Website Review

We have all heard the stories of fundamentalist Christians protesting against the teaching of scientific theories like evolution and the big bang in schools and museums. Natural history museums are typically institutions of scientific learning, but such systems are not always popular amongst segments of the population such as that. Though on some unfortunate occasions these fundamentalist groups are successful in their petitions against legitimate scientific institutions, this is not typically the case. One supposes that it was this struggle that prompted the development of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky; being unable to change every natural history museum to conform to fundamentalist beliefs, they might as well have a “legitimate” museum outlet of their own which can be used to teach the “truth.”

According to the front page of the Creation Museum’s website (http://creationmuseum.org/),

"The state-of-the-art [their emphasis] 70,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Majestic murals, great masterpieces brimming with pulsating colors and details, provide a backdrop for many of the settings."

Judging by the website, the museum certainly appears to live up to its “state-of-the-art” claims. The website is aesthetically pleasing and easy to navigate. The subtle rhetoric present on the site is particularly fascinating to me. It would be easy for an individual who is merely glancing at the site’s contents to completely miss the fact that the museum is dedicated to the promotion of conservative Christian ideology. Even the name “Creation Museum” could be misconstrued, perhaps why it was chosen over the arguably more precise “Creationism Museum” or “Creationist Museum.” Once one interrogates the website a little deeper, however, the Creationist agenda the institution is pushing becomes very clear.

Like any good modern museum website, the Creation Museum’s includes many multimedia elements, such as scrolling Flash banners, video segments, and an interactive calendar of events. Particularly engaging is the virtual tour, which provides 360-degree views of many of the galleries including, but not limited to: the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, and the “Dinosaur Den.” (I don’t think I even want to attempt to speculate on what their “truth” about dinosaurs may be, given the advertisement “Don’t miss the chance to explore dinosaurs and dragons in this richly themed medieval environment.”)

I should conclude this review by saying that I have never been to the Creation Museum and will likely never go, not because I wouldn’t be fascinated to see what it has to say, but because I will never ever give them any of my money under any circumstances (in case it’s still unclear, I disagree profoundly with creationist ideology of the kind apparently expressed at this museum). However, the most surprising thing about this museum website overall is how rational it appears to be at first glance. I can certainly understand how this museum—and by extension its website—would appeal to conservative Creationists who are seeking an institution that will reaffirm their beliefs while still maintaining something of a façade of scholarly integrity.

Museum Review

The Conner Museum, housed in Ableson Hall (named for Philip Hauge Ableson, Washington State University alum who worked on the Manhattan Project and who, along with colleague Edwin M. McMillan, co-discovered the element Neptunium) is Washington State University’s museum of natural history. Housing a substantial vertebrate collection, the Conner Museum seems to place a special emphasis on their bird and mammal collections. Scattered among the sizable collection of stuffed animals are displays highlighting specific ideas significant to the contemporary understanding of the study of natural history. These exhibit displays range in subject matter from “Darwin’s Voyage of Discovery,” to “Coastal Sightings” of birds in the Pacific Northwest, to the somewhat mysteriously named “How Species Form.” For the purposes of this review, I will be examining a single display exhibit in the Conner Museum’s East Gallery, entitled “The New Science of Ancient DNA.”

In terms of content, “The New Science of Ancient DNA” can be divided into three main sub-topics: an explanatory section discussing just what exactly ancient DNA is, a section of “HITS and MISSES,” and a section exploring the genetic relationship between elephants and mammoths. The exhibit seems to make the assumption that the viewer understands what DNA is (that is not an unreasonable assumption to make, in my opinion) and instead jumps straight into explaining the details of the process of ancient DNA extraction, and the ways in which that data can then be applied. In what I see as being the “first” section (because it is the most fundamental in understanding the other two), there are two bulleted sub-sections entitled “Ancient DNA: What is it?” and “Examples of Ancient DNA Research.” These two sections do a reasonably good job of breaking down a complex scientific process into one that anyone with only a modicum of prior knowledge can understand. This section is also aided by the integration of graphics: “the only known photograph of a living quagga” which is significant for being the first ancient creature from which DNA was extracted, and a chart of select extinct animals from which DNA has been extracted, by date. These graphics are useful in increasing understanding as well as establishing increased visual interest.

The “next” section discusses the difficulties that can arise in attempting to extract DNA from an ancient source due to DNA degradation and the high risk of contamination. The “HITS” are, of course, ancient sources from which DNA has been successfully extracted, while the “MISSES have been unsuccessful. In addition to listing the hits and misses in blocks of text, this section also provides artifacts as a tangible visual aid of what kinds of things DNA can and cannot be extracted from. The hits include human saliva from yucca quids and turkey DNA from fossilized dung, while the misses include fossilized plants and insects trapped in amber.

