Phoebe Pundyk

I am back in New York City now eager to visit my regular museums (MoMa, Met, Guggenheim, Morgan Library, etc…) with this entirely new perspective! I feel like I am no longer a typical museum-goer anymore, but instead one with secret powers, as if I know something that the other visitors don’t. I am now going to be observing, not only the objects on display, but a variety of new criteria when I visit museums and galleries.

Yesterday Elaine and I ditched working on our final presentation (which we just presented and, of course, it went really well) to go to the Musee de L’Orangerie which had an exhibit up called Les Enfants Modeles, meaning the children models. This show obviously hit close to home for me being a model for my mom’s artwork. It was super exciting to see an entire show of portraits of children. The concept was that the show was supposed to be from their perspective, so there was a video of the models as adults describing their experience (good and bad) as models and their relationship with their parents, the artists. Obviously, I could relate. It was so cool to have this connection to Picasso and Cezanne’s kids.

PABLO PICASSO - "MAYA À LA POUPÉE"

Anne Pundyk - Rue de Rivoli

Henri d'Estinne - Portrait de fillette

Anne Pundyk - Phoebe

Today we had an interesting experience at the Musee Carnavalet, which was quite different from the previous four museums we have visited. We are studying it to parallel the Museum of London as the Parisian museum of the city. Unlike any of the other museums, we had a tour guide who took us around some of the museum and told us the history of Paris, during which, we examined the collecting practices and how the objects on display tell the story of Paris and how they differ from the Museum of London.

The two main differences are how they get their stuff and how they display their stuff. The root of is in the mission statements, or lack there of. The Museum of London explicitly says it on their website About Us Page. In summary, their goals are to “inspire a passion for London” through educating all of London’s communities and visitors via displaying historical and contemporary objects. The Musee Carnavalet, on the other hand, had no written mission statement. From my visit today I can make an educated guess that their goal is to visually tell the history of the city of Paris. Essentially, the two museums have the same function, the Museum of London is just clearer about defining it and more successful at achieving it. Every collecting decision revolves around how it will help them accomplish their respective missions.

So how do they each get their stuff, you may wonder?

The Museum of London has an extensive filter that new acquisitions must pass through in order to be initiated into the collection, which is organized by a committee of curators, trustees, board members, designers, and educators. The museum purchases objects and accepts donations depending on if they fit the mission. They also do their own archeological digs and research to obtain objects. As Sharon Macdonald describes individual collecting, in this case the museum as an institution is acting as an individual collector, “as an expression of individual identity”. The objects that pass through the filters all are contributing to building the identity of the museum. In this case, the museum’s identity is determined by the identity of the city. It is a systematic, organized process that is visible through the display strategies and plethora of information available online.

I can only make assumptions about the collecting practices of the Musee Carnavalet based on my visit today and the limited information online. It seems as if there is no filter at all for what enters the collection. This is just based on the wide range of types of objects, displayed in an inconsistent organization system, which seemed at first glance more like a mess of random objects plopped into a pretty room in a house. Both museums accept donations and purchase objects. It seems like the Carnavalet accepts anything that will help them tell the history of Paris and express the spirit of the city regardless of the importance of the donor, owner or artist. There is an established group called “des amis de Carnavalet”, meaning the friends of the Carnavalet, who are responsible for organizing the purchasing of objects and incoming donations. The major difference between the collecting practices of each museum is that the Carnavalet does not do it’s own digs to discover objects, The Museum of London does.

And what do they each do with all that stuff now that they have it?

The Museum of London offers a family-friendly, multi-media experience guiding visitors through the history of the city. The objects range from: art to artifacts to every day tools to clothing and jewelry. The route around the galleries is logical and chronological, which makes for a stress free visit.

Another point Macdonald makes in her essay is that: “Museums play an important role in institutionalizing this conception of a “collection” as more than – and different from – the sum of its parts. In forming collections, museums recontextualize objects: they remove them from their original contexts and place them in a new context of “the collection”. The curators at the Museum of London have worked to use the objects in the collection to their best advantage and most effectively tell their story.  Each object is no longer in it’s original intended home, but rather in a new home of the collection with a new purpose. The museum has a variety of display techniques including: objects in display cases with text, interactive exhibits with objects not incased, as well as recreated scenes using objects from their collection. The ranges of display methods cater to all categories of their target audience (families, school groups, general public, racial minority and lower- class Londoners). The curators successfully arrange the objects so that they become accessible to all visitors and a clear dialogue is present.

