Michelle Epps

Controversy: An Exhibition

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This past September I had the opportunity to take a day trip down to the Ohio Historical Society for the specific purpose of seeing the temporary exhibit “Controversy.” The exhibit was showcasing pieces from OHS’s permanent collection that have either never been on display or were once on display. The exhibit, though small, was compelling and encouraged discussion amongst exhibit visitors. I should also note that as we turned into the driveway in the pouring rain there was an old-timey baseball game being played out on the lawn, proof that we were going to have a wonderful visit.

Every museum, including historical societies, that I have had the pleasure of going behind the scenes of always possess “white elephant” objects; objects that are interesting, or maybe aren’t even interesting, but the institution cannot display them for some reason. This could be either because the object does not fit in well with the rest of the exhibit narrative and mission or the object could be so controversial the organization does not want to risk displaying it. The former is compounded by the fact that these objects cannot merely be deaccessioned and sold because the acquisition of the object  usually predates the organization’s development of a collections policy and donor contract. The later of these two, of course, is the preferred type of object. The fact that objects from our shared past are still viewed as controversial is interesting in and of itself and is useful information to note for future scholarship.

SO, the Ohio Historical Society compiled some of their controversial objects and took the risk of displaying them. The exhibit was more artistic in design, but not quite as interpretive and bold as the Maryland Historical Society’s Mining the Museum (1992-93) Exhibit designed by artist Fred Wilson.  The OHS employed many exhibit techniques to achieve the desired reaction from the audience.  The exhibit space was relatively dark with each object back-lit (to my frustration, because I wasn’t permitted to use a flash and the pictures came out terribly blurry) and created a somewhat ominous mood. Comprised of only five objects, each piece was missing the usually dictating label.  Seeing as this was an exhibit created to learn more about our current perceptions about these objects instead of the actual objects themselves (though informative binders were provided at the end of the exhibit for those curious about particular objects), a narrative text would have defeated this purpose. The end of the exhibit, in my opinion, was probably the most creative part of the exhibit design. Visitors were met with five projection screens with an outline drawing of each object projected onto the wall. Dry erase pens were provided and visitors were encouraged to write comments on the images to depict how each object made them feel; a very low tech solution to encourage discussion in a public space.

As a museum enthusiast I know objects are only as important as the meaning we prescribe to them, so the controversy of the exhibit was lost on me, though the concept I can appreciate. And, as a museum professional I most definitely can appreciate the clever exhibit design. I only wish the exhibit was longer and contained more objects.All in all, well worth the 2 1/2 hour drive to see it.

This exhibit closed November 21st, 2011 but you can find out more information about the exhibit and the objects at the below sources:

To learn more about OHS’s Controversy Exhibit visit the below:

http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/enews/0311b.shtml

http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/controversy/

To learn more about MHS’s Mining the Museum visit the below:

http://www.artsusa.org/animatingdemocracy/labs/lab_055.asp

http://classracegender.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/what-race-is-your-stroller/

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/30/arts/art-review-pumping-air-into-the-museum-so-it-s-as-big-as-the-world-outside.html?src=pm