New Gettysburg Visitors Center

[Jimmayo]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

Another musuem bites the dust!

Some of you can remember the old Battle Abby (Virginia Hysterical Society) in Richmond which used to have a room with walls lined with Confederate "stuff". Since they changed the theme from CW to Virginia History it is hard to find a good CW item on display. I never go there anymore. Nothing to see.

To me the main attraction of the previous GB visitor center were the old collections which ranged from a bullet to many, many weapons. When viewed they told the stories of a great battle. Sorry if the present visitor knows nothing of the Civil War but it is a shame they will get it from a NPS perspective. Gettysburg should have a BATTLE museum and should not be attempting to teach Americans what they should have learned in school. I will reserve further comment until I see the finished product.

This is another reason to support the Memorial Hall in New Orleans. You can still go there and see "stuff" and not be worried about someone trying to explain the Civil War from their point of view. They have some fantastic articles on display and if you tire of looking.......well there is always that small area on the other side of Canal street to keep you occupied.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

Maybe I was a freak, but...

As a child, I was always most fascinated when I could look into a case at an item and know that the item I was viewing "was really THERE". Multimedia interpretive displays bored me then and they bore me now (perhaps I've not matured much since I was 10). As Jim says, to me, all that seems like someone trying hard to explain historical events through their own filter.

I was hoping that the new visitor center would allow me to see more "good stuff", not less. I loved the "room-o-muskets"!!! One could see the entire history of US arms production from the start of the nation through the Civil War. They had a STONEWALL BRIGADE Enfield on display! I also loved the relic displays and the rafters of a local barn with damage as an artillery shell ripped through the barn and finally lodged in a piece of wood.

One of the most powerful museum experiences for me was seeing the MoC displays of Lee's uniforms and camp equipment, of JEB Stuart's items, etc. A direct link to history staring back at me through the glass!

Seeing tangible relics in a meaningful context is endlessly fascinating for me. I always envisioned being in a museum and showing those things to my kids and saying, "Yes, Nolan, a Civil War soldier really did drink out of that canteen!"

The majority of visitors who come to battlefields don't know much about the war or the battle in general. The visitors seem to appreciate a general orientation to the battlefield more than thousands of museum artifacts or specific information on material culture.

There's a "general overview", and then there's removing thousands of items from being displayed in order to have a museum dedicated primarily for that "general overview". It seems as though museum professionals are moving more toward "creative" ways to explain (aka "interpret") events of the past to museum goers with the aparent idea that this is somehow at odds with "displaying dusty old relics". In my mind, I find it very hard to believe that these two functions of a museum are in any way at odds with each other...

I took my kids to Shedd Acquarium last year, where they saw live sea creatures swimming around in tanks of water. I stood with my two-year-old son for five full minutes looking at moon jellyfish (he protested every time I tried to get him to move on) and we went back to look at them two more times before we left. He saw a diver swimming in a tank with (among other things) sea turtles and hammerhead sharks. To this day, my son sleeps with a little pastic shark.


...would he have been more fascinated by an "interpretive display" of Earth's ecosystems?

[ajroscoe]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

I have to agree that seeing the massed displays always awed me. I don't know if any of you have ever been to Williamsburg, but in the Gov.'s Mansion there, there are whole walls covered in muskets and the rosettes of pistols and swords on the ceiling. THAT was very impressive. While the new visitor center is just that, not a museum, it should try to keep as many artifacts as possible on display. I think seeing the sheer amount of artifacts left an impression on everyone who saw it, even if he didn't care as much as we do. I guess we'll just have to see what it's like, won't we?

[jchristiansen]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

As a museum educator, historian, and sometime curator, I felt compelled to respond:

“So NPS wants to take just this and that and show it and it will be important items that they think will tell the most important parts of the battle. On the other hand they would have everything out so people could admire them…. What is going to happen with the rest of the stuff? Are they going to just stick it in boxes in their storage units? Stuff like this should be shared….” – Evan H.

