Posts
come to symbolize experiences, aspirations, and identity."This website for the film that we watched tonight includes reviews of the film, stills, and other information about the project.
What did you think of the film--and more importantly, about the response of the historical community to the tragedies portrayed? Why are objects so much more meaningful to people than even photographs or film of an event? Why do people leave objects at places of historic importance to them? And what the heck should we do with all that stuff?
Several things about the film struck me. First, the idea that in times of national tragedy objects took on more importance than photographs or writings. Toward the end, the narrator said that humans have the urge to hold on to an object. I wonder if that is true for all cultures, or if it has something to do with the materialism of Americans.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I wondered about the importance of objects as many of them seemed to be handmade. After a tragedy, I think most people are driven to "do" something - not just mourn passively. The act of making a wreath, or helping a child write a thank you letter not only express emotion but to be active.
Finally, after a couple of hours and several attempts to post here, I did it!!
ReplyDeleteI thought this film portrayed two sets of people who use objects in some of the same, yet different ways. The families and friends of the victims and the general public memorialized the tragedy by leaving items at ground zero, or they used a found personal belonging to remember the victim and the event. The event is seen as very personal because of the loss of life. A gift left at the sight of the occurrence, or the acquisition of a personal item of a victim helps humans to remember people and the event and gives them some attachment to what happened.
A historian—though not callous toward the feelings of family and friends of the victims—wants to acquire physical pieces of the event for the historical record before they are lost. We saw this in the film when, for example, a New York City historian went rummaging around Fresh Kill for artifacts, including remnants of a destroyed fire truck.
As for the importance of an object, it is arguable whether or not they are more important than a picture or film. Together, however, the touch and smell of an artifact such as a twisted piece of metal from the twin towers, along with a photo or film, gives a very real sense of the occurrence.
I enjoyed this film, not only for being able to view the unique items left by visitors to these sites, but for the comments made by various historians and officials involved in preserving pieces of the history that they were also living through.
ReplyDeleteI think the objects were more important to people than photographs or a film of the event for several reasons. First, there seem to be three types of objects: those that belonged to the victims, those that were left at the sites by the mourners, and those that were preserved for posterity. The importance of these objects to people who come into contact with them is even more multilayered.
For instance, a two dollar bill to the widow of a WTC victim is a symbol of the relationship she had with her husband, it is very personal to her. Without the story behind the bill, however, the meaning becomes subjective. Objects left at and recovered from sites of a national tragedy can also turn into symbols reminding us (as a country) of our shared history and ideals.
Personally, I had no problem with the response of the historical community to the gathering and preserving of the artifacts - all three types as James points out. However, I saw two different types of collecting also - one to make sure the actual pieces were preserved and another to make sure the museum had a good exhibit.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the fire truck that Chris mentioned, I felt that the curator was more intent on getting an emotional "wow" piece for an exhibit rather than a valuable artifact for posterity.
Preservation and exhibit are so different, and yet, without exhibit, preserving artifacts has little value. In all, my favorite "curator" in the film was the carpenter who used his lunch hours and off-duty hours with his wife to make sure memorial items were accessible.
This film demonstrated the reactions of both the public and historians to major events and the objects associated with events. Both the public and historians rushed to collect remnants of 9/11, driven by the fear that if they didn’t get the items now, they would be lost forever. It’s understandable that some historians would find some events, particularly in the immediate aftermath too sensitive to rationally pursue, yet I think those who are able are not necessarily insensitive, they are simply doing the work of historians.
ReplyDeleteThe objects were important to historians because they help to tell the story of an event by simply being present. For the family of those who passed in the event the objects seemed to either represent, or be messages from their loved one. Other objects such as the ribbon from the mysterious rabbi, the ceramic hearts from the children in Arizona and the birthday gift from the deceased husband were sources of comfort.
It is interesting to consider what items have meaning from an event. The historian at Fresh Kills collected part of a sign and some remnants of a first aid kit from a fire truck. Although these items seem somewhat irrelevant to me, they could have meaning for someone else.
Objects certainly provide vivid images of events however, without a story to go with it, the object lacks real meaning. Pictures are similar this way. Film can depict events in a very meaningful and real way, although the object may perhaps be more meaningful. The use if objects, pictures, film and historians to tell the story of the event would obviously provide the most complete story. Still, as in the case of the Enola Gay, and could be the case with 9/11, the historian must be careful not to tell too complete a story.
