The comparisons these two articles presented were extremely interesting especially as I was constantly reminded of the push/pull nature of memory versus academic history discussed in our earlier readings. The comparison of the restoration of Monticello and the preservation of Montpelier in the Nolan and Buckman article is another illustration of the differing viewpoints presented by people who want to present and pass on history as they remember it or as their culture has presented it versus those who want to find the ‘true’ history and present it to everyone as the overarching truth which incorporates everyone’s point of view. So too does the Lindgren article deal with a comparison of memory versus academic or ‘true’ history. Here the comparison of ‘personalism’ equates directly to the memory-side while ‘professionalism’ equates to the academic or ‘true’ history side of the argument.
The restoration of Monticello falls squarely into the memory camp. Here the idea behind the presentation of Monticello is to create the world Jefferson lived in during his retirement years on the property. Every effort has been made to return the house and grounds to a specific point in time and to honor the memory of the man by using his plans, drawings, and memoirs. So too do the women who established the Mount Vernon Ladies Association, those Lindgren labels as favoring ‘personalism’, fall into this camp. The MVLA and others during this period wanted to honor the founding fathers, for example at Mount Vernon the memory of Washington was the prime consideration in how to approach its presentation to the public. Another example is the story Lindgren tells about how Washington’s mother’s reputation was cleaned up and made more acceptable to those who wanted to honor Washington and his family.
On the academic or ‘true’ history side falls Montpelier with it’s 100 plus years of change and development. Here the emphasis is on telling the whole mixed-up continually changing history. Here too the ‘professionalism’ camp lines up with its emphasis on technology, archaeology, and business.
I think both articles are extremely persuasive in there arguments. By using the comparisons they chose the authors make compelling arguments for their points of view. The quote by Dermody in Preserving the Postmodern, Restoring the Past: ‘Monticello is a snapshot and Montpelier is a videotape’ (p. 259) rings throughout both of the readings as well as offering insight for other issues we’ve discussed such as the Lost Cause argument, the Liberty Bell presentation, the Enola Gay controversy, and the Conquistador statue. In each case at least part of the problem is the desire of some to maintain the value of the ‘snapshot’ of their memory and the desire of others to value the ‘videotape’ of history as a whole.
I enjoyed your analysis of the memory related nature of "personalism" vs the facticity or capital T Truth sense of history of "professionalism." It seems to me that much of the museum's authority is derived from the memory aspect of the exhibit. Although if this is not professionally regulated it could lead to cultural agendas bleeding into our museum displays. This is why I felt the story of women's role, and even "personalism" in the museum is missing in this article. When did women come back into the public history fold, and is there some value to emotive narratives evoking memory?
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point...I think in large part it is the 'emotive narrative' that engages the viewer. I'm fairly sure that bringing history to life by telling stories (even those not totally substantiated) and by linking historical places and things to those stories is what draws many people to museums and historical places. I'm reminded of a graveyard in Scotland where Greyfriar's Bobby is buried. I doubt nearly as many people would make the tour if not for the story of that small dog and the emotion the story brings.
ReplyDelete