The scenario that Evan is questioning is exactly what museums are intended to do. We select objects from our collections that best represent the story we’re trying to tell. Keep in mind that in just about any major museum you visit – local history museums possibly excepted – what you see on display is only a fraction of the entire collection. Generally, only 10% of a museum’s collection is on display at any time, while the rest are in storage. The reasons are many. First, most facilities don’t have the space to display everything they have all the time. Second, objects do occasionally need to be taken off view for conservation and to extend their lifespan, which in the case of textiles and paintings, is shortened by a parade of visitors taking flash photos. New objects are rotated in to take the place of those removed, which creates an environment of change, which helps attract repeat visitation. Temporary special exhibits do the same thing – allow rarely seen items to be highlighted and attract repeat visitors. Items in storage are not buried away, never to be seen again. As Eric Mink pointed out, items in storage are still available for study and research to those with the interest. The Chrysler Museum of Art, the parent institution I work for, has a large collection of CW photographs. They are not all always on display, but they all may be viewed on our online collection. (They are currently traveling on loan to the SC Relic Room.)

Others raised the question of why can’t we have both, or why can’t we have a large museum somewhere that tells the story of the entire war. The answer is cost and redundancy. Two facilities mean twice the cost. If the new VC cost millions, then a second center would easily double that again. Also, consider that in addition to the NPS visitor’s center in Gettysburg, the town has several other Civil War museums, with additional displays of artifacts, dioramas, etc. These include the American Civil War Museum, the Soldiers National Museum, the Lincoln Train Museum, etc. At a certain point, the “market” for tourist attention, interest, time, and dollars becomes oversaturated. I should also point out that some of the museums I listed in Gettysburg, along with others in the country, do attempt to tell the “whole story.”

“Some of you can remember the old Battle Abby (Virginia Hysterical Society) in Richmond which used to have a room with walls lined with Confederate "stuff". Since they changed the theme from CW to Virginia History it is hard to find a good CW item on display. I never go there anymore. Nothing to see. To me the main attraction of the previous GB visitor center were the old collections which ranged from a bullet to many, many weapons. When viewed they told the stories of a great battle. Sorry if the present visitor knows nothing of the Civil War but it is a shame they will get it from a NPS perspective. Gettysburg should have a BATTLE museum and should not be attempting to teach Americans what they should have learned in school.” – Jim Mayo

I would gently remind Jim that there is more to Virginia history than the Civil War, and the VHS exhibits reflect that. The state has many other cultural institutions on our favorite topic if that’s what one is truly interested in - the MOC, for instance. I would also remind Jim and other members of this forum that our museums and historic sites frequently attract visitors from other countries who may not have the background information that “Americans should have learned in school.” The Hampton Roads area, where Jim and I are located, has many foreign tourists.

I would further point out that over half of Americans have virtually no understanding of our past. Over half of our fellow citizens don’t know whether the Civil War or the Revolutionary War came first, let alone what the issues, personalities, or battles are. This trend is only going to get worse; standards of learning in schools are increasingly focused on math and sciences, with the social studies getting short shrift. If this content is not being learned in schools (the why is a whole other debate), then I would argue that it is the responsibility of museums to step up and provide, supplement and enhance knowledge. And studies show that museums are among the most trusted and respected sources of information in this country.

“However, I am not optimistic as I am a dinosaur of antiquated material culture display where you bring your own history to supplement an ID card- rather than a wall with one or three artifacts and enormous posters and verbage telling you what the history should be.” - Curt Schmidt

“There's a "general overview", and then there's removing thousands of items from being displayed in order to have a museum dedicated primarily for that "general overview". It seems as though museum professionals are moving more toward "creative" ways to explain (aka "interpret") events of the past to museum goers with the aparent idea that this is somehow at odds with "displaying dusty old relics". In my mind, I find it very hard to believe that these two functions of a museum are in any way at odds with each other...” - John Wickett

