You know how I'm obsessed with geotagging objects, right? We lost a lot of meaning when we separated artifacts from their places of origin in order to assemble our museum collections—especially in the case of our local history collections—and geotagging gives us a chance to get some of that meaning back. I preach about this concept to anyone who will listen, and I've even played around with pinning some objects from New-York Historical Society's collection to the Google Map in historypin (until historypin told me to stop because they want people to stick to photographs).This evening I had a conversation with Chris Chelberg, a library science grad student I met back in May at THATCamp Museums NYC. We were following up on a session Chris led at THATCamp about disruption theory, Clayton Christensen's argument from the business world that the real threat to established companies comes not from their conventional competitors—the companies selling the same product they are—but from products brand new to the market that offer a "good enough" solution to fill the consumer need at a much cheaper price. At first these new products are so shoddy that the established companies don't pay any attention to them, but eventually they improve to the point where they take off, and by then it's too late to do anything about it. Christensen cites a number of real world examples, the most interesting of which (to me at least) is that online degree programs like University of Phoenix have the potential to disrupt universities like Harvard and Yale: online learning might seem like no match for such prestigious schools now, but it's getting more and more sophisticated with time, and it fills the need for a credential at a fraction of the cost. If disruption theory is new to you and you want to get caught up, you can read Christensen's books, or I recommend this short and sweet New Yorker article by Larissa MacFarquhar.Chris and I were talking about potential disruptions to museums; can we anticipate them and how they will affect our work? One of the big challenges museums face is the burden of caring for their collections. This is an essential function of museums, mind you, but it is so expensive that it leaves us particularly vulnerable to disruptions from cheaper, more flexible sources. We talked about the things that museums think are poor quality but that the general public often thinks are good enough, and cheaper: popular historical fiction, video games, anything labeled edutainment. Community-curated exhibitions. Pop-up projects. Reproductions.This last one elicited the most interesting conversation. Right now, reproductions are no match for the real thing, and museums hold tight to the notion that authenticity is their trump card. I firmly believe this myself; In fact I wrote about authentic objects in History News last year. But maybe it's just that reproductions are no match for the real thing yet. Is it possible that in 5-10 years they will be good enough? Are you following what's happening with 3-D printers these days?What Chris and I came up with is that maybe 3-D printing, as it evolves, can finally address some of the major access challenges museums have been grappling with for years. So we put everything in glass cases because we don't want visitors handling and stealing our precious artifacts. But who cares what happens to the 3-D reproductions? Let them get breathed on and licked and caressed to death, Velveteen Rabbit-style. Put them in a room without climate control; heck, put them outside.Which leads me back to geotagging. I would love to see a city museum take 100 of its most significant objects, partner with a 3-D printer manufacturer (or better yet, as Chris suggested, crowd-source it to the local maker community), and then install these 3-D reproductions out on the streets, where the original [authentic] objects came from. What would we learn from such an experiment? Could we own the disruption? Let me know if you want to find out.
What Can TripAdvisor Tell Us about City Museums?
I make a lot of qualitative comparisons of city museums. But recently I've been thinking about quantitative comparison; what do the numbers say regarding which city museums are working and which ones aren't? Annual visitation is one useful comparison, particularly annual visitation in relation to overall population, or annual visitation as compared with the art museums in the same cities. I'm slowly compiling the data on this—not every museum publishes their numbers, and there are a lot of variables in terms of how visitation is counted.A few weeks ago I realized that comparing TripAdvisor reviews might also yield some interesting information. TripAdvisor reviews are posted by members of the general public, not by museum professionals like me (at least most of them aren't posted by people like me), and unlike the visitation figures, all of the scores are crunched using the same formula. So I took a look at the TripAdvisor reviews for 32 city museums in Europe and North America. I mainly stuck to the ones I have personally visited, although I threw in a few additional ones (Ghent, Vancouver, Liverpool) I want to visit because they are generating buzz. First, a little context:
Most of the reviews on TripAdvisor are posted by tourists, not locals. Occasionally a reviewer's profile location matches the review city, but most of the time these are folks assessing their sightseeing experience while traveling.
TripAdvisor reviewers (if their profile locations are to be believed) come from all over the world (TripAdvisor provides a Google Translate button).