The Musee Carnavalet does no recontextualization. Some galleries are organized by who donated the objects within, some are organized by date and some by theme. For example, the “Salle Lieville” was named after the donor of the paintings hanging in the room. He was the first big donor of the museum. That seems logical, however, it was barely recognized as that and the room was filled with tables, chairs, mirrors, clocks, and a rug that were not even in his collection. Two items were ancient finds, 11 were donated by the legacy of Bouvier, two donated by other individuals, two bought and two donated by the “friends of the Carnavalet”. An example of a themed room was the “Salle de Chinois”, which was filled entirely with objects from the time period in France when Chinese objects were popular. There is no clear flow from room to room so visitors, like us, get completely lost.  Since the building was a transformed mansion, each room was just about all the same size with a home-y feeling (even though it was a home for royals) with big windows and curtains. It became repetitive and rather boring to walk through the galleries. Nothing stood out or was different between any of them.

You can see here the gallery is FULL of assorted objects:

I know that there were some impressive objects in the collection, including personal toiletries of Napoleon, but there was nothing directing me towards them, or anything at all for that matter. I never even found them! The signage was the same in every museum: small, entirely in French and with minimal explanation. The story of Paris was not clear at all. We learned the history of the city from our tour guide, but she didn’t utilize the objects in front of her to tell the story, so the connection was completely lost. It was a frustrating experience.

Here is another room:

Macdonald suggests museums place objects in a new context of the collection for the purpose of successfully conveying a message with the group of objects. The message I got from this collection was not positive view of Paris. It was unorganized. I felt like the museum wanted to show me as much as possible but not tell me what I was looking at. It made me feel stupid, forgotten and uninformed. Clearly I was not their indented audience. The museum is geared more towards local Parisians who have more knowledge of the history of their own city. Perhaps visiting this museum is just an opportunity to see the objects in person, but more learning does not take place.

In conclusion, the differing collecting and display practices in each country directly relate to the national identify being portrayed. London’s historical narrative is portrayed clearly through the highly selective decision of objects on display, while the Musee Carnavalet depicts a thoughtless organization and care of the collection. Perhaps the Musee Carnavalet should establish a more focused mission statement to help guide them.

Our class spent the past two days at the Musee du Louvre looking at the monumental and historical architecture. We are revisiting Michaela Giebelhausen’s article: “Museum Architecture: A Brief History” that we read while studying the British Museum’s monumentality. So what does she have to say about monumental architecture that relates the British Museum and the Louvre? Well, we all can agree that these two museums are indeed monuments based on the Webster dictionary definition of the word: a lasting evidence, reminder, or example of someone or something great. The average person could say that from both building’s size and splendor they are monuments. But what about defining them through the minds of museum experts such us?

Geibelhausen can help! She brings up two points in particular that directly apply:

1) Durand’s ideal museum layout:

Durand Museum Floor Plan

Here is Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand’s (quite the name, eh?) ideal design for a museum. In his plan there is a central courtyard with galleries leading off in a linear sequence. The plan has influenced institutions around the world that intend to creating a monumental space, particularly those fine scholars who established the British Museum. It is arranged almost precisely like Durand’s plan with the Great Court in the center, and rooms extending on all four sides.

British Museum Floor Plan

As museum visitors walk through the British Museum starting from the core, the Great Court, they travel around the globe chronologically. As you can see the plan is primarily made of straight corridors. The linear path collapses time and space; as you move through the space you move geographically and sequentially. (Check out the full list of gallery themes on the website). In the center of the British Museum’s Great Court is the Reading Room which has two enormous staircases wrapping around it that lead to other floors of galleries. Geibelhausen describes Durand’s concept of the rotunda center as a transitional space where “visitors are supposed to leave behind the everyday world and prepare themselves for the contemplation of art”.  The glass encasement of the Great Court does just that. As I walked into the room my gaze instantly shot up and I couldn’t stop staring up at the ceiling. My head cleared of any previous thoughts and when I looked back down I was ready to enter the galleries.

The Reading room and stair case in the Great Court

The transition would have been completely different if visitors came from the busy streets of London and walked directly into a gallery full of important objects. The entire purpose of Durand’s design is to create a monumental viewing experience through the architecture.