Curt’s comment goes back to what I’ve just said, and taken with John’s moves into another area. Sure, seeing massive displays of weaponry, etc., are impressive, but what do you get beyond that first impression? In my 30 years of museum going, I’ve been to plenty of museums where I saw display cases jammed full of interesting relics, but with almost no supplemental information to tell you what you were looking at and why it was significant. Examples include the old Museum of Mobile, the battle flags in the Alabama state capitol, the GAR Museum on Springfield, IL, New Orleans’ Memorial Hall, etc. Most of these museums I first visited in elementary and middle school, before I even had learned “my own history.” Sure, I was impressed by the fact that these things were “the real deal” and had actually “been there,” but I was more interested in knowing the stories behind the objects. The way these museums were set up, I had no avenue to find those stories out.

The Museum of Mobile is thankfully completely different now. Instead of rooms full of “stuff,” I can find a narrative that walks me through the history of my once hometown. The Alabama State Archives is also updating its exhibits – instead of the wall o’ banners behind glass, they’ve started displaying a few at a time with some information on the units and conservation efforts to preserve them. All of which helps explain to casual visitors why these relics are important, why we are protecting them, and why we need their donations to safeguard them in the future.

Yes, updating now means “creative ways to explain.” I’m sure we all know we are in a multimedia age. It’s great to access information so easily, but with so much out there, it’s a challenge to capture people’s attention, which has grown ever shorter in a “sound-bite” age. Personally, I’m a traditionalist when I go to museums. I’m happy with objects and explanatory text; I don’t need a lot of multimedia. On the other hand, when I see something creative done well, I recognize how cool it can be to do a hands on activity, or watch a brief video or taped interview rather than read text when my eyes are tired. I also realize that someone of elementary school age would find it even more appealing and accessible.

Again, a museum’s mission should be to “interpret,” not just “display.” A display usually requires the visitor to come armed with prior knowledge. For example, I work as an educator at the Norfolk History Museum, part of the Chrysler Museum of Art. When I arrived here, the history museum contained displays of various objects drawn from Norfolk history arranged room by room by various themes. Most of our objects are paintings drawn from the art collection of our parent institution. When I started, the Norfolk History Museum provided very little information on each object other than title, date, and maker of each object. The room themes were not clearly identified. Most of our visitors walked in and got the impression that we were, in fact, an art museum. Most spent no more than 15 minutes here before leaving, since there was very little to inform them what they were looking at and why it was there. In the past year, I rearranged some items, added signage to identify each room’s theme more strongly, and added label text to provide visitors with some understanding of what they were seeing in each painting or object. I don’t have anything particularly “creative” or in a multimedia format. Since then, I’ve noticed that most visitors spend more time in our galleries, and actually ask more questions of our staff. Not only does the interpretation provide knowledge, but it prompts people to look for more. In my mind, that’s what museums of any stripe are here to do.

I know some people, like Dave T., are skeptical of the information provided at some institutions. I realize that many people feel that the NPS sites are moving away from battle interpretation and getting into politically correct, liberal, revisionist social history. I don’t understand the criticism based on what I’ve seen. At Ft. Sumter, the critique I hear is that the visitor’s center is all about events leading up to the war, with a huge emphasis on slavery, with almost nothing on “the battle.” I would argue that what better place to discuss the issues leading up to the war than the place the war began? (The emphasis on slavery is another debate.) If you’re visiting someplace where a major event began, wouldn’t you be curious to know why? Furthermore, the museum and signage in the fort itself contain plenty of info on the military side of things. (On a rhetorical tangent, if all we’re interested in is military subjects, why does the AC have a citizen’s forum?)

Kennesaw Mountain has also been redone recently. The museum at the VC opens by placing the campaign in the context of the 1864 election. There’s also plenty of information on military minutiae of the Atlanta Campaign. Yes, people of different backgrounds are highlighted through personal stories, white and black, male and female, slave and free. Some may consider this “politically correct,” but I fail to see the problem with a method of story-telling that may help a broader audience connect with or develop an interest in the subject.

