1. Welsh describes the domains of museums as materiality, engagement and representation. In your opinion are these domains applicable to ChinaVine.org? if yes, please provide examples from the website for each domain. If no, please support this response through references to the article and the website.
-“Materiality is the domain that encompasses the human capacity to physically, emotionally and cognitively modify our surroundings to suit our purposes. Materiality then, is much more than objects – it includes all that is recognized by the senses, as well as that which is affected by our beings… Materiality suggests a fundamental aspect of human experience – the way that people extend their beings by producing, acquiring and exchanging tangible things” (105). Materiality is somewhat applicable to the website. Since ChinaVine.org is a website, the artwork won’t be tangible until we are onsite. We are challenged by just having to use are sight to explore the artwork. However, we are still able to express our feelings about the different artwork. Technology is developing very quickly and it’s also much cheaper to go online and research about a topic rather than go and pay to see something you can easily learn online. We get to experience both perspectives in that we get a preview of what is to come of our trip and then we get to understand the materiality aspect when we are onsite and can touch the different artworks.
-“The domain of engagement… has to do with reciprocal relationships between the institution and the people with an interest in what the museum does. In particular it pertains to ways that museums establish relationships with publics” (106). Engagement is definitely applicable to the ChinaVine website. The website establishes a very friendly relationship with the public, who are the audience researching this site. Not only does the site have a gallery of photos of the different artwork, it also has videos that engages us. The website is also somewhat interactive in that it not only provides a map of china but when you roll over the different places, it provides a picture of what that city is known for. It welcomes you into the website step-by-step with the entertaining artwork.
– “…representation highlights the processes by which museums create their subject. Representation explores the scope of information that merges from the museum institution. Museum workers frequently hope that visitors are ‘Getting It’” (105). The domain of representation is presented well in the ChinaVine website. Not only does the website include an introduction to each artwork, but also a description of the artist, a video further explaining the artwork and the process, and the history of it. After reading and going through the pages of all the different artworks, we are definitely “Getting It”.
2. Welsh describes museums as repositories, educational, celebratory, stewards, learning centers, collaborative, conceptual, and reflexive. Describe how ChinaVine falls into each of these categories. Use at least one example for each supporting your opinion. If you believe that ChinaVine.org is not addressing one of these categories describe how it could do so.
– “As repositories of objects, museums themselves become prominent icons of community, of nation, and of empire. There are a number of distinguishing features of museums as repositories, features that are being reconsidered as museums explore different approaches to materiality” (108). The idea of ChinaVine being a repository isn’t very good. Since repositories are connected to materiality, as we said above, ChinaVine is a website and therefore the information and objects on the website aren’t tangible. However, ChinaVine does a very good job in educating us on the important artwork that comes out of a city. The website becomes a “prominent icon[s] of community, of nation, and of empire”.
– “Almost from the beginning, museums have been expected to provide the possibility of inspiration and enlightenment through direct experience of genius” (110). ChinaVine is a very good example of education. It provides us with accurate information and history from other students who previously visited the site. We not just learn about the artwork but we learn about the artwork from the perspective of another student.
– “With objects, museums construct messages that celebrate preservation, discovery or diversity and, by association, that celebrate the institution itself… Ideas of commemoration and celebration are closely linked in museums. Museums are sites of memory, and they have the power to turn those memories in a number of directions” (111-112). I, personlly, didn’t think ChinaVine was a good example of being celebratory. The examples that Welsh gives were of the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History celebrating Hispanic Heritage, the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village with a program to ‘Celebrate Women’s History’ by showing the challenges and victories of American women, etc. ChinaVine doesn’t interact with the community by presenting the challenges or victories of anyone. Welsh also says that commemoration is connected with celebration. ChinaVine isn’t a site that provides memories of previous events.
– “…museums are beginning to explore the possibilities of seeing their collections as being the foundations for building relationships with people who recognize various kinds of continuing relationship with material controlled by museums” (113). ChinaVine is an alright example for stewards. Since ChinaVine provides digital information, they technically don’t see the people they are impacting and building relationships with. However, the information the website is providing is definitely building relationships with the audience, especially us students who are researching the website and then working onsite. In my point of view, ChinaVine is more of establishing the beginnings of a relationship and the on site part of the program is the main relationship.
