First Person Museum Exhibit Review

First Person Museum.  The Painted Bride Arts Center.  Aaron Goldblatt, museum designer; Dana Dorman, First Person Museum Coordinator.  First Person Arts, November 5-December 18, 2010.

First Person Museum, the creation of First Person Arts and various other sponsors, is an exercise in the melding of museum curation, Material Culture studies, History, and even Anthropology.  On their website, First Person Arts refers to their museum as a “museum of the people” and declares, “Ordinary things can capture extraordinary stories” (First Person Museum 2010).  After visiting the exhibit on opening night, I would agree that First Person Arts was successful in keeping the exhibit accessible to the public, the “people,” but fell short of truly highlighting how each story was “extraordinary” as a result of two technical issues.

Upon entering the Painted Bride, I was immediately bombarded by faces, some familiar, most of them not, forcing me to weave my way through the crowd in order to view the exhibit.  As I approached the exhibit and was able to discern the layout, I was pleasantly surprised.  When Aaron first explained to the class how it was going to be arranged, utilizing rented furniture and accessories, I was worried that this type of arrangement would distract the viewer from the objects themselves; the objects and the stories they told were on display, not the rented cabinets, dressers, and chairs. 

However, there was minimal décor apart from the furniture and a scattering of lamps.  The objects were placed on pieces of furniture that were typical places for them to be within a home.  For example, Grace’s objects, a sugar bowl and creamer, were placed on a dining room table.  It is clear from the complexity of the stories and the depth of meaning these objects hold that they might not usually be found in these places.  Grace may defy logic and keep them in her bedroom on her nightstand or on a bookcase in the living room.  While the display may not accurately depict each object in its “natural” setting, overall I think the display was successful because it let the objects speak for themselves.  It is worth taking note that the furniture was wood and the lamps were white, both of which are considered to be neutrals in interior design.  The exhibit setting served as a relatively unbiased and impartial way to present the objects—the stories and the owners still remained at the core of the exhibit. 

            Another element of the display that I found particularly unique to a history exhibit (however contentious the labeling of it as a history exhibit may be), is its interaction with the audience.  There were no barriers or ropes to keep the audience away from the objects as in the case of most museums.  In fact, I saw quite a few people sit down in the chairs or the couch and engage in conversations with other visitors.  While not everyone may have used this as another way to interact with the object and its story, I did make note that some of the people who sat down did examine the object more carefully; some even pointed to it and encouraged others to take a closer look.  Interestingly, Beth, the owner of “Beth’s Sock,” attended opening night and I saw her sitting on the couch next to her object.  She was with a friend and the friend was taking pictures of her and her object. 

The playfulness and casualness of the First Person Museum enhanced this idea of a museum meant for anyone who walks through the door.  It kept the exhibit accessible and approachable—it broke down the literal and figural barriers that keep many people from attending such events and venues.  Museums are seen as elitist institutions, frequented by elites and the privileged and educated (who are usually one in the same).  Nevertheless, First Person Arts remained true to their vision and constructed an environment in which the viewer is no longer just a viewer, but an active participant in the exhibit and even in the life history of the objects themselves. 

            Although the tangible elements of the display were successful, I found a few setbacks with regards to the presentation of the stories.  Some objects had a text panel, like Grace’s sugar bowl and creamer, others had an audio component such as Renee’s boxer shorts, and a select few had a visual component as in the case of Zhaoxi’s map.  It was difficult to hear the audio commentary and almost impossible to hear the sound from the videos that were playing.  After my first attempt to listen to one of the videos failed because I could not hear it, I did not even try to listen to the others; instead, I treated them as I did the text-only displays and after observing the object and reading the text, I moved on. 

I partially attribute this sound issue to the fact that it was opening night and The Painted Bride was very busy with people moving about and engaging in conversation.  I am glad to see that the exhibit generated so much interest, but sound became a casualty due to this interest.  Upon reflection, I should have gone a second time when it was not so crowded so I could compare the sound, and my overall experience, between the two visits.  My main critique is that First Person Arts should have accounted for the noise when preparing the exhibit for opening night.  I walked out of the building feeling slightly let down and frustrated that I did not have the “full experience” by hearing every story on display. 