History is constantly being “re-visioned.” This isn’t a matter of a political or cultural conspiracy, but the fact that the discovery of new material constantly requires us to correct or change what has been previously accepted. A good recent example on this forum would be the McRae papers and the light they’ve shone on English import items.

John Christiansen
Historic Houses Educator
Norfolk History Museum
Moses Myers House
Chrysler Museum of Art

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

John,

Thank you for your post... as one who is on the "consumer" end of the museum profession, I really appreciate hearing the perspective of museum professionals.

As I said in my post, I believe a meaningful context is important to the display of relics, I believe we agree on that. Viewing Lee's frock coat, for example, is much less meaningful if you don't know who's frock it is. The same could be said for that dingy looking old stuffed horse at VMI ;)

For me, my post really applies to what appears to be a drastic reduction in the number of relics on display at the new vistors' center, versus the old one. If that isn't really the case, then ignore my post as the rant of an iill-informed idjit. I guess I am not as concerned as others with the "PC-ization" of interpretation, though I have seen it in other museums. I just hate the thought of seeing substantially "less" in the new museum when I was hoping to see either "more", or "about as much, but with better presentation".

Not to be political, but...
The impact of the lack of attention being paid to history/social studies (...music, phys ed, etc.) in education today is shameful. I'm a chemist, so, yeah, I'm interested in science. However, we cannot focus on that to the exclusion of other areas of study. (It is possible to be intelligent, but not wise, for crying out loud!!) This is another issue that never really crossed my mind as it relates to running a museum. As a kid, I rode my bike to the library every week and came home with a backpack full of Civil War books.

Thanks, again. I really appreciated your post.

[PieBoy96]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

I'm going to wait until I visit the new museum to form an opinion, but while on topic I thought I'd share some photos.

Back in 2005, I made a visit to the GNMP visitor center and storage facility (out by the PA Monument) not to view artifacts, but actually to do research for an Architecture project that was a museum. I went there with the intention of seeing storage facilities, interviewing curators, etc., so I got to take photos of places not usually seen by the public. Many people are under the impression that everything there is just stored in deteriorating boxes in a damp basement. Well, not really. They have (what I thought to be) a fairly good facility to store many of the most precious items. While their thousands of bullets and cannon balls and stuff may have been in typical museum boxes, most stuff was well cared for. But there were some instances where there was simply an obvious lack of space for things (see the last photo of the guns).

Here are a few of my favorite photos...

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

Except for the smallest museums in the world not one shows it's whole collection, they just don't have the space to do so so they show what they think is th emost important and rotate items around as much as is appropriate.

That being said today's museums are hurting for business and gas prices will only make it worse so they are going to try to appeal to the widest possible audience.

Today's CW audience includes a LOT of people with a LOT of diverse views on the war. In fact, we reenactors and CW historians represent an extremely small percentage of the people who are going to visit the center.

So I'd suggest two things to people who are going to visit:

1) don't go with notions of what is and is not right based on what you read on an internet board.

2) Try to look at it through the eyes of someone who at best has a casual interest or minimal knowledge of the CW and realize for the most part it is for them and not us.

[echamp6165]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

Here's an article from the front page of Gettysburg Times regarding the number of artifacts on display in the new museum. It's sad to see that so few will be on display now.

Museum will be larger, but contain fewer artifacts
BY SCOT PITZER- Times staff writer
A new battlefield museum and visitor center at Gettysburg National Military Park is twice the size of its predecessor, yet when the pricey complex officially opens Monday, there will be fewer artifacts on display.

“We’ll have fewer artifacts, but they’ll be displayed better,” GNMP Superintendent Dr. John A. Latschar said during a recent media tour of the 139,000 square-foot facility. “In our new museum, in museum terminology, it’s a story-line museum. You use your artifacts to illustrate a story. We don’t have that now...we have a curator’s museum, where you get out and display the most artifacts as possible. So for that reason, there will be fewer actual artifacts in our exhibits, but the understanding they bring to our visitors will be greatly enhanced.”