Durand’s simple yet effective plan was clearly referenced during the creation of the British Museum, which was built with the purpose of being a museum. It is particularly a place to show off British power and knowledge. In their mission statement, it is explicitly stated that the British Museum was founded for “advancement and improvement of all branches of knowledge”. Only a building of such grand design could accomplish that. The Louvre, on the other hand, started as a royal fortress for Phillipe Augustine in the late 12^th Century, and has evolved over hundreds of years into the museum we all know and love (to wait on lines for) today! As a political symbol of royalty and French power, the original structure was not built with the intention of housing art and artifacts like it does today. This can be seen in the old medieval sections such as the Department of Paintings, which was originally the Kings bedroom and now currently displays the Academies of Art work. Check out the ceiling on this room. It is unlike anything seen at the British Museum. It is a piece of art by itself!

The Ceiling

However, as the newer parts were built it took more of a shape resembling Durand’s ideal museum plan. Here is a link to the Louvre floor plan. The glass pyramid entrance, built in 1989, is in the middle of all of the buildings and brings you directly into the center of the basement of the entire museum.

Me under the pyramid

From the main lobby under the pyramid are three wings: Richelieu, Sully and Denon, which extend linearly and, like the galleries of the British Museum, allow visitors to travel through space and time together. A major difference between the monumentality of each museum, for me, is that the British Museum does not have the political history or the ornate interior details in the individual galleries that the Louvre does, I sometimes had to remind myself that I was looking at objects that the British own. At the Louvre, even if I was in the newer sections of the galleries, such as the Richelieu wing, I never forgot I was in an important French building. This is because there are windows in almost every gallery, looking out onto Paris or an enormous courtyard and the exterior of another wing of the Louver itself.

The Pyramid out of a gallery window

Durand’s rectangular design is the reason that I could see the exteriors of the museum from inside opposite wings; and could experience French history and art history by simply walking straight through the wings.  Thanks Durand!

2) The battle between Scholars and Architects:

The second “museum minded” explanation for the monumentality of both of these museums is the ever so common debate that occurred between the architects and scholars when building a museum. As described in the article, “the architect favored contextually and richly ornamental display spaces, the scholarly advisor wanted to separate the galleries modeled on the sparse interiors of academy or studio, which combined light wall colors with even lighting”. In the case of the British Museum, there was a clear compromise. The interior display spaces aid in providing context for the objects with the materials used to create the room (stone, brick, marble, plster), however they are not especially ornate. The scholars won the simplicity, but not to the extreme desired. In the Green and Roman galleries such as this one:

the incredible sculptures are displayed in a crème colored room similar to the stone. They blend in to the walls of the room, which are naturally lit through skylights. Since many of the sculptures were originally outside, the windows on the ceilings bring back the natural element. I assume that if the architects had full control they would add much more detail in the ceiling, floor and walls surrounding the art. Instead the simplistic scholars touch of classic rectangular rooms to observe the art is apparent.

In the Louvre, built originally as a palace, there are the most incredibly ornate PIC rooms. The ceilings themselves have murals on them, sculptures built into the walls, and marble columns at each door way, etc… It is truly a place for royalty. There was a similar compromise with the newer sections of the museum, which was intended as a museum. The exterior looks the same, and the interior layout is similar however the scholars definitely had the upper hand when it came to the galleries. They look modern, crisp and clean. The walls are appropriately painted a color and simple lights highlighting the work. Clearly, it takes many years and a large team of people to build and establish a monument. Depending on the already existing structures, objects that are going to be housed in it, location of the museum, and people involved, the recipe will always be different.

Both museums have an interesting organization and layout of power and importance of objects. When the Louvre was a palace, only the most important people would have access to the King’s chambers, so they were the most sacred, central and removed. That is the same today for the objects. The closer that the objects are to the central courts, the more important they are. For example in the British Museum, the Enlightenment gallery is the first room off of the great court on one side and the Rosetta Stone is the first object encountered on the opposite side. This linear architecture in Durand’s plan allows for such an organized arrangement.

P.S. Here are some fun shots from the Louvre!

Elaine, Kim and I impressed with the size of the painting!

THE MUSEE D’ORSAY!

We went there this afternoon! look!

(note: same purse)

Left: today Right: 2007

Bonjour!

Nous sommes arrives a Paris aujourd’hui!

We lucked out and our Eurostar train was just an hour and a half delayed and not cancelled!

The rooms are super cute and cozy, and they have internet in them! no more blogging from the classroom. wohoo!

We had crepes for dinner and dessert. DELISH!

Off to the Louvre tomorrow!

Bon Soire!

