The United Kingdom has the widest collection of world famous museums. As I flew to London, I took with me a zealous ambition to absorb all that the museums offer. However, daily encounter with museums eventually transformed me from the passive reader of museums to an active criticizer of the things shown in the museum. Museum is generally acknowledged as the objective portrayal of the past. The trip to the UK, however, made me question the objectivity and the nature of museums, and what a museum should be like.
A Collector’s treasure box?
The British museum is renowned as a world class museum. However, I found it very imperialistic. Although it has all the regions covered, but I do not think that they had done justice to the historical past of these countries. Rather, with well preserved and beautified artifacts of bare explanations endorsed by British historians and rough chronological order indicated by small fonts, it seems like it is telling the world: I am the protector and the collector of the world’s most valuable artifacts. In other words, it is no different from saying: I am the conqueror of the world. Such imperialistic, Victorian value is outdated in this time and age. As seen in the fact that the Egyptian united together to protect their ancient artifacts hands by hands during the Egyptian revolution early this year, we can see it is the time when people in post- colonial world make their effort for the preservation of individual culture and identity. It is only because of the political climate in the past prevent them from protecting their history from imperialistic endorsement. It is time for the museum to re-orient its purpose and accepted a greater variety of the interpretation of the past as told by the artifacts (such as inviting historians of all part of the world), if not returning them to their rightful owners. The same things happened in Cambridge. I am extremely confused by the name Fitzwilliam Museum, in which the artifacts around the globe are stored in the underground with no explanations at all. Even the paintings and scriptures on the upper floor offer no detailed explanations except the owners’ information. It is of course a pleasure to appreciate the beauty of art works, and to feel the magical imaginations offered by the artifacts. Yet I find such museums are, disturbingly, more like collectors’ treasure boxes.
Officially Endorsed Statement?
Another interesting question on the objectivity of museum aroused from my visit to the Imperial War Museum in London. Right from the start we were asked by our tutors on the naming of the museum. Why was it called ‘Imperial War Museum’ instead of ‘War Museum’? I think this is a very interesting question indeed! If we see museum as a story told, the naming itself is the title of the story, which is the eye and the gist of the story and is therefore a point to pounder. I think the naming contain a paradox. On one hand you have the word ‘museum’ which gives a sense of unbiased objectivity of history; on the other hand you have the word ‘imperial’ which gives a sense of officially endorsed and consequently, biased subjectivity of the nation. Indeed, the museum itself is a statement of the official story of Britain in wartimes. In retrospect, more is emphasized on the allied powers and little justification is given to the axis powers. This can be seen in the exhibition of Holocaust. I am, just as my fellow classmate expressed, disappointed by their portrayal of the holocaust. As Iris said, it was a cliché telling of one of the darkest moment in human history. I think it is cliché in the sense that they still adopted the story framework of portraying Hitler as the ultimate provoker of the horrible crime, the one and only villain of the story; while the allied power is the rescuer of the world’s sufferings. This perception may work in the war times, but certainly not in this era. Is history that simple? I can’t help but wonder. Surely without national support Hitler, no matter how charismatic he was, could not rise and yield such influential power in the continent. What are the reasons that the let Germany, the nation where the world’s most sophisticated scientists and intelligentsias were produced, gave in to such scientifically and morally flawed racial ideology? What was the political, social and economic climate that account for it? What was the root- cause of the crime? The exhibition end with the execution of the death of Hitler and his officials, but such an ending is extremely questionable too. Right in the beginning they say that it is wrong to determine certain people do not have the right to live, then at the end the allied power decided they have the justified right to executed the ‘war criminals’. Is that a ‘happy-ending’ like those in the hero movies? Does that means the problem of holocaust is ended and well solved? Moreover, the fact that Hitler could obtain such influential status in the continent was because of French’s official support. The prime minister of the time was a champion of Hitler’s ‘mission’. Also, one of reason for the massive sufferings of the Jews in the continent was also because of the bar put against the Jewish immigration in Switzerland. Even in Britain, there were people who helped Hitler to advocate his words, and Prince Edward publically show support for Hitler. What made the people of these nations, once take pride in their ideological advancement, dared not to stand up against the harms of mankind or even take part in it? The scare mentioning of the above countries made me wonder if this was a deliberate effort in maintaining the Anglo- French relations in the post war era for the sake of the collective security in Europe.