Fifteen of the 32 city museums each had 5 reviews or less, which means we have to take the scores with a grain of salt.
Not every place in my survey is a spot-on city museum in the traditional sense (run by a non-profit organization or the local government, with a mission to preserve and disseminate the history of its city). I included a few outliers that offer city history exhibitions but don't fit the standard mold (the for-profit Story of Berlin, for example).
With that background in mind, how did these city museums rate? On one hand, very well. 24 of 32 received scores of 4 stars or better, on a 5-star scale. There was only one score lower than 3 stars. This may simply mean that the kind of folks who visit city museums while on vacation, and then rate them, are the kind of folks who are predisposed to like city museums. The following museums scored a 4.5 (with number of reviews in parentheses after the name): Museum of London (104), Atlanta History Center (46), Story of Berlin (33), Museum of the History of Barcelona (29), Heinz History Center/Pittsburgh (28), People's Palace/Glasgow (16), STAM/Ghent (5), Detroit Historical Museum (5), Stockholm City Museum (4), and McCord Museum/Montreal (3).On the other hand, the TripAdvisor ratings suggest that city museums are rarely among the top things to do in their cities. TripAdvisor ranks all the attractions in any given city based on number and quality of reviews. Only 5 city museums ranked in the top 10 for their cities: Atlanta History Center (3/167), Heinz History Center/Pittsburgh (3/50), STAM/Ghent (5/27), Vapriiki Museum Centre/Tampere (9/26), and Turku Castle and Historical Museum (9/14). With the exception of Atlanta, these seem to be cities with few attractions overall. If I try to control for number of attractions in each city, the city museums that come out ahead are Atlanta History Center (3/167), Museum of London (16/720), Heinz History Center/Pittsburgh (3/50), People's Palace/Glasgow (11/135), Museum of the History of Barcelona (17/204), and Pointe-à-Callière/Montreal (19/199).I noticed a couple of other themes from the textual reviews. First, TripAdvisors made note of free admission as something they valued (Helsinki City Museum, Musée Carnavalet/Paris, Museum of London, Museum of Edinburgh), not surprising. Second, some museums have unusual features you don't see other places (Mannekin Pis wardrobe at Museum of the City of Brussels, the Kaiser Panorama at Markisches Museum/Berlin, the nuclear fallout shelter at Story of Berlin, and the archaeological excavations on the lower levels of Pointe-à-Callière/Montreal and Museum of the History of Barcelona), which then get reinforced in the reviews as a reason TripAdvisors think other people should visit.Lastly, it's interesting that several of my personal favorites (Helsinki City Museum, Museum of Copenhagen, Amsterdam Museum) did reasonably well (4 stars each) but did not stand out. And Museum of the History of the City of Luxembourg wasn't reviewed at all. Maybe they would fare better with local reviewers?I learned a little from this exercise but not as much as I'd hoped. I'm going to keep my eyes out for other numbers to compare. In the meantime, it looks like I've got some reviews to write...
Open Air Exhibitions
I've seen two interesting open air history exhibitions this spring, a permanent (or at least semi-permanent) one in Alexanderplatz, Berlin about the fall of the Berlin Wall:And a temporary (one month) one in the Kamppi plaza in Helsinki about Warsaw Pact countries and their efforts to shed Communism during the Soviet Union's final years:I watched a steady stream of people checking out both of these exhibitions. With the Kamppi exhibition, I think one of the reasons people stopped to investigate was that it presented an unexpected change to a public space that was otherwise very familiar. In other words, if you walk through Kamppi plaza every day on your commute and suddenly the landscape changes, you want to know why. I'm interested in the idea of inserting some public history into public spaces for just a month or two so that it becomes an event, as opposed to those permanent historic markers on buildings that start to blend into the background and almost become invisible over time. There's also the concept of it being right in the middle of your path, instead of having to make an active choice to walk into a museum to see an exhibition. I'm wondering if this would be a good thing to try in Boston, perhaps at Quincy Market, or along the Esplanade?