Back at the Imperial War Museum! Our last day in London Off to Paris tomorrow! I CAN’T WAIT! Also I can’t wait for Indian food for dinner tonight. We have been saving our Indian food dinner for the last night here. I hope it is good! I’ll miss having lunch at Pancake Café though; those chicken escarole and cheese panini are so delish! Okay, I must stay on track here, or else I could go on forever about the yummy food we have had here. Especially desserts! Okay so anyways, back to the museum…

The lens we are looking through today is all about British identity. It is described in the mission statement, I spoke about yesterday, that the museum displays solely items regarding conflicts involving Britain and the Commonwealth. So how does it do that? And how is Britain’s identity rendered in the galleries? Lets take a look at the art gallery to answer that…

There is currently a show up called “Breakthrough” displaying three groups of art, all made by British artists: work from World War I, World War II and art from contemporary wars.  The artistic chronicle of war is clearly valued in Britain and had a lasting impact on the British art expression. During WWI, the government originally commissioned artists for propaganda materials and then by 1918 they decided it was important to record and commemorate the war from an artist’s perspective. Artists were then enlisted in the army and commissioned by the government to visually record their experience, feelings and sights. The government did not give the artists any guidelines or rules about the art they were to create.

Artistic styles evolved during each war, and can be seen clearly in this gallery through the variety of media and painting styles on display. Starting in WWI there was a break from the traditional forms of expression that no longer were adequate. Artists like the Nash Brothers and Percy Wyndham Lewis took the first steps evolving a new visual language to communicate the truth. By WWII, Britain’s blitzed cities provided a romantic vision of national heritage during wartime. Artists such as Edward Burra and John Minton interpreted wartime in a surrealistic style depicting nightmarish landscapes. The art world today is full of new, innovative forms of art of all types of media. “Breakthrough” features photographs, sculptures and even video art. The Imperial War Museum still commissions and collects modern art from current wars. The fact that the artists had, and still do have, complete artistic freedom shows that the British values an honest, truthful account of history from the eyes of the British themselves.

We can infer from what is being shown to us some key characteristics of the British national identity. In this gallery, the work shown is largely commissioned by the government as a pursuit to build national identity. The work itself is dark and grim, the fact that these pieces of art are valued as legitimate records of history describes the national identity as one that cares about honestly capturing life directly from the root. It is exciting that paintings and sculptures carry the same weight as official government documents and artifacts. The government has put the control in the hands of the artists to get the truth. The artwork is the outcome an organic response to big scale operations such as war. Individuals are frequently lost in the large picture discussions about countries and governments. That can even be seen in the paintings that depict battle scenes with army men. Their features are not detailed or accentuated indicating individuals, but rather masses of faceless men fighting for the name of their country, illustrated in a brushy vague technique. The view of an artist is a lens worth looking through is that the individual artists touch and point of view reveals a deeper message.

The Imperial War Museum and other museums as work to display to their own country as well as visitors a message about their identity they are as a whole. As Flora Edouwaye S. Kaplan states in the article “Making and Remaking National Identities”: “Museums are more than the sum of their parts. They played and continue to play important roles in creating national identity. Although museums arise in particular historical contexts, everywhere they involve the selection and display of made objects and those of the natural world”.  The Imperial War Museum has selected and arranged objects logically in a chronological order. There were a wide variety of artists on display offering a selection of point of views from the same experience.

Artists are still being commissioned today to go to countries where war is taking place and create art. The Imperial War Museum Arts Commission Committee works to expand their collection of work dealing with response to conflict. This goes back to a piece of the mission statement that says the museum not only wants to display and show off pieces from history but also record it. As Kaplan says, museums are working to “achieve a balance nowadays between national interests and preservation”. History is being made every day and the museum must work, as it happens to capture it as well as preserve what they already have. British Identity is evolving and will be recorded by artists regardless of the museum or governmental commission, however that support makes a great impact on how the identity is viewed. How will tourists view Britain’s history recording techniques? Will others view art with the same value that Britain does? How will British viewers think about their own country documented using art? These answers will be different for everyone and will affect individual’s relationship to the British National Identity.

P.S. unfortunately I couldn’t take any pictures in the art gallery but here is one of Dani looking through the interactive submarine exhibit:

The Imperial War Museum!

It’s snowing in London! It began last night after we saw the great production of War Horse, and has been coming down ever since. After rumors of a snow day, we made it to the Imperial War Museum this morning. Our assignment today was partially a continuation of yesterday’s thinking about the dialogue between curators and visitors, but today we had the fun project of eavesdropping on other visitors to get a sense of the dialogue the visitors are having with one another. Also, we considered the exhibits and the dialogue observations in relation to the museums mission statement.

