A museum should be a place where factual evidence is presented so that visitors can make up their own mind. There will always be opposing views on anything related to war and conflict as there are always two sides. These views should not be upheld by a museum's displays. The public should be able to trust museums to tell the truth however difficult that might be.
People visit museums for very differnt reasons, but should leave feeling better informed about the exhibition. By just giving the bare facts you are not engaging with the visiting public, in my opinion these exhibitions need to provide the moral interpretation and possibly boths sides of a story. This is not always possible, take for exapmle the Enola Gay when exhibited in 1994 at the Smithsonian Institute. Politic will always win over honest interpretation. The absolute role of the museum is to engage with the public and usually outside influences will dictate how an exhibition is presented and what that exhibition will portray.
Powerful Prezi which in itself conveys the horrors of war-inflicted disability. The actual conveyance or portrayal covers a subject that general gets overlooked, simply in favour of the final act of death. Had Aushwitz created numerous amputees then surely as a profile, disability would have been heightened in more detail. Had more individuals in any one conflict or accident created more amputees than death itself, would these have received more headlines and publicity.
Probably not - simply as the individual is still alive
One problem that might also be encountered is the aspect of time.
Usually death is fairly instantaneous or immediate yet disability occurs far later. Amputees have periods in excess of months following disasters before being introduced back into society. And I don't mean this in a demeaningful way, its simply a period of time required for rehabilitation etc etc.
We only then seem to honour the value in their remaining alive.
And museums I think also feel this way.....waiting for either an amputee to pass away before then telling the story of how it occured or what achievements the amputee made following their accident.
Look at the para-olympics - how many competitors are disabled (all of them)yet have museums displaying evidence of their greatness, success, strive to achieve whilst being alive(none)
Its all down to museum interpretation, some prefer to 'gloss' over subjects such as yours, why in 2010 is this subject still taboo ? The Imperial War Museum attracts thousands of visitors per annum and has fantastic displays of trenches, and all things pertaining to warfare, but fails to recognise the aftermath of war you have rightly portrayed. Is it the stiff upper lip attitude, or is preferably and ultimately forgotten. What of our soldiers in Afghanistan now ? so little news coverage of amputees coming home through the back door . When will they be remebered in museums. I suspect never
In my opinion an exhibition should present the bare facts in an accessible and unbiased way. Moral judgements are very much a product of the time one lives in. Georgians enjoyed and accepted bear baiting, homosexuality in Victorian times was unacceptable, viewpoints change over time and can be swayed by politics and religion. It is not up to the museum to interpret the display from a moral standpoint, rather to ensure that visitors are engaged and informed.It is up to the museum to be objective.
I feel that more school children should be exposed to museums to understand the past.Lots of children i know have never even set foot in one which is such a shame in this day and age.I think it should be a place to learn both facts and interpretations of what what it was like to live in that time. Many years ago when my children were very young we were fortunate to go on a school trip to The War museum London to experience how people lived with the bombing,rationing etc.They made it very easy for little ones as well as adults to understand as well as experiencing being in a air raid shelter with bombs dropping above.The effects were brilliant and we all enjoyed the day.It also told the sad side of the people that losts their lives and limbs and how we should never forget those that were lost.Museums should be a place to enjoy and remember.
It is difficult to say with any certainty what should be reprepresented in a museum, it depends upon the scale of the museum, the audience and the area in which it is placed. A museum in a miliatary area would be more likely to be able to have an exhibition about the difficulties caused to people by war but I think the risks of it tipping over into dark/freak show could be quite high. My local museum wanted to get those involved in conflict together to create their own exhibition to say what they wanted to say. This would seem to me a good inclusive idea that would enable those involved to have their own say. If they wanted to interpret the visible and invisible effects of war then they would be able to. What is very clear to me is that no-one can really interpret the horrer and pain that individuals go through.
I think a museum's role is to present bare facts but it is hard not to take a subjective view on such an emotive issue. Maybe it depends on subject matter but it's difficult not to provide a moral interpretation in this case.
I think that interpretation should be unbiased - in theory - but can interpretation ever be truly unbiased - after all, those who stage exhibitions and museum curators will inevitably have personal opinions and maybe even an agenda. Maybe as disability issues have taken on a higher profile in recent times, this aspect will naturally receive more consideration in the future. As we generally become more interested in aspects of social history and of the 'ordinary man' - perhaps those who suffered mentally or physically after warfare will receive more attention in heritage interpretation.
A very strong and powerful presentation. A role of the museum is to inform. I agree that it is difficult to find the balance of what is too much for the visitor to handle or what is not touching the subject matter at all- glossing over it. the museum role for the interpretation is difficult. It is very difficult for those that have come back from war or who have been affected by war in such a way. They do seem to be brushed under the carpet on return- museums do very little to honour their bravery, whereas they are quick to honour the dead.
