When I think about materiality, and what it means to handle objects of material culture, my first thoughts are always of my undergraduate days at Brandeis University. Before I studied archaeology, I didn’t think much about the experience of physical materials beyond their chemical makeup.
Let me start by saying that I had set off for college with a plan to major in chemistry and end up somewhere in the vicinity of materials engineering – a science kid. I had taken history in high school, but these classes were textbook-driven, and to be honest, a little boring.
Somewhat fortuitously, an advisor had recommended that I get my humanities electives “out of the way” and take a course on ancient Greece. The professor taught us with stories – that is, object biography intermingled with her personal experiences, either at excavation, in a museum, or as a student herself. In this class, I learned to enjoy visits to museums like the Boston MFA, and perhaps most formatively, I was given the opportunity to handle and study artifacts myself.
There is something otherworldly about it – a combination of nerves, excitement, and awe. To hold a piece of the past, to be responsible for it. This experience is not like reading about it in a book, or looking at images taken by someone else. What you see and think are your own observations, firsthand and unique.
Coincidentally, Art and Experiene in Classical Greece by J.J. Pollitt was one of the textbooks in this course, and I want to borrow the phrase “Art and Experience” as I continue, fast-forwarding to a more recent past. I think experience is what is important in learning about the arts and culture of the past, in order to internalize and interpret it for yourself.
The George P. Johnson collection contains records, letters, and news relating to early African American films (for more on the genre and history, see this site). But documents and audio are not easily conveyed in cases built primarily for visual display. Special collections provides access to objects and materials not normally on display in museums, especially those which are in need of similar protection and curating.
Leafing through the archives was an exercise in discovery – in building my own connections to these material objects and between them. What one person summarizes down to a letter for the sake of a catalog list may show the editing process in early film through annotations or the study thereof through scholia. It may describe the heroism of veterans, otherwise unsung, reflecting issues in the entertainment industry that may be seen in recent times. (Folder 1042, Lincoln Production Inc, Right By Birth Production; photos not posted due to permissions.)
So what about materiality? In some ways, the technological advantages of a collection like that of the Smithsonian provides access to objects in a different medium, intangible but visible and manipulable in a way that museums are not. Museums can be off-putting to some, especially if the exhibit only includes objects displayed in glass cases (understandably, most displays are set up for security and issues related to the preservation of the physical objects), accompanied only by captions to convey the most basic of details – and I remember my own disinterest in the museums I grew up with.
Modern-day museums need to continue to find ways to inform audiences across levels of expertise – providing both an engaging overview and access to more levels of detail. And technology provides a practical bridge between safety and access, while also being capable of additional layers of interactivity and engagement. Not everyone can spend a summer digging or traveling to museums and sites all over the world, but there is something cold and somewhat disconnected about an online-only exhibit, even if it may be well-researched and linked to other sources. Still, they are useful tools for a variety of reasons, and to different degrees, depending on an institution’s purpose. (For more information, see Stephen Conn, “Do Museums Still Need Objects?”)
But do museums still need objects? 3D replicas, cases, or otherwise, my answer is yes.
I agree with you; museums need objects. Even at the MoPOP (formerly the EMP), a museum only about pop culture, they feature memorabilia that weighs about equal in prevalence to the media elements. For example, there is an exhibit on the art of horror films and its evolution. TV booths featuring clips/mini documentaries of horror movies from the ages fill the majority of the space. But, throughout the space, there are cases full of old props and film related items to compliment the media. Without these objects, the exhibit would not have been as impactful, intriguing, or kept me in there for 2 hours! So, even when objects may be secondary to media in a museum, they are vital to experiencing an exhibit as a whole.