Another critique of the First Person Museum was that most of the owners of the objects were not there.  Apart from Beth, I did not see any other owners. I do think First Person Arts did not take advantage of a valuable resource—the people, their voices, their knowledge.  Especially when considering the objects that only had a text panel, the presence of the owner could have enhanced the experience of the visitor and even the owner.  The owner could have told his or her story in a way that text could never do and the visitor could ask questions that no one else could answer.

Having been a part of the exhibit’s creation, I, and the rest of the class, understand how difficult it was to actually have contact with the owners and see the objects in person.  It would be virtually impossible to get all of the individuals to attend opening night and subsequent gallery hours.  First Person Arts should have strongly encouraged the owners to participate in the exhibit and generate a schedule in which they would attend a few nights during the exhibition.  The flaw in this is that the project is purely volunteer based and no one can be forced to go.  Nonetheless, I feel that if First Person Arts made a push for the owners to attend, and they stressed how their presence would enhance the overall experience for the visitor, more of the owners would have committed to attending some of the events and/or gallery hours.  It would have been an enlightening experience for both the owners and the attendees alike.

            My final comment concerns the supplemental upstairs gallery and online gallery components of the museum.  Within the gallery space, the upstairs level had a desk, guestbook, and note cards for visitors to tell their own story about an object that meant something to them; a similar online gallery was created.  The inclusiveness of the First Person Museum’s mission, and their emphasis on everyday people with incredible stories, is continually reproduced by these two elements of the project.  It brings together people who visited the museum, those who visited the website, and anyone who has an interest in this project and its purpose.  The website allows the museum to extend beyond the structural walls of the Painted Bride and permeate through the online world.  In this respect, First Person Arts is utilizing technology to spread their mission outside the confines of Philadelphia.

While the First Person Museum had a few technical flaws, I think it was a successful attempt at creating a different type of history exhibit.  It restructured the way we think of museums and exhibits.  Instead of glorifying objects because they are old, or someone famous owned them, First Person Arts displayed objects because ordinary people give them meaning.  It forced me, and I believe many others, to rethink how we engage with and give meaning to objects that we come in contact with everyday—objects that may have great meaning in our lives, but that we dismiss as being irrelevant to anyone but ourselves.  First Person Museum proved, if nothing else, that objects matter and our stories matter.

Works Cited

“First Person Museum,” First Person Arts, accessed November 15, 2010, http://museum.firstpersonarts.org/.

The History of Tablewares...in a mere 50 words.

Initially, I was under the impression that my object was going to be a painting; however, upon meeting Grace, I quickly realized that instead of a painting, I was faced with not one, but two objects.  Grace handed me a pewter sugar bowl with an engraved decoration and a porcelain gravy boat with a floral transfer-printpattern.  As it neared the deadline for the captions, I worried about how I was going to approach this assignment.  The objects were made of different materials, had different decorations, served different functions, and were produced by different companies.  How was I going to describe the history of two objects in fifty words? 

I then realized that instead of treating them as separate technologies, I should instead treat them as one strand of an evolutionary process.  Being unfamiliar with the history of pewter and somewhat familiar with the history of porcelain, I wondered which one came first and if there was a clear link between the two types of wares.  As a result, I broadened my approach to “tablewares” rather than “pewter-wares” and “porcelain-wares.” 

As I researched tablewares, I was pleased to discover that there were technomic and socio-technic reasons for a shift from pewter to ceramic (porcelain) wares, using the terminology of Lewis Binford as explained by James Deetz.  I saw that there were logical, utilitarian reasons for the change that reflects a greater change in the foodways of 17th and 18th century people.  However, there was also a social transformation that reflected a desire for decorative variety and fashion awareness.  I tried to capture these vital points in the five following captions.


About Consumption

 * Due to its durability, pewter was a primary material used in the manufacture of domestic-tableware assemblages in the 17th and 18th centuries.  However, beginning in the late 18th century, ceramics replaced pewter as hot beverage consumption, such as coffee and tea, flourished while pewter’s decorative limitations were made apparent. 
Written by Laura MacBride

About Foodways

 * Towards the end of the 18th century, ceramics seized the place of pewter on household tables.  A change in foodways contributed to this transformation.  As the consumption of hot beverages like tea and coffee increased, its impracticality became apparent; pewter wasn’t able to hold hot liquids quite like ceramic.
Written by Laura MacBride

About Tablewares

* Pewter, a metal alloy, was used to craft domestic-tablewares until the end of the 18th century, when it became outmoded.  Ceramic wares became fashionable because they offered more stylistic potential, allowing for greater variety within the market.  Ceramic was also favored because it was significantly cheaper to produce than pewter.
Written by Laura MacBride

