by Anna Reznik
This newer interpretive exhibit at the Checkpoint Charlie Museum in Berlin differs from older exhibits that are more likely to simply display artifacts.
During the fall of 2008, I had a unique experience as an intern and a visitor to many European historic sites. My perspective as a student of public history gave me the opportunity to look at techniques employed in museum exhibits, historical preservation, and archives. I couldn’t help but compare how museums in European countries displayed and interpreted their history compared to those in the United States and other European countries. Below are my observations regarding the differences between how interpreters on two continents approach public history.
In Europe, I noticed a difference in attitudes toward preserving history and interpretation when visiting controversial buildings or buildings that had been neglected. It seemed to me that sites related to events that a culture does not want to highlight will be forgotten and later neglected beyond repair. Buildings might also be neglected because there is not enough time or resources to fix every structure in need of repair. I see this in the U.S. as well, but instead of an acknowledgment of a history full of uncomfortable themes, I feel that European preservation leans more toward “forgetting” this history and moving to a more comfortable history. I sensed that remembering unpleasant history was not a priority, so certain buildings were more likely neglected.
How Europeans remember and learn history at public history sites differs from Americans. I noticed that signage describing historical background or why a location was preserved was minimal. This could be because Europeans are more likely to reuse buildings as opposed to leveling structures to build new ones. Also, a European structure might be important on multiple levels and therefore harder to interpret. It is common to see contemporary buildings next to ruins in Italy or Greece. These locations may not be the best for interpretation and signage. Sites with good locations seem to try to make up for another site’s interpretive obstacles. In some cases, sites were moved or rebuilt. In my experience, this is frowned upon in the U.S., but more acceptable in Europe.
Another reason for a site being underinterpreted is that while history sites are popular in Europe, there are many sites that address the same topic. Though there are other reasons for traveling to and within Europe, it is easy for a massive number of ruins, historic buildings, and museums to dominate any trip. In North America, other forms of tourist sites pull attention away from public history sites.
For these reasons, American public history sites have to compete with other forms of entertainment head on, as opposed to passively. This competition is obvious when comparing sites considered important to a country’s history. In my experience, American sites proactively teach visitors about history, while Europeans are more likely to show an artifact and let the visitor interpret it him- or herself.
During my travels, I noticed that European sites hosted a diversity of tourists, which presents an interpretive challenge. What is important to Germans might be a sour point for the French and vice versa. Interpretation exists in Europe more in the form of brochures and tours than signage, possibly because linguistic and cultural barriers can be tackled more easily with brochures and guided tours than signage. Topical brochures for sites cover and explain events in different ways. Material describing Malta’s military history, for instance, is longer in English than it is in Italian or French. The assumption I make is that those who read French or Italian are more familiar with their shared history. The materials merely remind French- or Italian-speaking visitors of this history before providing new information, while speakers of other languages may need more background information.
Targeted brochures present important information and allow visitors to read them at their leisure. Visitors can skip information they do not wish to learn about or already know to find information that interests them. However, one downside I see to this approach is that visitors read less information than they would listen to in a guided tour (especially if they are not aware that the brochures exist, which I have seen happen).
I noticed, too, that older museums interpret less, and this can be frustrating for those not familiar with a certain culture, history, or language of a nation or region. The National Museum of the Czech Republic’s original purpose was to legitimize that nation’s history through science and artifacts. The purpose was not to interpret the artifacts, but to give evidence that Bohemian and Moravian history was separate and unique from nearby German and Austrian history. Many of the site’s exhibits seemed outdated to me.
Think of the yellow wooden and glass cases that once dominated exhibits (and think, too, about why most interpretive sites have moved away from this approach). At some older museums in Europe, efforts have been made to change focus by adding interpretive and supplementary material. Temporary exhibits like those I am accustomed to seeing in the U.S. provide more flexibility and can be used to bring visitors into museums. These exhibits are often in multiple languages to reach a larger audience.
In cities like Berlin and Paris, tip-based tours are common. College students dominate these tours in both audience and guides. In these situations, one can see a new focus on expanding audiences by catering to specific, targeted groups.
In scholarly journals and books that interpret and explore a single topic, multiple perspectives exist. This trend can also be seen in public history. In Europe, newer interpretive sites and independently owned museums focus on niche audiences and try to explain why their site and new exhibits do something other sites do not. Older museums on both continents are geared more toward telling a united history or a shared history. Additions and changes allow later generations to interpret what unites the audience and how the audience sees its past, present, and future.