The Passage of Time
However, I still find some museums in the UK admirably impressive. One of such is the Roman Bath Museum in Bath, which I think it is exactly what a world class museum should be. It is not built upon objects conquered, but found on the archeological objected founded - the objective study of ancient buildings and artifacts of one of the glorious chapters of Britain as a part of Pax Romana. Only to be in the reconstruction of the site made me marveled at the professionalism and imagination of the archeologists and the historians. With the detailed information provided along the way, I don’t feel like entering a museum full of endorsed and disturbing view-points. Rather, I felt like entering the passage of time in Roman Britain: I chat with the ‘Romans’ who told me about their work and their ‘boss’; I helped a mistress to curse the person who stole her slave; I made a solemn regret on the death on a young Roman soldier from Gaul in front of his tomb; I recollected my thoughts and make secret wish to Minerva Solis as I sat near the hot spring as the Romans did. All these made me realized that there is something universal in history, if not among mankind: the pursuit of material and spiritual comfort, the contemplation for the mystery in life, the struggle for people to make a living and mark their career… even the bitterness and hatred towards those who were wronged. Such sentiments and the desire of mankind are universal and can be felt by people of different era and region. This is what museum should be: a place where opinion of the past is formed by individuals, but not prescribed and definitely not endorsed by any authority. Its job is to present the past in the most accurate, animating and approachable manner.
Conclusion
In short, I think the tour of museums marks the growth of my critical thinking. I won’t say I make good criticism, but at least I know that things, no matter how objective they appeared to be, are more than meet the eyes. It become one of the enjoyment of myself, as a visitor to museum and other places, to contemplated the meanings of what I see, in other words, the hidden code beyond the human eyes. I can feel myself taking the first baby step to learn to think independently and critically, and beware of the endorsed viewpoint that may affect my own judgment. In Chinese society where authorities are highly valued, it may seem inappropriate for a young girl to challenge the established opinion. Still I value such skill and intend to develop it further. As Aristotle said: I think, therefore I am.
A Collector’s treasure box?
The British museum is renowned as a world class museum. However, I found it very imperialistic. Although it has all the regions covered, but I do not think that they had done justice to the historical past of these countries. Rather, with well preserved and beautified artifacts of bare explanations endorsed by British historians and rough chronological order indicated by small fonts, it seems like it is telling the world: I am the protector and the collector of the world’s most valuable artifacts. In other words, it is no different from saying: I am the conqueror of the world. Such imperialistic, Victorian value is outdated in this time and age. As seen in the fact that the Egyptian united together to protect their ancient artifacts hands by hands during the Egyptian revolution early this year, we can see it is the time when people in post- colonial world make their effort for the preservation of individual culture and identity. It is only because of the political climate in the past prevent them from protecting their history from imperialistic endorsement. It is time for the museum to re-orient its purpose and accepted a greater variety of the interpretation of the past as told by the artifacts (such as inviting historians of all part of the world), if not returning them to their rightful owners. The same things happened in Cambridge. I am extremely confused by the name Fitzwilliam Museum, in which the artifacts around the globe are stored in the underground with no explanations at all. Even the paintings and scriptures on the upper floor offer no detailed explanations except the owners’ information. It is of course a pleasure to appreciate the beauty of art works, and to feel the magical imaginations offered by the artifacts. Yet I find such museums are, disturbingly, more like collectors’ treasure boxes.
Officially Endorsed Statement?
