This week, Demone and I started working our our exhibit panels. We met Monday to make the final selection of our photos and then began constructing our panels on Tuesday. We made the panels in Microsoft PowerPoint. Our backgrounds are grey blue and the font is black. We decided on Bookman Old Style size 29 for our font. We interspersed photographs with the text on the panels as well as creating a couple panels that were only photographs.
On Thursday, we completed our panels and began work sketching out the exhibit space. We met again on Friday to finish our sketches. We drew out each wall of our space and then drew in which panels, objects and curios would go where. This has been the most challenging part of the project so far. I have measured the walls and curios and will need to redraw some of my sketches this weekend to make sure that all the panels, curios and objects will fit in the wall space that we have.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
November 13th and 15th, 2012
The week of November 5th-9th, the Museum staff was out of town for the SEMC Annual Meeting in Williamsburg, VA, so Demone and I worked independently on wrapping up the edits on our labels. We also finalized our font and color scheme. We decided to use Bookman Old Style as the font for our exhibit labels and narrowed down color schemes to either black font on a pale peach background or black font on a light grey-blue background.
On Tuesday, Demone and I went up to the Museum to examine the different types of labels and layouts used in current displays. We explored each exhibit and took notes on the font sizes, the style of the label's backgrounds and the size of the labels. We then decided what size we would like our labels to be and what color we would like the background to be. We decided to stick with our initial decision to have a solid color background for the text, and after discussing color choices with Ms. Bryner, decided that black text on the blue-grey background would be easier to read.
After we had finished deciding the size and color of our labels, we finished scanning in photos of which we only had hard copies.
On Thursday, Demone and I went back up to the Museum, this time to sketch the layout of the area where we will be installing our exhibit. Demone sketched the layout of the wall space while I drew a bird's eye view of the room. We decided where we would like to place the curios and how many label panels we would need to have printed.
After mapping out the space, we had a better idea of how much room we would have to display objects and so we worked on finalizing our objects list. We tried to make sure that our final list of objects represented a variety of cultures and time periods, but would also fit in the space that we had.
During the second half of our time on Thursday, Demone and I met with Dr. Whittington and Ms. Bryner to discuss designing our labels and the process of having them printed. Dr. Whittington showed us how to use PowerPoint to create an exhibit label.
Over the Thanksgiving break, Demone and I will do one last round of editing on our exhibit labels and narrow down our photo choices so that when we start back on the 26th, we can begin the process of building the exhibit panels.
On Tuesday, Demone and I went up to the Museum to examine the different types of labels and layouts used in current displays. We explored each exhibit and took notes on the font sizes, the style of the label's backgrounds and the size of the labels. We then decided what size we would like our labels to be and what color we would like the background to be. We decided to stick with our initial decision to have a solid color background for the text, and after discussing color choices with Ms. Bryner, decided that black text on the blue-grey background would be easier to read.
After we had finished deciding the size and color of our labels, we finished scanning in photos of which we only had hard copies.
On Thursday, Demone and I went back up to the Museum, this time to sketch the layout of the area where we will be installing our exhibit. Demone sketched the layout of the wall space while I drew a bird's eye view of the room. We decided where we would like to place the curios and how many label panels we would need to have printed.
After mapping out the space, we had a better idea of how much room we would have to display objects and so we worked on finalizing our objects list. We tried to make sure that our final list of objects represented a variety of cultures and time periods, but would also fit in the space that we had.
During the second half of our time on Thursday, Demone and I met with Dr. Whittington and Ms. Bryner to discuss designing our labels and the process of having them printed. Dr. Whittington showed us how to use PowerPoint to create an exhibit label.
Over the Thanksgiving break, Demone and I will do one last round of editing on our exhibit labels and narrow down our photo choices so that when we start back on the 26th, we can begin the process of building the exhibit panels.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
October 31st and November 1st
This week, Demone and I worked on scanning photographs to the computer and finalizing our timeline date labels.
On Wednesday, while Ms. Bryner and Ms. Cromwell finished editing the rough draft labels that we had submitted, Demone and I began sorting through and scanning in the photographs we had chosen. Several of the early photographs were only available in hard copy form, so we used a portable scanner to create digital copies of them.
On Thursday, we used Ms. Bryner and Ms. Cromwell's revisions to edit and refine the labels for the dates on our timeline. We also used Beverly Serrell's advice offered in Exhibit Labels: An Interpretive Approach to pick possible fonts and color schemes.
