It's Time for a Kykuit-type Conversation about Historical Objects

It is time to do for objects what we have done for historic structures and sites. For decades we assumed the “best practice” for such a property was to set it up and present it as a historic house museum, historic village, or historic farmstead, with priority placed on historical accuracy over visitor needs. Authenticity – defined as the real thing portrayed just as it was at some point in the past – was deemed the highest value.

In 2007, at the second Kykuit conference organized by Jim Vaughan, then the VP for historic sites at the National Trust, we redefined the value of historic places in this way:

Sustainability begins with each historic site’s engagement with its community and its willingness to change its structure, programs, and services in response to the changing needs of that community.

Serving the needs of the local community (not the tourist audience) is the most valuable and most sustainable goal for most historic sites.

Claiming community relevance as the highest value led to a significant shift in thinking. Instead of the importance of history, we started to think about the power of place. This simple shift in focus unleashed a wealth of fresh thinking, innovation, new programming, and community involvement at historic sites around the nation.

Until recently our conversations about collections have mostly addressed how rather than why? We’ve had lengthy discussions about deaccessioning, and standards of care, and access. But what is the real value of historical objects?

We may be starting to have a different conversation now. Rainey Tisdale, in “Do History Museums Still Need Objects?” (History News, Summer 2011), claims that the value of historical artifacts lies in their authenticity – here defined as something tangible, in contrast to virtual representations of objects online. To quote Reach Advisors, as cited by Tisdale, people value such objects “because real authenticity is increasingly hard to find in our crazy world.”

I fear that simply claiming authenticity as the defining value of historical objects doesn’t get us very far. In a sense it just makes us an alternative or antidote to modern life. We need to dig deeper.

Reach Advisors (thank you again, James and Susie) has other intriguing data that suggest that an encounter with an object at an early age (mean age 7) and crafting one’s own story about the object, leads to avid museum participation as an adult. Others are researching what actually happens during object-based learning. We’re getting a better understanding of the developmental value of tinkering with objects, figuring out how something works, and coming up with ways to improve it. Nina Simon in The Participatory Museum describes “social objects” that by their nature prompt dialogue among the people viewing them. (p.129 ff) We are starting to see the ways in which objects impact our lives.

What if we bring together people who can help us discover and articulate a new value statement for historical objects? Can we arrive at a simple statement that opens up innovation? As I read and think about this I suspect the answer will relate to our function as institutions of learning. We will come to see historical objects primarily as tools for understanding ourselves and others.

What do you think?

Benefits of Community and Public Participation in the Presentation and Practice of History

We have been discussing relationships between history organizations and the people and communities they serve. I am pleased that we did not dwell on concerns often voiced about inviting others to participate in our work: can we trust them, will they follow the rules, will they damage the collection, and will they respect my expertise?

Although I still encounter such objections around the country, the discussions in the seminar have been not about whether we should engage others in active participation, but rather how to best do it, and toward what ends.

What are the benefits of community and lay participation in the practice and presentation of history?

1. The practice of history is about making sense and making choices. Historians know that history is complex and nuanced; that we haven’t got it all figured out yet; that interpretations of the past must be rooted in specific evidence; and that the discovery of new evidence can be really exciting, especially when it helps us answer a question. Yet our practice in history organizations has been to keep the fun of discovery to ourselves and just give the public answers. As a result many people think of history as simple. They come to us for answers and not for solving problems. And yet we lament that the public has a naïve understanding of the past. By involving them in the process of historical research and interpretation, we can help them think critically and appreciate the complexity of the past.

2. By engaging others in our practice we can give voice to underrepresented groups. There is strong interest in doing this in the class, and we have discussed many examples of working with minority communities to tell their stories through exhibits and programs. We have talked about the benefits and risks of sharing authority, the challenges of establishing trust, the distinctions between memory and history, the role of the expert, and the value of multiple perspectives. In spite of the challenges, it is clear that there is great benefit to both the community and the institution in doing such work.

3. Involving others in out work also occurs via social media. Again our conversation centered on the benefits and strategies for doing it well. This year’s students are fully engaged in the opportunities and challenges of using Web 2.0, although some of their institutions are lagging.

4. Engaging others in the practice of history can potentially help people come to grips with aspects of the past that make us all uncomfortable. I say potentially because this can be hard, time consuming and risky work. We discussed contentious cases dealing with slavery and race relations, and U.S. government treatment of American Indians. In my next post I will go into greater depth on this topic, and lay out some of the strategies that are working.