A view of the atrium from above

A brief mission statement is posted in the entrance of the museum stating that their goal is to “illustrate and record all aspects of the history of modern conflicts involving Britain and the Commonwealth. It reflects personal experience of war and wartime life, both military and civilian and commemorates service and suffering in a war since 1914”. I believe the museum successfully does this consistently throughout all of the exhibits I saw today including the submarine exhibit, Holocaust exhibit, art gallery, secret war show, the trench, and especially at the Children of War exhibit.

We were all under the impression that the museum was going to be full of boring uniforms, tanks and guns and we were totally mistaken. In each exhibit, there are a variety of objects ranging from personal photo collections, clothing items, books, records, advertisements, furniture, toys, papers, other personal objects and obviously important military paraphernalia as well as audio and video clips. The multi-sensory exhibits are designed appropriately for the theme of each exhibit to enhance each story being told. It rounds out the whole picture to be able to hear stories directly from the mouths of Holocaust survivors, smell the nasty scents of men living on a Sub, see the impact war had on fine artists, touch the trench re-creation, and walk through a replica of a London flat from World War II. These impressions of mine are consistent through all of the galleries regardless of the theme, which relates directly to the museums’ goal of bringing personal experiences forward. It forces viewers to think about the lives of humans that were involved in war and often forgotten about. By including a variety of objects, “all aspects of the history of modern conflicts” (as stated in the abbreviated mission statement) are included.

I am going to take you through my experience in two galleries: the Holocaust Exhibit and the Children at War.

The Holocaust Exhibit (photography was not allowed in this gallery hens the lack of pictures):

It was apparent right from the get go that this was going to be an emotional, heavy exhibit. I went in with a group of 5 other Skidmore students and our chatty banter instantly stopped as soon as we walked through the glass doors. The mood was set with dimmed lighting and personal instructions to turn off all cell phones to prevent any obnoxious interruptions. The museum was empty at the time so we were the only people in the exhibit. The lack of other visitors’ commentary forced me to take my time and carefully examine the objects that intrigued me. Dialogue was limited and mostly consisted of pointing objects out to the rest of the group to not miss. We strolled at a different pace and ended up mostly looking on our own. For me it inspired a self-reflective viewing experience. Everyone has a different connection to World War II, weather it is through a family member, or memory, or book read and the curatorial design allowed for a unique personal connection. The dialogue was internal.

A display from the exhibit

The first display was of home videos and family photos of life before the war. Seeing these personal photos created an instant connection to the albums of photos I have of my family, as well as put a welcoming face to the foreign mass of people typically grouped under names such as: survivors, refugees, concentration camp workers, army men etc… I wanted to learn more about what happened to these people, however I braced myself for what was to come next. The exhibit took up two floors chronologically telling the story from each phase of the war giving appropriate display room for each theme. Strategically placed throughout, were videos and audio clips of survivors telling their own story mixed with the classic display cases of objects, artifacts, posters, papers, pictures, personal belongings and other memorabilia. If they were connected to a particular person, that person’s story was told along with it, showing a range of objects, perspectives and connecting it directly with the viewers, just what the mission asks for!

Children at War:

At first glance at the warm lights and cute little girl on the introductory poster, I expected this exhibit to be slightly more uplifting after spending the majority of our time in the Holocaust exhibit. I was wrong. This was another two-floor exhibit entirely devoted to depicting World War II from a British Child’s eyes. It was heartbreaking. The environment was a louder since more visitors in a brightly lit room with peppy music and children’s toys on display and even some to play with. Similar tactics from the Holocaust exhibit were used to stay true to the mission statement: displaying objects from all aspects of life as well as telling personal stories to bring the message close to home for visitors. The exhibit included many photos of school children all together, art and illustrations depicting the time from artists’ perspective, propaganda posters used to brain wash children and their families, toys, and letters. The objects were not foreign to children or adult visitors. Throughout the galleries were short quotes from survivors telling stories about important moments as a child during the war. My favorite part of the exhibit was a recreation of a London flat during that time. It is completely realistic and did not feel like you were in a museum at all. There were slight differences that made this house special and such as blacked out curtains and a bomb shelter instead of a dining room table. Most other objects were recognizable and appropriate for that time. The range of senses activated and variety of objects included reinforces the goal of having “all aspects” of the war preserved and displayed. Mission accomplished!

