Essay #2

I would suggest that for the vast majority of people it is nearly—if not entirely—impossible to remain unmoved by any physical location. People are almost always going to be impacted, consciously or otherwise, by the notion of “place.” However, I would posit that this is generally not a bad thing, even in the case of museums, in which it will likely sway a visitor's perceptions of the exhibits.

I should preamble my argument by saying that I come from a history background, so I cannot speak for science, natural history, or any other types of museums. All serious studies of history, however, have a specific, unique interpretation of the historical facts that the historian is attempting to prove. Generally we think of this as being a trait of scholarly books, articles, or perhaps video documentaries, but I believe that the exact same idea is the foundation of scholarly history museums as well. With regards to history, there is no such thing as absolute “truth”; there is only the individual's construction of the truth.

That being said, to respond to the prompt, yes, I do in fact look at museum exhibits differently than than I might look at similar items in a non-museum setting. As I discussed above, a (history) museum exhibit has a point of view or a “thesis” that it is trying to argue, so I look at an exhibit in much the same way that I read a scholarly history book: I figure out what it is arguing, what evidence is being used and how, and come to a conclusion about how successful the author (or the person who put the exhibit together) was. There would be no point to this process if I were looking at a similar collection in a non-museum setting. The trouble comes with the fact that most people are not trained as historians, and may take the museum's thesis as absolute truth when in fact it is not. That issue is another essay in and of itself, however.

Essay #1

The Great Salt Lake is home to an extraordinary work of art known as the “Spiral Jetty.” The mere presence of this sculpture does not make the lake a museum, however. According to thefreedictionary.com, a museum is a “building, place, or institution devoted to the acquisition, conservation, study, exhibition, and educational interpretation of objects having scientific, historical, or artistic value,” and the Salt Lake simply does not meet these criteria.
One of the most critical deficiencies is that the Salt Lake is not home to a collection, only a single piece of art. A museum, be it public or private, outdoors or indoors, needs to be a collection of related artifacts. “Spiral Jetty” is only a single isolated work of art. If the “Spiral Jetty”'s presence made the Great Salt Lake a museum, then it should follow that any single piece of artwork displayed publicly or privately should inherently make its place of display a museum, but this is simply not the case.
Another critical reason why the Salt Lake is not a museum is because the “Spiral Jetty” is not actively preserved (at the behest of the artist, no less). The New York Times article does discuss the documentation of “Spiral Jetty” via cameras attached to weather balloons as well as public opposition to nearby drilling that may harm the art as well as the area's ecology. Neither of these things constitute proactive preservation, however. Moreover, it can be inferred that the artist himself, Robert Smithson, intended for his art to deteriorate over time. He is quoted in the article as writing that "Nature does not proceed in a straight line. It is rather a sprawling development. Nature is never finished." If one reads between the lines, Smithson seems to be saying that he wants his art to change, and even deteriorate completely, as a result of the passage of time.
This is not to say that the Salt Lake could never be a museum. Were it home to a larger collection of art that were actively curated, conserved, and displayed then I would certainly argue that it would meet the criteria defining a museum. Because it does not, however, it is simply the location of a piece of public art.