The readings in Dinosaurs in the Attic introduced a view on the museum that I had not previously seen, and in doing so effectively aided in illuminating the character of the museum behind the collections themselves. In each of the chapters, Preston blends factual representation of the museum’s collection, in explaining to the reader the shear magnitude of the museum’s sampling of the natural world, with anecdotes that seek to expose the heart of the institution. The tale of Meshie, for example, is exemplary of how the museum does not seek to establish itself as a place that is separate from the natural world; instead, it portrays the love for nature that is inherent in the attitude of the museum. While the storerooms may be lined with alcoholics and animal bones, those who maintain the collections are eternally mindful that creatures do not exist to serve as specimens, but rather that specimens serve to aid our understanding of the living creatures. It can be easy to fall into the trap of assuming that entomologists do not even think of the insects that they study as creatures that exist outside of collections. This chapter, however, shows us academics with a desire to observe life for the enjoyment that results from witnessing another creature go about its habit. Preston on a whole, does a brilliant job of bringing life to an institution based around death, and convincing the reader that death, as an exhibition, is a celebration of life.

Museum Observations

After the readings we had done, and the discussions in class... I couldn't stop thinking about the major difference between the 'art' in the AMNH and the art in other museums... It had all at one point been alive, and was killed deliberately for the art (scientific reasons as well, in some cases).

Thursday was my first time ever visiting the museum. Maybe if I had visited when I was a kid, or at a different time in my life when I'm not so bombarded by existential ideas (university...) I would be able to perceive the museum in a different way, but my perspective has been pretty narrow recently and all I could think about was the fact that I was looking at dead animals...

It's funny how they place them in these scenes to replicate their natural state... I think this trying to make them look lively just makes them look more lifeless, and less less real to me.

Because all of this was on my mind, when I was looking at the displays, I couldn't help but notice the representation of death. In the South Georgia penguins display there is a king penguin feeding on a dead penguin chick. In the key, all of the penguins drawings were in bold, even the ones not corresponding to s unique #, but the one being fed upon was just an outline. It was considered part of the background... because it was dead. Maybe this was just a thoughtless or aesthetic choice, but I found it to be very interesting, and telling in the way that the museum doesn't really want to confront or discuss death.

-Vanessa Rose

(sorry this is a little late.....)

Ellery 2/16

The museum visit on Thursday was very exciting. I was more observant then I have ever been and consequently saw many things that I have skipped over every other time. Firstly, the quotes from Theodore Roosevelt in the Roosevelt Rotunda section of the museum are of great interest. I was especially struck by his words in relation to youth:
I want to see you game, boys, I want to see you brave and manly, and I also want to see you gentle and tender. Be practical as well as generous in your ideals. Keep your eyes on the stars and keep your feet on the ground. Courage, hard work, self-mastery, and intelligent effort are all essential to successful life. Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike.
The struggle for manhood has become such an important part of our history. The struggle betweens the Victorian ideals self-restraint and “innate savage” inside all men was realized by Teddy Roosevelt himself. In this quote he encourages young boys to exercise their wild side and their gentle side in order to be the perfect man. Within this one room, there are so many quotes that not only glorify manhood by also link manliness to nationhood. For Roosevelt, being a man meant being patriotic and violence was necessary to protect your nation and your manhood. I never noticed until recently how the museum represents man’s exploration, man’s discovery, and man’s domination over nature, no women allowed!. I have been going for years and never saw the writings on the wall, literally. These sections that we saw were also great; I had never even seen the reptiles and amphibians section. Depending on what section I was looking at, animals were either separated by region, or species. In the Birds of the world section, the animals were separated by region. Each diorama had up to 50 or 60 birds including plant life and scenery that might have been common in the area of interest. My favorite part of the dioramas is the amount of detail that went into the creation of each. The most beautiful of all was the little hummingbird that I found in the corner of the American Tropical Rainforest that was in mid-flight, sucking the pollen from a flower in a tree. It’s amazing how lively all these dead animals look, as if there are frozen in time.

readings week 4

I enjoyed both the readings specially the Haraway reading , I liked the way it was creatively written . I found interesting how they described Taxidermy as a “craft of remembering this perfect experience. Realism was a supreme achievement of the art memory, a rhetorical achievement crucial to the foundation of western science” they wanted to tell the truth of nature an from this dream, Carl Akeley advanced the art of taxidermy. It became a process of recreation based on the principles of organic form. Diorama is definitely a story, told by a “photographer’s vision and a sculpture’s vision”, I don’t believe it’s the ultimate truth, but it is definitely a close story to it. more over I agree with Kortney’s statement :“ human fascination with different species being like us”. We believe we have the power to own a life and force one to live the way we want to. Raven’s story is seen in repeatedly times and we will keep happening if we keep pretending to educate animals.

readings 2/15

I really enjoyed both readings. Though I don't agree with a lot of what was touched on in 'Teddy Bear Patriarchy' in regards to the killing of innocent animals, I did find it interesting. The language that was used was sometimes overly ornate, but also quite beautiful at times. I particularly liked this quote and the images it inspires: "The moment of origin where nature and culture, private and public, profane and sacred meet - a moment of incarnation in the encounter of man and animal". I liked this because it makes me think of the vision of each diorama. If only every museum goer had these type of thoughts in mind when peering through the glass at the once-living, once-breathing, once-moving animals. Each diorama offers a window into knowledge, yet sometimes, the knowledge of how they came to be, can make you want to turn away. It makes me upset that we take pleasure in marveling the beasts that stand behind the protective glass of the dioramas. Most did not die peacefully. Though it can be argued that they are forever immortalized this way, it can also be argued that just like human beings, these animals also have souls, and how could they ever move on to the next place if their bodies are stuffed and kept inside glass boxes? Thinking about this makes me wonder if there have ever been reports of paranormal disturbances in the museum that could perhaps be of animal nature.