About Status  

* Domestic pewter wares were indicators of status until the late 18th century when ceramic became the new sign of prosperity. Porcelain, specifically, embodied affluence and was not common in households of modest means.  Interestingly, ceramic was less durable, but allowed for varied styles and decoration that appealed to consumers. 
Written by Laura MacBride

About Social Change

* Pewter’s durability enabled domestic-tablewares to withstand extensive use, making them items of family honor and prestige. However, the progression from pewter to ceramic in the late 18th century indicates social transformation.  Ceramics, while less durable, embodied a new concept of fashion and novelty, making familial history outdated.
Written by Laura MacBride

Sources:

Deetz, James

1996            In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life.  New York: Anchor Books.

Hicks, Dan and Mary C. Beaudry, eds.

2008            The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

A Lesson in the Challenges of a Curator

Assignment #5

The following is my attempt, and I emphasize attempt, at designing the First Person Museum exhibit roughly following Parman’s six step process.  Although I understood my fellow classmate’s critiques of the actual exhibit design, I do like the curator’s approach of placing the objects in their “natural cultural settings” such as a dresser or shelf.  That made it harder for me to create my own design because I kept returning to similar ideas.  However, I harnessed the archaeologist in me and put more of a historic spin on the exhibit layout than the real exhibit.  Here we go…

Step 1: Mission Statement, Take-Home messages, and storyline

The mission of my project would be very similar to that of the individuals already working on the exhibit—I want to create an exhibit readily accessible to the local community, as well at the city at large, which resonates with the average person.  The project should highlight how every person, regardless of age, race, gender, and class imbues commonplace objects with meaning.

1.     Objects change over time; some change more dramatically or rapidly, but most objects evolve as human culture evolves;

2.     Objects can be deceptive; what one person feels is a commonplace blanket, for example, may be a young girl’s most cherished item.  People give objects importance and elevate them to a higher status.

Step 2: Organize the Storyline
For my exhibit, the storyline would show why the past is relevant how people in 2010 can connect with the people of the past by showing that these objects have a past just like their owners and the visitors.  Because of my archaeological background, I am interested in showing how an object from 200 years ago may look today—how has it changed?  Or has it really changed that much?  For this reason, I am using what Parman calls the “Comparison/Contrast” approach to organizing the objects. 

Step 3: Exhibit Arrangement
The floor plan consists of 16 glass cases that will house the objects.  They are placed around the perimeter of three sides of the room.  Each case will be dedicated to one of the objects in the collection and they will be arranged in chronological order depending on the development of that object or object type.  Above each case will hang two pieces of art; it will be like a “then and now” installation where the left piece of art will portray that object in a historical setting (possibly in the 17^th, 18^th, 19^th, or early 20^th century).  The artwork could be an original painting, a lithograph, a copy of an original painting, etc.  The piece on the right will be a photograph of the actual object in its typical context (such as a sugar bowl by a coffeepot or on a kitchen table). By juxtaposing an image of that object from an earlier time with a contemporary image, I hope to highlight how much, or how little, these objects have changed in both form and function.  In between these two paintings there will be a short text panel (about 50-100 words) briefly explaining how that object was originally used or came to be, similar to what we are doing for our final assignment.  However, I would like each actual object to have the owner’s narration accompany it; the owner would explain how they acquired it and why it is significant to them through audio rather than text.  I think by emphasizing the person behind the object, the visitors will have a deeper understanding and connection to the people and the object’s history. 
There is a seating area in the center of the room that is meant to spur conversation and exchange of ideas.  Because this is both a museum exhibit and community project, I hope that the owners of the objects, local community members, and outside visitors will feel invited to sit down and discuss the collection.  Although highlighting the history of objects is one of my goals, it is not the primary focus.  I want to create a space that not only demonstrates how commonplace objects can impact our lives in such profound ways, but enables people from different locations and points of view to openly discuss what they gleaned from the exhibit and maybe share stories about objects that have impacted them in a profound way.

Below is what I created in Floorplanner using my limited computer skills and artistic abilities.