On Wednesday, while Ms. Bryner and Ms. Cromwell finished editing the rough draft labels that we had submitted, Demone and I began sorting through and scanning in the photographs we had chosen. Several of the early photographs were only available in hard copy form, so we used a portable scanner to create digital copies of them.
On Thursday, we used Ms. Bryner and Ms. Cromwell's revisions to edit and refine the labels for the dates on our timeline. We also used Beverly Serrell's advice offered in Exhibit Labels: An Interpretive Approach to pick possible fonts and color schemes.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
October 23 and 25, 2012
This Tuesday and Thursday, Demone and I created a rough draft version of labels for our timeline. This week, we focused on writing labels for each of the timeline's dates and we plan to begin work on labels for objects and pictures in two weeks.
To create the labels, we reviewed tips from Beverly Serrell's Exhibit Labels: an Interpretive Approach. Following Serrell's suggestions, we planned to limit the length to around 150 words and we set our target reading level at around 6-8th grade.
We began by splitting the dates evenly between us. To create the labels, we would copy the text from a given date into Microsoft word and analyze its reading ease. We would then slowly begin editing down the text so that the end content was both shorter and had the appropriate reading level.
We then submitted our labels to Ms. Bryner and Ms. Cromwell for revision. With their comments and suggestions, we further edited our text. Next week, we will review the labels we have created and revise them to final draft form.
To create the labels, we reviewed tips from Beverly Serrell's Exhibit Labels: an Interpretive Approach. Following Serrell's suggestions, we planned to limit the length to around 150 words and we set our target reading level at around 6-8th grade.
We began by splitting the dates evenly between us. To create the labels, we would copy the text from a given date into Microsoft word and analyze its reading ease. We would then slowly begin editing down the text so that the end content was both shorter and had the appropriate reading level.
We then submitted our labels to Ms. Bryner and Ms. Cromwell for revision. With their comments and suggestions, we further edited our text. Next week, we will review the labels we have created and revise them to final draft form.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
October 16th and 18th, 2012
This week, our main goal was to narrow down our timeline, objects list and photographs list so that we could start finalizing the content of our exhibit.
Establishing our main idea and writing our introductory panel last week allowed Demone and me to form a specific idea of what we wanted our exhibit to show. We now have a better grasp of which events should be displayed and which events, though important, would be better not to include in this exhibit.
We printed out a copy of our objects list and a copy of our timeline and began cutting out each objects' information to tape next to the event with which we would display it. As we pasted in our artifacts, we edited out both events and objects. By the end of Tuesday, we had a semi-final draft of our timeline and artifacts list.
On Thursday, we continued our work narrowing down and finalizing, this time with our photographs. We pulled the photos we had chosen at the beginning of the semester back out to re-examine. By the end of the day, we had a specific list of photographs and will begin scanning them in next Thursday.
Establishing our main idea and writing our introductory panel last week allowed Demone and me to form a specific idea of what we wanted our exhibit to show. We now have a better grasp of which events should be displayed and which events, though important, would be better not to include in this exhibit.
We printed out a copy of our objects list and a copy of our timeline and began cutting out each objects' information to tape next to the event with which we would display it. As we pasted in our artifacts, we edited out both events and objects. By the end of Tuesday, we had a semi-final draft of our timeline and artifacts list.
On Thursday, we continued our work narrowing down and finalizing, this time with our photographs. We pulled the photos we had chosen at the beginning of the semester back out to re-examine. By the end of the day, we had a specific list of photographs and will begin scanning them in next Thursday.
October 11, 2012
Today, Demone and I analyzed our introductory panel. We worked with corrections/suggestions sent to us by Ms. Bryner and Ms. Cromwell to produce a draft of the panel that said exactly what we wanted.
We then pasted our paragraph into Microsoft Word to use its review tool that analyzes the reading level of a text. MS Word rated our panel's text as college-level. Our target reading level was between sixth and eighth grade, so we slowly changed the label, word by word, until it registered at our target level.
Once we had adjusted our paragraph this meet this level, we read our old and new drafts side-by-side to make sure that the new version communicated the same message. We decided that it did and set-it aside for a final review later in the semester.
We then pasted our paragraph into Microsoft Word to use its review tool that analyzes the reading level of a text. MS Word rated our panel's text as college-level. Our target reading level was between sixth and eighth grade, so we slowly changed the label, word by word, until it registered at our target level.