Unlike the Holocaust exhibit, I went though this show with no other students and directly behind a mother and her two young sons. The boys were drawn in by the title “Children at War”, being children themselves. All three of them were deeply engaged with every piece on display. The mother was prompting the boys with questions and asking them about how they would feel experiencing a war like WWII. The boys often ran ahead, found something neat, and came back to show their mother who was carefully looking at each display box. The exhibit inspires a dialogue between visitors of all ages to ask questions to each other as well as about the history. The interaction between the family was exactly what I hoped for: visuals inspiring curiosity for all individuals and a shared experience of discussing and showing off other interesting items.

A snapshot from the play

After seeing War Horse, last night, I thought about how the show told a story of a loving relationship during the terrifying time of war through the empathetic character relationships. A particularly successful and accessible route of connection is through the family relationships and individual personalities of protagonist, Albert, his mom and dad. Throughout the show, when Albert was off to war, Albert’s family was in the back of my mind since the audience has invested in their relationship. It brought a personal appeal to the dehumanized soldiers. They all have loved ones at home that must not be forgotten. The exhibits at the Imperial War Museum also had a difficult challenge of making the terrible subject of war appealing to a wide audience. The tactic of humanizing war and opening the subject through a personal portal allows for a smooth connection to the topic. Personally, the idea of war scares me and makes me upset, therefore I try and block any direct connection to it, even for educational purposes. However, these exhibits today broke that wall and brought out a curiosity I never experienced. All it took was showing me an object or story that related to me in a major way for that barrier to break. In the Holocaust exhibit, it was the first images of typical family picnics and summer days that I am familiar with. In the Children at War exhibit it was a set of 5 digital frames that had rotating images of 5 survivors throughout their lives, from childhood through old age, with a short paragraph telling their situation. (note: these are the very first displays encountered in each show). It brought me into uncomfortable territories but the outcome was worthwhile.

Today’s task at the Museum of London is to think about the dialogue between the museum and its visitors and compare it to that of the British Museum. Four key concepts that I kept in mind when strolling the exhibits were: temple, forum, resonance and wonder. For me, the stark contrast between the museums’ intended visitor experience, which is directly affected by the target audience, impacted me most.

Before I get started take a look at the very first blogs Elaine and I did introducing the Museum of London for some brief background info.

This afternoon we heard Cathy Ross, who is responsible for the new exhibit about London from 1666 through the present, speak about the project. She revealed some interesting facts that tied directly to Kathleen McLean’s article, “Museum Exhibitions and the Dynamics of Dialogue”. For example, Ross divided the target audience and expected visitors of the museum into five groups:

1. Families
2. School groups – this is their largest portion of visitors
3. The general public
4. Racial minority Londoners
5. Lower-class Londoners

McLean’s point about the audience of museums is that curators must consider the demographic and psychographic studies which show that the average museum visitor is “well educated and value worthwhile leisure-time experiences that focus on learning and discovery”. The worst exhibits are the ones where curators completely ignore the interests of the general public.

-According to Ross, about 50% of the visitors at the Museum of London are tourists and 50% are Londoners. They would like to increase the amount of Londoners who visit, and are working on some marketing techniques to bring in tourists from neighboring attractions.

-Since the majority of the visitors are school groups, the Museum of London has developed a strong education program including classroom resources in the museum and back at school.

While I don’t have an official expert’s word on the target audience of the British Museum, I am going to consider myself an expert on this one after spending three days there. I observed two umbrella categories of guests: 1) tourists and 2) locals. Both of which can be divided into: families and adults. I did not see any school groups, of British students or traveling students, like us. School groups who came on field trips to the British Museum would most likely be escorted by a tour guide, while at the Museum of London, the exhibits themselves tell appealing stories to children and tour guides are less of a necessity. (The Museum of London has a linear chronological route through the galleries, while the British Museum doesn’t).

I believe the intended visitor experience at the British Museum is more scholarly and serious rather than playful and experimental like at the Museum of London. Those differing point of views are intentional. Through the traditional display of objects in cases at the British Museum  the visitors’ experience is more about observing. While at the Museum of London the multi-media, sensory displays simulate a “day in the life” type experience.

A case of objects in the British Muesum

A multi-media exhibit at the Museum of London

As McLean defines good exhibits as those with resonance, wonder and a space that is both a temple and a forum. I believe that objects in both museums inspire resonance and wonder. In the Museum of London the crumbling roman wall that is visible through a window on the second floor resonates with me as a piece of living history.

