Hello and welcome to beautiful emily hummel.

the necessity of objects

Tags:, .

DARcoat

late 18th C. coat at the DAR archives

A classmate brought up the new Night at the Museum movie, which is based on the idea that the Smithsonian is removing all their exhibits and replacing them with virtual, digital exhibits.

Interesting.  I’m torn, though.  While I’m a huge fan of exhibits with digital components, I argued that there is still something – some intrinsic feeling — that we get when we see the actual object.  I can’t necessarily put my finger on what exactly it is, but there’s a visceral reaction to seeing an object.   There’s a similar reaction when you can actually touch something, and it’s that type of connection that I think that digital can never achieve. 

That being said, digital can achieve much.  Digitizing collections is fantastic work, and my gratitude to institutions like the V&A in uploading high-res images of their collections is indescribable (even though I think they should have better search terminology!).  I love that it makes collections — like those across the pond — more accessible to those looking for it, but it still doesn’t replace a trip to an actual archives.

I worked in the Warner Bros. Archive for two summers, and for lack of a better term it was the coolest experience.  I helped set up exhibits with the props from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and there was an element of physicality that I couldn’t deny, even if they were “just film props.”  I was holding the Marauder’s Map, Harry’s actual wand, Remus Lupin’s real clothes.  They came alive, and I think that’s to do with the fact that I can touch them, and feel just how real they are. 

The same can be said for museums, and explains some of my fanaticism towards reproductions.  This came about at Colonial Williamsburg, where one realizes rather quickly that the amount of extant 18th C. garments is slim.  On the same note, the amount of accurate reproductions is massive, and it gives someone the chance to have a connection with something like the object, but without damaging the original.  Touch a reproduction pair of breeches, coat all you like — you can inspect stitches, see methods of construction without wearing white gloves, and those little things help history “come alive” as it were. 

Still, there’s something about actual objects that just makes your heart flutter.

Posted on 31 May '09 by Emily, under Uncategorized.

2 Comments to “the necessity of objects”

01.06.09 at 16:12
Posted by Adam Crymble

Good post. I think it depends who you are, though. I’d be willing to bet most kids would take Williamsburg or a replication that they can play with.
Those of us interested in history often forget, not everyone thinks old stuff is inherently cool.

01.06.09 at 16:27
Posted by Emily

Haha– quite true!

Though I hasten to admit, reproductions are awesome and when I visited Williamsburg there was nothing I wanted more than one of those dresses for my very own.

I think they help make a connection to the modern day, too – there’s a line in a book called Time and Again where they bring out a replica of an 1880s gown, and the character is asked if he can see the woman in the dress. “See her, hell! I can see her dancing!” he exclaims.

So…yeah. :)