Once we had adjusted our paragraph this meet this level, we read our old and new drafts side-by-side to make sure that the new version communicated the same message. We decided that it did and set-it aside for a final review later in the semester.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Week Four and Five Readings
The readings for these two weeks were:
-"Temporary Exhibits" and "Visitors and Interpretation" from Introduction to Museum Work by Hugh Genoways
-"Always True to the Object, in Our Fashion" by Susan Vogel
-and selected readings from Exhibit Labels: an Interpretive Approach by Beverly Serrell
The two chapters from Hugh Genoways' book addressed the need for a museum to know its visitors. Last week, Demone and I analyzed data from the Museum of Anthropology to get a more precise idea of entrance numbers, age groups and reasons for visiting. This data, as Genoways discusses, is vital to designing a successful exhibit. It is how we decide at what reading level to create our panels, at what height to hang them and what kinds of hands-on activities to include. We need to find a balance between age groups as well as between people who visit for recreation and more serious learners.
Considering all these factors, Demone and I decided to aim for a 6-8th grade reading level to appeal to children, Wake Forest students, faculty and staff, and members of the community.
Susan Vogel reminds us that demography is not the only key factor in designing an exhibit. She says on page 193, "We can be insiders only in our own culture and our own time." Her article highlights the importance of consulting members of an exhibit's target culture to gain insights that curators and exhibit designers may not be aware of while also ensuring that the members of that culture feel the exhibit accurately reflects them.
Our final set of readings dealt in depth with the process of creating exhibit labels. As I mentioned in Tuesday's blog, Demone and I have been using relying on this book extensively as we have been designing our introductory panel. This book will be a valuable resource as we begin writing labels and designing the exhibit.
-"Temporary Exhibits" and "Visitors and Interpretation" from Introduction to Museum Work by Hugh Genoways
-"Always True to the Object, in Our Fashion" by Susan Vogel
-and selected readings from Exhibit Labels: an Interpretive Approach by Beverly Serrell
The two chapters from Hugh Genoways' book addressed the need for a museum to know its visitors. Last week, Demone and I analyzed data from the Museum of Anthropology to get a more precise idea of entrance numbers, age groups and reasons for visiting. This data, as Genoways discusses, is vital to designing a successful exhibit. It is how we decide at what reading level to create our panels, at what height to hang them and what kinds of hands-on activities to include. We need to find a balance between age groups as well as between people who visit for recreation and more serious learners.
Considering all these factors, Demone and I decided to aim for a 6-8th grade reading level to appeal to children, Wake Forest students, faculty and staff, and members of the community.
Susan Vogel reminds us that demography is not the only key factor in designing an exhibit. She says on page 193, "We can be insiders only in our own culture and our own time." Her article highlights the importance of consulting members of an exhibit's target culture to gain insights that curators and exhibit designers may not be aware of while also ensuring that the members of that culture feel the exhibit accurately reflects them.
Our final set of readings dealt in depth with the process of creating exhibit labels. As I mentioned in Tuesday's blog, Demone and I have been using relying on this book extensively as we have been designing our introductory panel. This book will be a valuable resource as we begin writing labels and designing the exhibit.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
October 9th, 2012
Today, Demone and I worked together to create rough drafts of the introductory panel. We used a GoogleDoc so that both of us could write and edit at the same time.
We started by looking over pages from last week's and this week's reading from Exhibit Labels: an Interpretive Approach by Beverly Serrell, particularly pages 23, 33 and 45. We looked over again exactly what an introductory panel should do. It is a short 20-300 word paragraph that should present the "big idea" and offer a brief summary of the exhibit. On Friday, during our weekly meeting to go over the readings, Ms. Bryner explained that the introductory panel is like an essay's introductory paragraph, it presents the thesis. The "big idea" is the overarching theme or goal of the exhibit.
Demone and I chose a big idea and then created three possible drafts of an introduction. On Thursday, we will go over these drafts with Ms. Bryner to ensure that we have selected an appropriate big idea and to refine our introduction. On Friday, Demone and I will turn in a final draft.
