The museum review of the International Civil Rights Center and Museum, written by Edward Rothstein in the arts section of the February first edition of the New York Times, I found particularly interesting. One of the things that I found most interesting was that the museum being reviewed was located in the old F.W. Woolworth Co. building in Greensboro North Carolina, where the famous first sit-in at the lunch counter took place. According to the article the famous lunch counter is still in its original location in the museum along with the original seats at the counter. The only thing that is missing from the counter is an eight foot section of the counter which resides in the Smithsonian Institute. The article gives a brief history of the segregation policies and practices that took place at Woolworth stores and the movement and events the first sit-in at the Greensboro Woolworth counter touched off, along with some background information about how the museum came to be and who the major people responsible for the museum coming to be are. The author then goes into a review and critique of the way the museum is set up and the different sections represented in the museum such as the “Hall of Shame” where photographs of lynching are hung and other objects showing the violence of the civil rights era and the “Hall of Courage” where the “path” that the four men who participated in the first sit-in at the Woolworth lunch counter walked. This “path” is lined with images of Martin Luther King Jr., Sojourner Truth and Gandhi along with other important figures in the Civil Rights movement.
Although I have not been to the museum personally, I found the author’s critiques of the museum helpful. One examples of this is when Rothstein makes the observation that one of the weaknesses of the museum is that it tries to make the events or sentiments greater and more intense when “the are powerful enough to speak on their own” (C5). The author supports his point by making the statement that visitors will almost feel a sense of relief when they enter the theater after they walk through the Hall of Shame because they are no longer required to look on the images of civil rights era violence. I think this statement makes a good point in that it shows that people do not need to be shown a large amount of images of a particular violent event or an event where the lack of humanity is particularly prevalent in order for the emotion that the exhibit’s designers are trying to convey to the visitor. However, there are exceptions to this idea such as in the Holocaust museum in Washington D.C. where the idea is to convey the all-consuming despair the victims felt.
I think Rothstein’s article helped me visualize what the museum that he was writing about in his article looked like and how the exhibits were set up a great deal. Before I started reading the various museum and exhibition review articles in the New York Times, the thought that you could review and critique a museum or a museum exhibit was something that I had never really given much thought. However, when I read Rothstein’s article, the article gave me a better understanding of how you can critique a museum or a museum’s exhibits. The article was interesting and I found it to be very informative. In addition to this, I plan on making a habit of reading museum and museum exhibit reviews because of the information and ideas they contain and because I find them interesting.
Works Cited
Rothstein, Edward. “Four Men, A Counter And Soon, Revolution.” New York Times 1 Feb. 2000, natl. ed.: C1+.
No comments:
Post a Comment