The Vietnam memorial, the fence in Oklahoma and various places in New York all served as an extension of a cemetery, a place where people go to mourn, pay respects and leave meaningful items or offerings to their passed loved ones. The objects collected from such sites should certainly be preserved and made visible to the public if at all possible because they have the ability to profoundly illustrate an event. My favorite part of the film was the construction worker at ground zero who explained how he took time to organize the objects left behind. I loved that he understood the significance of the items.
The following quote came from the Object and Memories Project webpage: "This film is crafted to speak to people 50, maybe 100 years from now, not just to those who lived through the experiences depicted." It is great foresight on behalf of both the historians depicted in the film, as well as the creators of Objects and Memory to preserve all they possibly could for future generations.
ReplyDeleteAs Chris and Amber pointed out film and photography used in conjunction with the objects themselves make for a very powerful and informative exhibit. It is iteresting to me the point that Michelle makes about two types of collecting for museum exhibits, as well as Amber's comment regarding how an historian decides which objects to collect in the first place.
On a similar note was the part about the marble with regards to the sifting efforts at the Fresh Kills site. It seemed to touch on the controversy surrounding the disposal of the Ground Zero remains, without actually addressing it. It is true not everything can be saved, but who wants to discard anything either.
Objects, as shown by this film, can be seen as being synonymous with memories in the way that memories are a piece of the observable world that we are able to take with us from the past and into the present. Perhaps these objects, as keepsakes or as gifts left at a monument, give us reassurance of our memories and help us to feel connected to that which we have lost. On a different note, there were a couple of things that I wondered while watching this film concerning statements made about the event of 9/11 and the response thereafter. This is one of the questions I had: One person said that this is largest crime scene the world has ever known. If it is the largest crime scene the world has ever known (I'm not sure what exactly "largest crime scene" implies. Does he mean in scope of the investigation or simply the number of murdered victims? I am assuming he is referring to the effort in investigating the entire event), can it be argued then that even greater devastating events have taken place in the world yet there has been far less concern with the memory of those victims? Is 9/11 truly the biggest crime scene the world has ever known, and if so what are the implications, or was this just bad history?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea brought forth in the film that objects can act as an eyewitness to the past. Human bodies only last so long and it is unfortunate in some circumstances that the historical events that someone may have witnessed are not always documented. That is why the items collected from Ground Zero are so valuable; those items survived the event whereas almost all human bodies did not.
ReplyDeleteThe comment was made during the film that the items left around NYC, which resulted in the multiple memorials, was a response by the public to death and tragedy. As Michelle had said in the first comment, those mourning would like to act in some way; this is not only applicable for the 9/11 memorials but if we look from a broader context any sore of memorial or statue in honor of someone who has died is the fulfillment of such an urge.
The film also brought up the idea of biases, by asking, can you live something and turn around and study it? This is something that historians struggle with - trying to remove their own biases from their research endeavors. On one hand studying an event during your own lifetime, or more specifically an event that you directly experienced, provides a much stronger emotional tie to the event. In this case one could truly question if the historian is driven by logic and facts or by an emotional pull.
ReplyDeleteObjects do indeed hold an amazing capacity for emotional and psychological attachment, memory and symbolism. The example of the site of the World Trade Center (WTC) – and by extension the Vietnam War Memorial and Murrow Building in Oklahoma City – proved a division between objects related to these events: those that were directly (and destructively) involved in the incident and those that came later in memoriam. The former hold a special significance for those directly affected by the tragedy. Examples (many mentioned above) include the paper with the signature, the purse, the $2 bill. Each object had significance to the loved ones because of its attachment with the slain person. That particular emotional aspect of the object only arises in that relationship. To others far removed from the relationship and event the objects serve as a reminder or symbolize a survivor of the event (in this case the attacks on the WTC). It is this group with which public historians concern themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe most relevant and interesting aspect of the movie (in my opinion) was the dilemma of the historians in documenting the event and objects. I believe they acted justly and rightly in both speed and sensitivity. An event as pivotal as the WTC attacks is something that automatically becomes an event of national (if not international) importance. This importance was at once apparent to the historians involved in collection and as such they acted to preserve pieces of historical significance. Preservation activities were widespread as evidenced by the storeowner who sealed a section of his clothing store complete with dust and debris. In doing so he acted as a public historian through the creation of a place of remembrance. Pieces taken as mementos by those present serve as just that, objects that commemorate the event, regardless of emotional attachment.
