Museum Studies Blog at Tufts University

This week’s post is brought to you by Jules Long, a second year Master’s student in the Museum Studies and History program at Tufts.

Just two miles from Tufts University is Harvard’s Museum of Natural History, which hosts the Ware Collection of Blaschka Glass Models of Plants. This unique collection encompasses around 4,300 glass models of botanical specimens, from leaves and flowers to plant organ slices and diseased fruit. The collection is not only unique but also highly historic; the models were created by German glassmakers Leopold and Rudolf Blaschka between 1887 and 1936. The collection’s historicalness and fragility present a number of challenges when it comes to displaying, storing, and conserving the objects.

Perhaps the most obvious challenge is safely storing and displaying the models. Although the glass models often have wire supports inside, that does not prevent damage to the many exquisite details and components of the models. In behind-the-scenes storage, the objects can be carefully wrapped and supported in boxes. However, on exhibit, the models are subject to vibrations and jostling caused by visitors. The prevent damage, the objects are padded with discreet (but visible) ethafoam blocks and carefully wired and mounted to the display board. In addition, signs in the gallery ask visitors to avoid touching the display cases, and a staffmember or volunteer is usually present to keep an eye on visitor behavior.

In 2016, Harvard took on the task of conserving the collection. The models are colored with historical pigments, either within the glass itself or as a coating (of either melted glass or metal oxides) applied after shaping. Over time, the pigments fade and dirt (including, in the past, soot from coal furnaces) accumulates on the objects. Conservators used a special solvent that picked up soot and dirt but not impact any water-soluble ink. Conservators also found that over time, the coating of some objects had begun peeling away from the glass, especially where animal glue had been used to attach components. Conservators worked to restore those areas as best as possible.

In addition to the conservation in 2016, the public-facing exhibit for the collection was refurbished and redesigned. The original antique look of the gallery was retained, but the cabinets were cleaned and refinished, and the glass was replaced to ensure that the objects could be clearly viewed. To prevent fading of the pigments, the light in the public exhibit is kept very low. The gallery was also reinterpreted and laid out in a way that curators believed would be more conducive to both understanding and appreciating the collection. This organization included organizing the specimens by species and genus, and new signage was placed to explain how and why the models were created. The new gallery is not able to host as many objects at a time as the old gallery, but it does enable the museum to put on rotating exhibits of various pieces that are not normally visible to the public, such as the temporary exhibit of “rotten apples” currently on exhibit at the museum. Access to objects not on display is restricted, but may be consulted by appointment if permission is received to do so.

This week’s post is brought to you by Melissa Kansky, a first-year student in the Museum Education M.A. program at Tufts,

Image 1 :  (Bark Painting exhibited at the Art Gallery of NSW)

Image 2    (Political poster, Museum of Contemporary Art, Australia )

Museums provide a lens into a community’s cultural identity, as well as the social issues that define its history and development. During Winter Intersession, I had the opportunity to travel to Australia. While abroad, I relied on art museums to uncover the layered history of the unfamiliar place. Despite the unique character of each museum, they exhibited similar themes, revealing dominant questions that permeate Australian society. The national institutions consistently used their respective collections to address the country’s colonization practices and resulting injustices against the Aboriginal people.

Similar to museum practices in the United States, Australian museums have, historically, depicted indigenous culture as static and archaic. Displays of Aboriginal culture had been restricted to anthropological museums, which provoke visitors to associate Native heritage with primitive and obsolete populations. However, in 1959, the former deputy director of the Art Gallery of New South Wales advocated that the museum include Aboriginal works, moving indigenous culture from the domain of natural history into an art context. Although controversial at the time, the decision acknowledges that Aboriginal experiences contribute to present Australian identity and enable Aboriginal peoples to direct their narrative. Aboriginal artists produced the series of Bark Paintings, exhibited on the first floor of the museum, specifically for the gallery. As a result, the artists determined the way in which their culture was presented for public consumption. Additionally, wall text often includes the artist’s voice and perspective, permitting both artist and curator to contribute to the interpretive process.

In addition to elevating Aboriginal voice, museums also highlight persistent colonization practices. An exhibit at the Museum of Contemporary Art Australia illustrates current issues regarding land ownership and indigenous rights. The temporary exhibit, “Word: MCA Collection,” contains political posters from the permanent collection. The posters respond to displacement and cultural appropriation. The contemporary collection indicates these social injustices are not confined to Australian history, but influence present political structures, showing that museums must be courageous enough to not only participate in, but also advance, challenging conversations that shape the country.

While Australia is certainly not perfect in its museum practice, the country offers a model for greater inclusion of indigenous perspective. In the United States, the Abbe Museum, located in Bar Harbor, Maine, has positioned itself as a leader in decolonizing museum practices, which demands sharing authority for the documentation and interpretation of Native culture. Nevertheless, indigenous collections have, largely, been limited to natural history museums, tribal museums, or indigenous-focused museums. In contrast, exhibitions in non-disciplinary museums expand where visitors encounter Native voice and the way it is incorporated in the community’s story. Museums that prominently feature Native artists signify that the experiences of marginalized populations are part of our national character.