... and after that, question mark?
It is difficult to exactly understand the point of Post's post. What begins as a telling story about the trials and tribulations of the Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum gradually progresses into a tirade of right and wrong and downplaying of facts in a museum display that he clearly feels should be littered with controversy ad nauseam.
It seemed as if Smithsonian's attempt at displaying the famous (infamous?) B29 Superfortress that delivered the first atomic bomb over Japan was doomed from the beginning. Although it certainly seemed as if it had the best of intentions initially. The exhibit's originator, Martin Harwit felt that a display of the Enola Gay could both pay tribute to veterans while visiting the brutality resulting in the bombings of the two Japanese cities. However, lack of revising the original script for the exhibit brought it to the forefront of national attention and stood to ruin the careers of its players and the reputation of its home, the NASM.
With Harwit's resignation clearly suggested by his new boss, Heyman, he would later publish a book accusing the NASM of being a propaganda machine while claiming that history could be told however one wishes for the right price. This did not seem too far from the truth. Heyman's threats to bring the federal funding for the museum to nil certainly had to have had at least some impact on the rather politically correct spin the exhibit wound up with. Casualties were casually mentioned and alternative strategies for pressuring Japanese surrender were completely omitted.
So, what did end up on display was the front fuselage of the B29 with a label so disparaged of information that it left visitors to "fill in the blanks" (p 391). Post further critiques the display, stating that the "museum label [is] full of facts but empty of meaning" (p 391). Of course they are empty of meaning, they are facts. As such, they are not supposed to convey some message or controversial subject matter, they are just to be facts. Therefore they are dissolved of scrutiny. Another well-placed display on just the atomic bomb or perhaps a picture of the airplane in flight next to fuselage could have just as easily addressed the issues which Post brings up. So, in essence, I am agreeing with his argument that more should have been explained answering such crucial questions (why did the Enola Gay have such weak counter-weaponry, what was such a vessel which delivered such a grand weapon of destruction named after a mother) seemingly omitted out of the fact sheet underneath the Enola Gay, however, the barebone, moderate facts are certainly deserving of their place as well. Questionable or accusatory displays should be in the region, but not the main focus.
Post begins to conclude his treatise by lashing out at revisionism and quoting a book which states that strategic American bombing already ruined Japan's chances of continuing the war and thus hints that the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary. It's unfortunate Post makes this statement because what was a great story of an ill-fated exhibit which started with the best of intentions took a sharp turn towards Post subtly pushing his own feelings about the subject and doing so poorly. His quoted text, Flight: 100 Years of Aviation, is indeed nothing more than a picture book which discusses the topic of the atomic bomb in, literally, one page. Moreover, it makes no mention of the warnings Japan received prior to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am not critiquing Post for making an argument in an article--that is often an article's purpose--however, I feel a highly-revered individual as one who has worked on two dozen exhibits at the Smithsonian (p 373) could find a better source to cite to support his claim than a book which is quite literally the headcheese of aviation history, stuffing one-hundred years of flight's past into four-hundred and forty aesthetically pleasing pages.
Ultimately, the story of the Enola Gay exhibit is one in which there seemed to be no win, at least at its inception. The attempt to do what is right--show both sides of the atomic bomb controversy--was certainly the right idea but its poor execution went uncontested until it was too late. How were they to know this, though, without actually having it out the door? Its revision, of course, was so lacking that it was borderline extreme. It is understandable here how curators suffer with the debacle of avoiding offensive topics while challenging visitors to think beyond just the facts, especially in a museum carrying the distinction as the world's most visited, as the NASM is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, I think that the message is clear - Post argues on the controversy as to how museums should portray historical events. You are right about "political correctness" but the exhibit organizers were under a big dilemma: is it a display of a technologically advanced aircraft, which was equipped with the devise to drop the first A-bomb, or was it an actual killer machine? What also should be put under consideration, is that the exhibit was organized for the ordinary spectators, generally not so well versed in the air-technology, hence the offer to "fill in the blanks", which should be done – no doubt, - more profoundly.
It is interesting that you mention the question of the facts put on the display notice of the Enola Gay. Indeed, you state that facts are just facts, empty of meaning. It reminded me of Post’s reference to Feinstein’s comment on her history classes that used to be mostly a recitation of facts. I think that if facts per se might be considered as empty of meaning, their selection is not. Who decides what is important, what should be remembered? The construction of the past is already at stake in the process of selecting elements from this past; elements that will be remembered. I felt that Post was pointing at the selection of certain facts for the display of the plane; the selection of certain pieces of information instead of others is not empty of meaning. They convey a meaning in what they are actually revealing of the event, and in what they are keeping under total silence.
Post a Comment