“History is perpetually suspicious of memory, and its true mission is to suppress and destroy it.” Pierre Nora 1989
To me this quote from ‘Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire’ seems to express the idea that museums present only fact and being should be the authoritative voice for the nation. The idea that memory is a critique of history. However, from day one of our field school we have seen museums opening up to memory work and inclusion. Some creating exhibitions with multiple voices and personal narratives. Through the field school I’m seeing the difference between history and memory and that they need not be in competition, rather they can be complimentary.
At the Vietnam Women’s Museum we learned that museums are crucial sites of memory, and heard of exhibitions such as ‘Single Mothers’ which told personal stories from marginalised women. Then as I looked through the galleries I was drawn in by the ‘Mother Goddess’ exhibition and particularly it’s use of personal stories. As an unfamiliar visitor, the first person quotes and multi-faceted approach, including a sound track, helped me to get a sense of how everyday people feel about the Goddess. Along with the ceremonies and rituals that reinforce this cultural memory which looks to the future with the past ancestors in mind. To me it seemed that this museum is an example of the movement towards memory work, community participation and inclusion.
The next day at the Military History Museum we learned of their plan to update their galleries. So the question emerges: how should we remember? And importantly, how can this Museum stay relevant to a generation who didn’t live through the conflicts? Could memory work be an option in this case? The voice throughout the different exhibitions is patriotic, presenting a unified voice of achievement and triumph. As museums play a key role in the intergenerational communication of these histories, could the addition of more personal narratives generate empathy for the general visitor and the younger generation? Potentially bringing the past into the present and keeping memory alive.
The Museum of Ethnology appeared to be successfully undertaking memory work. When Professor Nyguyen Van Huy spoke of the exhibition held ten years ago about life under the subsidy economy, he told us that the timing was right to do an exhibition of this kind. With an approach of first finding the stories and then allowing the objects to come to light from them, we heard of an exhibition in which curators worked collaboratively with the community to include a narrative of diverse voices. Although the exhibition was extended, it sadly was not enough for us to get a glimpse firsthand into this world where a young couple who were both doctors kept a pig in their bathroom to sell for extra money. We heard how these true reconstructions and personal stories had made strong connections with visitors. Those who lived through this time reminisced about the past together, and made the exhibition come alive. The Professor acknowledged that this was a big challenge. And I’m not sure that this is something that all museums are ready for.
Movements towards memory in Vietnam’s museums allow the visitors additional ways of relating to the past without necessarily rivalling history. From ‘History, Memory, and the Genre of Testimony’ of 2006 by Aleida Assmann, this now seems more pertinent: “The question to be asked is no longer merely what has happened? but also how was the event experienced, how is it remembered and passed on to succeeding generations?”
To me this quote from ‘Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire’ seems to express the idea that museums present only fact and being should be the authoritative voice for the nation. The idea that memory is a critique of history. However, from day one of our field school we have seen museums opening up to memory work and inclusion. Some creating exhibitions with multiple voices and personal narratives. Through the field school I’m seeing the difference between history and memory and that they need not be in competition, rather they can be complimentary.
At the Vietnam Women’s Museum we learned that museums are crucial sites of memory, and heard of exhibitions such as ‘Single Mothers’ which told personal stories from marginalised women. Then as I looked through the galleries I was drawn in by the ‘Mother Goddess’ exhibition and particularly it’s use of personal stories. As an unfamiliar visitor, the first person quotes and multi-faceted approach, including a sound track, helped me to get a sense of how everyday people feel about the Goddess. Along with the ceremonies and rituals that reinforce this cultural memory which looks to the future with the past ancestors in mind. To me it seemed that this museum is an example of the movement towards memory work, community participation and inclusion.
The next day at the Military History Museum we learned of their plan to update their galleries. So the question emerges: how should we remember? And importantly, how can this Museum stay relevant to a generation who didn’t live through the conflicts? Could memory work be an option in this case? The voice throughout the different exhibitions is patriotic, presenting a unified voice of achievement and triumph. As museums play a key role in the intergenerational communication of these histories, could the addition of more personal narratives generate empathy for the general visitor and the younger generation? Potentially bringing the past into the present and keeping memory alive.
The Museum of Ethnology appeared to be successfully undertaking memory work. When Professor Nyguyen Van Huy spoke of the exhibition held ten years ago about life under the subsidy economy, he told us that the timing was right to do an exhibition of this kind. With an approach of first finding the stories and then allowing the objects to come to light from them, we heard of an exhibition in which curators worked collaboratively with the community to include a narrative of diverse voices. Although the exhibition was extended, it sadly was not enough for us to get a glimpse firsthand into this world where a young couple who were both doctors kept a pig in their bathroom to sell for extra money. We heard how these true reconstructions and personal stories had made strong connections with visitors. Those who lived through this time reminisced about the past together, and made the exhibition come alive. The Professor acknowledged that this was a big challenge. And I’m not sure that this is something that all museums are ready for.
Movements towards memory in Vietnam’s museums allow the visitors additional ways of relating to the past without necessarily rivalling history. From ‘History, Memory, and the Genre of Testimony’ of 2006 by Aleida Assmann, this now seems more pertinent: “The question to be asked is no longer merely what has happened? but also how was the event experienced, how is it remembered and passed on to succeeding generations?”
No comments:
Post a Comment