– “Museums’ movement from education to learning is an indication of their efforts to embrace and incorporate individualized approaches to the transmission of knowledge and understanding… The recognition that individuals ‘construct’ or ‘make’ meaning as they interact with museum presentations is now a fundamental tenet of museum program development” (114). In my opinion, learning centers are much similar to the idea of education. With a digital approach, we are able to easily read and learn about the artists and artwork we will be visiting. Welsh also states that “Whether it is acknowledging multiple learning styles or multiple intelligences, positioning museums as learning centers means that visitors are enable, if not encouraged, to find their own pathway to appreciation of the materials being presented” (114). With this online approach, we are able to appreciate and understand the artwork presented visually, then later tangibly.
– “Collaboration manifests itself in the formation of community advisory groups which work at all levels of museum operations, from specific projects to institutional planning” (115). ChinaVine isn’t a good example of collaboration but I think later on in the program when we go on site, will be a perfect example of collaboration. Right now, the website is just introducing us to the different artwork we will be experiencing. However, later on in the program, we will have to work with the other students in the program. What confuses me is that Welsh provides the example of narrative where he talks about a person telling their story and museums putting the stories together. This doesn’t sound like it applies to the collaboration idea. However, ChinaVine applies to the narrative idea in that the website provides information about the lives of the artists and how they make their art. No one will question if the artists are providing correct information because they are the ones that design the product.
– “A conceptual configuration of museums relies on the presence of objects (it does not abandon them to virtuality), and it is committed to discourse and dialogue about materiality in the past and in the future… It accepts and proceeds from the recognition that we are talking about things already in museums, rather than using museum collections to stimulate settings outside of the institution” (116). ChinaVine isn’t a good example of being conceptual. Since it is a website, we can only view the artwork. The objects aren’t present in our hands and they aren’t tangible. However, later in the program when we are in Beijing, we will be able to experience the conceptual aspect of the program.
– “Reflexivity means more than signing exhibits, although that helps… Opportunities for visitors to respond to claims made by exhibits highlight both the visitor’s views, and the fact that the exhibit is authored by individuals living in a particular time and with access to particular values… Reflexivity in representation emphasizes the relationship between the museum and its subject, and opens a pathway for visitors to interpose their own perspectives” (118-120). ChinaVine definitely allows for their audience to have their own perspectives. Anyone who accesses and explores this site will have their own opinions on the different artwork. I think ChinaVine is also a very good example of reflexivity because it provides the audience with the students’ perspectives of the artists and artwork since they are the ones explaining the history and how the artwork develops. ChinaVine is basically a website for the students who went on site to write down what they learned, which takes place of “signing the exhibit”.
You are correct when you note that Chinavine doesn’t present a tangible material object to the visitor. Welsh cites Hooper-Greenhill who believes that the post-museum will focus on intangible heritage instead of tangible heritage. This shift would therefore make the museum’s focus cultural performance. Although Welsh notes that Hooper-Greenhill and Spaldings re-imagining of the museum differs from Welsh’s own creation of a framework for the museum, how would the switch to intangible heritage and cultural performance impact the museum setting ethically? How would moving cultural performance into the realm of the museum setting change the right of the performers to manage their own heritage? Would presenting intangible cultural heritage in an online forum without the presentation of material objects mitigate some of these problems?
“Almost from the beginning, museums have been expected to provide the possibility of inspiration and enlightenment through direct experience of genius” (110). I find this quote interesting in relationship to some of what I have experienced in China, my own orientation to art and community, and some of the material that is interpreted on ChinaVine. In the west “genius” is usually associated with the work of exceptional individuals. As a consequence museums, museums of art in particular, will focus on the work of individual artists. However, some of the material culture that we are accessing in China, although created by individuals, derives its greatest value from it connection to community. Consider, for example, the shoe embroidery by Zhang Yi Gui. Along with many other women of her generation she routinely embroidered the shoes for girls and boys. In doing this embroidery she commemorated the importance of these children within the family as well as the other members of the community. To what extent does the concept “genius” have a meaning in this case? For me it the ordinariness of shoe embroidery within this cultural context that is extraordinary.
Jeanette- Your discussion of “tangible” across both questions leads me to think about the relationship between “tangible” and “physical,” as this relationship largely seems to be one of congruent equivalence. But, is it possible to develop an understanding of “tangible” that squares with or someone aligns to the Web as a domain for representation? That is, think about seeing a photo of an object in a museum (as opposed to seeing the object itself)? Is that an ‘intangible’ experience? Or do we “fill in” and ponder the object-as-object, rather than the object-as-representation?
@rothstei Great discussion of cultural performance and the “post museum” re: tangibility. I think this is another important element in nuancing our understandings of museums, repositories, and knowledge-creation.