Freeman Tilden's Interpreting Our Heritage is a fantastically cogent exploration into the principles and effective methods of interpreting a historic site. In several short chapters, he defines his six key principles and how they have been applied to various historical interpretations around the United States.
Tilden attempts to boil the practice of interpretation down to the essentials so that this book might serve as an instructional guide to interpreters. He relates interpretation to a teachable art, while careful to outline that, "the interpreter should [not] be any sort of practicing artist--that he should read poems, give a dramatic performance, deliver an oration, become a tragic or comic thespian, or anything as horribly out of place as these. Nothing could be worse" (55).
The above quote made me laugh, first because I recently viewed the one-woman show at the National Constitution Center, which was certainly a little tough to swallow, and second, because a certain amount of my love for history derives from musicals such as Sondheim's "Assassins" or McNally's "Ragtime". I wonder if Tilden would argue that interpretation that happens on a stage rather than a historical site would be considered art instead of history? Would "Assassins" be any different if it were performed at Ford's Theatre?
Handler & Gable, in their explanation of the difficulties of interpreting Colonial Williamsburg, clash with Tilden. Tilden gives the audience equal authority over their reception of information at historical sites, whereas Handler & Gable consider interpreters responsible for controlling the information presented as well as the means by which it is presented. They argue that history can never be presented perfectly, as sites and perspectives and knowledge are constantly changing. However, I tend to agree more with Tilden in that a well-crafted exhibit could speak to audiences not just in the present, but over a wide span of time.
Patricia West, in her discussion of Louisa May Alcott's "Orchard House" presented a wonderful way in which a historical site can be interpreted with (as Tilden encourages) love. The transformation of Orchard House into a public historical site gave the opportunity for "little women" everywhere to visit "Jo's" house and simultaneously learn about the historical context in which Alcott lived. However, West also critiques the site for refusing to acknowledge some of the more controversial aspects of Alcott's life, such as her participation in the suffragette movement. I wonder if, because this site is popular because of a work of art, Tilden would be critical of its use as a means of historical interpretation?
Little Women is also a pretty awesome musical. Just sayin'.
No comments:
Post a Comment