Mundane and Emblematic: The Social and Cultural Significance

Serving pieces and tableware have been, and continue to be, integral parts of the human social experience.  At their most fundamental level, these vessels hold liquids and condiments that enhance the dining experience.  However, objects like Grace’s sugar-bowl and gravy boat are not simply containers that hold sweeteners for tea or sauce for meals; these wares are imbued with a deeper social and cultural significance.  The pewter sugar-bowl and porcelain gravy boat have histories unto themselves.  These objects document how the art of tea and dinner service has evolved and how they are used in contemporary context as compared to previous decades. 

The sugar-bowl and gravy boat are staples in most homes.  Considering the caffeine dependency of many employed men and women, and of course stressed out graduate students, sugar-bowls could be considered a ubiquitous storage container that sits on top of kitchen counters, sitting next to the all-important coffeepot.   However, the sugar-bowl can also be one element of a much larger tea service.  The tea set as a whole may be seen a symbol of hospitality, used only during special occasions or when entertaining important visitors.  Alternatively, it may be used everyday as part of a daily routine between friends and family.  The degree of formality is completely dependent on the context.  The same can be said for the gravy boat; it may be stored in a cabinet and only taken out on the holidays or it may be used every time mashed potatoes are served at dinner.  The social significance of an object correlates to the time period in which it is used and how it is treated and utilized by its owners.

Sugar-bowls and gravy boats have appeared throughout literature, television, film, and other visual arts.  They are basic components of serving sets and table settings, but their roles vary.  In a movie, they may simply be part of the backdrop or they could be used as a location for social gathering that assists in developing the storyline.  Being such mundane yet emblematic objects, sugar-bowls and gravy boats have the potential to bring a story to life. 

Drawing on my archaeological experience and interests, I want to make a final note on the actual material make-up of the vessels.  What an object is made of or from can provide the material culture scholar with another avenue of interpretation.  The very composition of the pewter sugar-bowl and porcelain gravy boat changes over time and space.  For example, porcelain wares were once esteemed as objects that conveyed social rank and separated the elites from the “middling sort.”  In 2010, porcelain cups, saucers, and other types of serving pieces can be purchased at a high-end boutique and in the clearance section of a department store.  The social and cultural implications that the physical make-up of objects provide are dependent on many factors, one of the most important factors being how the owners perceive their objects and the messages they are sending to society at large.  

The Historical Process

Assignment #2
The current owner of the sugar-bowl and gravy boat is Grace, but I do not think that she is the first owner of either object.  After my brief meeting with her, I believe that the objects had quite a history before coming into her possession.  The gravy boat is clearly dated to 1961 as noted by the maker’s mark on the base; Grace appears to be in her early to mid 30s.  However, I do not know any more information about its history before she owned them.  I politely told her the purpose and approach of this project and requested that she provide me with as little information as possible.  Furthermore, both pieces showed signs of extensive use.  The sugar-bowl had tarnished areas, surface scratches, and a dent on the rim.  The gravy boat was discolored in areas, the bottom of the foot rim was chipped, and the decoration was worn around the spout and handle. 

Both objects were originally produced as utilitarian wares.  Sugar-bowls are traditionally part of a tea set while gravy boats are part of dinnerware/tableware settings.  The wear described above demonstrates that the objects were not, at least initially, treated as merely objects for display.  This observation especially applies to the gravy boat; it has discoloration on the inside and around the spout and the gold decoration is worn in the areas where it would be held during service.  Interacting with the objects absolutely impacted my impression of them.  If I had seen the pieces from afar, I would not have been able to observe many of the subtle signs of wear such as the small chips missing from the bottom of the gravy boat or the dent on the rim of the sugar bowl.  I do not think that I would have felt that they were used as extensively as I have asserted had I not been able to see them up close and make note of all of the details.

I noticed that Grace had the serving pieces wrapped in layers of tissue paper and she handled them with extreme care.  This shouldn’t be a surprise considering the nature of this project is to exhibit objects that are important to ordinary people.  However, I noted the markings on the bottom of the vessels and Grace commented on the fact that she had never noticed the maker’s marks on the sugar-bowl or gravy boat.  I found that particularly interesting considering that, as an archaeologist, my first inclination is to look on the bottom of objects to see if it can tell me anything about them.  This also reinforced my impression that the two pieces were not often, or ever, used as serving pieces.  It seems that the purpose of the vessels evolved from utilitarian to sentimental and/or decorative as the ownership changed.

The Descriptive Process (Part Deux)

After meeting Grace and her objects this past Friday, I am updating the blog to reflect my new knowledge of the objects.  The object in question is not actually a painting and the keyword is objects, not object.  I was informed that despite being assigned "Grace's Painting,"  there was no painting; instead, I was handed a sugar-bowl and gravy boat to study.


