Building a Narrative of Pride and Hope

 Rory Engel

Building a Narrative of Pride and Hope

  This week, our group narrowed down our case to four people: Paul Newman, Bill Watterson, Carl Djerassi, and John Crowe Ransom. In picking these individuals, not only did we try and determine what makes these people notable, but we also began to think about what sort of narrative we wanted to create for each person and what archival items would help to produce these stories. Though we are still working through what the message behind our case will be, it was important to us that all of the individuals we picked had a great and impactful presence both at Kenyon as well as in the outside world. Julián and I kept this in mind as we did a more thorough sift through the archives on Tuesday. We decided that we liked the fact that the current notable people case has a photo of each person on display, so we started with finding these photos. As Julián contemplated two photos of Paul Newman, one being a headshot after his time at Kenyon and one of him and the brothers of Alpha Delta Phi, he raised an important question we had yet to think of. He asked me whether it was better to represent these individuals during their time at Kenyon or to instead show them and their success after graduating. After pondering this for a bit, we decided to include both photos in hopes of encompassing both of these things. One of our critiques of the current notable people case is that some of the items felt disconnected from Kenyon without any context. While of course, these individuals all have done important work that may be irrelevant to Kenyon, we would at least like to tell a general story of their time at Kenyon and how it may have played a role in their success. In aiming to do this, we then went through the boxes for the rest of our individuals and tried to curate a set of items that displayed both their success within and outside of Kenyon. Another discussion we had during this meeting was how we would like to organize the case. While we liked how the current case gave each individual their own section, we felt that it was imbalanced in its distribution of writing and photographs. This guided the number of writing versus image-based items we selected for our individuals, and it helped us to think of how exactly we could organize our items to create the best flow. While we need to finish curating John Crowe Ransom’s items next Monday, I feel that we did a lot of productive work this week as far as determining our intentions and how to communicate those to an audience most effectively.

In “The Political Economy of Memory: The Challenges of Representing National Conflict at ‘Identity-Driven’ Museums”, Robyn Autry urges us to view museums representing black history as something that helps to form certain narratives of “group identity formation.” She explains that, though the history may be dark, the intention behind such museums is to create pride rather than a sense of re-lived trauma for black people. What most interested me about Autry’s discussion was the juxtaposition between the troubling past that was being presented and the duties of a museum as a public institution to be successful and economical. She explains that “an array of tensions and contradictions influence museum content, especially the simultaneous needs to educate and to entertain the public, in order to attract audiences and donors.” (Autry 2013:61) The emphasis on the need to entertain strikes me, but it also makes sense. Especially when thinking about it in conversation with education, a museum must find ways to get people to visit to be educated. In the current day, people can easily educate themselves on black history from the comfort of their computer, so museums must make themselves stand out and in some way seem enticing. Even further, when thinking about what exactly will be displayed at the museum, Autry brings up the fact that this is not only swayed by what narrative curators would like to create but also by the political economy. This is discussed in the context of a newer wave of museums which Autry describes as the post-Civil Rights era museums, and she explains that such museums are “explicitly premised on efforts to attract new audiences, businesses, and eventually residents to inner-cities.” (Autry 2013: 74) This means that, to continue doing well economically, developers must think beyond what narrative they would like to create. Decisions must be informed by what donors they would like to receive money from and what new audience they would like to gain among many other factors. 

While our notable people case differs greatly from black museums in both tone and intention, I did find a bit of overlap in terms of the decision-making and curating. Though our group is only working on a single case, the room that holds the case feels as though it could be an exhibit within the larger context of a museum, which to me is an exciting way to think about it. One similarity I noticed between our case and the black history museums described by Autry was the emphasis on creating some sort of narrative. When someone visits a black history museum, the goal is for them to not only leave with new knowledge but to also have learned it through a certain narrative that implies a sense of pride in this history. While we may need to work to create a more focused narrative, our group hopes that audiences will read our case as a general story of each of the individual’s experiences as they spent time at Kenyon and beyond. Though the content cannot be compared to the content of black history museums which reveal struggle and pain, both seek to have viewers leave feeling hopeful. In the case of our topic, notable people, I hope viewers may reflect on their own experiences at Kenyon and imagine what successes they may have in the future. Something else we needed to consider that was mentioned by Autry was keeping viewers engaged. One way of doing this was by choosing individuals who we found interesting. Just as museums must consider what is current and interesting to attract people to come, we wanted to pick especially engaging individuals. Though picking our individuals took time and consideration, one person whom we immediately knew we needed to include was Bill Watterson, the writer of Calvin and Hobbes comics. People are generally entertained by comics and enjoy reading them, and we felt that including Watterson could be an impactful way to represent the notable people of Kenyon. The last of Autry’s points that I brought up regarding economic success and bringing in new audiences are not things we needed to worry about, but we did consider who might see it. Julián humorously said that Bill Watterson may see this display, and though said as a joke, we did consider what he would think of the display. Would he and the other individuals enjoy the light we have shone them in? Would they be willing to support this narrative of themselves? Though these questions are purely hypothetical, keeping them in mind has helped us to curate our case in the way we see best fit.

References

Autry, Robin. 2013. “The Political Economy of Memory: The Challenges of Representing National Conflict at ‘Identity-Driven’ Museums.” Theory and Society 42(1):57-80.