We started by looking over pages from last week's and this week's reading from Exhibit Labels: an Interpretive Approach by Beverly Serrell, particularly pages 23, 33 and 45. We looked over again exactly what an introductory panel should do. It is a short 20-300 word paragraph that should present the "big idea" and offer a brief summary of the exhibit. On Friday, during our weekly meeting to go over the readings, Ms. Bryner explained that the introductory panel is like an essay's introductory paragraph, it presents the thesis. The "big idea" is the overarching theme or goal of the exhibit.
Demone and I chose a big idea and then created three possible drafts of an introduction. On Thursday, we will go over these drafts with Ms. Bryner to ensure that we have selected an appropriate big idea and to refine our introduction. On Friday, Demone and I will turn in a final draft.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Week 3 Readings
The readings for my third week of the internship focused on ethical issues surrounding museums and their collections.
Krishenblatt-Gimblett's reading dealt with many subjects, but one that I found most interesting was the dilemma facing exhibit designers of choosing between "in context" and "in situ" displays. In context refers to arranging an artifact with others in a curio and in situ means arranging an artifact in the context of its environment (ex: building a replica of a house to display house hold items). Synthesizing this reading with others I have done for this internship, I would say that there are two main factors that I would consider if I had to choose between these two displays. The first would be the size and number of the objects. If the in situ replica would greatly overshadow the artifacts, I would choose to display them in a curio. But if I had several objects that could reveal a lot about a way of life by being shown in situ, then I would choose that option. The second consideration would be the visitor population. If it was for a museum that caters mainly to adults and university students, then I might lean more towards using a curio, where as if the museum is visited by good numbers of children, then I might lean more towards an interactive in situ display.
Murray's writing explored ethics in relation to human remains. The most important consideration when dealing with human remains is permission to examine them. Different cultures have different views on remains and their views should be considered. If possible, the nearest relatives of the remains discovered should be consulted as even within cultures there is great variation. Today, there are stringent laws in place to protect human remains and ensure that proper care is taken in dealing with them.
One such law is NAGPRA, discussed in detail in the article from the NPS Museum Handbook.I have done several readings on NAGPRA in past archaeology classes, but I found this reading particularly interesting as I had just read about how the MOA had to take inventory to comply with this law in doing research for our timeline. Talking with Ms. Bryner in our weekly readings-discussion-meeting on Friday, I learned even more about the impact NAGPRA has had on how objects are acquired and cataloged. The combination of readings and discussion this week has helped me understand how NAGPRA operates in museums on a regular basis.
Overall, each of the readings so far has helped me start to understand how museums operate, the ethical issues facing them and the type of work that goes into working for one.
The articles assigned were:
-Murray's "Bones of Contention: Human remains in museum collections"
-Barbara Krishenblatt-Gimblett's "Objects of Ethnography"
-Murray's "Bones of Contention: Human remains in museum collections"
-Barbara Krishenblatt-Gimblett's "Objects of Ethnography"
-F. Cultural Collections: NPS Museum Handbook, Part 1 (2006)
Krishenblatt-Gimblett's reading dealt with many subjects, but one that I found most interesting was the dilemma facing exhibit designers of choosing between "in context" and "in situ" displays. In context refers to arranging an artifact with others in a curio and in situ means arranging an artifact in the context of its environment (ex: building a replica of a house to display house hold items). Synthesizing this reading with others I have done for this internship, I would say that there are two main factors that I would consider if I had to choose between these two displays. The first would be the size and number of the objects. If the in situ replica would greatly overshadow the artifacts, I would choose to display them in a curio. But if I had several objects that could reveal a lot about a way of life by being shown in situ, then I would choose that option. The second consideration would be the visitor population. If it was for a museum that caters mainly to adults and university students, then I might lean more towards using a curio, where as if the museum is visited by good numbers of children, then I might lean more towards an interactive in situ display.
Murray's writing explored ethics in relation to human remains. The most important consideration when dealing with human remains is permission to examine them. Different cultures have different views on remains and their views should be considered. If possible, the nearest relatives of the remains discovered should be consulted as even within cultures there is great variation. Today, there are stringent laws in place to protect human remains and ensure that proper care is taken in dealing with them.
One such law is NAGPRA, discussed in detail in the article from the NPS Museum Handbook.I have done several readings on NAGPRA in past archaeology classes, but I found this reading particularly interesting as I had just read about how the MOA had to take inventory to comply with this law in doing research for our timeline. Talking with Ms. Bryner in our weekly readings-discussion-meeting on Friday, I learned even more about the impact NAGPRA has had on how objects are acquired and cataloged. The combination of readings and discussion this week has helped me understand how NAGPRA operates in museums on a regular basis.
