This week’s reading of Steven C. Dubin’s, Displays of Power: Controversy in the American Museum from the Enola Gay to Sensation, shines an immense light on the power of media and politics in “controversial” museum exhibits. Dubin’s case studies of five major controversial exhibitions in the U.S. show surprising similarities in the issues they faced. The role of the media is similar in every instance; which is that they escalate the conflict or create conflict by publishing things out of context, thereby fanning the flames that may have only simmered if not for their involvement. Dubin’s spot light on the media’s role in playing up these controversies certainly directs one to truly analyze articles and check their facts; not rely on them at face value. While it is fairly common knowledge that newspapers have various slants and political views, I have still taken newspaper articles as a true representation of facts; Dubin’s book has shown that that can not be done. Dubin shows how news journalists are just looking for a story to sell their paper and that in their effort to meet their deadlines, facts often go unchecked; something I have never considered before, but will now.
Dubin’s interviews with the men and women involved in these controversial exhibitions also illustrates the passionate scope of their work. The swearing in this book exceeds that of any other book of this nature that I have ever read, which proves just how passionate these people were about their work. Their level of intensity for their work that they tried to so hard to bring to the public truly inspired me. The fact that certain subjects can bring to life this level of passion from people who aspire to put together the best exhibit they can is moving. The impact that small interest groups and local communities have on the outcome of such exhibitions is disheartening. Going back to the role of the media, it is upsetting how these previews for exhibits, which should help, in these instances, only hindered the possibilities for the eventual exhibition. Without the media’s role in spot lighting the controversies, the public’s opinion of the exhibit is formed before they ever set foot in the museum. Not only does this prevent them from coming to their own conclusions about the exhibit (the whole concept of the museum being a forum and NOT a temple), but as seen in Dubin’s examples, the original concept is completely cut back and censored (a word that came up often in Dubin’s analyses) from its original intentions.
A quick note about the author’s writing style. I enjoyed this book more than I originally thought I would. Dubin has a way of presenting these examples in a way that isn’t dry, or boring (which it could have easily turned out to be). His writing style is almost conversational, as if he is having a face-to-face conversation with the reader. I found myself laughing out loud several times while reading his analysis of these controversies. I especially enjoyed his “Homo Censorious” explanation in the Afterword about Sensation, very original, and quite cheeky.
PWG Bridal Show- February 8, 2009
15 years ago
4 comments:
I fully agree with your discussion on the role of media and politics and the effect they have on exhibits. It is certainly interesting that Dubin pretty much criticized the media constantly. Every time he mentioned the exhibits he was sure to discuss the role the media played in forcing those involved with the exhibit to prematurely edit their interpretations. He did an excellent job of highlighting how often the media and politics agitate the fire.
I too agree with your analysis of the role of media and politics and the effect both have on museum exhibits. Dubin criticizes the media because he believes the media is the cause of much of the controversy surrounding museum exhibits. Kristen makes a good point by stating that every time Dubin mentioned the museum exhibits he always seemed to discuss the media’s role in forcing those involved with the exhibit to edit or censor their interpretations of the exhibit in order not to offend anyone. I also agree with your opinion on how Dubin developed his opinion of the media and its role in museum exhibits by highlighting how often it seemed to involve itself with political leaders to help fuel the fire there by making the public against the exhibits before even viewing them
Although I did find myself snickering at the "homo censorious" explanation in the afterword, I did find myself a little put off by the tone of the chapter. I think he struck a good balance between cheekiness and objectivity in his other chapters but the afterword just seem to come out of the blue. While I agree with much of what he said, it was still offputting after reading the rest of the book. Maybe he had changed his style after writing this book and the afterword reflected this.
I agree immensely with your comment on the media. Who knows where some of the headlines regarding exhibits came from, and whose sources were used to verify them? Not only that, but how the media stirs up events at the time of the exhibits opening, such as the coverage of Newt Gingrich during the Enola Gay, etc.
Dubin does a good job of showing how the media can generate heat for an exhibit and can even possibly lead to an exhibit not being able to show. Even in today's world it is clear that the media stirs up all types of controversy, but I guess that's what happens with shock and awe press, not to mention the stories and voices that are never even heard through the media.
Post a Comment