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/.
