“Refreshingly Old Fashioned” – Can that ever be positive feedback for a local museum?

Every now and again I take a look at the visitor comments book where I volunteer partly because of my public historian hat and to get a sense of what visitors make of the museum but also out of sheer curiosity. Last time I looked someone had described the museum as “refreshingly old fashioned” and I have to admit I was somewhat taken aback. Is being old fashioned a good thing for a museum to be in this day and age?

http://www.victorianlondon.org/images/unitedservicesmuseum.gif

I look around the museum and have to admit that to me it looks a bit tired and very dated. Don’t get me wrong, what it contains within I think is incredibly interesting and important to preserve, if for no other reason than it provides the local community with a place where they can learn about local history, it’s just of its time. And again, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Contextually the buildings that make up the museum add to the atmosphere and sense of place, I just can’t help but feel that it isn’t “refreshingly old fashioned”, rather more “dated and a relic of a bygone era”. *sharp intake of breath* Did I actually just say that? The museum in question is one I’ve visited numerous times throughout my life and I have real a fondness for it. I suppose that is why I feel that it could be so much more. I just find it odd that somebody would praise a museum for being ‘old fashioned’ when they have to compete with much more engaging and interactive forms of entertainment in order to keep visitors passing through the doors.

I can see why people are attracted to the nostalgic and more traditional museum experience. I walk into my shift and am greeted by that familiar musty museum smell, the dark lighting and dated interior. It’s like stepping back in time and seeing the ways of old through a familiar medium. You know what you’re going to get. There are going to be galleries with glass cases which enclose the artefacts and besides them panels of text. There might be trail clues up on the wall to encourage children to engage with the exhibits but it is unlikely there will be anything to pull or push or to physically interact. You walk around and read, all the while staying quiet so as to adhere to that unwritten rule that enforces silence on museum visitors. I find the whole thing completely bizarre, if you’re going to be reading vast quantities of text, at the very least you should feel able to talk about it! It’s also quite an isolating thing to experience for that very reason. You can arrange to visit in groups but often you will wander at your own pace, stop at the bits that interest you and exchange only a rare word with a companion.

http://chertseymuseum.org/

Don’t get me wrong going to a museum where there aren’t any artefacts or panels of text to read only interactive screens and the like, would be an equally odd situation. I think there needs to be a happy medium between the traditional way of doing things and a way more suited to modern society. The example of the Science Museum springs to mind. It is educational and informative but there are lots of activities to interact with and no one is too worried about talking to each other. I strongly feel that history museums, whether local, regional or national, should be striving for similar results. I agree with philosopher Hilde Hein that museums have become more ‘people centred’ and rather than pine for the old ways, I think museum staff should be embracing that and using it to their advantage, especially as the heritage sector faces budget cuts and they begin to rely even more heavily on visitor admissions and donations. Admittedly, there is a fine line between successful interactive exhibits and ones which ‘disneyfy’ the past, but it is something local museums should be thinking about, even if on a scaled down version.

chertseymuseum.org 

I can’t help but make comparisons between the museum where I volunteer and Chertsey Museum in Surrey. Despite being the museum for the Borough of Runnymede, it isn’t a particularly large site and relies upon council funding, support from the Olive Matthews Trust and donations – there is no admission fee. The two museums are on somewhat of an equal paring but from first hand observations, Chertsey Museum and its staff and volunteers appear to have done so much more with what they have. Huge emphasis is placed on education and the development of educational materials, while the exhibitions play to the museums strength. They are not particularly large but they are packed with history. In one gallery (the Silver one I think) you have glass cases displaying the artefacts but beneath them are a series of draws within which more artefacts are displayed. However, to see them the visitor has to open and close the draws, a simple action but one which forces a visitor in engage and interact with the display. A similar approach has been adopted in the Runnymede Gallery which has also been designed to resemble the outdoors. These techniques appear very simple, but by steering away from putting all objects in glass cases and finding more interactive and aesthetically pleasing ways to present the material, Chertsey has created a newer and more inviting experience for the museum visitor. 