Historical Art in Public Places
Forgive the recent silence; I have been preoccupied by a tough deadline. I was asked to write about my city museum research for a collection of essays on cities and memory, to be published (in Finnish) by the Finnish Literature Society. Now that I have sent my draft off to the editor, I can turn my attention back to you, dear reader.One of the topics I discuss in my essay is historically-themed public art. I think it can be a particularly interesting way to interpret city history, and at the same time build meaningful urban spaces. Here are a few examples of particularly successful pieces:First, there’s the sculpture pictured above, at the beginning of the post. It’s Balancing Act by Stephan Balkenhol, on Axel-Springer-Strasse in Berlin. It poignantly marks the borderland of the Berlin Wall with a larger-than-life figure of a man, perched on a section of the Wall as if it were a tightrope. The effect is iconographic: anyone who knows even a little bit about the history of Berlin immediately gets the message with no need for complicated interpretation.I also love this piece in Philadelphia. In 1976 architects Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown recreated the frame of Benjamin Franklin’s former house, just off Market Street. Nicknamed the Ghost House, it is an evocative and award-winning piece that writes Franklin back into the landscape of the city he so influenced.And here’s a project from 1989 in Los Angeles, Biddy Mason Park. It’s a collaboration between the architectural historian Dolores Hayden and two artists, Betye Saar and Shelia Levrant de Bretteville. The park commemorates the site of Biddy Mason’s home with two pieces of historical art. Biddy Mason was a slave who petitioned and won her freedom in the courts in 1856. She also eventually owned a significant amount of property in what is now downtown LA. While she was well known in her own community, she was not particularly remembered by mainstream American history until this project came along. She was a midwife and healer, and embedded in the concrete wall are impressions of objects from her everyday life—a midwife’s bag, a medicine bottle, scissors, a spool of thread.This is an interesting one that suggests possibilities for city history, even if it’s not quite that itself. Denise Ziegler’s 1999 Epigrams for Helsinki Citizens consists of messages cast into eight manhole covers throughout the city. It’s the kind of special thing you have to know about and look for, promoting a sense of discovery and belonging.And this is Edge of the Trees by Janet Laurence and Fiona Foley, outside the Museum of Sydney. It symbolizes the first contact between the two cultures, when Arther Phillip's First Fleet sailed into Sydney Harbor in 1788 while the area's aboriginal people watched from the shore.Here’s one that’s a little more abstract: the Chicago Bean, formally titled Cloud Gate, by Anish Kapoor. While its connections to Chicago history aren’t that direct, I love that its highly-reflective surface acts as a mirror, situating each viewer in relation to the city skyline: in case you have forgotten, you are here, in Chicago. That's right, Chicago.And lastly, here’s a lovely little memorial that's halfway hidden, at Suomenlinna, the old island fortress in Helsinki Harbor. It alludes to the 1918 Civil War in Finland, an event that still isn’t completely resolved in the country’s collective memory. After the war, one of the prison camps for Red soldiers (the side that lost) was established on Suomenlinna. There was a food shortage throughout Finland, and food was particularly scarce in the prison camps. Thousands of prisoners eventually died of hunger and disease in 1918 and 1919 at Suomenlinna and in the other prison camps. Marja Kanervo, who created the memorial, explains how it works: “The years cut in the broken bedrock will disappear as slowly as the marks of violence, stretching over generations. In addition to being a physical contact to the silent world of the dead, the rippling water is also a wearing tool, which, like time, shall finally do its task. Until then, the emotions and traumatic memories stirred by the artwork take place in the present.”I lived in Washington, DC in the late 1990s. It’s a city full of neoclassical architecture meant to visually reinforce the power of the American federal government. It’s also full of public art in the form of memorials: some that are treasured by the public—the Lincoln and Washington monuments, Maya Lin’s groundbreaking Vietnam Veterans Memorial—but also a lot of dead white men, made of bronze or stone, with or without horses, that get little attention these days. I’m sure those military men and city fathers were important and known to past generations, but most of them have been forgotten with the march of time. I remember once while I was living in DC I made a trip to Cleveland and was caught off-guard by the contemporary public art there—colorful pieces, abstract pieces, pieces I doubted would ever get through committee in DC. My point being that each generation writes its own history, and therefore our commemorations and allusions to it through public art need to be a continuous process that never stops. Which is why I find this temporary piece made for a Helsinki festival in 2005 intriguing:It’s called Time Signal, by Elina Lifländer and