Åland Maritime Museum: An ethos to aspire too!

Is it possible to love a museum that you’ve never actually been too? Well that was how I felt after hearing the director of Åland Maritime Museum, Hanna Hagmark-Cooper, speak at the recent Rhul Public History Alumni Seminar. I found her talk completely fascinating and decided I’d take the time to share a summary of it and its key themes with you.

Maritime industry is a key part of the island’s history and both national and cultural identity are tied to this historic relationship with sailing ships. The Museum began in the 1920s as a private collection, and as a reaction to a decline in the maritime industry. Soon after, a club emerged to support this private collection, the purpose of which was to create a dedicated museum to preserve the maritime industry and its part in the Island’s history. Exhibits were collected through donations, but club members also petitioned for donations – there was, and still is, a strong level of personal investment in the museum. It was run as a private enterprise until the 1980s when it became a charitable trust as it remains today.

Now when the decision was made to rebuild the museum, I was surprised to learn that it faced no opposition – I can’t imagine a similar attitude necessarily being adopted here in the UK, for I don’t think a single museum is seen as that important to our national or cultural identity. But people from the Åland Islands wanted this redevelopment and were happy for investment to be diverted from other sectors towards the museum project.

Hanna began work at the museum in 2004 at which time the focus was very much on the display of sailing ships. However, since it’s re-opening in 2012 and under the instruction of Hanna, the museum has now introduced topics which broaden its scope, including the impact of steam engines, ship building and safety at sea. From what was described, it is no longer just a showcase for old boats, but has more substance and narrative for visitors to experience. 

It was this element that originally caused slight resistance, for there was a fear of what modernism might mean for the museum. Museum staff and supporters were aware of the need for a new approach to draw in new visitors, however at the same time they didn’t want to alienate the core visitor group. This led to what I have to admit finding most fascinating – the strong sense of shared authority between museum staff and specialist groups invested in museum. Huge emphasis appears to have been placed on consultation, staff being acutely aware of the ‘strong local commitment’ to seeing the museum be a success, both in terms of its original goals and what would draw in visitors.

With only a core staff of 5, this emphasis on shared authority has also been beneficial in other ways. Museum staff have been able to call on specialist groups, those with expertise in ship building, mechanical engineers and sail makers for example, for help during the redevelopment. Hanna described how a sense of mutual respect has developed between museum staff and specialist groups, because they each have knowledge of their own ‘trade’ and appreciate the limits to their own abilities. By working together, sharing ideas and exchanging information, they’ve created a productive and effective environment in which the redevelopment has been able to prosper. And amazingly this relationship continues, currently three years on, with no sign of that ending soon. The community spirit and shared investment in what is clearly such an important part of their shared heritage, is something I found really inspiration and evocative.

Also particularly interesting, and in fact the intended main focus of the talk, was the museum’s use of social media to create and research new and interesting exhibitions. In this case Hanna referred to a Facebook exhibition, which successfully broadened the museum’s reach by presenting a topic of greater interest to people beyond the core group of visitors.

Hanna recalled how she had first been invited to a closed group on Facebook where people involved with the maritime industry, exchanged photos and stories of their experiences. I’m sure we are all part of a similar group, perhaps a school reunion group, or local history? Anyway, Hanna described her interest in watching this develop over time and the end result was a temporary exhibition. The Museum took just 14 of the thousands of images uploaded to the group, and displayed them, together with accompanying comments, in a temporary exhibition in the museum. The group was consulted throughout this process and was involved in, from what it sounds like, most decisions. It had the community element right at its heart and I just think it’s such a fantastic idea. Again, the museum is enacting the principle of shared authority and I just think a lot could, and should be learnt from this example and it's methods adopted by other museums.

Hanna speaks with a degree of pride about how this exhibition made marginal histories central to the narrative told by the museum, if only temporarily, and drew in a new audience demographic. We were told how usually objects are what survive from ships and therefore are displayed, not the stories of the people who served and sailed upon them; and in fact thinking of examples of ships I’ve visited, at Portsmouth Historic Dockyard and the  S.S Great Britain, this is true. I can remember clearly some of the objects, but nothing particularly about the people. And so as you would expect, by displaying these stories, interest in the museum increased and people’s perceptions of the museum were dramatically altered.

I came away from this talk with two key phrases in my mind – community collaboration and shared authority and I just so impressed to hear how well the Åland Maritime Museum has invoked these principles. Hearing of how this one temporary exhibition has changed the museum’s outlook and opened up further opportunities for collaborative projects, including the collection of items and inclusion of photos and comments from Facebook in the archive, reinforced my belief in the importance of Public History and the emphasis that should be placed on community/visitor involvement.

Having been so UK-centric in my studies, it was really interesting to hear how the Public history philosophy is carried out in a European context and I think it would be really interesting to see some of the UK’s museums adopt some of these approaches and the resulting impact it might have on their appeal and level of visitor engagement.

Trip to the Åland Islands anyone?

