Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity, by Diane Barthel examines the differences in historic preservation in Great Britain and the United States through an analysis of controversial issues in the “Preservation Project.” Barthel is a sociologist by trade, but her knowledge in that field does lend itself to her analysis of the historical preservation movement, which is a societal event. Besides the initial difference of the top down approach that Britain uses and the grassroots approach that the U.S. preservation movement employs, Barthel analyzes the issues that concern both organizations and how those concerns highlight the differences between the two countries focus on preservation. One of the topics Barthel examines is the issue of preserving religious structures in a secular society. The preservation of religious structures in the U.S. aims at adaptive reuse; preservationists strive to adapt the structures for another use that is aligned with the proper morals and good intentions that its original purpose stood for. In Britain, due to the overwhelming amount of churches, they have a category known as “redundant churches.” In these instances there is a special agency that determines whether or not these redundant churches are to be preserved or demolished based on their historical significance or architectural quality. The other major issue for religious structures in Britain is the overwhelming amount of visitors to these churches and the minimal/lack of monetary support by the government to help with the maintenance of these historic churches and cathedrals. Some institutions have gone as far as to charge admission to help raise funds to keep up with the cost of maintaining these old relics.
One issue that Barthel addresses is the preservation and presentation of the artifacts of the industrial age. While Barthel presents a good discussion about the problems of education versus entertainment and the impact of the new social history (along with other related concerns) this section of the book felt like more of a discussion pertaining to museum studies than historic preservation. Although museums exist due to the preservation of the objects they exhibit, Barthel’s discussion of the issues of the interpretation of the industrial society appears to have more of a focus on how these issues concern museums rather than their preservation itself, thereby making this chapter feel out of place with the rest of the book.
Barthel’s examination of Staged Symbolic Communities as a representation of utopian society was most illuminating. Her assessment of this phenomenon demonstrates the many issues concerning these places of living history; including their lack of controversy (social consensus, or moral order). In an effort to be family friendly and a popular vacation destination for families these SSCs focus less on the educational quality of what they present and focus more on creating that nostalgic feel of a better, happier time for the visitors that feels more like a real community than their own. (49) Overall, Barthel presents a good overview of the different preservation issues that the U.S. and Britain contend with and it is interesting to see how they are similar, and moreover how they differ from each other. In the instances where both countries face similar concerns, it is interesting to see how differently both sides face those challenges.
PWG Bridal Show- February 8, 2009
15 years ago
5 comments:
While I do agree that Barthel's discussion of industrial age artifacts seemed out of place in her historic preservation argument, I also felt that this portion of the book supported her discussion of interpretation toward historic structures and sites. Industrial ruins as "denkmals" (occasions of reflection) in today's society show that preservationists and others of the public appreciate, or at least want to learn, this portion of history. Barthel goes on to describe the symbolism of industrial sites, as evidence where man conquered machinery. Like other structures and buildings saved from historic preservation, industrial ruins are subject to not just one interpretation. As a result of new social history being taught in the colleges and universities, scholars and students alike are questioning the romantic appeal to industrial preservation. What about the reality of work conditions, child-labor, and health issues? With each historic preservation project containing more than one meaning, it is truly amazing what one can learn from tangible history. As long as one can keep an open mind when visiting and experiencing the sites, says Barthel, the learning opportunities created by historic preservation are limitless.
I fully agree with your point about the chapt. focusing on industrial objects. I too felt like it did not fully relate to historic preservation. It may just have to do with her focus on the "framed" objects. However, Barthel's discussion of industrial objects, or artifacts, went along with her belief in the tangible quality of historic preservation.
On the other hand, I really enjoyed Barthel's section on education and entertainment. It kind of went along with the previous discussion of authenticity regarding the SSCs. And even though I thought Barthel did a good job of presenting the issues withot dishing out her opinion, I really got the sense that during her discussion of the SSCs she had issues with the toursity historic preservation sites. I don't know, maybe that is just me.
But I agree, she did a good job of presenting the issues facing both countries.
I agree with your analysis as well. When you mentioned how Barthel presents the problems of education versus entertainment and the impact this has on the new social history felt like more of a discussion on the study of museums and less of a study on historic preservation in you opinion was a great aspect. I had not though of it that way until you brought it up. I too felt the chapter did not seem to flow very well with the rest of the book but since I had a difficult time understand much of the text I did not pay that much attention to it at the time I was reading.
Kristen also made a great point when she stated that Barthel's discussion of industrial objects, or artifacts, went along with her belief in the tangible quality of historic preservation. I agree totally with both of your and Kristen’s analysis. The points both of you made concerning the chapter on industrial objects were a great observation in my opinion. Barthel did not fully relate this area of the book to historic preservation as she did other areas. Her focus in this chapter seemed to focus more on her belief in the tangible quality of historic preservation.
Barthel did a great job in presenting the issues she felt was important through out the book. Kristen made the point that Barthel was able to do this without dishing out her opinion which is a point I fully agree with. I too got a feeling that during her discussion of the SSCs that Barthel had issues with the “touristy” historic preservation sites. So it is not just Kristen who had that feeling. I too have a problem with “touristy” historic preservation in my opinion when areas become too touristy they lose a sense of historic importance in my opinion. So I understood Barthel stance in this area
I understand Barthel's seeming hesitancy about the SSCs, but I also think it can be hard to create something like that without time standing still. Built with the express intention of allowing people in, it doesn't have the infrastructure of a real town. Therefore, how can it function authentically? Whenever I visit places like Williamsburg or the Agrirama (in Tifton, Ga...great place, doesn't get enough credit though) I come with the understanding that everything is not historically accurate. I think overall, these places try to the best of their abilities to give the tourist some semblence of authenticity although they know it can't fully be achieved.
I agree with your analysis as well. The book did a good job at analyzing the growth and differences of both countries, but at times it did seem that her analysis did not directly cover historic preservation and appeared to cover more the museum aspect.
The focus on the industrial sites does say something about the new social history movement. However, I did think it was an interesting and new perspective on the subject and opened the doors to different interpretations.
Post a Comment