Dubin argued for the right to present a specific argument in history with substantial evidence while acknowledging other view points. He utilized the example of the Last Act to illustrate how museums respond to opposition from different sources and the effects this has on the exhibit and the institution. Though exhibits are developed from extensive research by intelligent professionals, the credentials of the institution and professionals responsible for an exhibit are challenged by a public whose understanding of events in based on memory and emotions. By examining the controversy of the Last Act exhibit, Dubin illustrated that public historians faced opposition from governmental bodies and lobbyists, as well as from the public. When institutions are public institutions funded by the government, such opposition created a major problem. Dubin effectively illustrated the importance of government support for exhibits when he examined the government representatives on the board for the NASM and their opinions on the arts and public funding. Dubin also examined the role of the media in public history. The media used the leaked drafts of the exhibit to show the anti-American sentiments of the Smithsonian curators and director. Even though this draft was revised, it continued to be used as an argument against the exhibit (199-200). Most important to Dubin’s argument was the progression of the exhibit over time. Despite the many changes allowed due to public outcry and lobbying, the exhibit continued to face more criticism until the exhibit no longer had a narrative (212). Too much input from the outside stifled the narrative of the exhibit.
Dubin effectively showed how museums can relinquish their control of exhibits by granting too many concessions to the public, interest groups, and government bodies. By juxtaposing the story of the Last Act to other museums, Dubin showed how museums could successfully maneuver public relation issues without the backing of wealthy supporters or the media. America’s Concentration Camps: Remembering the Japanese American Experience could have faced the same controversy when Jewish American groups opposed the use of the term “concentration camps,” but addressing the issue directly with the interested groups diminished any problem (231). Similarly, Dubin examined how controversy was avoided with Between a Rock and a Hard Place by a “curatorship that is increasingly sensitive to the multiple voices connected to the subject” (243).
Though the examples of Last Act and the inclusions of other successful examples supported Dubin’s argument, he further validated his view by examining the opinions of his peers. By utilizing Jack Salzman’s opinion that “cater[ing] to a community” hinders a museum’s mission of coming up “with the best and smartest show,” Dubin illustrated the absurdity of disregarding the public (238). As I read Salzman’s words, I thought about how his statement went against the basics of public history. Dubin quoted Robert Macdonald which reiterated the importance of the public while using one’s intelligence and skill to create an exhibit worthy of supporting (239).
I think this is a great summary of the points covered in the Dubin reading. You brought up the outside pressure that museums face when staging an exhibit - the media, the government, the public. I don't think I realized just how difficult it is to curate a balanced exhibit that won't incite anger or hostility (though it may be impossible to avoid those entirely). The quote from Salzman caught my eye as well. How do we best utilize the public view while creating a well-researched, balanced exhibit? The readings from this class have shown that there isn't just one, universally held public view, so how do we incorporate as many as we can without sacrificing clarity? Should historians "cater to a community?" and to what extent?
ReplyDelete