5. Finally, active engagement of a community in understanding its past can help people see the relevance of history in their lives today. They can discover the historical context for the problems they face in building a better community. Every present-day concern has a history, which if known and understood, can inform dialogue and potentially lead to better solutions.

We recognize that there are many ways in which communities and individuals can participate in the practice of history, from contributing their own stories and photographs, to full participation in the interpretation of evidence and presentation of an exhibit.

At its best, involvement can lead to critical thinking, greater understanding, and commitment to preservation of historic places and historical collections.

BIG Questions for Leaders in History Organizations

On Sunday I will be traveling to Indianapolis to spend three weeks with fifteen practitioners of public history, the 2011 class of Developing History Leaders @SHA. We will engage in deep discussions with many leaders in our field, probing some of the BIG questions about the relevance and future sustainability of our work.

Every two or three days I’ll post a summary of what we’ve been talking about. If you’d like to follow and comment on our discussions, sign up to follow this blog by clicking on the button to the right.

During the first week our questions will center on the nature of our work in relationship to the people and communities we serve. Why is it that so many Americans find history, for the most part, boring and irrelevant? Why is it that they think of visiting a history museum, historic site, or any history organization as something nice to do occasionally, if at all, and certainly not on a regular basis? Is it because history is really not so important in today’s world?

Here are some specific questions we’ll be asking.

1. Whose history is it? Do we decide what’s important about the past, or do we let the people we serve decide? How do we share authority with them? How do we get them “involved” in history and still maintain standards of accuracy and authenticity?

2. What if they have different points of view among themselves? Do we take sides, or do we take a neutral stance? What is our role, and how do we best fulfill that role? This is an especially relevant question when one group of people has oppressed another group in the past.

3. Is it enough that we make history engaging by telling great stories and displaying evocative and provocative objects, or should we find ways to make history useful to present-day concerns? What roles should we play in our communities?

4. How can we be more creative in using authentic objects to involve people in exploring the past? For decades we have used objects to illustrate an interpretation of the past, displayed in cases, on platforms, and in room settings. Are there creative ways to use objects, not as illustrations, but as sources of evidence to enable others to develop their own interpretations?

5. How can we best use technology to enhance a person’s involvement with history? What are people already doing outside of our field? How can we take what’s out there and use it to our advantage?

6. Is there a limit to what we should do? Should that limit be determined only by available funding? Does everything old that comes our way have to be saved for the benefit of the public? How do we make choices?

Remember, if you’d like to follow our discussions, sign up for this blog.

Developing History Leaders @ SHA

Apply now for SHA

The field of public history is experiencing rapid and major change, and a new generation of leaders will soon be stepping up to set the course for the future of America’s history organizations.

We are seeking leaders at all levels – executive directors, curators, educators, archivists, historians, interpreters, marketing and development professionals, and others – who want to improve their knowledge and skills, who want to become better leaders in their own institutions, and who are ready to part of the larger network of history leaders around the country.

SHA is a three-week, post-graduate level seminar that provides seminarians the opportunity to examine and discuss issues facing the practice of public history with some of the most experienced and knowledgeable leaders in the field.

Some of the hot issues we will be addressing this year are:

• The relevance of history in American life today.
• How to engage and share authority with communities and audiences, especially around sensitive topics.
• The impact of demographic, economic, technological, and cultural changes on our work.
• How to best engage people in learning about and from history through collections, exhibits, and experiences.
• The role of collections in an era that places high value on storytelling and virtual experiences.
• How to align the work of an organization to its mission and strategic goals.
• How to generate and manage financial resources in order to build a sustainable organization.
• How to reinvent an organization and manage institutional change in light of the many economic and societal pressures we are facing.
• How to develop leaders at every level in an organization and in the public history field.

If you aspire to play a greater role in your institution and the field, if you want to improve yourself as a leader, if you want to help shape the future of public history… then apply to the Seminar.

For details, contact Bob Beatty at beatty@aaslh.org or check the SHA website www.aaslh.org/histadmin

The end of the first week

We’re near the end of the first week, so I’ll recap what we covered on Wed-Thurs-Friday. Wednesday’s focus was on leadership. We visited with leaders at three very different history organizations: Phyllis Geeslin at the Benjamin Harrison Presidential Site; Mary Ellen Nottage at the Indiana Medical History Museum; and John Vanausdall at the Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art. We discussed leadership styles and practices, and the challenges of being effective at different stages in the lifecycle of organizations.