I struggle to see the negative side of this shift in museum design. There is no denying that museums have generally moved towards more interactive and engaging methods of communicating the past - touch screens, oral history, puzzles and games, trials, sound effects and all these things add to visitor experience in some way shape or form. I think we’ve generally come to expect more from museums now and I don’t think that is something that they should shy away from. As Annette Day argues, ‘Multimedia technology is a common mans of communication today, especially among young people. As a consequence, information presented in this way is often more accessible because it utilities familiar routes of comprehension, in addition to the deeper engagement facilitated by physical interactivity’.[1] And in that sense perhaps it is a generational thing. I am unsure of the age of the person who made that original comment, but I think perhaps it was someone more mature, for I would have to admit that I am finding it increasingly difficult to focus my attention on museum exhibitions for prolonged periods of time, especially if they are of your more traditional type.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/

On a recent visit to the British Museum I actually got bored (again I can’t quite believe I’m saying that). This is a national institution (contested yes, I don’t argue with that) but one of those places you feel you should give your full attention, but I couldn’t. There were bits that appealed, yes. The Egyptian mummies for example and the Battersea Shield, Mold Gold Cape, Snettisham Torc – all the sorts of things I learnt about in archaeology, but generally speaking I just found it to be long galleries filled with glass cases full of artefacts. They were well presented, artefacts grouped together and themed, but after a while I became somewhat desensitised to it all. As my companion said, “Once you’ve seen one Chinese pot you’ve almost seem them all”. What I find with the British museum is that it is the sort of place you want to nip into every now and again, not attempting to do it all in one go but segments. I’m the same with the other big London museums, the NHM and V&A for example. They lack the sort of interactive elements that break up the experience and encourage you to spend more time there.

The Museum of London for example, offers a very different visitor experience. Yes there were the more normal type of galleries with artefacts in glass cases, but interwoven around those were clips of oral history, a recreation of a pleasure ground, a prison cell which you could stand in and a Victorian street complex – I would add that sounds effects and even smells would have made this even better, but all of these methods of display were very engaging. There wasn’t time to ‘turn-off’ because you were moving onto something else which required you to interact with it in a different way. The MoL offers something completely different to the local museum I volunteer at, partly because circumstances mean that it can – but I don’t think that should mean that local museums shouldn’t strive for similar results. The fact is, the younger generation are growing up with technology and a desire to interact with those things from which they are learning and a failure to incorporate that into museums, at least to some degree, will alienate them from museums in the future. I think there is a real danger in being labelled “refreshingly old fashioned” for that would not appeal to the majority and it is in their hands that the future lies.

---

[1] Annette Day, “Listening Galleries: Putting Oral History on Display,” Oral History 27:1 (1999): 95.

Historic Houses Contemplate the Future: An Insiders View

Secrets of the Manor House: A Follow Up

Episodes 2 & 3 Highclere Castle and Chatsworth House

http://www.theguardian.com

When I wrote the original blog for this series I intended it to be a one off. I was going to watch the entire series but I figured if it was the same format all the way through then there would only be few additional points to discuss. However it seems I couldn’t have been more wrong, for again this programme exceeded my expectations.


The second episode on Highclere Castle was also narrated by Samuel West, however a greater proportion of the narrative was given by its current the owners the 8^th Earl Carnarvon and his wife, as well some of the estate employees. Unlike the previous episode it therefore doesn’t give the impression of being a historical documentary but it is just as interesting. The episode explores the history and development of the castle but also examines the challenges current owners of country estates face when trying to manage ‘old’ estates in the new economic climate. A great deal of emphasis was placed on how Highclere is run as a business, with the episode highlighting the different sections of this. 

http://hookedonhouses.net/2012/01/08/

For example we are told how the estate produces award winning horse feed, hosts weddings and game shoots and of course, how it has capitalised on the popularity of Downton Abbey. It offers interesting insight into the challenges estate owners face and what motivates them to be successful. Turning Highclere into a successful business has allowed the Earl to make much needed repairs, and in his words ‘preserv[e] Highclere for future generations’. The underlying message of the piece really focused on the idea of the current Earl not dropping the baton and feeling responsible for preserving this historic house. Or as Lady Carnarvon put it, they are attempting to ‘leave the house in better nick then we inherited it… in a way that is relevant in today’s world’. After the programme ended it was this question of relevancy that really stuck with me – how do we make country estates, arguably relics of a bygone era, relevant in today’s society? And is that something that we can continue to do indefinitely as we head into the future?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chatsworth_showing_hunting_tower.jpg