The first of the two items is a pewter sugar-bowl. It weighs approximately 5-6 ounces and measures 3.5" high, 5" wide including handles and 2.5" in diameter on the base.  The vessel has two handles. The bottom has an engraving, "SINGAPORE-MALAYSIA SELANGOR PEWTER."  There is also a logo with the outline of a person in the center of the inscription.  The body of the object has an engraved scene of oxen pulling carts, palm trees, sailboats, and islands set in the distance.  The decoration continues around the entirety of the vessel's body.  The interior is tarnished and one side of the exterior is darker than the other.  There is one small dent on the rim.


The second object is a white porcelain gravy boat.  It weighs approximately 3-4 ounces.  It measures 3.5" high, 6.5" long from handle to the end of the spout, and the base diameter measures 2".  The bottom of the object reads, "Kaysons Fine China/Japan/Golden Rhapsody/1961 by kaysons Import Corp."  There is a gold line that runs down the center of the handle  and around the interior rim.  The body of the vessel has a gold and gray floral pattern on both sides.  There is discoloration on the interior and around the spout.  There are small chips missing from the foot rim.  In addition, the gold line is worn-off on the spot and on the handle where one would hold the gravy boat.

The Descriptive Process

Assignment #1:  Object Description

In beginning to understand my object, titled “Grace’s Painting,” the first class assignment required me to describe it from a purely objective quantitative and qualitative perspective.  What is the object’s size and weight?  What is it made from and how was it made?  How is it decorated?  What is its intrinsic value?  Unfortunately, I will not be able to answer these questions until September 10^th when I can actually see my object.  I was provided a picture of the owner, Grace, but not the actual painting.  As a result, my post must veer from the original intentions of the assignment.

In an attempt to exercise my analytical skills, I wanted to at least describe what I observed in the photograph that I was provided.  Grace, a woman with long dark hair, is sitting down at a wooden table.  She is holding a small blue notebook with lined pages in her right hand.  She is wearing a striped tank top and green headband.  Some writing and a small sketch in black ink can be seen on the page of the notebook.  There is a woman, also with dark hair, sitting directly to Grace’s right.  The woman is wearing a nametag that distinguishes her from Grace.  The table is littered with plastic beverage bottles, two red solo cups, and a small bag, and a pen.  Grace’s mouth is partially open and her left hand is elevated and engaged in a position in front of the blue booklet.  Volumes of books are captured in the background.

The photograph provides some basic information about the owner but not the object itself.  I do not know if a stranger, someone important to Grace, or Grace herself created the painting.  I cannot determine its size, weight, or how much it cost to produce.  I can merely engage in a brief discussion of Grace’s painting in relation to Jules David Prown’s classification of artifacts in the article, “Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method.”  Prown groups artifacts into six main categories—art, diversions, adornment, modifications of the landscape, applied arts, and devices.  Taking the title of my object as literal as possible, “Grace’s Painting” falls under the category of art.  The author asserts that the fine arts have both aesthetic value and cultural significance.  It is imbued with “the self-consciousness of artistic expression” and therefore has an additional complex element of analysis when compared to “mundane artifacts” (1988: 29).  Cited by Prown, Hauser argues that the aesthetic value and cultural significance are not linked and must be judged in different ways; aesthetics should not elevate or decrease the object’s cultural importance nor should its cultural importance impact the aesthetic value.

Prown also makes note that the aesthetic evaluation of a piece of fine art can be affected by external factors that may also affect how others perceive it.    In this assignment, the class was asked to evaluate an object’s aesthetics and physical attributes from a purely objective position.  I initially wanted to read into the photo; I typed statements such as, “The woman in the photo seems to be engaged in what Grace has to say due to her eye contact,” or “Grace is not directly looking at the woman so she is most likely talking to a table with multiple people.”  After rereading Prown’s methodology and his assessment of fine art, I went back and rewrote exactly what I saw in the photo and not what I inferred. Although I was not able to complete the assignment as intended, Prown’s article helped me objectively describe the photograph of Grace and will hopefully assist me in evaluating the object on Friday.

Cited:
Prown, Jules David. 

1988   Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method.  In Material Life in America, 1600-1860.  Robert Blair St. George, ed.  Pp.17-37.  Boston: Northeastern University Press.