Presently Historical

In Wednesday’s Digital History class we talked about different ways to tell stories (see 50+ Ways to Tell a Story for examples) and eventually wound up in a discussion about linear and nonlinear storytelling, courtesy of Alan Liu’s article “When Was Linearity?: The Meaning of Graphics in the Digital Age.” The article made some interesting points, especially regarding the fluidity linear and nonlinear storytelling. In the end, the story itself dictates the mode of the telling; what you are trying to say influences the best way to say it.

The really interesting part came less from the articles, however, and more from an example Jeremy brought up. He directed us to an interesting scholarly article by David Staley of Heidelberg College called “Sequential Art and Historical Narrative: A Visual History of Germany.”* Instead of a traditional written essay, as you would find in any scholarly journal, Staley tells his story of the history of Volkswagon as a series of pictures with no words. Staley’s goal, as he says, is “to elevate visual sources from the background of historical representation to which historians have long confined them, and to arrange such images prominently in the foreground.” Why, he asks, do we only use images when communicating with the public, and not inside the profession?

It’s a question worthy of serious consideration I think. Is there something inherently wrong with using pictures, only pictures, to communicate rather than words? People made arguments for both sides, though as a whole we seemed more skeptical than accepting. One person claimed that pictures evoked more emotion than words, though that statement as argued seeing as words are just as capable of pulling at our heart strings. Many of the problems people seem to have stem from the lack of direction picture-essays offer for readers. In the broadest sense, are audiences unfamiliar with the subject matter even capable of understanding such visualizations? The Staley essay, completely lacking in context until the explanation at the end, certainly asks a lot from its readers. Not knowing much about cars and post-WWII Germany, it took me a while just to figure out what it was about, and it’s easier for each reader of picture articles to reach different conclusions than if they were reading. While work frequently has different consequences than author’s intended, visual-only pieces leave far more to the imagination and to personal experience when interpreting them.

So, are visual articles worth the trouble? If it were up to my class, it’s certainly a subject for debate. I think the value of these types of articles is limited, but not they are not without merit. Right now many historians are looking for new ways to interpret information, especially on the web. For the most part, however, I don’t think anyone has considered doing away with writing. It’s always nice when authors include images with their work to illustrate text, but many are restricted to using what is available, especially for those studying the thousands of years before the 20th century. I would certainly support anyone’s decision to write an article in pictures, it’s a fascinating way to go about sharing knowledge and encourages the use of images as sources in their own right, rather than simply illustrations. I would suggest creating captions for the images, not only so they can be properly cited, but also to give readers not as familiar with the material a better chance at following the argument. Done as such, public historians especially could get a lot of use out of this medium.

~~~

*More of Staley’s work can be found in the archives of the Journal of the Association for History and Computing. All articles are listed by author’s name, and Staley is, of course, in the S section.

*spoiler alert for both movies, though I tried to leave out as much as I could!*

Last week (Thursday) I finally got to see A Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian. It followed successfully in the footsteps of the first movie a couple years ago (2006 according to the Internet Movie Database), and was a genuinely funny piece of work. I loved it… as long as I ignored the actual layout of the National Mall and the horrible things being done (supposedly) to the objects, but it’s fiction and a movie and that’s what you’re supposed to do.

Treatment of objects aside, A Night at the Museum did provide some food for museum-related thought, which I tweeted on the metro back home: “Plot device: museum going completely digital/interactive except for major exhibits. Can it? Should it? Is that what people want at a museum?” The premise of the movie/how they get Ben Stiller to DC is that the Natural History Museum in New York City (the location of the first movie) is closing for two months for renovations… and they’re packing up all but the biggest exhibits and sending them for permanent storage to the Federal Archives, below the Mall. When Ricky Gervais tells this to Ben Stiller, he says that people don’t want objects, they want the next new thing. Traditional exhibits, he implies, are obsolete. The next new thing, apparently, is a digital, interactive Teddy Roosevelt visitors can question as soon as they walk in. It struck me as ridiculous.

Responses to tweets aside (from @gabsters: you mean in the movie? because that’s a bad idea and a huge lack of culture if not. ick. to a deeper discussion with @hummeline) I suppose the question really is: are objects loosing their place in museums? Lincoln Cottage, a National Trust for Historic Preservation site at the Old Soldier’s Home in DC, has proved that no,  you don’t need objects to interpret history or create a learning environment. They have little to no indication of what should be there, and decided against using random, period reproductions. Their lack of furniture and other objects (except in a couple places) opened the way for a different kind of historic house, where they use audio and visual media to tell their stories rather than what’s in the room. It’s amazingly successful.

So, do we need objects in museums? Museums are a place of learning, where we connect people with the past. They have transformed from institutions of research and curiosities into places where education of the public is a, if not there, primary goal. Would we have more success with digital media than traditional exhibits? Or even hybrid exhibits, where we integrate digital or technological components with objects? And even if media is not the way to go, is it something we might have to do to draw visitors and compete for people’s leisure time?

Personally, I believe objects will always have a special place in museums and historic houses, and loosing them is not what people want. Arlington House is undergoing renovations in the house itself, meaning that for their own good all the objects that could be removed have been. When I was volunteering there, the first question people asked was “where’s the furniture?” They usually followed  up with “when do you get it back?”

There’s something special about objects, about getting a chance to look at The Real Thing that anything else just falls short of. Whether it’s George Washington’s camp chair at Tudor Place, C3PO and R2D2 at American History, a canon that shot across the field at Saratoga, or King Charles’ execution warrant in the House of Lords (UK), just being in the presence of an object is something special, something worth remembering. There’s certainly a place for technology and media in museums, and not just on the web. Instead of, if objects themselves are not around? I suppose. But as replacements? Not so much.

Related object reading in this post by my classmate last week.