The episode on Chatsworth took yet another different approach. The narrator stayed the same but we returned to the ‘talking head’ style with contributions made by the current owner, Lord Devonshire as well as historians, curators and authors. This episode really attempted to tie the story of Chatsworth into modern society, perhaps due to the fact that the history of Chatsworth is more unfamiliar to people. Right from the off, the episode attempts to illustrate Chatsworth’s history through modern cultural references.  We begin with reference to The Duchess, the popular 2008 film that focused on the life Lady Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire who lived at Chatsworth in the eighteenth century. Furthermore, in setting the scene for this story the author of The Duchess, Amanda Foreman, makes a comparison between Lady Georgiana and Lady Diana Spencer, who she then explains was a descendent of Georgiana. We’re then introduced to the character of Bess Foster and the ménage-a-trois that developed between Georgiana, Bess and Lord Devonshire. Sex draws in public interest and as such draws attention to the history of Chatsworth. As the episode progresses we are also told of the links Adele Astaire (sister of Fred) and Kathleen Kennedy (JFK’s favourite sister) have to Chatsworth. Again by association these are huge cultural figures that have links to Chatsworth and evoke interest in what could otherwise be considered a rather dry subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org

What I liked about these two episodes was how they confronted the current challenges facing country estates and the differing responses and attitudes to them. It was a very different premise to the original episode on Hampton Court Palace and for that reason I am glad I kept watching. The fate of properties like Highclere and Chatsworth is somewhat questionable as the idea of the landed aristocracy becomes more outdated and what happens to these historic houses is a topical question. After the Second World War a great many were lost and it is interesting to consider what the future may have in store for the remaining ones.

A Guided Tour From The Comfort Of Your Living Room...

Secrets of the Manor House on Yesterday – Episode One: Secret's of Henry VIII's Palace

Today I’m going to discuss Yesterday’s ‘Secrets of the Manor House’ series which has been airing for a number of weeks now. I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from the programme to be honest with you. I’d caught an advert which I was intrigued by and so just pressed the record series button, thinking I’d come back to it in good time. That I did and I was pleased to discover the first episode was on Hampton Court Palace – a favourite childhood haunt.

Unusually the programme wasn’t headed by a presenter, rather it was narrated by Samuel West and incorporated a number of ‘talking heads’ who spoke about their specialist subjects, including Suzannah Lipscomb who provided the main historical narrative. I’m a big fan of this technique and thought that it was really well used in this episode. We have so many talented historians in this country, with a broad array specialisms, that I can’t help but feel it’s a good decision for a documentary to showcase that. By drawing on the expertise of individuals it helps to show the general public that history isn’t all about the conventional topics like politics, monarchy or gender, but a great many more things that might appeal to them and their particular interests. In this one programme the producers had drawn on the expertise of a food historian to talk about Hampton Court’s extensive Tudor kitchens; a cultural historian to talk about Henry VIII’s passion for ‘real tennis’; an art historian to talk about the paintings and their use as forms of propaganda, as well as, the Head Curator of Historic Royal Palaces, Lucy Worsley. It wasn’t a single historian or presenter fronting the programme and appearing to know everything, rather it showcased the research and expertise of a number of individuals and as a viewer I responded really well to that.

What I also liked about the programme was how the palace itself was utilised as the setting for the pieces to camera and that the majority of the images used were clearly of Hampton Court. When each historian was shown discussing their particular topic they were positioned in the relevant place within the palace or with the relevant artefacts and it just felt genuine and intimate. At one point Lucy Worsley even commented how the meeting she was referencing took place in the ‘room below this office’, while at another point, camera shots were used to show the different styles of architecture that were favoured in different periods and added on to the original palace. Despite being a television programme, this technique offered somewhat of an immersive experience, as if you were having your own private tour of the palace and that made for quite an unusual experience as a viewer.