The Monuments Men: A New Angle on a Familiar Topic

It’s been a while hasn’t it? What with the festive season and the fact I’ve been busy working on my PhD application, blogging has fallen a little by the wayside…. But enough of those excuses, let’s try and get back into the swing of things shall we…

I saw a link to an article this week entitled “20 things only history students understand” (1) and read it with some amusement - a number prompting a smile or even a ‘lol’ moment and the only obvious omission being: ‘when pub quizzing everyone always expects you to get the history questions correct… do you not know the breadth of what the subject “history” covers”!!!! That said and all jokes aside, the second statement really stuck with me, because its true isn’t it? To quote the article, “you’ve had enough of learning about the Nazis – yes you understand their significance and accept why they can be fascinating, but you’ve had it drilled into your throughout your whole education – give it a rest!” I mean no disrespect at all in repeating that article; I personally find it one of the most fascinating periods of history and have chosen to continue studying it in higher education for that reason. In fact, I chose my University based on the expertise of staff who specialised in the Second World War and Holocaust Studies (I know, how I got onto the Victorians and animal history is a blog for another time)… but it did become quite oppressive.

It is all I remember about secondary school history and the majority of A Level history too. There may be a little bit about Motte and Bailey castles, the abolition movement and history of medicine mixed in there, but predominately I have good recall on events in Europe during the Second World War. It’s a shame in a way, because it becomes so drilled into students that I do think it loses that originality which makes it an interesting topic to learn about and engage with. If you’re told the same things over and over again there comes a point where you’re not open to the new and more interesting narratives that might be being offered to you.

It’s become clearer to me recently that there is actually a lot more to the events of this period than we are ever told at school or indeed that are so far missing from the mainstream that very few people actually know about them. Of course topics and events like the Weimar Republic, Rise of Hitler, the Anschluss, and Holocaust take precedence when examining European events, while at home the Blitz, rationing and evacuation dominate the narrative. But the Second World War was all encompassing and as such resonated within so many different areas of society; a fact I think is all too easily often forgotten and one that certainly isn’t shown to students. I know they are taught what is on the curriculum in order for them to complete coursework and pass exams, but I just wonder what the effect would be if an alternative approach was taken (I think I shall do some investigation into the curriculum changes for a future blog and follow up on this point).

One of my favourite projects conducted as part of the MA was the research paper I wrote on a fascinating set of sources I found by chance at Surrey History Centre. These were the diaries of Philip Bradley, a fairground enthusiast, which were filled with notes and newspaper clippings that gave invaluable insight into the affect the war had on fairgrounds and their professionals. I was fascinated to read how rationing impacted what prizes were offered and how steam engines were commandeered for the war effort, in particular demolition work. At a high level we are taught the basic concepts; the policies, reasoning and impact, but very rarely are we shown the impact at a grass roots level and this project on fairgrounds showed me that. It took one group of professionals and highlighted their plight and huge contribution to this life changing conflict - it really brought it home for me.

And this brings me nicely on to what prompted this blog in the first place – the 2014 film The Monuments Men, directed by George Clooney. I’d heard about the film and was intrigued by the plot but until I received it for Christmas I hadn’t got around to watching it. So last night I got cosy with a cup of tea and some chocolate (so much for the January diet I hear you cry) to see what it was about. I’ll be honest, it was a slow burner but it did raise some very thought provoking statements, well obviously if it prompted this blog.

The Monuments Men, 2014.

The film is based on the true story of The Monuments Men, a group of men and women from thirteen nations, who volunteered for service in the MFAA – Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Section – in order to save as much of European Culture as they could from being destroyed, both accidently and deliberately, during the war. Amongst them there were museum directors, curators, art scholars, artists and architects all of whom entered professions which would see them dedicated their life to culture, whether creating it, restoring it or critiquing it. So when war broke out it almost seems natural that they would step forward to protect it from ultimate destruction. I therefore ask, why has it remained one of those aspects of war very few people know about?

In this opening speech Clooney as lead character Frank Stokes, presents his argument for the taskforce to the President, stating that “we are at a point in this war that is the most dangerous to the greatest historical achievements known to man” and that “while we must and will win this war, we should also remember the high price that will be paid if the very foundation of modern society is destroyed…”. Stokes and team then go on to salvage stolen works of art from houses and mines, and if it can be taken as a true reflection of what was identified and found, then it was an astounding amount. As the film develops you realised that in Stokes' mind, art, culture and history are the basis of identity and if that is lost, then it is as if those people, societies and generations never existed. This was a fight for identity.

The narrative is actually very poignant and emotionally charged, especially when you consider that many people posed the question, “is art worth a life?” when they heard of this work. But when you understand the motives of those involved and why they were willing to risk their lives, than the answer to that question becomes clear.

I was left asking myself a great many questions. Would we, in modern society, react in the same way? Would there be people who put their lives on the line to protect and secure art from destruction and return it to the many? Is our cultural identity as tied to these traditional and priceless works of art as it once was, or has time moved on? And, would we still look to preserve the classics, or would we just be looking to preserve modern art, the likes of Warhol and Hirst?

Authors own Photo

It is hard to envisage the reckless destruction that occurred during that time, but it highlights another side to the war – the assault on cultural identity and questions of ownership. I can’t imagine not having seen first-hand the Mona Lisa or Venus De Milo in Paris - just imagine what it would be like to only know of these artworks and not be able to experience them first hand. It was a great thing those of the MFAA did and I am glad that this film has highlighted their work. I just think it is so important we try and find ways of communicating these aspects of the war to students and not just the more conventional narrative, it could be hugely successful way of reinvigorating interesting and putting a stop to those “give it a rest!” comments. I for one will be looking into this in a little more depth!

For another perspective on the film I found a great blog piece here - http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/monuments-men-wonders-art-worth-life

(1)    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/18/20-things-only-history-students-understand_n_4986523.html