"Isn't it ironic... don't you think?"

And, I’m back. There seems to be yet another issue being faced by the CMHR in regards to their construction project, and I thought it was interesting.

Despite only breaking ground in April 2009, the construction efforts of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights have not been without (somewhat ironic) controversy. In June, Leigh Syms, a retired archaeologist and former curator for the Manitoba Museum, accused the CMHR of cultural insensitivity surrounding their treatment of First Nations heritage in the area. Apparently the new museum is being located on top of what Mr. Syms considers to be one of the richest deposits of First Nations artifacts in the province and he doesn’t think the museum’s 5-and-a-half month archaeological excavation of the site sufficiently preserved the wealth of artifacts present at the site. [1]

Interestingly, it is one of Antoine Predock’s design features that is providing museum representatives with their strongest defense against Syms’ claims – the entire museum will be built on piles. These piles will raise the majority of the building aboveground, reducing the pressure that will be put on the cultural layers of the site. So, while the remaining artifacts will be rendered inaccessible beneath the building, the theory is that they will not be harmed by the creation of the museum. [2]

I’m curious as to whether this consideration for cultural sensitivity played a part in Predock’s design plans or if his use of piles to preserve the underlying artifacts was just a happy side benefit of a purely cosmetic choice. Nothing in my research suggested deliberate action on his part (then again, nothing suggested that it wasn’t). And, if you consider some of Predock’s other architectural feats (specifically the Logjam House), you can see how he has used natural elements from the building’s surroundings to add to the aesthetic of the structure. So, I guess it’s entirely possible he may have taken the preservation of First Nations heritage into account as he designed the building.

One could hope, anyway.

Sources:

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/06/16/mb-museum-artifacts-human-rights.html
[2] Ibid.

The Rise of the "Starchitect"

This week in museology we briefly discussed the idea of the “starchitect” in response to mixed emotions surrounding Daniel Libeskind’s design of the Michael Lee-Chin Crystal addition to the Royal Ontario Museum’s (ROM) original buildings in 2007.

As I understand it, a “starchitect” is an architect whose work has made them a celebrity in their own right (Frank Lloyd Wright and Frank Gehry come to mind). The argument that has been made by some is that in seeking to hire these celebrity architects, museums are placing a greater value on the aesthetics of the buildings that house their collections and the publicity resulting from the attachment of a famous name to their project, than they are on the ability of the new space to function as a museum.

Oftentimes these new museums (or additions to existing museums) are visually striking creations of glass and steel, full of clean lines or sinuous curves. As a fan of modern architecture, I have to admit to finding many of these buildings both beautiful and intriguing. And I have been known, on occasion, to take planes, trains and automobiles just to be able to see the outside of one of these buildings. [Note: The photo to the right is one I took of Frank Gehry’s Dancing House in Prague – affectionately nicknamed the “Fred and Ginger Building”]

Unfortunately, architects are not museum workers and their designs often reflect this fact. One of the biggest criticisms of “starchitecture” is that while beautiful (or an eye-sore, depending on your point of view) they fail to take into account the practical day-to-day concerns of museum staff, such as excess natural light, heating and cooling, the feasibility of easily mounting paintings or displaying their artifacts, office space, collections storage, etc.

Considering the brouhaha surrounding The Crystal, I was curious as to the approach that went into choosing the design for the new Canadian Museum for Human Rights that is currently being built in Winnipeg. Upon a little research, I discovered that Antoine Predock’s design was chosen by “an international Architectural Review Committee (ARC) comprising architects, distinguished Canadian public servants and representatives of Friends of Canadian Museum for Human Rights Inc” (none of which are explicitly museum professionals). The objective set by the committee for the architects to guide them in their creations was for them to create “an inspirational building that achieves a complexity relating to the diversity of human experience.” If this was the only criteria that the architects vying for the job were given, then it seems that Predock’s design is a worthy choice – the building certainly looks complicated enough.

But where's the consideration of the building as a museum!? I realize that the CMHR is planning on focusing on technology-based exhibits as opposed to collections-based ones, but where's the consideration of light, or office space or any of the other countless concerns that I, as someone who has never worked in a museum, couldn't possibly fathom?

As the building is not due for completion until 2012, perhaps only time will tell how functional the space is as a museum. I’ll be interested to follow this museum as it develops.

Oh, and if you would like to follow the museum as it develops, be sure to check out the museum's website, where the progress at the construction site is taped 24/7 and then edited down to a 1 minute clip that is posted once a week. It's a bit like watching paint dry at the moment, but it'll be interesting to see the changes made to the site over the next two years.

Source of Quotations:

http://www.dexigner.com/design_news/1739.html

Social Networking Tools: A Career Killer?