I thought that the story of Meshie the chimp related well to the Haraway reading about Carl Akeley and his quest to find African mammals. It makes me sad that her life had to end in a cage in a zoo after the wonderful life she shared with Raven and his family. Another thing that came to mind is that Chimp Travis who ripped a woman's face off in Connecticut a few years ago. He was a pet and just attacked his owner's friend who was wearing her hair a different way then he was used to. They had to put him down, of course. I know that Raven didn't know any better because it had never really been done before, and Meshie was an orphan Chimp, but the lesson here is not to mess with nature. There are certain animals that should not be domesticated. Actually, very few animals can/should be domesticated (cats and dogs), but even they could survive fine without humans. Zoos are a prime example of why it is wrong to take animals out of their natural habitats.
Carl Akeley's quest to find the "perfect" adult male of each species struck me as absurd. The fact that he would spend weeks looking for this adult male with perfect proportions and take any number of risks to find and kill him, yet wouldn't think twice of spending that much time looking for a perfect female of each species is annoying to me. There would be no perfect male without a female, and who was he to judge what was "perfect" or not.
I really liked the story about the ordeal the python endured to get the mold made, especially because they didn't have to kill him. Also, I thought it was amazing how the nonpareil birds make huge apartment nests that they all live in.

Mairo Cedeno Response 2/15

When reading “Dinosaurs in the Attic” by Douglass J. Preston it was interesting learning about the wide variety and large number of animals that the American Museum of Natural History houses within its walls. The museum contains thousands of dead/preserved animals and most of the museum’s collection is behind closed walls and cut off from public view. It is from these animals and artifacts that scientists are able to study the animals and make discoveries. Reading stories of back rooms stocked with elephant heads and tanks containing tigers and panthers I was struck by how much of the museum that the average visitor does not see. The museum is not just a place for people to look at specimens and learn from them, it is also a place for scientific research.

In the chapters we read Preston gives the reader a kind of tour of some of the different sections of the museum and some history behind each. I found it interesting how some of the animals ended up in the museum in the first place, such as with the story of Meshie the chimp. The story of Meshie illustrates how animals in the museum have histories of their own and many have interesting stories of how they ended up in the museum. Another point I found relevant was when the author discusses how the museum began displaying birds in their “habitat group”. The habitat groups that our class saw in the museum are important in displaying the birds and gives the viewer a sense of the animal’s habitat and way of life. Reading these chapters gave me more insight into how the museum works and about the history of the museum.

Response for 2/15

I really loved these readings. Yes the Haraway piece was dense, and at times a bit flowery, but I really loved the juxtaposition of both texts. In terms of Dinosaurs in The Attic, I found that story of Meshie Mungkut (Harry Raven's pet monkey) to be really fitting with the Haraway reading. Besides being an incredibly sad story, it's an interesting look at the human fascination with different species being like us. Raven raised the monkey like a daughter, but in the end realized he couldn't control the biological constraints of her.

I was fascinated with the idea of manhood and this need to prove the power of humanness with the domination of a species. One of my favorite quotes was early on in the Haraway reading when she says, "The joining of life and death in these icons of Roosevelt's journeys...announces the central moral truth of the museum. This is the effective truth of manhood...the body can be transcended...'man is the sex which risks life and in so doing, achieves his existence..." (23). I find this idea so interesting in terms of the museum, and the anthropological lifestyle of the early 1900's, seeing as its this constant proving of human dominance. Akeeley killing that male silver back gorilla, was not only a matter of science, but showed a construction of power. The human (man) destroyed such a powerful creature in nature, and thus garners a sense of self. That's just really interesting to me for some reason.

Also I just wanted to note that the bug stories from Dinosaurs in the Attic were so good. Could you imagine being in an exhibit and seeing a scorpion walking around? Crazy. Also that roach story was so disturbing and brilliant all at the same.

Responses for 2-15-10

As grateful as I am to Carl Akeley for preserving natural history and making the modern museum experience tangible for almost 100 years I am a little disgusted. I am not a PETA activist nor do I feel guilt for the death of an animal in the name or science, a "greater good," if you will. But I do have a quam with him for planning multiple safaris to Africa for the express reason of proving that the hunting of animals is family friendly by inviting women and children to hunt. Perhaps their invitation was to alleviate his own conscience. Putting aside hunting as proof of manhood, the sublime racism of the myth of the "native," and the cruelty of placing one exotic animal's life above another, Akeley's expeditions are teetering on noble and trigger happy. Turn of the century was a different time, place and way of thinking especially for the men who want to educate the unwashed masses, but taking kids to see a majestic beast cut down by a bullet is trying to normalize something that goes against nature. (Alpha males ie bull giraffes and silverback gorillas don't just die and disappear suddenly, and by interfering in the animal dynamic we throw off their natural equilibrium) I know Akeley was shooting for "telling the truth" within his dioramas, but I think after a certain quota this becomes cruel. Bronzed scenes of these animals, large paintings or artificial mannequins would have been a better alternative. I am pleased that Akeley worked to protect the Congo by opening nature preserves and expressing his concern for extinction but I can't help but feel that it's inadequate because so many animals were dying the second they came in contact with his camp. Not to mention the testosterone fueled "adventure" or it all. To me this seems like the classic white man dressed up as an anthropologist with a rifle and a butterfly net who thinks he's doing everyone a favor by intruding on foreign land, killing species beyond necessary and then calling his hunting a scientific trip. He really pushed the boundary between natural science and normalized bloodsport.

--Jewel Brooks