Museum, Dana would have had great interest in touting the museum but he did not tell the reader where the weaknesses of his museum were. He seemed to believe his small museum had the perfect balance, and was a trendsetter of the museum world. Dana spent much of his writing encouraging the use of local and common goods. And yet when he wrote of what the Newark Museum featured, he wrote they showed “Greek and Renaissance sculpture in casts; small American and other bronzes; the work of engravers of the first rank; the printing of American’s leading printer” (p. 160). Granted he also mentioned some that they displayed “Newark-made jewelry, Newark-made buttons and medallions, leather goods, textiles” (p. 176). Moreover, his vignette on bathtubs was a great idea that I loved, but it did not sound like Dana ever acted completely on that notion of beauty in the most common artifacts as he never mentioned whether the museums broadening ideas of beauty ever translated into an exhibit (p.174-175). I wonder what collection, the everyday objects or rare artifacts, won in the end. If only there was a means to discover where they were housed in comparison to traffic flow, how much of the museum’s funds were dedicated to the different collections, and how the museum field reacted to the Newark Museum.
Today, the Newark Museum’s websites declares it is the largest museum in New Jersey, quite the accomplishment considering its humble beginnings that Dana mentions. I have never been to the Newark, but I wonder if Dana’s ideas can still be seen today. It certainly seems like there might still be an element of him in these exhibitions http://www.newarkmuseum.org/OngoingExhibitions.html Then again, I would like to think there is an element of Dana in most museum exhibits today.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Communities and Cooperation
At the very end of the section on the "experiment" that was the Newark Museum, Dana describes an institution with an acquisitions policy so in tune with the needs and desires of its community that it would still be considered a model example. In fact, the Newark Museum from its foundation, had a clear sense of its own circumstances-- how it should use local resources to meet local needs and its geographical relationship to very prominent museums in New York. Rather than trying to compete with the grand, seemingly comprehensive collections held in some of the New York City museums, the Newark Museum had "a policy of acquiring and using only what can be made effective in the life of its community" (181). Much of what the readers of this book have said over and over is how applicable Dana's ideas are to modern museum work, but I am forced to repeat those sentiments yet again in this post.
His embrace of the fact that the Newark Museum did not have the objects and resources of larger museums, but that there was so much value in having the city around them is quite astounding. One might laugh that his museum once staged "a showing of bathtubs made in New Jersey," (180) but it's also easy to believe that such an exhibit might have shown the people of Newark how "art and science and industry were made to seem closer to everyday life" (180). The Newark Museum tried to fill the space the community had open for it, rather than try to rival the nationally recognized museums. The Newark Museum based its collections on the principle of utility, meaning the power of its exhibits to "inspire by their beauty, stimulate creative design or creative ideas, or have educational value" (180-181). Dana also advocates for a "less is more" approach in exhibit design because a small, well-designed exhibit can convey messages more effectively than a sprawling, unfocused one. These ideas show up all over my 21st century textbooks! Today, it seems that even the largest, wealthiest museums are expected to evaluate how they measure up in terms of meeting the needs of their specific communities. In 2011, the museums Dana was determined not to struggle to imitate are working to be more like his Newark Museum was.
If this seeming model of a community museum has not already made you wish for a time machine, perhaps the prospect of visiting the 1923 exhibit on China, discussed in this section, would. According to Dana, "China: The Land and the People" was the product of an extraordinary amount of US-Chinese cooperation. I want to see this exhibit. Dana certainly makes it sound like a landmark achievement, devoted to "promoting understanding and sympathy between nations," and breaking "down hostility and open[ing] up paths to friendship" (181). Yet, it's so difficult to envision an exhibit during that time satisfying our modern requirements for collaborative work and the representation of multiple perspectives, especially given the knowledge of some of then contemporary cultural or ethnographic exhibits. I really wish I could see "China: The Land and the People," and evaluate it for myself.
His embrace of the fact that the Newark Museum did not have the objects and resources of larger museums, but that there was so much value in having the city around them is quite astounding. One might laugh that his museum once staged "a showing of bathtubs made in New Jersey," (180) but it's also easy to believe that such an exhibit might have shown the people of Newark how "art and science and industry were made to seem closer to everyday life" (180). The Newark Museum tried to fill the space the community had open for it, rather than try to rival the nationally recognized museums. The Newark Museum based its collections on the principle of utility, meaning the power of its exhibits to "inspire by their beauty, stimulate creative design or creative ideas, or have educational value" (180-181). Dana also advocates for a "less is more" approach in exhibit design because a small, well-designed exhibit can convey messages more effectively than a sprawling, unfocused one. These ideas show up all over my 21st century textbooks! Today, it seems that even the largest, wealthiest museums are expected to evaluate how they measure up in terms of meeting the needs of their specific communities. In 2011, the museums Dana was determined not to struggle to imitate are working to be more like his Newark Museum was.