During our first Digital History class the question of accuracy was raised in response to Kheraj’s article “Will Twitter Kill My Chance at an Academic Job?” Kheraj’s take on the subject seems to be that despite popular belief, hiring committees in academic institutions are not currently investigating online activity to screen job candidates. That’s excellent news... for those of us that wish to pursue further education or academic jobs after graduation. However, while this may be true for academic positions, it doesn’t necessarily hold up for all job positions out there. And, as my peers and I embark on the Public History program and begin to establish a professional presence online via Blogspot and Twitter, I think it’s reasonable to be concerned about the consequences (mis)using them could potentially have on our career chances outside of academia.

In class, Dana asked the question I think a lot of us were probably thinking, which is “how is it [our use of social networking tools on our personal time] any of their [employers] business?”

The truth is, depending on your job, it is their business. People who hold jobs in positions of public trust like politicians, police officers and teachers are considered to have jobs in which they are never 100 per cent off-duty (forgive me, I forget what the official term for this is). This means that when you act in the public sphere you are responsible not only to yourself but also to your employer for those actions. And, since the internet falls under the category of “public sphere,” it is possible that potential employers may look to your online presence when interviewing you.

In the June 2009 issue of Professionally Speaking (the magazine produced by the professional organization I belong to as an Ontario Certified Teacher), an article entitled “Can We Be Friends? Watching Your Electronic Footprint” addressed these very concerns. One of the many examples in the article describes a school superintendent in Missouri who asks teacher candidates if they have Facebook or MySpace accounts. If the answer is yes, he offers them use of his computer and asks them to bring up their page for him to see.

Bottom line, I don’t think that anyone should shy away from using social networking media for fear that it may damage their employability, but it doesn’t hurt to exercise some caution as you build your online persona(s).

[Note: The photo at the top of this post shows a bulletin board display put together by a class of 3rd graders at Fallingbrook PS in my hometown of Whitby, Ontario. The board was part of their teacher’s efforts to explore the public nature of the internet.]

We Are Not Alone

On a recent trip to Thailand I spotted this advertisement displayed outside of the October 14th/Democracy Monument in Bangkok:

I’m glad to see that other countries and cultures are concerned with some of the same issues that our graduate program will be examining this year. I only wish I could have read the details on the poster so that I’d have an idea of what the guest speakers would be lecturing on.

Virtual(ly) Auschwitz

Two years ago as a student teacher I took my tenth grade Canadian history class on a tour of Auschwitz-Birkenau. We started at the camp’s entrance – one teacher and twenty-eight students staring at a gate with its sly promise that “Work Will Make You Free.” From there we moved into the camp and spent the next hour exploring one of the most horrific examples of man’s inhumanity to man. And, while World War II’s worst extermination camp is located on a completely different continent, my students and I made the trip without ever leaving our school’s computer lab; the tour I took them on was a virtual one.

Although my students enjoyed the lesson and seemed to learn a lot from it, using virtual tours as a method of communicating history to the public is not one without its flaws. As amazing as virtual tours are in their ability to capture the physical environment of a historical site such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, I still find that they are at their most effective when combined with other forms of learning. For instance, in my case the majority of my students had participated in a Jewish Symposium as part of the Niagara District School Board’s Holocaust Education Week efforts before taking the virtual tour of Auschwitz. At the symposium students were treated to a lecture on Jewish resistance to the Holocaust given by a guest speaker from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, they watched a film entitled Paper Clips (2004) and spent the afternoon listening to survivor testimonies. Because of their previous experience at the symposium, students were able to make connections during the virtual tour between what they were seeing and reading on their computer screen and what Bill had told them of his time in Dachau. Without that personal testimonial to draw from, however, the major downfall of virtual tours becomes readily apparent; they often lack the ability to make the sort of impact that really resonates with learners.

We should also be careful to remember that not all virtual tours are created equally. These days, most webmasters have the ability to slap a bunch of photographs together, walk a visitor through them in a particular order and call it a ‘tour’. We’ve all seen it done. In contrast, I’ve found the virtual tour of Auschwitz-Birkenau to be one of the better ones that I’ve taken of a historical site. The site’s creators at Remember.Org have thoughtfully supplemented the 360 degree tour of the physical camp grounds with art work from survivors and links to relevant photographs and information on third party websites. This allows visitors to the site to complete the tour at their own pace, choosing for themselves which aspects of camp life strike a cord and warrant further examination.

It's clear that virtual tours can never replace the experience of actually visiting a historical site like Auschwitz-Birkenau. However, they do provide a unique way for people bound by geographic, monetary or time constraints to interact with history in a modern, meaningful way.