Overall, each of the readings so far has helped me start to understand how museums operate, the ethical issues facing them and the type of work that goes into working for one.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
October 2nd and 4th, 2012
On Tuesday, Demone and I worked together to refine our objects list. We reviewed two spreadsheets that Ms. Bryner sent us on artifacts displayed in specific exhibits. We picked out a representative sample of African masks and also selected artifacts from Treasures from the Moravian Attic.
We found out that the artifacts that we had picked to represent the MOA's recent acquisitions were already going to be used in another upcoming exhibit, so we went back through the MOA's Artifact Database (http://moa.wfu.edu/research-collections/) to find different ones to display.
In addition to working on our artifacts list, we also met with Sara Cromwell to review the Museum's entry statistics. These statistics gave insight into the age groups visiting the MOA and the reasons for the visit (was it for a lecture, a summer camp, an adult program, school education, etc.?). Demone and I reviewed the spreadsheet to better understand our target audience.
On Thursday, Ms. Bryner took Demone and me to the Museum's off-site storage center. We examined, in person, the artifacts that we had selected off the website to further refine our list. There were some artifacts that we chose to remove from our potential display list and others that we chose to add.
I greatly enjoyed the trip to the off-site storage facility. It offered good insight into how the Museum preserves, stores and catalogs artifacts. It was also helpful to see the objects in person as some turned out to be much bigger than they had looked online and others much smaller.
By the end of the visit, our objects list was still long, but now that we are able to visualize the artifacts, I think that it will be easier for us to narrow down the list next week.
We found out that the artifacts that we had picked to represent the MOA's recent acquisitions were already going to be used in another upcoming exhibit, so we went back through the MOA's Artifact Database (http://moa.wfu.edu/research-collections/) to find different ones to display.
In addition to working on our artifacts list, we also met with Sara Cromwell to review the Museum's entry statistics. These statistics gave insight into the age groups visiting the MOA and the reasons for the visit (was it for a lecture, a summer camp, an adult program, school education, etc.?). Demone and I reviewed the spreadsheet to better understand our target audience.
On Thursday, Ms. Bryner took Demone and me to the Museum's off-site storage center. We examined, in person, the artifacts that we had selected off the website to further refine our list. There were some artifacts that we chose to remove from our potential display list and others that we chose to add.
I greatly enjoyed the trip to the off-site storage facility. It offered good insight into how the Museum preserves, stores and catalogs artifacts. It was also helpful to see the objects in person as some turned out to be much bigger than they had looked online and others much smaller.
By the end of the visit, our objects list was still long, but now that we are able to visualize the artifacts, I think that it will be easier for us to narrow down the list next week.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Week 2 Readings
For our second week of readings, we focused on three articles:
-De-Schooling the Museum: A Proposal to Increase Public Access to Museums and Their Resources
-the Museum of Anthropology at Wake Forest University Collections Policy (rev. 12/2008)
-the MOA Collection Plan
The first article discusses how to reduce biases in interpretation. One of the most interesting solutions the author offers is the idea of visible storage, a concept I had never considered before. Visible storage involves presenting the museum's entire collections behind a glass wall for visitors to walk through. The idea is that the objects are not stylishly arranged or given text boxes, so the audience is able to make their own interpretations.
This solution has its benefits and its drawbacks. It allows visitors to see the entirety of a collection, so it does reduce bias by eliminating the choice of which objects to display. The main problem, though, for me at least, is that the average person in a community may not have the level of education or experience with that subject necessary to be able to interpret the artifacts. If I were to visit a museum displaying artifacts from a First Nations culture in Canada, a subject I have little experience in, and no interpretations were offered, I would feel overwhelmed and probably leave after only a short time. That being said, for an academic audience with an interest in the museum's subject area, this style of storage could be nice to have for research projects or class assignments.
Another consideration, aside from the immense cost, is for the staff. If I were working in the curation department of a museum, I would not be comfortable sitting behind a glass wall while people wandered through, watching what I was doing. Overall, while I do think it is an interesting idea that could work in certain settings, it does not seem to be a practical solution to try to implement widely.
Through all the solutions offered, it seems that the interpretation given by a museum in a structured exhibit is a necessary learning tool despite the potential for biases or misinformation. The best way to address this problem is to be aware of your possible preconceptions and how they are effecting the exhibit being built.
