Chapter 5 of “Stuffed Animals & Pickled Heads” titled “Exhibiting Evolution: Diversity, Order, and the Construction of Nature” explores the idea of evolution and how museums choose to display evolution within their collections. I found it interesting how different natural history museums around the world take different approaches to displaying evolution. The American Museum of Natural History for example stresses cladistics, while the Natural History Museum in London emphasizes Darwinian evolution, and the Grande Galerie in Paris emphasizes mutation. Asma writes, “It has to be remembered here that these contemporary differences between evolutionary museums are matters of emphasis, not complete exclusions or of inclusions of subjects” (Asma, 199). I think it is important to note that the museums do not ignore different ideas of evolution but that they emphasize certain theories.
Another point I found interesting in the reading was the increasingly prevalent role that biodiversity plays in natural history museums. When reading this section of the book I thought about the Hall of Biodiversity that we visited on the last museum trip. In this hall there was a large emphasis on environmental destruction and preservation while making clear the vast diversity in our planet. I thought it was interesting that the main message in the Grande Galerie in Paris is biodiversity, which they incorporated throughout the museum. If the AMNH followed the lead of the Grande Galerie and incorporated the idea biodiversity throughout its plant and animal halls then the museum would better educate the public about some of the issues that are affecting our world today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I saw the clock strike midnight, saw it was Tuesday, and remembered the one thing I remember every Tuesday: I needed to turn in my Ethnography Reading Write Up.
ReplyDeleteWould it be too obvious of me to say I was taken back to the piece we read about horses developing over time? Probably, so off topic and onto a tangent I stray, I walked through the entire museum over the weekend, spending at least 10 minutes in even the small halls, and think the ideas in the writing this week are interesting to apply not only to the subjects of the museum but the museum itself. I observed the halls with a very critical eye and wish I had written my personal guesses regarding what year the rooms were established because it was very clear across the board the progresses that were made. What I am directing myself towards is that The Grande Galeries consistency is definitely not something The AMNH parallels (Seriously, what is with the Guggenheim Hall of Minerals?) and because of it there is a serious lack of focus. They create an opportunity for people to skim and hit the highlights because there is such a high/low education level as well as a very diverse entertainment level-- who is going to inspect the dark musty Northwest Coast Indian hall rather than sit below a fantastical giant whale, without a personal agenda? This is an issue our class has been circling, and, to answer the question, it is someone with a camera who wants snapshots of odd items. There, I put it out there. (This is a joke, kind of.) Anyways, what I am saying in my awful sleepy satire attempting way is that the museum maybe should slow its role in the research of biodiversity and start looking inward at the extreme biodiversity. Also, I am really screwed if this is supposed to be a reflection of the writing rather than a commentary that is influenced by it. Could someone let me know if I have it all wrong? Please?