The third sub-topic discussed in this display is how DNA analysis can help scientists to determine just how closely related modern pachyderms are to ancient mammoths. This is supported by a graphic of the family tree of “elephant-like species” as well as a map showing where viable mastodon DNA has been found. The actual objects that are included in this section include a fossilized mammoth femur and tooth, as well as a modern elephant tooth for comparison. This helps the viewer see a tangible, three-dimensional comparison of one of the attributes common to these two creatures. I do believe, however, that these objects would have benefitted from a text box explaining the similarities and differences between these teeth in both form and function, because I am sure that the subject must have more nuance than the layperson is going to be able to grasp without an explanation. This section also includes a fun antique illustration of a woolly mammoth from the American Museum of Natural History.

“The New Science of Ancient DNA” is a significant exhibit not because of any information it may convey directly about natural history or the environmental sciences. Instead, it focuses on illuminating one of the many technologically advanced processes by which that data can be collected. I personally believe that understanding the process of how things come to be known, or their epistemology, is incredibly important, which is part of what drew me to this display. I am also fascinated by the ways in which different, seemingly discreet areas of learning can combine can combine (e.g. genetics and anthropology) to help us learn more about the world. One other thing that caught my attention about this display is the small block of text explaining how WSU scholar “Dr. Brian Kemp and his colleagues are extracting DNA” to learn more about human migration and turkey domestication. Since the Conner Museum is a part of a major scientific research institution, it is nice to see the work of academics in the wider institution (even the Department of Anthropology) being acknowledged. Though it may benefit from explaining certain things more thoroughly, overall “The New Science of Ancient DNA” is an engaging and successful display for a small natural history museum on a budget.

New York Times article review

The article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/arts/artsspecial/18SCIENCE.html?scp=11&sq=history%20museum&st=cse.

In this class we have invested a great deal of time and energy into picking apart just what constitutes a museum, and well as what the role of a museum is (or should be), and what influence museums have on contemporary society. Edward Rothstein’s The New York Times article of 13 March 2010 entitled “The Thrill of Science, Tamed by Agendas” discusses just such important issues. The article serves primarily as an editorial, and is moderately critical of the contemporary trend of using museums as a tool to sway public perception of political and social issues, generally with a liberal slant. Though on the whole the article is a fairly valid critique of today’s museum culture, Rothstein’s incompleteness and editorializing can be slightly abrasive at times and limit the overall success of the article.

Deep schisms have been developing in Western society over the past few decades, and in recent years that that the rate of that separation appears to have increased significantly. It seems to be increasingly difficult to find an issue that fervent liberals and conservatives alike do not boast polar opposite opinions on. Compounded upon this issue is the fact that hardliners from both ends of the political spectrum are constantly working to co-opt the moderates and independents from the middle, using all tools at their disposal. Museums, unfortunately, have not been able to escape this disturbing trend. While Rothstein focuses largely on popular science museums, this movement runs the gamut on popular museums of many disciplines, including hard science, natural history, history, and anthropology, just to name a few.

Rothstein does a good job in citing specific examples of exhibits that, if not scientifically inaccurate, per se, may not be entirely on the level with regards to science. For example, he recalls an exhibit at the American Museum of natural History that included “a scary model showing southern Manhattan smothered by a five-meter rise in sea level turned out to be — if you read the label — something that ‘experts consider unlikely anytime soon’ but could take place ‘thousands of years in the future.’” He bemoans the appropriation of museums as a tool to “cultivate apocalyptic fears” and ponders that: “Learning is guided by a political judgment; it is also limited by it. Couldn’t an intriguing exhibition be mounted, for example, showing the inevitability and importance of prejudice?”

As a reviewer, I will admit that I agree with many of Rothstein’s ideas. I believe that science and the accompanying museums have been inappropriately twisted into a political tool, and in many ways this article was successful in highlighting the ways in which that has occurred in recent years. I feel, however, that this article was rather lopsided, which significantly limits my praise for it. Rothschild criticizes the use of museums to raise awareness of environmentalism and cultural sensitivity—traditionally liberal causes—but never does he note ways in which conservative groups strive to influence the content of museums. For instance, a Canadian anti-gay group lobbied against the construction of Winnipeg’s Human Rights Museum, on multiple occasions conservative groups have been successful in having “obscene” or “offensive” art (such as Andres Serrano’s photograph, “Piss Christ”) taken down from galleries, and in Kentucky an entire museum exists devoted to bolstering the idea of Creationism in the public consciousness (“NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT EVOLUTION” their website loudly proclaims).

This subject is far too complex to attempt to explicate fully for my purposes here. In some cases, perhaps museums should be used as a political or social tool; in other cases, perhaps not. In any case, this article puts forward a good effort to bring this issue to the attention of the public, and for the most part what is included is accurate and reasonable. However, that does not excuse Rothstein’s lopsided treatment of the issue, especially when he chooses to editorialize the issue so heavily.

