Steven Dubin’s, Displays of Power described some of the most significant cases in contested interpretation of museum exhibitions. Dubin, explores the powerful motives behind these ‘museum battles’ and presents politicians, museum administrators, cultural groups and even, maybe even especially, the media as the players. In addition, he highlights the positivity of these seemingly negative situations.
Behind these ‘battles’, whether it be to promote their status, bring recognition to or to redirect attention from other politically charged issues, someone or group stood to benefit from the controversies that ensued. For example in Gaelic Gotham, Marion Casey’s fight for her status as curator became infused into the controversy. In addition, Mayor Giulini’s role was at the forefront of the Sensation controversy most likely to divert attention from himself. The media stood to gain financially in all of these issues.
The media proved to be an instrumental tool, and in the case of Sensation, according to Dubin’s interpretation, the instigator. He accurately identifies that “the group that is the most mobilized, the most vocal and often the first to jump into the fray sets the tenor and dictates the terms of the debate.” (249) As recognized in the Harlem on My Mind case, groups learned how to utilize the media to act as their voice. Ironically, the media was also identified as “stirring the pot.” (49) Similarly, in the Sensation case, Dubin argues that a news reporter planted the seed in key players minds that helped to ‘stir up’ some controversy.
Even though these conflicts over perspective and interpretation were very costly, both financially and emotionally to the parties involved, Dubin illustrated the healthy aspects these controversies have in a democratic society. He argues that “culture—and the struggles over it—can reveal us at our most unflattering,” however, “it is important to pay attention to such clashes.” The activists bring awareness to the museum communities that there is more than one interpretation. The ‘battle’ forces the parties to assert their perspectives and in the end come to resolution.
I thought Dubin did a great job of presenting all sides of these cases about power. In the end, the book provides an excellent reference for museum professionals getting ready to host potentially controversial exhibitions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jennie Amy, I want to thank you for reminding me that there was something positive to be found from this book. What you said about how the media gained from controversy made me think about the role the media plays as public historian. Yesterday in another class we talked about how journalists are writing history books and kind of playing at "historian" and write well but do bad history. After reading your post and thinking a bit more about Dubin I feel like the media that Dubin discusses are also playing historian. How do historians make the media accountable to the issues they present and if they are so called "stirring the pot" can historians do anything about that? The media is a powerful tool for public historians, the right advertising and a good or bad review can make or break an exhibit. How can historians work with media to do damage control once controversy has risen?
ReplyDelete