The second two articles showed me how the MOA handles acquisitions and manages their collections. I enjoyed getting to see the details of the process, especially after I had read in Beverlye Hancock's article on the history of the Museum, how the current policy evolved.
-De-Schooling the Museum: A Proposal to Increase Public Access to Museums and Their Resources
-the Museum of Anthropology at Wake Forest University Collections Policy (rev. 12/2008)
-the MOA Collection Plan
The first article discusses how to reduce biases in interpretation. One of the most interesting solutions the author offers is the idea of visible storage, a concept I had never considered before. Visible storage involves presenting the museum's entire collections behind a glass wall for visitors to walk through. The idea is that the objects are not stylishly arranged or given text boxes, so the audience is able to make their own interpretations.
This solution has its benefits and its drawbacks. It allows visitors to see the entirety of a collection, so it does reduce bias by eliminating the choice of which objects to display. The main problem, though, for me at least, is that the average person in a community may not have the level of education or experience with that subject necessary to be able to interpret the artifacts. If I were to visit a museum displaying artifacts from a First Nations culture in Canada, a subject I have little experience in, and no interpretations were offered, I would feel overwhelmed and probably leave after only a short time. That being said, for an academic audience with an interest in the museum's subject area, this style of storage could be nice to have for research projects or class assignments.
Another consideration, aside from the immense cost, is for the staff. If I were working in the curation department of a museum, I would not be comfortable sitting behind a glass wall while people wandered through, watching what I was doing. Overall, while I do think it is an interesting idea that could work in certain settings, it does not seem to be a practical solution to try to implement widely.
Through all the solutions offered, it seems that the interpretation given by a museum in a structured exhibit is a necessary learning tool despite the potential for biases or misinformation. The best way to address this problem is to be aware of your possible preconceptions and how they are effecting the exhibit being built.
The second two articles showed me how the MOA handles acquisitions and manages their collections. I enjoyed getting to see the details of the process, especially after I had read in Beverlye Hancock's article on the history of the Museum, how the current policy evolved.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Sept 25- Sept 27
This week, I selected artifacts to possibly display with the photographs and text boxes for the timeline exhibit.
To find objects, I went to the Museum's webpage: http://moa.wfu.edu/ and then to Research and Collections. I selected Artifact Database, chose the Browse option and clicked Show Browse Records.
The collection pieces in the database are listed by year. I tried to select one or two artifacts for each five year block. The earliest objects cataloged are from 1974.
I tried to pick artifacts that would both be visually interesting and relate to the exhibits we listed on our timeline. The latter of these two efforts was more difficult than I had originally thought it would be. The artifacts are dated, but the dates are of when they were acquired, and so do not necessarily correlate with when (and if) they would have been displayed.
Fortunately, when Kyle Bryner was brought on in 2005, she created a database where she has been logging what objects were displayed in conjunction with which exhibits.
By the end of Tuesday, both Demone and I had finished choosing artifacts from the MOA website, so Thursday we worked on combining our list. After we had created a joint object list using GoogleDocs, we went through the combined timeline we had created last week. We chose four main exhibits from more recent years and emailed our choices to Ms. Bryner so that she could search her database and send us a list of objects that were displayed for each of those exhibits.
Next week, we will continue narrowing down our choices of events, photographs and artifacts to start visualizing how we want the exhibit to look.
To find objects, I went to the Museum's webpage: http://moa.wfu.edu/ and then to Research and Collections. I selected Artifact Database, chose the Browse option and clicked Show Browse Records.
The collection pieces in the database are listed by year. I tried to select one or two artifacts for each five year block. The earliest objects cataloged are from 1974.
I tried to pick artifacts that would both be visually interesting and relate to the exhibits we listed on our timeline. The latter of these two efforts was more difficult than I had originally thought it would be. The artifacts are dated, but the dates are of when they were acquired, and so do not necessarily correlate with when (and if) they would have been displayed.
Fortunately, when Kyle Bryner was brought on in 2005, she created a database where she has been logging what objects were displayed in conjunction with which exhibits.
By the end of Tuesday, both Demone and I had finished choosing artifacts from the MOA website, so Thursday we worked on combining our list. After we had created a joint object list using GoogleDocs, we went through the combined timeline we had created last week. We chose four main exhibits from more recent years and emailed our choices to Ms. Bryner so that she could search her database and send us a list of objects that were displayed for each of those exhibits.
