by Fiona Byrne
The recent Irish Museums Association conference was held in the historic town of Waterford. The conference focused on
museums and memory. The speakers ranged from those in charge of national
collections to oral historians. However there was surprising consensus over the
two days; engagement and community involvement in the act of remembering was
championed by all. The realisation that our audience needs to be part of the
process might not be a revelation and many are already on this track . It was
however reassuring to see such a wide range of people all standing up for
inclusion of public voices within our national collections. It seems the future
will involve a lot more facilitation and a lot less dictation which in my view
can only be a positive thing for museums and galleries in their mission to grow
audiences.
The recent Irish Museums Association conference was held in the historic town of Waterford. The conference focused on
museums and memory. The speakers ranged from those in charge of national
collections to oral historians. However there was surprising consensus over the
two days; engagement and community involvement in the act of remembering was
championed by all. The realisation that our audience needs to be part of the
process might not be a revelation and many are already on this track . It was
however reassuring to see such a wide range of people all standing up for
inclusion of public voices within our national collections. It seems the future
will involve a lot more facilitation and a lot less dictation which in my view
can only be a positive thing for museums and galleries in their mission to grow
audiences.
Judith Mc Carthy began the two days by asking ‘How do we
remember and what have we learned?’ She presented her version of ethical and
shared remembering. She stressed that it is paramount that we realise we remember
what we have been taught, not everyone will be happy with what we remember and
that people make assumptions about what we remember.
Within this framework she allows for multiple viewpoints allowing
for people to disagree. She draws attention to the importance of language and
how the words and phrases we use are very important. We should always remember
that history is personal history as well as national or community history and
should be approached with awareness and sensitivity.
Emma Libreri asked us to reflect on the role of the
institution in remembering and how the memories they contain may differ from
the memories of the community. These alternative dialogues can challenge
historical knowledge but this does not mean they should be dismissed. The role of communities is becoming more and more critical
in the development of world heritage strategy. She poses the question: what
constitutes national memory and how is collective memory formed?Consultation, integration and interaction are the key words
Libreri uses to deal with the curation
of history.
Niamh NicGhabhann spoke on the place of performance in
commemoration and memory. She looked at the relationship between the festival
and the museum space. Though the act of festival proceedings might be temporary
they have the ability to produce a communal experience which can perhaps have
lasting community meaning. This may be one route to achieve the memorable
experiences Raghnall O’Floinn called for in his talk, when he expressed a need
for galleries to provide firsthand experience with original materials.
Another way for communities to become integrated into the
process of collection is through oral history projects. This method has gained
popularity in recent times and during the conference Alice Feldman conducted a
workshop on the topic. Feldman takes a ‘story based’ approach avoiding the term
oral history. Although I must admit this sits a little uncomfortably for me,
the subjects covered in the workshop shed light on the complexities of this
methodology.
She spoke about the perception of memory as anecdotal and
how this can lead to a ‘fiction versus fact’ comparison with written records.
However each of these methods of research offers a different perspective on
history. These perspectives should not be compared under the same criteria as
they each hold their own sense of authority. It should not be forgotten that
written history as well as oral history is by no means free from contextual
bias.
Feldman sees ‘story-telling’ as an integral part of
existence, enabling ‘sense-making’, and allowing the interviewee to place
themselves into a larger historical narrative. We need to accept both these
narratives, the personal and the macro narrative, as being correct and allowing
them to co-exist even with their possible contradictions.
She talked about the importance of stories as a resource
which can enrich history as well as educate and attract audiences. The involvement
of members of the community also promotes a feeling of shared ownership within
projects. This is hugely important as often there is much information ‘held’
within communities and they are unlikely to share this information if they feel
it will be taken away from them, processed and used as the researcher sees fit.
As Feldman points out everyone taking part in a project should be able to ‘see
themselves reflected in the finished project’.
Raghnall O’ Floinn Director of the National Museums
of Ireland also advocated for shared history and shared past. He cited
openness, inclusiveness and respect as being the cornerstones of a museums
policy.
During his talk he illustrated this point by looking at the
list of suggested celebrations on the decade of centeries.ie and the
disproportionate weighting between social and economic commemorations (two out
of forty) and policical, military, legal and constitutional which make up all
the rest of the suggestions. In this way a simple list has the potential to
skew our picture of the past. Selective remembering is a must for a museum but
we need to be aware of how we select and what picture we portray through
curation.
He asked us to consider the purpose of a museum as a
storehouse for memory and question whose memories get stored, is there really
such a thing as collective memory, what is it’s connection to ‘History’ and
where is the room within these institutions for the personal narrative.
Dr. Luke Gibbons spoke on this topic in his talk about the
museum, meaning and micro history. He discussed the museum as a place where
professional history meets cultural tourism. The difficulties within this space
are numerous but one of the main difficulties with being a ‘store house for
memory’ is that memory is fluid and constantly changing.
Gibbons reflects on the preformative aspect of the museum
space and how it is affected by its own context, materials and physicality.
Within the space the act of curated
remembering occurs.
He argues that objects don’t speak for themselves. It is
only by virtue of their context they speak to us. Taking this idea he expanded
it to portray the object as an utterance but emphasised that objects do not
speak with a singular voice.
Taking this view point means that a truly objective view of
history is impossible as materials always require mediation through a
contextualised source. He encourages us instead to be aware of this inherent
bias and look at not only what is said with our institutions but what is
repressed.
The conference (as you may have seen from the ever growing list
of questions throughout this article) brought up more issues than it solved.
However the two days were thought provoking and many of the questions raised
are ones which each individual or institution need to answer for themselves
becoming ever more self-aware in the process. In this way we can develop a more
inclusive policy for dealing with remembering the past and allow ourselves to
embrace multiple narratives without feeling the pressure of absolute truth,
which seems to be an unobtainable goal.