On Thursday Benjamin Filene, who directs the public history program at the University of North Carolina Greensboro, and Cynthia Chavez Lamar from the Indian Arts Research Center in Santa Fe, presented on community engagement. Benjamin led us in a consideration of the breadth and variety of activities that fall under this label, including the Kitchen Dialogues at the Tenement Museum, the Independence Community Gallery at the Brooklyn Historical Society, and an exhibit called “Courage” at the Levine Museum of the New South. Cynthia spoke on the challenges she faced in working with native communities in developing the “Our Lives” exhibition at the National Museum of the American Indian.

For something completely different, on Friday Sal Cilella from the Atlanta History Center gave a sweeping overview of the challenges and best practices for raising money. He covered what the institution needs to have in place for effective fund development, what the philanthropic market looks like today, and how to build and maintain positive donor relations. Success comes at the intersection of these three sets of activities.

This morning we’re going to hear from Dan Spock from the Minnesota Historical Society on the critical components of successful history exhibits. The class has already had discussions about the challenges of creating exhibits with all of the changes that are occurring in our communities and in our institutions.  It should be a good discussion.

Then we’re off for the rest of the weekend. Some within driving distance will be heading home to be with family. Being away for three weeks is a big commitment. As any successful leader knows, you can’t neglect your personal life. You’ve got to navigate your various commitments with the support of both your work colleagues and your family. 

First Faculty Presentation: Eric Sandweiss

On Monday morning we heard from Eric Sandweiss, who teaches at Indiana University. He used recent changes in the way history organizations state their missions to talk about the changing nature of our work. “Collecting, preserving and interpreting” was once seen as a legitimate end in itself, having value for society as a whole. Now it is only a means to an end, which is to have some positive effect on the public. Often this is stated as helping others find a meaningful, personal connection with the past. A generic mission today would read: we use history to have an effect on the public.

However, this way of thinking about our purpose has deep roots. The Smithsonian was founded for both the increase and diffusion of knowledge. Charles Wilson Peale and P.T. Barnum created democratic enterprises, for the amusement and edification of the masses. In contrast, early historical societies sought to do this only for the elite. These places emphasized reading, with objects used only as illustrations, and labels as the primary means of conveying information.

We still feel the tension between these two purposes in our organizations today.

In our discussion with Eric class members talked about the pressures we feel not to offend certain people and groups. Tony Glen from the Canadian War Museum told of an episode where controversy over a label led to the resignation of the museum director. Jackie Barton from the Ohio Historical Society said that some in the public are frustrated that we are too compromising. Dina Bailey from the Freedom Center described her work as walking a tightrope, sometimes compromising too much, sometimes not enough. We talked about topics that seem to be off limits, the demands of pressure groups, and our shifting role from authoritative voice to convener.

This was a great way to start the seminar. We jumped right into the complexities, frustrations, and challenges of using history to serve the public in today’s world.

SHA 2010 begins in Indianapolis

The Seminar for Historical Administration class of 2010 gathered in Indianapolis this weekend for the start of three weeks of intensive learning about the practice of public history in America. The 19 students come from large historical societies and small historic sites, from publicly funded museums and private nonprofits, spanning the country from Nantucket to Hawaii, and from Canada, too. They are leaders in their respective institutions, some as executive directors, many as department heads. They all wear many hats.

These are exciting times for the history field as organizations everywhere experiment with new ways to engage their communities and achieve their missions, with an eye to building more sustainable futures. This year’s class will learn from some of the best in the field and engage in discussions about the changes that are occurring and where we are headed. I’ll be posting blogs over the course of the seminar, commenting on the topics we will cover and the issues we discuss.

As a field we have a big challenge ahead of us. We need to assert that the practice of history is critically important to the wellbeing of all, and not just the pastime of a few. And we need to deliver on that claim by involving others and helping them find meaningful connections with the past. At the same time, we need new leaders to step up as the boomer generation begins to retire over the next five years. My expectation is that members of the 2010 class will be among the leaders who will meet this challenge in their own organizations, in their respective communities, and in the field at large.