Next week, we will continue narrowing down our choices of events, photographs and artifacts to start visualizing how we want the exhibit to look.
Friday, September 21, 2012
September 20th, 2012
Today, Demone and I worked together to combine our timelines. We laid our individual copies out side by side and went through them year by year. We marked which events we wanted to keep and which we thought we should delete.
We then each went back to our own timelines on our laptops and edited them. I emailed the updated version of mine to Demone and he emailed his to me.
To split the work evenly, we divided up the years. Demone was in charge of meshing my data with his for the years 1957-1997. I was in charge of meshing our data for the years 1997-2012 (since later years had more data, we divided up the work by the number of pages of information rather than by the number of years).
I created a new Word Document and copy-and-pasted my timeline (from 1997-2012) into it. I then copy-and-pasted each individual event from his timeline into mine under the appropriate dates. Once our timelines had been combined, I copied the new version to a GoogleDoc. I shared it with Demone and Ms. Bryner. Demone then went into the GoogleDoc and pasted in his combined version of the timeline from 1957-1997.
Over the next week, Ms. Bryner and Ms. Cromwell will review and edit the timeline we have created.
We then each went back to our own timelines on our laptops and edited them. I emailed the updated version of mine to Demone and he emailed his to me.
To split the work evenly, we divided up the years. Demone was in charge of meshing my data with his for the years 1957-1997. I was in charge of meshing our data for the years 1997-2012 (since later years had more data, we divided up the work by the number of pages of information rather than by the number of years).
I created a new Word Document and copy-and-pasted my timeline (from 1997-2012) into it. I then copy-and-pasted each individual event from his timeline into mine under the appropriate dates. Once our timelines had been combined, I copied the new version to a GoogleDoc. I shared it with Demone and Ms. Bryner. Demone then went into the GoogleDoc and pasted in his combined version of the timeline from 1957-1997.
Over the next week, Ms. Bryner and Ms. Cromwell will review and edit the timeline we have created.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Week 1 Readings
The readings over the past three weeks have been a
combination of articles specific to the Museum of Anthropology and more general
articles on the responsibilities of museums.
For our first week of readings, we had:
-"Notes on the History of the Museum of
Man" by E.P. Banks
-"Anthropology at Wake Forest University:
1954-1982" by E. Pendleton Banks
-"Part II A Safer Place: Museums in a Civil
Society; Ch. 7: The Museum as a Socially Responsible Institution, 1988" in
Civilizing the Museum: Collected Writings of Elaine Heumann Gurian by
Elaine Heumann Gurian
-"An Anthropological Definition of the Museum
and its Purpose" by Richard Handler
E.P Banks' works dealt with the history of the
Museum of Anthropology and the Department of Anthropology. These articles were
good brief introductions to the denser, more detailed article on the MOA's
history by Beverlye Hancock.
The latter two articles addressed problems facing museums in general, particularly that of bias. Handler highlights the importance of thought
and care in organizing an exhibit since interpretations and bias will always be
present in the display. Gurian offers an excellent list of questions to ask
yourself when building a display to address the problems of interpretation.
These questions focus on issues including ones like reflecting diversity
and considering the interests of the target audience.
The idea of a target audience was particularly important for me to consider as I built my timeline. When choosing events, I had to be mindful that the timeline exhibit is geared towards a diverse group comprised of students, faculty and general public, who are of all ages. This made it difficult to decide what I should include or not. I tried to focus on events that showed the evolution of the museum to what it is today because I thought would be of interest to the adult audience (high school and up) as they have probably interacted with the Museum on more than one occasion. I thought they might find it interesting to see how traditions like the Day of the Dead exhibit started. For the younger audience, I tried to pick events that had a variety of good photographs that could keep them engaged through all the text.
Even with a target audience in mind, it was very difficult to select events and I am looking forward to collaborating with Demone on Thursday to see what he chose to record and to further work on narrowing down and editing the timeline.
September 18, 2012
Today, I completed the final draft of my timeline. I reviewed the events I had listed and added a couple more exhibits. I also went through the MOA website's archives and looked through the negatives to add a few more older pictures. I found a some great ones of the Museum when it was housed in Reynolda Village. There were photos of it from the outside, including ones of the sign "Museum of Man" that hung by the front door, and photos of the storage room.