Eliisa Suominen, and it creates a dialogue between a statue of the poet Eino Leino created in 1953 and the present day. I couldn’t find much online about the artists’ intent—I think the female silhouette may represent the writer Onerva Lehtinen, his lover—but even simply imagining the possibilities is interesting.I’m going to end with a few public spaces I’ve encountered in my explorations over the past few months that seem to be screaming for public art:The courtyard of the Stockholm City Museum. I was there on the cusp of the tourist season, so maybe it doesn’t stay this empty all summer long. And I’m sure there are good reasons to keep it a flexible, programmable space. But can’t you imagine some colorful and intriguing historical public art as a centerpiece?Tunnelgatan, also in Stockholm. This is a very long, public tunnel near the center of the city that saves you from walking up a steep flight of stairs only to go back down another one. Right now, its yellow walls are bare. Hmmm.And finally, this is an old gasometer (or gas holder) in Helsinki, just northeast of city centre. Gasometers are used to store natural gas; they are more common in Europe than in the US. This particular one is part of an abandoned industrial complex that is slated for redevelopment as a cultural center. In Dresden, the architect Yadegar Asisi transformed one of these gasometers into a 360 panorama of the 18th-century city. You can stand in the center and be enveloped by 1756 Dresden. Asisi did a similar panorama of 312 Rome for a gasometer in Leipzig; in 2009 it was replaced by a view of the Amazon rain forest. What should Helsinki do with its gasometer?
City Museums in the 21st Century
There’s a new collection of essays about city museums that just came out in paperback: City Museums and City Development, ed. by Ian Jones, Robert R. Macdonald, and Darryl McIntyre (AltaMira Press, 2010). In the coming weeks I intend to blog about several of these essays. Let’s start today with a statement made by Chet Orloff in “Museums of Cities and the Future of Cities.” Orloff is a professor of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University in Oregon, and from 1991-2001 was the director of the Oregon Historical Society. In his essay he writes:
The nineteenth century was, broadly speaking, the century of the history and the natural history museum, an era of exploration and a fitting time for the growth and popularity of ‘cabinets of curiosities.’ The twentieth century was very much the century of the art museum, a time of building deep collections and great buildings, with far-ranging advances in the visual arts. The twenty-first century—when cities will be, even more, the places where people live and where so much will happen—ought to be the moment of the city museum. (p.27)
In 2007 it was widely reported that the world was on the verge of a population shift, where for the first time half the global population would be living in cities. Indeed, by 2030 it is predicted that nearly two thirds of the global population will be urban. Several essays in City Museums and City Development refer to this shift, and it seems to be on the minds of many city museum professionals as they envision the future of their work. Orloff, in the above quote, is calling for city museums to take the opportunity presented by 21st-century global urbanization to position themselves at the very center of their communities: “not merely to collect and share historical knowledge, but to help change and shape the lives of our cities and their citizens.” (p.29) He thinks city museums can transform themselves by creating global collaborations with their sister museums in other cities, by participating more fully in the urban planning process in their cities, and by bringing history out onto the streets. My first reaction when I read this essay was to think yeah, whatever. I’ve heard this kind of talk before, and yet city museums still continue to suffer from poor visitation relative to their sister art museums, persistent funding problems, the public perception of history as bitter-tasting medicine, and the lack of a concrete, achievable plan as to how they can get from where they are now to that place at the center of their communities. But I’m trying to give Orloff the benefit of the doubt and think a little harder about it. And so I’m wondering if what might save us, what could possibly make city museums the darlings of the 21st century, is Orloff’s call for us to take to the streets, coupled with an emerging technological tool: GPS. History can be so place-based. Over the years I’ve watched thousands of museum visitors become enthralled with the prospect of “standing in the spot” where some significant historical event happened, or where some significant historical figure lived and worked. But for years, city museums have been in the business of gathering up artifacts and stories from all over the city and consolidating them in one building, in most cases severed from their original historical places. Which leads me to a great quote from another essay in this book, Jack Lohman’s “The Prospect of a City Museum:” “Why is it that city museums often seem as if the city had departed?” (p.61) In other words, in the process of rounding everything up and organizing it in glass cases in ritualized galleries, city museums often lose a lot of the