Questions in a Museum?

I repeat: questions in a museum?  At first glance, it almost seems like an oxymoron of a phrase.  However, it is what Dr. K (my professor) suggests for our museum project on I-496 in his infamous blog for the course (in the post “Questions and Answers”).  He suggests that instead of giving the answer, our exhibit could pose the question.  I think it is a great idea.  At the beginning of the course (in conjunction with discussions about the Enola Gay controversy ~ see my earlier post), we discussed the role of museums.  Most of the class seemed to agree that part of the role of a museum is to promote critical thinking.  Critical thinking is not possible without questions.  Critical thinking can not happen if answers are simply provided to the visitors.  It requires people to interact and come to their own conclusions.

Following that reasoning, if one of our goals with this exhibit is to promote critical thinking than I say why not pose a question instead of providing an answer?  It should be our job as exhibit creators and researchers to come up with the material to get visitors of the museum thinking.  So, perhaps instead of shaping our message around the answer we should, as Dr. K suggests, shape it around the questions we want people to think about and ask themselves as they interact with the material.  Why did the interstate end up where it did?  Were racial politics at work?  Or was it purely economics and geography at play?  Was it the best possible option?  Did the positive outcomes outweigh the negative outcomes?  Was this a reflection of something larger?  Why learn about I-496?

This does have some obvious implications.  First, what if people do not interact on a deep enough level with the material to ask any questions?  On a previous visit (for a different class), a museum guide explained that most people will only spend 18 seconds on any given artifact.  This means minutes on any single exhibit.  Is this enough time?  Can the material be presented in a way that either makes people stay longer at this exhibit or interact at a deeper level?  Second, by posing a question instead of an answer, it has the obvious implication of not specifying an answer.  By this I mean, people can come to any conclusion they wish.  People could come to an answer different than you expected or intended.  However, if people are engaging with the material, critically thinking about it, hasn’t the museum succeeded?  Or is it necessary for a museum to convey a certain message and for all the visitors to learn and accept that message?

On a more specific level, I think the idea of creating the exhibit around a question works really well with ideas the design team has discussed.  We have talked about having an interactive part at the end of the exhibit where people can post their reflections about the old community, exhibit, and/or other related items.  If the museum poses a question then this reflection board can have particular relevance.  It gives people a place to pose the other questions they have come up with and/or answers and thoughts about the issues presented.  It will also help address some of the negative aspects of organizing the exhibit around a question(s) because it allows museum personnel to see what people are thinking from the exhibit.  This way the museum can see if the exhibit is effectively evoking critical thinking and the conclusions it leads people to.

All in all I think it is a great idea to a least discuss.  Why can’t a museum be about questions?

Read Full Post »

“Come and Get These Memories”

Well after much speculation, I’ve decided to focus on Civil Rights in a round about way for my individual project.  I recently visited the Motown Museum in Detroit with some friends for the first time (which is also one of Michigan’s Historical Sites as well).

If you drove down Grand Boulevard, you would probably miss this house unless there was a gaggle of tourists sitting on the front lawn at the time of your passing.  It fits right in between the other buildings with just a small parking lot on the side.  After taking the mandatory picture of ourselves in front of Hitsville, we decided to go ahead and actually go in the museum.  (YES, I am a history major, but NO I had not came with the intention of actually visiting the museum thinking it was more of a tourist trap than museum).  After seeing that it would cost $10, my poor college student instincts kicked in and said to myself, “there is no way I am paying $10 to walk through this house.”  Wrong.  I did pay the $10 and the cashier decided to tell me AFTER she had ran my debit card when I asked about discounts for school field trips that there were also discounts for college students (this was after we had also said we were from MSU).  So, anyways, I paid the $10 and life goes on.  The museum visit also comes with a tour, which I am generally never thrilled about.  I was wrong.

Motown Museum

The tour made the museum visit.  I would not have gotten nearly as much  without the help of the tour guide.  Not only was he very informative, but he was very entertaining.  It made every exhibit seem interactive.  So, if you decide to head over to the museum, pay the $10 and tap into the knowledge of the people who work there.  You won’t regret it.  While some parts are slightly “touristy,” they are entertaining.  They pull people in and keep you there.  And isn’t that an important mission of any museum -to have visitors?

However, what really struck me was the ingenuity of Berry Gordy (founder of Motown). I had know that racism affected the industry and creation of Motown; however, I was incredibly interested as the tour guide explained how Berry Gordy changed the industry to work arouond racism (how it affected the ways he “trained” singers, the way album covers were designed, etc.) and also how the indurstry worked to combat racism.

It was this that led me to the topic for my lesson plan.  I want to focus on different areas where this occured besides Motown (sports, literature, education, social groups, whatever).  Students always learn about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks.  That is not to say that they were not important, but I want to supplement that knowledge.  What were other people doing in other areas?

And just to explain the title of this post and for a little fun…

Read Full Post »

Michigan Historical Center Revisited

I went to the Michigan Historical Center again today with my education class.  If I am being honest I was not particularly excited for this visit because I was afraid it was going to be the same thing covered as my last visit with this class.  I was pleasantly surprised.

Unlike most people who grew up in the Michigan school system, I had never been to the Museum there.  I don’t really know why, but I had low expectations.  I was incredibly impressed.  I feel like they identified their audience (as we were told on our last visit it is elementary aged students primarily).  Their exhibits I felt were really relatable and placed in context rather than just artifacts randomly placed around a room.  Their exhibits (or at least the ones we visited today) were designed as though you were walking through an early 20th century city (for example).  I feel like this will better hold the attention of fourth and fifth graders.  So, it was interesting to see how someone (or institution in this case) identified their audience and organized their historical information accordingly.