It is possible, and highly likely, that the audience-focused approach is a byproduct of Canadian, American, and Australian tourism in Europe. Sites dealing with recent and more sensitive topics tend to target a foreign audience. Some Europeans commented to me that they had no need to relive certain eras or that they already knew about certain subjects, and the experience would not provide new information.
This sign at the Lidice Memorial in the Czech Republic includes text in Czech and Russian.
The Communist era provides an example. My experience is that museums in the U.S. and other non-Communist areas display and interpret items and events from this period in the larger context of history. In countries with Communism in their past, museums portray that era more as an outlier, an era separate from the past and the present. At some sites, Communist-era topics are not fully tackled because many historians feel the events are too recent to interpret.
One byproduct of focusing on the Communist era is contested interpretations or a sense of unshared history. In east Berlin, near the former location of the Berlin Wall, one particular building was used as a recreational center and a housing complex. East Berliners associated this building with their history and considered it part of their identities. West Berliners saw it as an eyesore and wanted to tear it down. They compromised and kept the building with plans for beautification. Though the building was destroyed in November (not for political reasons, but because it was found to contain asbestos) and nothing has been planned to replace it, it does show compromises are at least attempted.
Europeans and Americans involved in interpreting public history can learn from each other. American preservationists can watch Europeans for clues on how to interpret historic buildings next to newer buildings, while the methods I associate with American public history sites, such as offering interactive interpretive experiences, are effective enough to be implemented on another continent.
The manner in which European and American sites deal with the interpretation of public history reflects cultural differences that visitors will clearly notice. Though as the world becomes smaller through travel and technology, it is interesting to watch as sites in both cultures learn from one another and adopt techniques employed overseas.
Anna Reznik is a history graduate student at Colorado State University. Her emphasis is museum studies.
Opposite Sides of the Pond: A Student’s Perspective
by Anna Reznik
This newer interpretive exhibit at the Checkpoint Charlie Museum in Berlin differs from older exhibits that are more likely to simply display artifacts.
During the fall of 2008, I had a unique experience as an intern and a visitor to many European historic sites. My perspective as a student of public history gave me the opportunity to look at techniques employed in museum exhibits, historical preservation, and archives. I couldn’t help but compare how museums in European countries displayed and interpreted their history compared to those in the United States and other European countries. Below are my observations regarding the differences between how interpreters on two continents approach public history.
In Europe, I noticed a difference in attitudes toward preserving history and interpretation when visiting controversial buildings or buildings that had been neglected. It seemed to me that sites related to events that a culture does not want to highlight will be forgotten and later neglected beyond repair. Buildings might also be neglected because there is not enough time or resources to fix every structure in need of repair. I see this in the U.S. as well, but instead of an acknowledgment of a history full of uncomfortable themes, I feel that European preservation leans more toward “forgetting” this history and moving to a more comfortable history. I sensed that remembering unpleasant history was not a priority, so certain buildings were more likely neglected.
How Europeans remember and learn history at public history sites differs from Americans. I noticed that signage describing historical background or why a location was preserved was minimal. This could be because Europeans are more likely to reuse buildings as opposed to leveling structures to build new ones. Also, a European structure might be important on multiple levels and therefore harder to interpret. It is common to see contemporary buildings next to ruins in Italy or Greece. These locations may not be the best for interpretation and signage. Sites with good locations seem to try to make up for another site’s interpretive obstacles. In some cases, sites were moved or rebuilt. In my experience, this is frowned upon in the U.S., but more acceptable in Europe.
Another reason for a site being underinterpreted is that while history sites are popular in Europe, there are many sites that address the same topic. Though there are other reasons for traveling to and within Europe, it is easy for a massive number of ruins, historic buildings, and museums to dominate any trip. In North America, other forms of tourist sites pull attention away from public history sites.
For these reasons, American public history sites have to compete with other forms of entertainment head on, as opposed to passively. This competition is obvious when comparing sites considered important to a country’s history. In my experience, American sites proactively teach visitors about history, while Europeans are more likely to show an artifact and let the visitor interpret it him- or herself.