energy, complexity, and constant change that makes us love cities so much in the first place; they lose the city itself. The recent pervasiveness of GPS technology may present a new opportunity for us to send history back out into the city, out into the energy of the streets, creating moments of “standing in the spot” on every corner. People have been talking about “museums without walls” for years, but this would be slightly different, and possibly more powerful. It would mean reconnecting all those severed links between history and place, and helping the public see the layers of history hidden underneath the present-day city. For example, as I envisioned in my Friendville post , we could program mobile devices to call up historical views of the city—photos or paintings—as you walk past their vantage points in the modern city. And in Boston over the past few years I’ve been working on a project for the Bostonian Society that involves mapping all the people, places, and events from Revolutionary Boston, both online and in an IPhone application, so that we can expand past the traditional notion of the Freedom Trail to interpret 18th-century Boston with much more complexity, all over downtown. In addition, while I was in Berlin in March, I noticed that an open-air exhibition at Alexanderplatz about political protest and the fall of the Wall included artifacts, in special outdoor cases. While the collections manager in me wants to be very careful not to damage precious artifacts by subjecting them to bright sunlight, security risks, and extreme changes in climate, maybe our exhibition case technology has advanced far enough that putting large numbers of objects out on the streets is not such a far-fetched idea. At the very least, we could add a GPS coordinate field to our new online collections databases. All of this GPS work takes a lot of time and money. But maybe it’s a compelling enough idea to fuel Orloff’s vision of the 21st-century city museum. We’ve got 90 years left to prove him right or wrong. Let’s get to work.
The Only Game in Town
In mid-March I spent a week in Berlin, at a conference for Fulbright fellows from all over Europe. In between sessions I did some exploring: the city museum, the Holocaust Memorial, Brandenburg Gate, the Jewish Museum, Checkpoint Charlie, and a strange, edutainment site called “The Story of Berlin. ”What that week showed me is that for Berlin history, there is only one game in town: the Wall. Pieces of the Wall are everywhere, and so is historical interpretation of the Wall—not just along its former route, but at Alexanderplatz near my hotel, and woven throughout the tour I took of the city’s modern architecture. Moreover, the history of the wall has been commodified—you can buy your own wall souvenir from street vendors, take a tour of underground escape routes, or pay some guy dressed as a soldier a few euro to stamp your passport and let you take a photo with him at Checkpoint Charlie. I know another town with only one game (okay, two if you count the Red Sox). In Boston, the only history that matters is the American Revolution. Tourists flock to the Freedom Trail, they take their photos with tour guides dressed in colonial costume, and they buy tricorn hats and Tea Party tea to take home to Indianapolis or Santa Fe or Tokyo. On one hand, Berlin and Boston are lucky to have these dominant stories (as much as one can call the Wall a stroke of luck). It’s wonderful that people are interested in some history, any history. At a time when visitation to art museums dwarfs that of history museums, the Freedom Trail is the largest tourist destination in New England. But as with most things in life, it’s a double-edged sword. For starters, having only one game widens the gap between tourists and residents. Sites like Checkpoint Charlie or the Boston Massacre become mobbed with map-toting, sneaker-wearing gawkers, and locals intuitively avoid them like the plague. The one game—whether it be the Wall or the Revolution—becomes something specifically for tourists, and locals turn away to look for other stories, for history only a longtime resident would know. This gap presents a dilemma for the city’s public historians. Do you focus your efforts on the tourists—the low-hanging fruit—or do you remain loyal to your local base, even if their interests are more diverse, and therefore more challenging to address? Or do you try to do it all, and perhaps spread yourself too thin in the process? And this hyper-commodification of history—how does it affect the work of public historians? I can say from personal experience that it becomes harder to find the line between quality historical site and tourist trap, and to stay on the right side of it. Particularly when it feels like lots of photo opps and a big gift shop with sort-of-historically-accurate bright and shiny things is simply giving the public what they want. Or, that if you don’t do it, someone else will. And lastly, does the only game in town help anyone—tourists or residents—truly understand and know these cities? Berlin is a city that is healing—physically, mentally, and economically. Boston is a proud city, a city that ended up on the right side of history. But that barely scratches the surface. They both have other stories too, and other identities. It’s okay to start with the Wall, just please let’s not end there too.