If this seeming model of a community museum has not already made you wish for a time machine, perhaps the prospect of visiting the 1923 exhibit on China, discussed in this section, would. According to Dana, "China: The Land and the People" was the product of an extraordinary amount of US-Chinese cooperation. I want to see this exhibit. Dana certainly makes it sound like a landmark achievement, devoted to "promoting understanding and sympathy between nations," and breaking "down hostility and open[ing] up paths to friendship" (181). Yet, it's so difficult to envision an exhibit during that time satisfying our modern requirements for collaborative work and the representation of multiple perspectives, especially given the knowledge of some of then contemporary cultural or ethnographic exhibits. I really wish I could see "China: The Land and the People," and evaluate it for myself.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Negotiating a Sustainable Path: Museums and Societal Therapy
In this chapter by Glenn C. Stutter and Douglas Worts, they discuss the museums role in assessing the needs of the community. They state that “while museums can and should be addressing sustainability through the non-formal education system, they also have a much broader role to play as active facilitators of social change at local and regional levels” (pg. 131).
Many people can relate to viewing sustainability as this large and looming global issue impacting ecosystem health, economic development, and social justice. The authors argue that people need “social therapy” because of the growing divide that has grown between man and nature. This gap continues to widen the more technologically advanced that our society becomes. In order to help combat this human- nature split, “museums can help by encouraging people to become more conscious of critical relationships that link them to nature and to other people” (pg. 137).
This was the goal of The Human Factor exhibit at the Royal Saskatchewan Museum which:
1. Examined the scope and consequences of human activities
2. Identified the industrial worldview as the root of multiple global and regional issues
3. Stressed the importance of restorative economics, choices, and our connection to nature.
Even after highlighting the issues surrounding sustainability, the harsh reality is that it is a complicated and chaotic topic that is out of any one individuals control. Putting visitors face to face with this reality was a challenge because the developers knew that it could illicit an emotional response from visitors. Instead, the authors encourage museums to allow their respective communities to identify their needs, and reflect on the ramifications of their current actions. Basing the presentation of information on a front-end evaluation may cause some museums to feel as if they are relinquishing their authority. Rather, I agree with the authors when they describe how using these surveys can create a bridge between the museum and the community and set the museum up as a place of non-formal learning as well as an avenue for social advocacy. This may be more of a challenge depending on the various exhibits created for various communities, but no matter the subject of the exhibit it is always important to connect the material to the needs and interest of the surrounding community.
Chapter Three - From body to soul
Silverman describes several programs through general themes on how museums offer social work to their constituents. During this chapter she focuses on how individuals create meaning impacting their self. Many of the examples she provides are public programs based around the museum collection. During the latter part of the chapter she examines the spiritual and ephemeral capabilities of exhibits. Public programs through the lens of social work offer individuals opportunities to build self-esteem through individualize or collaborative projects. Often, such programs engage the individual in activities which promote introspective analysis on the self. One example Silverman provided was through employing mentally and physically disabled persons in a museum café. Through this employment experience successful individuals were able to generate better self-esteem. Other examples included reflection creation of artistic objects as therapy.
One of the key areas where I have concern is of Silverman’s discussion on museums and work. I am curious on how the professionalization of the field through programs such as the IUPUI museum studies master’s degree may affect this form of social work. Will potential internship and volunteer opportunities for persons benefiting from work experiences be limited due to an influx of individuals with a professional degree in this area? In many ways, it seems that Silverman argues for museums to exist and to support social work ethos through simply existing and being open entities to the public. Museums then serve their communities as a third-place environment which promotes self-reflection and identity creation. Identity can best be created and reflected upon when the individual sees herself in the exhibit. Many groups still do not see their story represented in museums due to broader preventative social norms. While museums may serve to create reflexive environments, they also help maintain social barriers and walls.
Chapter three provided many key examples of successful meaning making experiences that museums can create. Public programming and community outreach are excellent venues for museums to create increased community relevance. Through examining how such programs assist communities I can better serve the community in which I live. This path allows museums to actively solve problems within a community, rather than suggest solutions or ignore them completely.
Ultimately, this chapter leads me to consider questions about representation and its association or dissonance with identity creation. As practitioners are serving our constituent’s desire to learn, but to what extent inside and out of the museum are we approaching their needs for self-reflection? How are we hindering this process? How can we help?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)