During my travels, I noticed that European sites hosted a diversity of tourists, which presents an interpretive challenge. What is important to Germans might be a sour point for the French and vice versa. Interpretation exists in Europe more in the form of brochures and tours than signage, possibly because linguistic and cultural barriers can be tackled more easily with brochures and guided tours than signage. Topical brochures for sites cover and explain events in different ways. Material describing Malta’s military history, for instance, is longer in English than it is in Italian or French. The assumption I make is that those who read French or Italian are more familiar with their shared history. The materials merely remind French- or Italian-speaking visitors of this history before providing new information, while speakers of other languages may need more background information.
Targeted brochures present important information and allow visitors to read them at their leisure. Visitors can skip information they do not wish to learn about or already know to find information that interests them. However, one downside I see to this approach is that visitors read less information than they would listen to in a guided tour (especially if they are not aware that the brochures exist, which I have seen happen).
I noticed, too, that older museums interpret less, and this can be frustrating for those not familiar with a certain culture, history, or language of a nation or region. The National Museum of the Czech Republic’s original purpose was to legitimize that nation’s history through science and artifacts. The purpose was not to interpret the artifacts, but to give evidence that Bohemian and Moravian history was separate and unique from nearby German and Austrian history. Many of the site’s exhibits seemed outdated to me.
Think of the yellow wooden and glass cases that once dominated exhibits (and think, too, about why most interpretive sites have moved away from this approach). At some older museums in Europe, efforts have been made to change focus by adding interpretive and supplementary material. Temporary exhibits like those I am accustomed to seeing in the U.S. provide more flexibility and can be used to bring visitors into museums. These exhibits are often in multiple languages to reach a larger audience.
In cities like Berlin and Paris, tip-based tours are common. College students dominate these tours in both audience and guides. In these situations, one can see a new focus on expanding audiences by catering to specific, targeted groups.
In scholarly journals and books that interpret and explore a single topic, multiple perspectives exist. This trend can also be seen in public history. In Europe, newer interpretive sites and independently owned museums focus on niche audiences and try to explain why their site and new exhibits do something other sites do not. Older museums on both continents are geared more toward telling a united history or a shared history. Additions and changes allow later generations to interpret what unites the audience and how the audience sees its past, present, and future.
It is possible, and highly likely, that the audience-focused approach is a byproduct of Canadian, American, and Australian tourism in Europe. Sites dealing with recent and more sensitive topics tend to target a foreign audience. Some Europeans commented to me that they had no need to relive certain eras or that they already knew about certain subjects, and the experience would not provide new information.
This sign at the Lidice Memorial in the Czech Republic includes text in Czech and Russian.
The Communist era provides an example. My experience is that museums in the U.S. and other non-Communist areas display and interpret items and events from this period in the larger context of history. In countries with Communism in their past, museums portray that era more as an outlier, an era separate from the past and the present. At some sites, Communist-era topics are not fully tackled because many historians feel the events are too recent to interpret.
One byproduct of focusing on the Communist era is contested interpretations or a sense of unshared history. In east Berlin, near the former location of the Berlin Wall, one particular building was used as a recreational center and a housing complex. East Berliners associated this building with their history and considered it part of their identities. West Berliners saw it as an eyesore and wanted to tear it down. They compromised and kept the building with plans for beautification. Though the building was destroyed in November (not for political reasons, but because it was found to contain asbestos) and nothing has been planned to replace it, it does show compromises are at least attempted.
Europeans and Americans involved in interpreting public history can learn from each other. American preservationists can watch Europeans for clues on how to interpret historic buildings next to newer buildings, while the methods I associate with American public history sites, such as offering interactive interpretive experiences, are effective enough to be implemented on another continent.
The manner in which European and American sites deal with the interpretation of public history reflects cultural differences that visitors will clearly notice. Though as the world becomes smaller through travel and technology, it is interesting to watch as sites in both cultures learn from one another and adopt techniques employed overseas.
Anna Reznik is a history graduate student at Colorado State University. Her emphasis is museum studies.
Posted in Commentaries, Interpreting Public History
Tags: 2008, American public history sites, Anna Reznik, brochures, College students, Colorado State University, cultural barriers, European historic sites, Europeans and Americans, interpretation, interpretation of public history, preserving history, public history sites, signage, Student's Perspective, targeted groups, Temporary exhibits, The National Museum of the Czech Republic, travel