This week’s reading of the first half of Edward T. Linenthal’s Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create America’s Holocaust Museum, is a thorough testament to the issues that faced the men and women who established the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. While I feel slightly biased in discussing this week’s reading. having personally used this book in the past for my own research paper on the national Holocaust museum a year ago, it was interesting to read it again from a non-research oriented perspective. The frequent “battles” between members of the Holocaust Council and the respective men and women who were brought in to work on this project is a prime example of shared inquiry and shared authority, two concepts introduced last week. While many of the council members were Holocaust survivors, and therefore, had a staunch belief on what should and should not be in the permanent exhibit and how it should be exhibited, museum professionals who were brought in for their expertise had to work with them delicately to explain the “nuts and bolts” of a museum, the technical aspects that those concerned strictly with the exhibit had not considered. This book also illustrates just how much the design of a building can also affect the exhibit as well. The building that houses the museum is not simply a shell to hold these artifacts, but also helps create the mood that the exhibit attempts to evoke from its visitors.
Linenthal does a great job of documenting the trials and tribulations of the commission and council members in their journey to create this museum. However, one thing that he does not document fully is the general public’s reaction to the museum, something I came across in my research for my paper a year ago. The Washington Post and the New York Times, as well as a few magazines from the time contain several articles that discuss public opinion of the project, as well as editorials and letters to the editor that garner insight into the general opinion of the public about the museum’s creation. Linenthal’s book is hardly lacking for not containing this aspect, but it does provide some further insight into the reception of the museum by the general public, which in some cases regarding certain elements of the museum’s creation provide a better feel of the overall mood of the public. Overall though, Linenthal does an excellent job (again I feel biased) of documenting the immense task of not only constructing a museum from the ground up, but also the difficulties that lie in forging a museum that documents a world event based on a shared identity of millions of people.
PWG Bridal Show- February 8, 2009
15 years ago
3 comments:
I agree with you that the building in which the museum is housed is almost as important as the artifacts in side. The building must flow in such a way that will compliment the message of the museum. The Holocaust Museum was able to recreate the feeling of concentration camps and the cramped quarters of a railcar by the way the museums was structurally arranged.
That said, I really can't believe they were able to build the museum before they came to an agreement about what it was about and what would be included. It would seem to me that the theoretical ideas behind the museum would have to be settled before anything physical could come to fruition.
I too agree with Nicole’s idea that the museum itself is just as important as the artifacts in side. Linenthal stated this in the story of architect James Ingo Freed. He told how Freed researched and implemented his plans for the museum structure. The use of brick, steel, and glass used in the structure of the museum was used to invoke the hardship form of the Holocaust. The structure of the Holocaust Museum also provides its visitors the feeling of what life was like in the concentration camps for victims of the Holocaust because of the way the museum was constructed. This give the artifacts and other displays more meaning because people get more of a since of how real the situation was for the victims. It is true the building must flow in such a way that will compliment the message of the museum. If it does not then everything inside would seem out of place.
I believe the architects were able to build the museum before the creators and curators of the Holocaust Museum came to an agreement to what to include in the museum and how it was to be displayed because they basically used the general structure of concentration camps with their use of brick, steel, and glass. In my opinion the architects had the easiest job of all. Why it does seem Shelby make a good point when she said that the theoretical ideas behind the museum would have to be settled before anything physical structure could come to fruition, I think knowing what is going into the museum does it help but I do not see it as the most important thing in the construction. I believe knowing the theme of the museum would be the most important point to consider before construction is to take place.
I really liked your suggestion about including some newspaper articles to document public opinion of the project. I think he had access to some incredible sources, and the ability to sit in on some pretty informative meetings, and was overall very well researched in terms of the committee and council opinions. But I think if he added more information on pubic opinion like you said it would have added a new dimension, and maybe added some interest.
Post a Comment