Changing Attitudes towards the National History Museum

Just thinking about the first day at the Museum of National History and the question put to the groups, "Whose voice is speaking?" To be honest I couldn't hear a voice in the gallery. All the objects had very little information presented on the labels. The only information provided was a simple description of what the object was, its age, and provenience. This made me question the choices the museum made and whether interpretation was deliberately omitted to allow the audience to draw their own conclusions or if it was to avoid misrepresentation of the past. Perhaps the museum felt afraid to have their authority challenged if their interpretations were incorrect and therefore chose not to speak.

However, I thought more about this after discussing public engagement programs with our Vietnamese colleges at the Art Museum. We discussed having school groups come to the museum to produce their own art which might be displayed in the museum. The overall response was only to display the most beautiful pieces, which this reminded me of the aesthetics of the objects in the National History Museum. None of them seemed to be damaged or deformed, despite the fact that most objects obtained from an archaeological context tend to be broken or misshapen, and were discarded as a result of their flaws. It made me think that perhaps the National History Museum was behaving more like an Art Museum and chose to display these objects purely on their aesthetic value, rather than their scientific value. In that sense it seemed as though the museum was speaking to celebrate the artistic achievements of Vietnamese culture but chose not to celebrate technological achievements in their production.

After completing the exercise in the Women’s Museum on Friday I could empathize with a museum which was worried to speak for fear of misrepresenting people. I personally found the exercise challenging in that I was unsure of the appropriate means to approach such a sensitive topic. I strongly felt unwilling to speak on behalf of someone dealing with trauma and even nervous about the thought of approaching someone to engage in such an exhibition. I felt worried that directly approaching people dealing with trauma would make them distressed and uncomfortable. As result, our group decided the most suitable approach would be to reach out to an organization, not only as they would have knowledge and an established network, but also to serve as a buffered to protect the people dealing with trauma.

As a side note, when considering the approach to take I could only think, “If I were in this situation, how would I be comfortable being approached?” Ultimately, I concluded that I wouldn’t be comfortable being directly approached and felt that if I were in a support group and the idea pitched to a group to be considered I would feel comfortable being protected by the anonymity of a crowd and not pressured in a one-on-one situation. Overall, I only felt most comfortable speaking, or pitching ideas, on the behalf on the by-stander as that was the group I felt that I most fit into.

As a result of this exercise I strongly feel that the museum cannot speak on the behalf of people and that it is of great importance that they be on involved in the production of exhibitions. This in turn made me question when the museum’s voice is appropriate. To which I considered perhaps the only time the museum can serve as an authority is within the context of a natural history/science museum which serves to showcase the museums research. Through the exercise on Friday I came to feel that the National History Museum might be dealing with a similar dilemma and chose not to speak on behalf of the people whose objects they displayed.