I had hoped to be able to use the online archives to fill in the gaps in photographs that I had for the 1990s, but as the negatives were not dated, this proved difficult. There were a few negatives I was able to identify by the exhibit titles, but I did not find any for the dates that I needed.
To get to the MOA's photograph archives, I went to http://moa.wfu.edu/ --> Research and Collections --> Archives Database --> Browse --> filled in the box "Browse Starting with" with the word "negative" and then hit the "Show Browse Records" (I had to hit it twice to get the pictures to show up).
Once I had finished looking through the negatives, I sorted through photos I had downloaded off Sara Cromwell's computer. These were of events dating from 2005 to the present. I created folders with select photographs from events like the Peace Corps exhibit in 2011, the SciWorks African exhibit in 2009 and the building of the Art of Sky, Art of Earth: Maya Cosmic Imagery exhibit in 2009.
Tonight, I will do one final read through of the timeline and send it in.
I had hoped to be able to use the online archives to fill in the gaps in photographs that I had for the 1990s, but as the negatives were not dated, this proved difficult. There were a few negatives I was able to identify by the exhibit titles, but I did not find any for the dates that I needed.
To get to the MOA's photograph archives, I went to http://moa.wfu.edu/ --> Research and Collections --> Archives Database --> Browse --> filled in the box "Browse Starting with" with the word "negative" and then hit the "Show Browse Records" (I had to hit it twice to get the pictures to show up).
Once I had finished looking through the negatives, I sorted through photos I had downloaded off Sara Cromwell's computer. These were of events dating from 2005 to the present. I created folders with select photographs from events like the Peace Corps exhibit in 2011, the SciWorks African exhibit in 2009 and the building of the Art of Sky, Art of Earth: Maya Cosmic Imagery exhibit in 2009.
Tonight, I will do one final read through of the timeline and send it in.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
September 11th and 13th, 2012
On Tuesday and Thursday this week, I worked on revising the rough draft of the timeline I had completed last week.
On Tuesday, I went back through and changed the format of the timeline to one that is easier to read. I brought the timeline up to present using hard copies of the MOA's newsletters and then filled in photos from the mid-1990s onward. As I looked through the boxes for pictures, I found that there was a gap in the photographs available (in hard copy, I have not checked online). I could not find any photographs for the events that I listed for 1996, 1997 and 1998. The few photos that were cataloged in hard copy from 1995, 1999, 2000 and 2001 were dark or blurry. I will have to look through the online database to see if I can find better pictures for these years.
On Thursday, I completed reformatting my timeline and adding in photos. The hard-copy photographs did not extend beyond 2008, so I copied down the volume, number, season and year of newsletters that had good photographs in them.
Next week, I will work on narrowing down events and adding a final round of photographs to complete the final draft of the timeline.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
September 6th-7th, 2012
Thursday and Friday were my last days working on the rough
draft of the timeline, as it was due Friday. On Thursday, I finished up the
1980s and continued on to 2000. This was the time period when the Museum of Man
left the Reynolda Village and was established at Wake Forest University as the
Museum of Anthropology.
The pictures from the late 1980s and 1990s were, for me, particularly
interesting to look at, because they were taken in the same building that the
Museum is housed in today. In some ways, it was very different then, but in
others it is still very much like it is today.
One of my favorite parts of the latter half of the timeline
was reading about 1995, when they hung the dugout canoe on the wall. After reading
that section, I went upstairs to look at the canoe, still hanging in the
education room. I liked being able to go up and see in person what was
described in this article.
On Friday, I reviewed 2000 to 2008. These years were about continued
programs of outreach to the community, updating technology and new strategies
for education.
It was during this time that the Museum began to explore
opportunities to partner with other departments on campus. In 1999, the Museum
opened an exhibit in the Student Health Center on health and wellness across
cultures. This tradition continued into 2000, when two more exhibits were
installed on campus in the Career Services building and the Campus Ministries
office. MOA also partnered with departments such as Women’s and Gender Studies and
Sociology to create exhibits in the Museum.
It was also during this period that the Museum put its
collections up online and trained teachers on how to use the database in the
classroom.
My favorite part of the 2000-2008 portion of the timeline
was reading about how the annual tradition of Los Días de los Muertos exhibit got started since it is
still continued on today and is an exhibit I have visited many times over the
past few years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)