Blueprint Book Club Part 2: Museums as Battlefields in the History Wars

To contact us Click HERE
This post is the second in a series of reactions to Blueprint, a book chronicling the rise and fall of the Dutch Museum of National History (INNL) in 2008-2011. This guest post was written by Regan Forrest, exhibition developer and visitor experience researcher at the University of Queensland in Australia. Regan was struck by the similarities between the controversy around the Dutch Museum of National History and the issues that surrounded the National Museum of Australia when it opened ten years ago. 

As someone who has worked on several “ground-up” museum projects, somethat have made it to fruition, others not, I was particularly interested in thebackground context of INNL rather than the specifics of the planned museum. Inmy experience, there is often very little difference between the design andcontent of those that make it and those that don’t: it’s all about politics,economics, personalities and timing. A new national museum is a particularlyambitious undertaking, because what is being created is a highly visible andlong-standing statement about national identity, national priorities and aprojection of self-image to the world at large. Anyone with such a brief inthis day and age has their work cut out for them. The days of theunidimensional grand narrative are behind us, replaced by ongoing debate anddisagreement. It’s a far more complex picture to present.

The dismissal of the INNL’s plans as a ‘post-modern mish-mash’ (Blueprint, p219)immediately jumped out at me as something that might have been said in somequarters about the National Museum of Australia(NMA) when it opened in 2001. The NMAwas a key battlefield in Australia’s “History Wars," a continuing national debate about how we recognise, teach and interpret theknottier aspects of Australia’s colonial past. The NMA was accused ofpresenting a “black armband” view of Australia’s history (i.e., dwelling on thepredations of colonialism rather than celebrating national achievements).

Due to the political climate of the time, a review of the Museum was commissionedin 2003 to determine whether the museum had complied with the requirements of itscharter. The 2003 review found that, while accusations of systematic politicalbias were on the whole unwarranted, there were considerable issues with respectto both the museum’s physical and conceptual orientation. Signage wasinadequate and gallery titles were ambiguous and confusing. The outdoorcourtyard was an ‘overwhelming’ expanse of concrete, with symbolism that wasincomprehensible without considerable prior knowledge or the presence of aguide.

The review’s authors emphasised the importance of narrative (if notGrand Narrative) as a communication tool. In this sense, the NMA was deemedto have missed a trick. The linking themes and narratives of the museum wereinsufficiently explicit in many places, making the experience feel disjointed. Insome cases, the lack of a strong collection to support the storylines emphasisednarrative weaknesses. On the other hand, the review of the Museum’s programswas mostly favourable and the museum’s online presence was praised.

In response to the report, the NMA produced a Collections and Gallery Development Plan toaddress the issues highlighted. Changes to exhibitions and visitor orientationhave been made, the museum’s programs continue to evolve, and there is aredevelopment to the building currently underway which will expand the publicspaces and make it possible for the museum to display more of its iconicobjects.

The history wars may not have ended, but they have moved on to otherbattlefields.Overall, the 2003 review recognised that the NMA was a work in progress.There was an acknowledgement that institutions need time and space to evolve.The expectation that everything should be bang-on right from the time of ribboncutting is widespread but unrealistic.

So when considering plans on paper for a museum that didn’t even make itto the ribbon stage, some latitude is warranted. We don’t know how things wouldhave evolved from opening day. How would the competing views of Dutch history haveplayed out? To what extent would changing political tides have influenced theoutcome? Would the interlocking storylines have made sense to the averagevisitor? Would it have captured the imagination of audiences? Would visitorshave left feeling energised, or overwhelmed?

These questions may remain points of conjecture indefinitely. But if, asthe authors hope, the museum eventually becomes reality, we may well have achance to find out.