I’ve also made no secret of the fact that I’m not a fan of historical dramatization in history documentaries but surprisingly I didn’t object to its use too much in this instance. The clips were well integrated but used sparingly and made good use of the authentic setting. The costume was also more convincing than other examples I’ve seen and I couldn’t help compare it to the Tudor Tales demonstration I’d witnessed at the Embroidery Guild meeting a couple of months ago. Within this programme the use of dramatization seemed to fit well with the narrative, not directing it but offering another visual medium which enhanced the viewer’s experience.  

It will come as no surprise then that I really enjoyed this episode. If offers the viewer something that resembles a private tour of one of England’s most loved palaces, with experts on hands to offer unique insights into its history. I’d originally sat down expecting only to half pay attention and wish it to be over quickly, yet by the end I was enthralled and surprised when the hour was up. All round I’d say a hidden gem and well worth a watch!

Blackadder Wars - A brief, and admittedly personal, reflection.

I can’t pretend to know the ins and outs of this debate and I’m actually surprised that I’ve chosen to discuss it all. However, having just listened to the Start the Week episode with Michael Gove, Margaret Macmillan, Simon Sharma and Tom Holland from 30 December 2013 and having read a few of the news articles that have been produced in its wake , I found myself forming my own opinions and thought why not share them as the first blog of the new year!

Cast of Blackadder goes Forth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackadder_Goes_Forth

Commemoration of WWI is going to a topical subject over the course of the coming year and rightfully so. It is a period of British history that most people are familiar with and that holds great personal resonance with those who can recall the experiences of their relatives. It has always been a topic that has interested me and in my own time I’ve read war poetry and conducted my own research when questions have arisen in relation to the family tree. But as with most of us, my main knowledge derives from what I was taught at numerous points throughout education. Admittedly it was a fair time ago now, but I don’t remember ever being told the history of WW1 in a simplistic manner and for that reason I was somewhat surprised when discussion of how WW1 is taught in schools sparked such a heated debate. In particular I was somewhat bemused by the fact that use of ‘Blackadder’ became one of the main discussion points.

I remember vividly being shown a clip of Blackadder at the end of a history class where the focus had been on WWI, but it was never used as the centre piece of the lesson and I can’t say that I based my entire understanding of WW1 on the message of that piece. In fact I think it was one of those cases where a video was shown as a reward for finishing a given piece of work early. It was also just one of a number of other teaching tools that were used to teach us about WW1, we were also shown primary source material (including propaganda) and taken to Brookwood Cemetery – what political meaning should I ascribe to that?

Brookwood Cemetery
http://www.cwgc.org/

I can’t help but feel that Gove, and indeed Paxman, are underestimating teachers and indeed students when reflecting on how WW1 is taught in schools. I particularly don’t think enough credit is given to the students who are watching it. Students of history are always encouraged to look at other historical sources and to analysis and critique them and this is a skill you’re taught early on at secondary level. And while Blackadder may not be a historical source, it does present one interpretation of history and is something that students can approach and draw their own conclusions from. If nothing else it is informative of popular perception of the war. Also, students are not so thick as to take it as gospel – it is a piece of comedy after all! I think it is highly unlikely that any teacher would use Blackadder as the definitive source for understanding WW1, they may use it to start a discussion but you can then bring in all sorts of different arguments from across the board and as such, I have to agree with Tony Robinson, that showing clips of Blackadder is just one of many tools that teachers use to make classes a little bit more interactive and to engage students.

WW1 Poster
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/3400728

I remember in another class being asked to debate the reputation of General Haig, having been given a mixture of sources that portrayed him as both an army general doing his job and others where he was portrayed as the ‘butcher of the Somme’. I know now what a controversial figure he was because of that particular lesson and also now realise, that at that point I was also being introduced to the idea of historiography and the continually evolving nature of historical interpretation. At 14 years old we were being given material and encouraged to draw out own arguments and as such I never saw WW1 as a narrow and straight forward conflict and have always had great respect for those who fought for this country.

That might have been down to the initiative of our teacher I don’t know, but I would say is that those lessons gave me a really good grounding for understanding WW1 and one that was based on more than just the idea of ‘lions led by donkeys’. I can't help but feel this debate has lost some perspective and become more about political agenda than education. As with most of history WW1 is the subject of multiple interpretations - who's to say which are right and which are wrong? Should we not be more concerned with presenting as many of those perspectives as we can and hoping that one or more may provoke an enquiring mind?