The Ol' Wall

It takes the historical stories of the Romans and the British and brings them into geographical and physical sense of modern life in London. The “awe factor” kicked up a notch since the museum includes the artifact in the exhibit even though it is outside of the building. The sight of the wall made me wonder about a myriad of ideas including: what happened to the rest of the wall? What is it like to have this crumbling wall in the middle of contemporary London? Etc… In order to think about these questions I had to stop and stare.

In a small introductory exhibit in the British Museum, there is a display of Elsa Peretti accessories and the original historical objects that inspired them. There is a leather tool adjacent to a silver belt buckle in the classic Elsa Peretti style I am familiar with from her jewelry at Tiffany’s & Co. The juxtaposition of these two objects resonate with me for so long because I know the Tiffany’s designs so well but never knew what inspired them. I stopped to spend time and wonder about them. I was able to make a connection between Peretti’s design process and the special pieces of jewelry I own from her collections.

As a whole, I believe the Museum of London is less of a temple and more of a forum. McLean describes temples as “a place of contemplation or wonder”. As I just explained, there are objects that inspire me to wonder, however my questions are quickly answered with illustrations, wall text and even other displayed objects. The galleries do, however, allow for “negotiation and experimentation”. That is precisely what the curators, like Ross, aim for with their multi-media, theatrical exhibits. Visitors, especially children, should press buttons, play with objects, and get a better sense of life in London throughout the ages. The British Museum is both a temple and a forum. The structure and space of the galleries make you feel like you are worshiping the artifacts. We have used it as a forum for our class to wrestle with ideas that resonate.

Ross and the collection of designers, educators and other curators kept these visitor groups in mind when planning the new gallery and the intended experience for members of each category. From the get go, it was stated that not every single piece in the new exhibit at the Museum of London would appeal to every visitor but there would be at least one object per “zone” that would. To me, it seems like even if that is the case, the whole vibe of the museum is geared mostly to families and school groups, or younger children. Personally, I do fall into one of the categories, the general public, however I feel forgotten and left out. Younger me would LOVE this museum, since I could touch objects, reenact life, watch videos and play on computers. Nineteen-year-old, college student, me is somewhat less drawn in by the theatrics. I do understand the appeal though. But according to research the museum has done as preparation for the renovation, the multi-media, theatrical style of displaying objects seems to be successful for them. The Museum of London’s dialogue between those visitors was a positive one, stemming from the curators’ clear understanding of the audience. Hearing the goals and intentions from the mouth of the curator, herself, highlighted the connection between the storytellers and the listeners. It is a symbiotic relationship where the curators will design for the visitors based upon the general public’s opinion and hopefully that will result in an increased visitorship for the museum.

This morning was our last morning in the British Museum except for teatomorrow afternoon, which should be so tasty!

The Great Court under the sun!

But today we took a step out of the Enlightenment gallery and wandered around the rest of the museum looking at objects with the ideals of the Enlightenment in mind. There are many overlaps and comparisons that immediately came to mind between the display of objects in the Kings Library and the display of objects throughout the rest of the museum. One example I found upstairs in the HSBC Money Gallery where there was a case of four tools used for counting and handling money. Two of the objects were wood counting boards, one from Japan in the 18^th Century and one was from South India in the 19^th Century.

The Counting Boards

To the right of that was a Verifone Omni 360 Payment acceptance device from 2001.

On the shelf below was an enormous bronze cash register from London, 1901.

This reminded me of an arrangement I spotted in the Kings Library of 4 single and unique shoes on display in the same case arranged by type instead of chronology vs. place of origin. There is a silk slipper from Japan, an espadrille from Pyrenees, a painted wood shoe from India, and a leather shoe from Morocco.

The two wooden counting boards were both flat rectangular objects with handles at the top and slots the size of coins. Neither were ornately decorated and are entirely designed for practical purposes. (How they are used: If a pile of coins is out on a counter, a cashier can spread them out and the coins will each fall into a slot and it will be much easier to count that way). Both boards are displayed with coins in some slots as an example. Directly under the boards was a huge, ornate, bronze cash register. It is popped open with money in the drawer. The object is familiar to viewers, but they are used to seeing cash registers in a different form: smaller, digital and not made of bronze. It is beautifully decorated with curly, floral patterns. On the top shelf to the right of the wooden counting boards was the digital payment acceptance device. Honestly, it looks so out of place and different from everything in the museum because it is bright blue, electronic, and familiar to most viewers as an object used in their lives. It is tilted on its side horizontally and is made of shiny plastic with rubber buttons.

