What I found particularly interesting about the Enola Gay exhibit was the generational line between opposing sides. The veterans supported a “victory culture” of hero worship and clearly delineated ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ The ‘disenchanted’ baby boomers, however, had a more postmodernist view of world culture that did not dictate the superiority of any specific group or people. A comical point for me was when the veterans claimed the Smithsonian was taking too long to restore the plane and threatened to move it to the Truman library. There was no winning! If the Smithsonian meticulously restored the plane’s 1940s appearance they were taking too long, but if they did not do it correctly the vets would have been upset with the misrepresentation! Contemporary issues over Japanese dominance in the world marketplace also affected the atmosphere of the Enola Gay exhibit. Racial prejudice and fears of an Eastern takeover in the 1980s and 90s strangely mirrored some of the anxieties present during World War II.
The second chapter of this Dubin excerpt also made sense, but I did not really understand the title. I get that the Enola Gay has become an exhibit which public historians can all look to as an example of protest and controversy, but as a verb? Yes, most museums enjoy plenty of visitors and community support without controversial exhibits, but why do researchers focus on the complicated cases? I can answer my own question here. The controversies provide wonderful examples of what to do, and what not to do, when dealing with a difficult exhibit, but why not have examples of the successful, peaceful museums? This is probably my own concern talking because I am in the middle of planning a wedding and must choose the least resistant route in order to maintain my sanity, but besides the free publicity, the only benefit of a controversial exhibit seems to be the dialogue it sparks. Mostly the exhibits cause heartache and anger without benefiting those who will not budge in their interpretation.
I’m sympathizing with the old curmudgeons supporting the victory viewpoint – not my usual. It must be due to my cynical postmodernist sentimentality.
I had a similar sentiment when it came to sympathizing with the veterans, which was unusual for me as well. Perhaps it is true that it's too difficult to confront these subjects while those that were present during those times are still alive, as Kathy expressed in class today; is it worth the heartache and the energy? On the other hand, if we don't address these things while those vets are still living, we lose out on an opportunity for a conversation with examples from a first-hand viewpoint. Do all veterans feel the way those presented in the book do? I don't know. I haven't talked to many myself. But I agree that controversial exhibits certainly serve as educational opportunities for other museums.
ReplyDeleteI agree, with Dubin, Meg and you. No doubt about it, museums displaying controversial exhibits (anything to do with American history where someone or another culture was deemed victim) promotes thought, which controversy stems from. It allows people of current and past generations to rethink and better understand the moment. For current generations, we rethink war because of such thought provoking exhibits. I also feel that certain events in American history are difficult to discuss for certain cultures, but, those events have to be acknowledged in order to understand the present and future. I think such controversial exhibits are perfect to spark social dialogue. At the same time, I felt disappointed by other exhibits or displays being down played or canceled because of Enola Gay. So, are these exhibits necessary? Yes. Can museum display such exhibits without controversy? No. Curators, historians, and other museum professionals have to consider all sides of the story in order to understand what the events means to different groups.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised that the curators of the Enola Gay exhibit didn't take a more proactive approach to the media attacks. Dubin mentions that (I think it was a quote from one of the staff) they didn't know how to react against people who had unlimited supplies of ink, but the statements and assumptions made by the press were so off the mark! If the historians had made a concerted effort to rebut the journalists and to provide them with the research, maybe...just maybe this would have gone differently.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that motivated interest groups will generally push an agenda rather than engage in dialogue when provoked by controversy, as was the case with veteran's groups in this week's reading. However, as we discussed in class in regard to the "West as America" exhibit, when interest groups attack an exhibit or planned exhibit that does not guarentee that the great majority of the public will agree with them. If the NASM had gone ahead with their original plan and then solicited feedback, they might have been surprised at the result.
ReplyDelete