Another interesting question on the objectivity of museum aroused from my visit to the Imperial War Museum in London. Right from the start we were asked by our tutors on the naming of the museum. Why was it called ‘Imperial War Museum’ instead of ‘War Museum’? I think this is a very interesting question indeed! If we see museum as a story told, the naming itself is the title of the story, which is the eye and the gist of the story and is therefore a point to pounder. I think the naming contain a paradox. On one hand you have the word ‘museum’ which gives a sense of unbiased objectivity of history; on the other hand you have the word ‘imperial’ which gives a sense of officially endorsed and consequently, biased subjectivity of the nation. Indeed, the museum itself is a statement of the official story of Britain in wartimes. In retrospect, more is emphasized on the allied powers and little justification is given to the axis powers. This can be seen in the exhibition of Holocaust. I am, just as my fellow classmate expressed, disappointed by their portrayal of the holocaust. As Iris said, it was a cliché telling of one of the darkest moment in human history. I think it is cliché in the sense that they still adopted the story framework of portraying Hitler as the ultimate provoker of the horrible crime, the one and only villain of the story; while the allied power is the rescuer of the world’s sufferings. This perception may work in the war times, but certainly not in this era. Is history that simple? I can’t help but wonder. Surely without national support Hitler, no matter how charismatic he was, could not rise and yield such influential power in the continent. What are the reasons that the let Germany, the nation where the world’s most sophisticated scientists and intelligentsias were produced, gave in to such scientifically and morally flawed racial ideology? What was the political, social and economic climate that account for it? What was the root- cause of the crime? The exhibition end with the execution of the death of Hitler and his officials, but such an ending is extremely questionable too. Right in the beginning they say that it is wrong to determine certain people do not have the right to live, then at the end the allied power decided they have the justified right to executed the ‘war criminals’. Is that a ‘happy-ending’ like those in the hero movies? Does that means the problem of holocaust is ended and well solved? Moreover, the fact that Hitler could obtain such influential status in the continent was because of French’s official support. The prime minister of the time was a champion of Hitler’s ‘mission’. Also, one of reason for the massive sufferings of the Jews in the continent was also because of the bar put against the Jewish immigration in Switzerland. Even in Britain, there were people who helped Hitler to advocate his words, and Prince Edward publically show support for Hitler. What made the people of these nations, once take pride in their ideological advancement, dared not to stand up against the harms of mankind or even take part in it? The scare mentioning of the above countries made me wonder if this was a deliberate effort in maintaining the Anglo- French relations in the post war era for the sake of the collective security in Europe.
The Passage of Time
However, I still find some museums in the UK admirably impressive. One of such is the Roman Bath Museum in Bath, which I think it is exactly what a world class museum should be. It is not built upon objects conquered, but found on the archeological objected founded - the objective study of ancient buildings and artifacts of one of the glorious chapters of Britain as a part of Pax Romana. Only to be in the reconstruction of the site made me marveled at the professionalism and imagination of the archeologists and the historians. With the detailed information provided along the way, I don’t feel like entering a museum full of endorsed and disturbing view-points. Rather, I felt like entering the passage of time in Roman Britain: I chat with the ‘Romans’ who told me about their work and their ‘boss’; I helped a mistress to curse the person who stole her slave; I made a solemn regret on the death on a young Roman soldier from Gaul in front of his tomb; I recollected my thoughts and make secret wish to Minerva Solis as I sat near the hot spring as the Romans did. All these made me realized that there is something universal in history, if not among mankind: the pursuit of material and spiritual comfort, the contemplation for the mystery in life, the struggle for people to make a living and mark their career… even the bitterness and hatred towards those who were wronged. Such sentiments and the desire of mankind are universal and can be felt by people of different era and region. This is what museum should be: a place where opinion of the past is formed by individuals, but not prescribed and definitely not endorsed by any authority. Its job is to present the past in the most accurate, animating and approachable manner.
Conclusion
In short, I think the tour of museums marks the growth of my critical thinking. I won’t say I make good criticism, but at least I know that things, no matter how objective they appeared to be, are more than meet the eyes. It become one of the enjoyment of myself, as a visitor to museum and other places, to contemplated the meanings of what I see, in other words, the hidden code beyond the human eyes. I can feel myself taking the first baby step to learn to think independently and critically, and beware of the endorsed viewpoint that may affect my own judgment. In Chinese society where authorities are highly valued, it may seem inappropriate for a young girl to challenge the established opinion. Still I value such skill and intend to develop it further. As Aristotle said: I think, therefore I am.
No comments:
Post a Comment