The second set of objects, those of consolation, closure or respect for the dead, arrived after the fact are an expression of the immediate reaction to the event. At each of the haphazard monuments or shrines people would bring objects of personal meaning. The stories behind these objects are often lost and very open to interpretation. This is the very best aspect of public history, its accessibility and mass appeal. The public in general has a desire for a connection to history; Dr Cebula said in class that virtually all people in their thirties have some kind of historical curiosity or appreciation. I don’t think it is necessarily a shallow thing that the purpose of the historian picking through Fresh Kills was to find objects of interest for an exhibit. The purpose of public history is that of all historians, to bring forth facts and offer an interpretation while affording others the same opportunity.
The difference between conventional historians and that of public is of course the range of audience. As such, the public historian at Fresh Kills is looking for pieces that do not necessarily have the personal attachment of the $2 bill but something as broadly experienced as a first aid kit. The destruction of that kit and the story behind it speak to a vast range of people about the destruction of that day in September. Their emotional interpretation of the object itself is as open diverse as the range of viewers. The film presented many aspects of public history and the roles that objects play in developing understanding or stirring emotions and memories. It helped me to make the connection between objects and memory as well as see the process behind public documenting of an event as sudden and impressive as the WTC attacks.
Great comments all around.
ReplyDeleteJames I agree that the phrase "world's largest crime scene" is packed with ideological assumptions and is exactly the sort of thing that public historians should try not to do. Some Japanese historians might want to argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent larger crime scenes, for example. A Palestinian might argue that Gaza is a larger crime scene, and a neo-Confederate might argue that Gettysburg and other battlefields in the "War of Northern Aggression" were crime scenes. I am purposely being provocative here to jar us out of our too-easy assumptions. This is especially important with something like the WTC attacks because these attacks were used to justify a set of geopolitical decisions that have landed us in two difficult and costly wars.
I also especially liked Michelle's comment that the historical society person seemed to be looking first and foremost for objects with visual and emotional impact. She did not approach the scene like David Caruso, shining his pen light in dark crevices for some tiny object that would serve as historical evidence. She was looking for exhibit objects that would pull the heart strings.
I want to make two points. The first is: What do we save? We saw how federal workers collect the items left at the Vietnam memorial (though I am not clear if they save everything or make selections). We saw similar collections of items left at the WTC and at the Oklahoma bombing site. When is enough enough? When do you start throwing this stuff out because the archive is full?
The second point is about something I have taken to calling "the pornography of suffering." So many contemporary entertainments feature the opportunity to vicariously wade in the suffering of others. Daytime talk shows line up people with problems and set up situations so that someone will cry. News programs are awash with crying parents of dead children or the suffering families of those who have died. Our public celebrations seem increasingly geared to valorizing suffering instead of heroism, or rather conflating the two. We press our noses into the lives of others in their most vulnerable moments and feel better about ourselves for feeling so bad for others. How compassionate we are.
And historians (including public historians) are guilty of producing suffering porn as well. Many recent best selling histories focus on human suffering for most of their narrative drive--I am thinking of Philbrick's In the Heart of the Sea or Eagan's Worst Hard Time. It strikes me as an unseemly and trivializing approach to history.
I love that term, "the pornography of suffering." I have struggled with that concept, but have never heard a suitable name for it until now. I am very uncomfortable with the notion of suffering as entertainment. Watching the widow who had been given the two dollar bill her husband carried in his wallet was uncomfortable even though it evoked an emotional response.
ReplyDeleteI have the same uneasiness with quite a bit of popular entertainment. The auditioning process of American Idol horrifies me, as do the dating shows where a single person is asked to choose between a panel of eligible mates, sharing intimate feelings in front of a camera for the world to "enjoy." In these examples, rather than feel better about myself or empathize with the victim, I am simply embarrassed.
It seems as though the majority of our society does take pleasure in watching the suffering of others; whether is it someone shot down on American Idol or a more violent seen in a movie or video game. I think that it is most unfortunate we classify such images as worthy entertainment.
ReplyDelete