Essay #5

I feel like architecture does not significantly influence a museumgoing experience unless that is a specific goal of those who establish the museum. In general, it seems that most museum structures are fairly standardized and bland, as if their goal is just the opposite: to have little or no impact on the experience of viewing the collection, to not overwhelm the objects housed in the museum.

Occasionally, however, a museum will swing the opposite direction and actively work to incorporate the building's architecture into the museum experience. The most obvious example of this to me is in the Experience Music Project in Seattle. The EMP is a bold and arresting piece of architecture that hardly looks like anything a person has ever seen before, but in some strange way it still fits with other experimental structures in the area, such as the Space Needle. The architecture of the ESP, both inside and out, is so unusual and all-encompassing, that it is impossible (at least for me) to separate the “exhibit” aspect of the museum from the “architecture” aspect. From the outside the building looks like a combination between a sound wave and an acid trip, reinforcing the theme of the museum. Additionally, in the foyer area of the building there is a giant projection wall. This is not an exhibit, per se, and yet it is certainly not just a normal wall. In this instance, the architecture and the content of the museum really begin to merge together into one. Within the museum exhibits themselves, the architecture and decorative touches never allow the patron to disengage or to forget where they are.

The EMP is a very unusual example; the vast majority of museums never dream of approaching its scope. However, it is representative of how architecture can impact a museum experience when that is a direct goal.

Essay #4

I believe that in spite of Weil's best attempts to quantify the “quality” of a museum, the perception of quality is still primarily governed by personal opinion. An individual who places more value on, say, community involvement and education is not necessarily going to rate the “quality” of any given museum the same as someone who places more value on the preservation and restoration of rare artifacts, for example. I often find myself highly skeptical of those who would create or even take seriously models of the sort that Weil presents in this article, because I feel that they create an artificial and contrived distortion of reality, all the while patting themselves on the back for being “objective” and utilizing “quantitative data.”

To respond more directly to this week's essay prompt, however, I would say that, though I have been to many quality museums in my lifetime, one that stands out for this purpose is the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming. The Historical Center is actually comprised of five museums dedicated to discrete specific topics pertinent to the region (the Buffalo Bill Museum, the Whitney Gallery of Western Art, the Plains Indian Museum, the Cody Firearms Museum, and the Draper Museum of Natural History), however since visitors only pay one admission fee and each of the five museums is housed under one roof, I always thought of the Historical Center as one large museum with five specific exhibits, which is how I will be referring to it for these purposes. What made the Buffalo Bill Historical Center stand out to me is how though each of these small museums could hypothetically stand alone and be entirely successful, they are amalgamated into a single cohesive unit, which provides visitors with both significant depth and breadth of knowledge about that region of the United States. Because the cultural and natural history of that region is discussed so thoroughly, and no room is wasted on exhibits that “do not belong,” so to speak, the museum is able to serve a multitude of different purposes. It works both for tourism and to boost local pride. It works as a casual destination and for research purposes. It is, simply put, a quality museum.

Essay #3

In Pierce’s article on “The Intellectual Rationale” for museums, she seems to be advocating “a contextual approach to understanding” cultures as independent, complex systems. This is in contrast to a non-contextual, classification-based system of analysis. Though Pierce makes some good points in her support of contextualization, I feel that a broad system of classification has its merits as well.

Supporters of the contextual approach argue that objects should be understood “in terms of relationships which drew different threads together rather than which selected out like with like…to see the world in terms of separate articulating communities rather than of overarching systems” (110). An example of this from my own experiences would be when I saw the skeleton of the Australopithecus known as “Lucy” at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle. Though the skeleton was the centerpiece of the exhibit, it was surrounded by contextual information and objects, including tools and examples of the African environment in which Lucy lived.

This is an entirely valid way to look at an object like Lucy, however it is not the only way. In elementary school, children are taught to create Venn diagrams in order to record both differences as well as the similarities between objects or ideas. I see the contextual approach as a good way to understand the traits that make a culture unique , but it completely denies one the opportunity to observe similarities that cross the cultural or temporal boundaries that the contextual method sets. For example, at the Lucy exhibit, in addition to the contextual artifacts, the museum also included examples of skeletons of other early hominids as they evolved over the years. This is an example of the grouping of similarly-classified objects (in this case skulls), and is an equally valid, if different, way to look at museum objects.

I believe that the contextual approach as well as the classification approach are both relatively common in museums today. The contextual approach it provides museumgoers with a breadth of information on a broader topic, while classification provides a breadth of information of a single specific topic. Both are valid, and it merely depends upon the topic and the story to be told which one (or a combination of both) is most appropriate to any given museum.

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.