I tend to agree with the comments by Jackie Woodall, a museum is a place for presenting facts and not opinions and should not be judgemental. Interpretation and understanding of events change over time, yet we can still present the effects of war on either the fighting men or indeed the civilian population.
We are reaching a better portrayal of the consequences of war in many museums and as Angie said we have become more aware of the social history which can also include the effects and aftermath of conflicts than we have done in the past. The boom in family history research has added to this 'awakening' of awareness of the effects of wars - the 'what did Grandad do in the war' question.
One additional thought - there are many who having received disabling injuries do not want their story repeated, they wish things to remain private.
I would be more in favour of the 'objective' stance, in theory, because I am in favour of people making up their own minds. But, my main doubt here is whether it is even possible to present just the bare facts without some level of moral interpretation. This is because what the 'facts' are usually changes according to who is telling the story; no human being is capable of separating themselves and their subjective opinions from any question, and the more powerful, controversial or painful the topic, the more difficult it must be to stick purely to the quantifiable facts. As such, I would question whether any museum exhibition can claim to be 'just' the facts.
I do however agree completely about the tendency to overlook anything that seems less than stupendously heroic. Look at World War One for an example. It is infinitely easier to find out about those who were killed - the tragic heroes - than it is to find out about those who were 'only' maimed - or even about those who escaped largely unscathed (physically at least). The courage of all parties in this example is probably equal; all had horrific experiences; but somehow those who paid the ultimate price have been feted to the exclusion of all others. I do not suggest that those killed deserved less than they got; but those who were not killed deserved more than they were given. Sadly this skewed attitude doesn't seem to have changed in the last century.
I agree that museums should try and present all of the facts without making a moral judgement, but I also think this is almost impossible to do. It should be up to the individual to make their own judgement from the evidence in front of them, but they can only do that if they're presented with all the facts and usually someone else makes the decision about what is presented and how it is presented. The role of museums should be to display all aspects of history, from all sides and perspectives but one person's idea of a balanced presentation usually has someone else protesting about its bias. Conflict related disability would be difficult to interpret without making some sort of moral judgement, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be displayed at all.
How can such an emotionally difficult subject ever be presented in an unbiassed way without including moral judgements? However, I do feel that it should be presented in some way - their conflict will never be over. There is also the thought that without these survivors, it would be all to easy to forget and pretend atrocious things didn't happen. They are constant reminders and their stories should be told. With regards to the idea of the past and the 'freak show', again, this is an important part of who we are and where we have come from. We can feel morally superior to those people from the past who went to a 'freak show' and viewed it as entertainment but we can't pretend it didn't happen. Again, we need to remember this part of the past, albeit we may find it distasteful now. To me, this is still with us, as can be seen by all the documentaries on TV focusing on people who are 'special'. Yes, it could be argued that these documentaries bring medical conditions and treatments to a wider world, and in that way, they advance our knowledge and try to diminish prejudice, but there is also an uncomfortable feeling of voyeurism and these programmes tread a very thin line between education and exploitation.
"Disability and disfigurement are not incidental to war's purposes nor marginal to its effects, but rather, alongside the murder of those killed, the point to begin with".
current thinking about disability in society champions a social rather than medical model where people with disabilities should not be seen as someone suffering from a disability or being seen through their disability but rather someone living within society with a disability. It is a fine line but one that is important as a matter of social inclusion. We celebrate the heroics of war veterans who are not disabled so why should we positively discriminate against veterans who do.
By having an exhibition purely based around disability you are seeing the disability first and the person second which goes against the social model.
Museums cannot present the bare facts in this regard as it condones the medical model and has the potential to dismiss the social idea of inclusion. Far better to base any exhibition around the reality of war and include amputee stories rather than focus on it wholly.
Whilst museums should present material in a non biased way it is impossible not to be subjective to some extent, particularly when dealing with emotional issues as that described or, in the case of the other presently popular theme - slavery. Look at Auschwitz; is this a museum or a theme park? Personal involvement or degree of detachment will naturally colour ones perspective.
Museum displays will always be dictated by the nature of their audience. For example, had Hitler won WW2 how would a museum of Jewish life be portrayed?
We might be horified at showing such material to children yet children usually cope with such presentations better than adults, provided they were not personally involved,- in which case they do not need the museum.
What is important is that museums should catalogue correctly but display to educate the visitor to the truth as far as possible but in a manner acceptable to the audience which will always contain some subjectivity. If the presentation is not acceptable then nor will be the truth.
A museum should be a place where factual evidence is presented so that visitors can make up their own mind. There will always be opposing views on anything related to war and conflict as there are always two sides. These views should not be upheld by a museum's displays. The public should be able to trust museums to tell the truth however difficult that might be.