The arrangement of these cases tell a world wide story about the technological progress of these objects. Perhaps the British Museum today was inspired by the way the objects were set up in the Kings Library. The money counting tools are placed in a gallery entirely about money, which is then divided up into mini groupings of objects by location and date. As I explained in yesterdays post, the Enlightenment thinkers studied objects regardless of their context. Yes, the place of origin is noted  but since they are not on display with other objects from that country so viewers are forced to make observations solely on the items in front of them. The knowledge they gained comes directly from the object; it speaks for itself, or at least that’s what they believed. So by displaying the shoes right next to each other, in the Enlightenment Gallery, direct visual comparisons can be made about the design and use of shoes as shoes rather than as objects in their respective cultures. For example: the height of the platform, the materials used, open toed or closed toed, the style of straps, and color usage. We ask: what do these different characteristics tell us about how humans use shoes? instead of How can we compare these Japanese shoes with other Japanese clothing? The same thing goes for the money counting technology. The wooden counters are clearly different from the bright blue electronic payment acceptance device. Since they are all displayed in one case, viewers are able to think about human’s use of objects as a whole rather than separating people by culture and geographic location as if they were all unique species.

So now how the heck did these even get here? That is an interesting question! The shoes in the Enlightenment Gallery were originally part of Sir Hans Sloan’s personal collection, which was donated to the British Museum after his death. Sloan intentionally collected footwear as examples of varying costume from around the world (Japan, Pyrenees, India and Morocco). It is kind of like the dessert sampler that we have been eyeing at every restaurant we go to that has a little bit of each type of dessert. Sloan had the footwear sampler platter.

The collection of money sorting tools came to the museum from a range of sources. The wood counting board from Japan was bought from Simmons and Simmons in 1991. It was one of three objects purchased at the time. Simmons and Simmons is a coin and metal dealer/auction houes in the UK. Sharon Macdonald’s article “Collecting Practices” that discusses museum’s role in collecting as a the means of putting value to objects and creating a context that is lasting and significant. Since the origin of the Indian wooden counting tool is not indicated, I am inferring from Macdonald’s article that the British Museum could have sought out this particular item to purchase so their collection could be complete. The museum is not only concerned with telling the story of  money collecting and sorting tools, but in the bigger scheme of the HSBC Money Gallery, these objects fill the gaps in a room that is rich with mostly coins (hee hee). Just as Sloan purposely traveled and added specific items to his collection the British Museum went out and intentionally purchases, borrows or requests donations. The Bronze Cash Register is on loan to the museum from Ian Ormerod, NCR. The Veriphone Omni 360 Payment acceptance device was donated to the museum by Veriphone, the company that makes the product. Veriphone is the source for anyone today to get such an item, they are not rare or obscure like the old wooden coin counters are.

So why is it even in a museum? Well, I think it completes the timeline and brings all of the obsolete objects into perspective. Viewers can compare how money was used through history and how it is used in our society today. These 4 objects were not all acquired together and were recontextualized to provide greater meaning. As Macdonald says in the article “in a collection, objects take on additional significance specified by dint of being part of the collection; and in most cases, the life of objects once in a collection is notable different from their pre-collection existence.” The digital payment acceptance device is obsolete, as more modern versions have been designed. However viewing the objects next to older objects that once served the same purpose shows progress of technology. Just as the enlightenment thinkers saw each objects that once served as the source of learning, the British Museum provides the same experience for visitors today.

Why are these objects in the British Museum if most of them aren’t even British? Jeffrey Abt’s article, “The Origins of the Public Museum”, explains that the British Museum is a nationally funded institution that “functions as a public repository of objects and texts that would be maintained in perpetuity by the English government and overseen by a government appointed board of trustees”. Basically, the museum is an opportunity for Britain to show off. They have 7 million objects from all over the world. The power of Britain as a nation is physically present at museum. The origins of the objects are less important in the mind of the nation as a whole, their priority is displaying the large amount of impressive objects. This trickles down directly into their collecting practices. It seems as if the British Museum will do what ever it takes, buy, borrow, or ask, for objects to be able to share under the title of being British. The more that is seen in that museum while the words British Museum is on your mind, the more you will associate with Britain as a nation.

After Class:

Tonight for dinner we went to a Thai place in our neighborhood and sat at a large square table with 2 couples on a date. We were taking up two adjacent sides of the square and they were on the other two. It was pretty awkward, but the food was great! That type of seating seems to be popular here in London. Like at Wagamama you are also sharing a table with strangers. Guess they are more friendly here than in NYC and want to encourage us to make new friends!