New York Times Museum Review

The New York Times article on February 26, 2010 titled “A Burial Ground And Its Dead Are Given Life,” is a museum review about the African Burial Ground Memorial and its newly constructed visitor center. The location of the memorial and visitor center is in Lower Manhattan in New York City. Reviewer Edward Rothstein begins by giving background information about the discovery of the burial site and the significance to American history of the North’s involvement in slavery. An archaeological dig was done on the site where the remains of 419 humans were extracted and studied. The bones were of African descent and thought to be slaves of the north. The studies are inconclusive of whether the bones of the bodies were slaves at the time they were buried or freed slaves. The new visitor center opened last month to include additional information about the historical significance with exhibits which give content to the memorial site. The burial site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

In the review, Rothstein talks about the main display in the visitor’s center in which a family is displayed as if preparing to bury an infant and an adult and voice recordings are played. I believe that this is an important display to those who walk into the center. It would be daunting to realize that at that location, the middle of New York City, hundreds of people were buried by their family members and forgotten. The National Parks Services webpage for the African Burial Ground explains that the large black granite just outside the visitor center is carved with this passage:
For all those who were lost
For all those who were stolen
For all those who were left behind
For all those who were not forgotten
These graves could have been forgotten forever, and would have been, if not for new construction in the area. It is funny how what might have been important at the time to some people, that other people with power and resources (e.g. money) can make things less important. How could something like this be lost in history, just paved over like nothing was ever there? It is interesting to see how our country has learned to grow to respect one other or at least have laws to protect historical places.

The author also stated the center has a short film, classroom space, and a bookstore. The classroom space must be ideal for guest lecturers and school field trips.

The review focuses a lot on the archaeological findings about the bones than on the museum itself. I believe this museum needs that type of review of the site background in order to review the museum for its content. Because the author focused on the archaeological findings he did explain that one exhibit seemed out of place in which the museum displayed African made items that were not found in any of the grave sites but were of African design. This could give the wrong idea about the content in the graves to the visitors.

Overall the review about the African Burial Ground Memorial and Visitor Center was positive but like many museums, the museum interprets the displayed items as they see fit and informative to the public.

What makes a museum a good one?

S. E. Weil states in Making Museums Matter (2002), that people recognize a “good” museum under four evaluative criteria: purposiveness, capability, effectiveness, and efficiency; and of these various criteria effectiveness is the most difficult to evaluate and seems to many the only thing that really matters. The only way to measure effectiveness is to know the purpose for which the museum exists. If the effectiveness is thought to be achieved by a naïve visitor, the purpose (mission statement), and possibly capability and efficiency, is most likely thought to be achieved and appear seamless.

A few years back I went to the OMSI in Portland, and experienced great fun. We spent the whole day exploring, playing, and learning. This experience, in my opinion, would be a great example of a successful museum. I want to focus qualitatively on the effectiveness of the OMSI. To do this, I decided to write down a list of items I thought I would find in the OMSI mission statement before reading the mission statement online. The OMSI was educational at various age levels in regards to understanding science and technology, it engaged problem solving and included self –driven investigation in the discovery of how science works. These are the overarching themes I remember; and now, I can compare these themes with those of the OMSI mission statement in order to evaluate its effectiveness. The OMSI mission statement at www.omsi.edu reads:

“OMSI seeks to inspire wonder.
The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) is a scientific, educational, and cultural resource center dedicated to improving the public's understanding of science and technology. OMSI makes science exciting and relevant through exhibits, programs, and experiences that are presented in an entertaining and participatory fashion.”

Overall, yes, the museum was successful: the experience I remember at the OMSI coincides with its mission statement. The only problem with this evaluation is that I measured this after visiting the museum without knowing what to evaluate. I could have read the mission statement before entering the OMSI, and then, evaluate the museum, but I think this retrospective approach was more realistic because most visitors are unaware of the formal goals of the museum. Naïve visitors, like myself, can help gauge the effectiveness of a museum by not knowing the purpose. The museum staff can take advantage of this situation to evaluate visitors’ perspectives of the museum and compare it to the mission statement. If they do not coincide, the museum should take a step back and start from the top with the museum’s purpose.