ReplyDeletePeople visit museums for very differnt reasons, but should leave feeling better informed about the exhibition. By just giving the bare facts you are not engaging with the visiting public, in my opinion these exhibitions need to provide the moral interpretation and possibly boths sides of a story. This is not always possible, take for exapmle the Enola Gay when exhibited in 1994 at the Smithsonian Institute. Politic will always win over honest interpretation. The absolute role of the museum is to engage with the public and usually outside influences will dictate how an exhibition is presented and what that exhibition will portray.
ReplyDeletePowerful Prezi which in itself conveys the horrors of war-inflicted disability. The actual conveyance or portrayal covers a subject that general gets overlooked, simply in favour of the final act of death.
ReplyDeleteHad Aushwitz created numerous amputees then surely as a profile, disability would have been heightened in more detail.
Had more individuals in any one conflict or accident created more amputees than death itself, would these have received more headlines and publicity.
Probably not - simply as the individual is still alive
One problem that might also be encountered is the aspect of time.
Usually death is fairly instantaneous or immediate yet disability occurs far later. Amputees have periods in excess of months following disasters before being introduced back into society. And I don't mean this in a demeaningful way, its simply a period of time required for rehabilitation etc etc.
We only then seem to honour the value in their remaining alive.
And museums I think also feel this way.....waiting for either an amputee to pass away before then telling the story of how it occured or what achievements the amputee made following their accident.
Look at the para-olympics - how many competitors are disabled (all of them)yet have museums displaying evidence of their greatness, success, strive to achieve whilst being alive(none)
Its all down to museum interpretation, some prefer to 'gloss' over subjects such as yours, why in 2010 is this subject still taboo ? The Imperial War Museum attracts thousands of visitors per annum and has fantastic displays of trenches, and all things pertaining to warfare, but fails to recognise the aftermath of war you have rightly portrayed. Is it the stiff upper lip attitude, or is preferably and ultimately forgotten. What of our soldiers in Afghanistan now ? so little news coverage of amputees coming home through the back door . When will they be remebered in museums. I suspect never
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion an exhibition should present the bare facts in an accessible and unbiased way. Moral judgements are very much a product of the time one lives in. Georgians enjoyed and accepted bear baiting, homosexuality in Victorian times was unacceptable, viewpoints change over time and can be swayed by politics and religion. It is not up to the museum to interpret the display from a moral standpoint, rather to ensure that visitors are engaged and informed.It is up to the museum to be objective.
ReplyDeleteI feel that more school children should be exposed to museums to understand the past.Lots of children i know have never even set foot in one which is such a shame in this day and age.I think it should be a place to learn both facts and interpretations of what what it was like to live in that time.
ReplyDeleteMany years ago when my children were very young we were fortunate to go on a school trip to The War museum London to experience how people lived with the bombing,rationing etc.They made it very easy for little ones as well as adults to understand as well as experiencing being in a air raid shelter with bombs dropping above.The effects were brilliant and we all enjoyed the day.It also told the sad side of the people that losts their lives and limbs and how we should never forget those that were lost.Museums should be a place to enjoy and remember.
It is difficult to say with any certainty what should be reprepresented in a museum, it depends upon the scale of the museum, the audience and the area in which it is placed.
ReplyDeleteA museum in a miliatary area would be more likely to be able to have an exhibition about the difficulties caused to people by war but I think the risks of it tipping over into dark/freak show could be quite high.
My local museum wanted to get those involved in conflict together to create their own exhibition to say what they wanted to say. This would seem to me a good inclusive idea that would enable those involved to have their own say. If they wanted to interpret the visible and invisible effects of war then they would be able to.
What is very clear to me is that no-one can really interpret the horrer and pain that individuals go through.
I think a museum's role is to present bare facts but it is hard not to take a subjective view on such an emotive issue. Maybe it depends on subject matter but it's difficult not to provide a moral interpretation in this case.
ReplyDeleteI think that interpretation should be unbiased - in theory - but can interpretation ever be truly unbiased - after all, those who stage exhibitions and museum curators will inevitably have personal opinions and maybe even an agenda.
ReplyDeleteMaybe as disability issues have taken on a higher profile in recent times, this aspect will naturally receive more consideration in the future. As we generally become more interested in aspects of social history and of the 'ordinary man' - perhaps those who suffered mentally or physically after warfare will receive more attention in heritage interpretation.
A very strong and powerful presentation.
ReplyDeleteA role of the museum is to inform. I agree that it is difficult to find the balance of what is too much for the visitor to handle or what is not touching the subject matter at all- glossing over it. the museum role for the interpretation is difficult.