It was also interesting to talk to someone from the museum (unfortunately I never learned her name) at the WWII exhibit.  She gave us three directions.  First, try to figure out what the intended big message of the exhibit was supposed to be.  Second, what artifacts stand out to you.  Third, what would stand out to the students.  I think these make some great points about my search for my audience and this class’s project on I-496 for the museum.

She explained how the museum had to choose how they wanted to approach WWII and they decided to focus on the home-front.  They had contemplated using soldiers’ uniforms and other artifacts, but instead decided on focusing on what was going on at homes in Michigan.  I found this so relevant when considering my future in education and anything regarding history.  It is impossible to address everything from every angle.  You have to make a decision.  For every unit (if not the course in general), I think it will be much more beneficial for my students (and myself) if I think about, plan and now what my bigger message is.  What am I trying to get the students to know, understand, or contemplate by providing all the information or “artifacts?”  Otherwise it will simply be a tangled mess of facts.  Similarly, what do we want the I-496 exhibits greater message to be?  What would we want visitors of the exhibit to take away?

I also found it interesting and useful that she had us consider what we found interesting and what students would.  This insinuates that these are not the same.  I cannot assume that my students’ interests will be the same as mine.  I have to come up with innovative ways to make them interested.  When considering our audience, it is important to realize that they will be different and have different interests than ourselves.  For our I-496 project, how would we reach a group of fourth and fifth graders and make them interested in I-496?  She also said that the average person spends 17 seconds on an exhibit.  An EXHIBIT, not an artifact.  So when we are planning our project, how are we going to grab people’s attention and what do we want to be most important?  S, if the visitors only notice one thing it is the thing we want them to notice.

I found these interesting to think about for my teaching, but also for the I-496 project.  They also shared some interesting websites to use for resources for teachers, but I think they can also be useful for our project.  I am also curious to look for genealogy information too.

First an index for the archives can be found online.  This is an index so that we can find out what is there before making a trip.  I personally thought the photo section would be helpful.

Next, there is Seeking Michigan.  This is where MHC is putting all the archives on-line.  So instead of looking at the index, you can look at the documents themselves.  This will be especially useful if you can’t make trips there.  However, everything is not up yet.

Just a few things to think about as our project really gets rolling…

Read Full Post »

Whose history?

I find the entire Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Japan during World War II, exhibit at the Smithsonian controversy incredibly intriguing the more I learn about it.  It is important to learn about, evaluate and analyze the Enola Gay, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the effects of using the atomic bomb then.  However, it also raises larger questions about public history that cross into all topics.  It does present the seemingly obvious question of what is the role of museums?  However, it also leads to larger questions as to what is the role of history?

In “Museums and the Public: Doing History Together” from The Journal of American History, Thomas A. Woods says, “History has always been pragmatic in the sense that historians revise and rewrite constantly to meet their own needs and the needs of a new generation.”  This suggests that history exists to meet the needs of people (be they historians or the public).  It also suggests that these needs are changing.  I found that this really brought more questions than answers for myself.  Who gets to determine the “needs of a new generation?”  The public, historians, the Senate, interest groups?  Each of these members of society took a different view of the Enola Gay and each seemed to genuinely believe in their position.  Each group was simply coming from a different group and a different perspective.  This is highlighted by the Senate documents surrounding the hearing about the exhibit.  Throughout the proceedings, the personal experiences of veterans are recounted as different than how the proposed exhibit would have presented the dropping of the atom bombs.  However, this does not devalue or illegitimate the experiences of those veterans – neither does it necessarily mean the Smithosinian exhibit was false.  This seemed to be the main point of controversy in my opinion: some public and veterans believed that the exhibit devalued their contribution.

However, during these hearings Senator Ford also said that people should leave the exhibit “understanding the full ramifications of the war, but still somehow feeling good about the role that the United States played in ending the war.”  This suggests that history has a role in building nationalism.  Public history should be heritage.  However, he also goes on to say in argument that the exhibit shouldn’t focus on Japanese perspective, “I want our citizens to have it all, because history is awfully important.”  How can citizens have it all, though, if certain perspectives aren’t presented?  I believe that it is important to present all perspectives because the reality of the situation probably lies somewhere in the middle.  If museums and public history only serve to bolster nationalism and present one side of a story, than it denies citizens the ability to think critically.

So, the question remains: who gets to decide history?  Who gets to determine what is recalled and how it is told?  What is the goal of history?

It also raises the question of what are the stakes for the Enola Gay exhibit, but history in general?  From Senator Ford’s comments it seems as if American patriotism is at risk.  From many of the scholars involved, it seems like the stakes are greater understanding of global issues like racism, nuclear war, etc.  Since this discussion centers around the Enola Gay I cannot help but consider the effect history has had on Japan’s foreign relations.  Japan is a great example of how history can affect such important things as foreign affairs.  Japan has had its own debates on history considering its museum at the Yasukuni Shrine (where Japan’s war dead, including class-A war criminals, are enshrined), textbook controversy (for example how it  portrays the Nanjing Massacre), and comfort women.  All of these center around how Japan remembers and handles its part in WWII.  These issues continue to come up in Japans relations with its neighbors in the regions, especially with China and South Korea.  History, how it is remembered, and how it is told has very real consequences.  What do we risk in our interpretations and retelling of history?

Read Full Post »