It is very difficult for those that have come back from war or who have been affected by war in such a way. They do seem to be brushed under the carpet on return- museums do very little to honour their bravery, whereas they are quick to honour the dead.
I tend to agree with the comments by Jackie Woodall, a museum is a place for presenting facts and not opinions and should not be judgemental. Interpretation and understanding of events change over time, yet we can still present the effects of war on either the fighting men or indeed the civilian population.
ReplyDeleteWe are reaching a better portrayal of the consequences of war in many museums and as Angie said we have become more aware of the social history which can also include the effects and aftermath of conflicts than we have done in the past. The boom in family history research has added to this 'awakening' of awareness of the effects of wars - the 'what did Grandad do in the war' question.
One additional thought - there are many who having received disabling injuries do not want their story repeated, they wish things to remain private.
I would be more in favour of the 'objective' stance, in theory, because I am in favour of people making up their own minds. But, my main doubt here is whether it is even possible to present just the bare facts without some level of moral interpretation. This is because what the 'facts' are usually changes according to who is telling the story; no human being is capable of separating themselves and their subjective opinions from any question, and the more powerful, controversial or painful the topic, the more difficult it must be to stick purely to the quantifiable facts. As such, I would question whether any museum exhibition can claim to be 'just' the facts.
ReplyDeleteI do however agree completely about the tendency to overlook anything that seems less than stupendously heroic. Look at World War One for an example. It is infinitely easier to find out about those who were killed - the tragic heroes - than it is to find out about those who were 'only' maimed - or even about those who escaped largely unscathed (physically at least). The courage of all parties in this example is probably equal; all had horrific experiences; but somehow those who paid the ultimate price have been feted to the exclusion of all others. I do not suggest that those killed deserved less than they got; but those who were not killed deserved more than they were given. Sadly this skewed attitude doesn't seem to have changed in the last century.
I agree that museums should try and present all of the facts without making a moral judgement, but I also think this is almost impossible to do.
ReplyDeleteIt should be up to the individual to make their own judgement from the evidence in front of them, but they can only do that if they're presented with all the facts and usually someone else makes the decision about what is presented and how it is presented. The role of museums should be to display all aspects of history, from all sides and perspectives but one person's idea of a balanced presentation usually has someone else protesting about its bias. Conflict related disability would be difficult to interpret without making some sort of moral judgement, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be displayed at all.
How can such an emotionally difficult subject ever be presented in an unbiassed way without including moral judgements? However, I do feel that it should be presented in some way - their conflict will never be over. There is also the thought that without these survivors, it would be all to easy to forget and pretend atrocious things didn't happen. They are constant reminders and their stories should be told.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the idea of the past and the 'freak show', again, this is an important part of who we are and where we have come from. We can feel morally superior to those people from the past who went to a 'freak show' and viewed it as entertainment but we can't pretend it didn't happen. Again, we need to remember this part of the past, albeit we may find it distasteful now. To me, this is still with us, as can be seen by all the documentaries on TV focusing on people who are 'special'. Yes, it could be argued that these documentaries bring medical conditions and treatments to a wider world, and in that way, they advance our knowledge and try to diminish prejudice, but there is also an uncomfortable feeling of voyeurism and these programmes tread a very thin line between education and exploitation.
"Disability and disfigurement are not incidental to war's purposes nor marginal to its effects, but rather, alongside the murder of those killed, the point to begin with".
ReplyDeleteDavid A. Gerber - Disabled Veterans in History.
current thinking about disability in society champions a social rather than medical model where people with disabilities should not be seen as someone suffering from a disability or being seen through their disability but rather someone living within society with a disability. It is a fine line but one that is important as a matter of social inclusion. We celebrate the heroics of war veterans who are not disabled so why should we positively discriminate against veterans who do.
ReplyDeleteBy having an exhibition purely based around disability you are seeing the disability first and the person second which goes against the social model.
Museums cannot present the bare facts in this regard as it condones the medical model and has the potential to dismiss the social idea of inclusion. Far better to base any exhibition around the reality of war and include amputee stories rather than focus on it wholly.
Whilst museums should present material in a non biased way it is impossible not to be subjective to some extent, particularly when dealing with emotional issues as that described or, in the case of the other presently popular theme - slavery. Look at Auschwitz; is this a museum or a theme park? Personal involvement or degree of detachment will naturally colour ones perspective.
ReplyDeleteMuseum displays will always be dictated by the nature of their audience. For example, had Hitler won WW2 how would a museum of Jewish life be portrayed?
We might be horified at showing such material to children yet children usually cope with such presentations better than adults, provided they were not personally involved,- in which case they do not need the museum.
What is important is that museums should catalogue correctly but display to educate the visitor to the truth as far as possible but in a manner acceptable to the audience which will always contain some subjectivity. If the presentation is not acceptable then nor will be the truth.