Currently, at the park’s Taneytown Road headquarters, there are about 6,600 artifacts on display — at the new museum, which opens Monday at 8 a.m., there will only be about 1,300 artifacts displayed among the 11 permanent exhibit galleries. The Gettysburg Foundation, the park’s non-profit partner, has raised funds from the private and public sector to pay for the $103 million project, and is managing the complex for 20 years until $15 million in debt is paid off.

There will be a public open house at the new facility on Thursday, from 7-9 p.m.

“They cried and cried about how they needed more room to show their artifacts, and now they’re going to have most of their collection in storage,” said longtime park critic Franklin Silbey, a private consultant and historic preservationist, in a recent interview.

The park has a collection of one million Civil War artifacts — arguably one of the largest in the country — with 300,000 being historic artifacts, while 700,000 are photos, maps, and among other items, soldiers’ journals. Some of the artifacts in the new museum are actually being loaned to the park, to help supplement the museum’s story-line, although park officials maintain that they have not purchased items.

“Before we even started this project, we sat down and mapped out a story-line, and decided what it was that we wanted to talk about and focus on,” explained Dr. Latschar. “We had to decide, once we knew what story we wanted to tell, what artifacts best tell that story.”

Now, at the present-day museum, which was built in the early 1990s and added to more than a dozen times since, artifacts are displayed randomly.

“I always like to use the musket example,” said Dr. Latschar. “Our old museum was established as a collectors’ museum. You see rows and rows of exhibit cases with hundreds of rifles and muskets. If you’re interested in the evolution of the rifled musket, as an instrument of war, it’s of great interest, because we have about one of every single model that was ever made. But those muskets don’t tell a story.”

At the new museum, muskets are displayed throughout the 24,000 square-foot exhibit gallery, but within the context of a story-line. Gettysburg Foundation President Robert C. Wilburn explained the story-line concept to the media during a recent tour of the museum.

“When you talk about using artifacts to tell a story,” Wilburn said while pointing toward a Cavalry exhibit that showcased rifles, “these guns were used by Cavalry, and we’re in the Calvary exhibit. But if these guns were just lined up in a row, how would you even know that?”

There are 11 permanent exhibit galleries in the new museum, with three dedicated toward the Battle of Gettysburg, fought July 1-3, 1863.

Portions of the museum collection will be rotated, according to park officials, into the galleries. The artifacts that are not on display are being preserved in a temperature-controlled storage area in the basement of the complex.

The museum is one of the largest public areas in the new visitor center. By comparison, the facility’s book store is about 5,700 square feet of public space, and the cafeteria area is about 9,500 square feet of public space.

[flattop32355]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

I don't suppose they could use the best of both worlds, and do some "story-line" and some "curator" displaying...

But, then, that would be too simple.

[Dignann]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

I don't suppose they could use the best of both worlds, and do some "story-line" and some "curator" displaying...

I'm guessing that with the center opening in less than one week, what is done is done and won't be changed for some time to come.

Eric

[Curt Schmidt]

Hallo!

"I always like to use the musket example,” said Dr. Latschar. “Our old museum was established as a collectors’ museum. You see rows and rows of exhibit cases with hundreds of rifles and muskets. If you’re interested in the evolution of the rifled musket, as an instrument of war, it’s of great interest, because we have about one of every single model that was ever made. But those muskets don’t tell a story.”

Hmmmm. A fair and balanced view. Sigh.

I have never counted them, but if we accept the two sides of the side-room as "two rows," with 60 visits the the Center I seem to have missed the "rows and rows of exhibit cases with hundreds of rifles and muskets."

Fait accompli... the dinosaurs must give way to the mammals.

Curt
Dr. Phil's Life Law #1 Mess

[Ken]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

Yes, very sad, it will be one of the greatest collections of Civil War artifacts that no one will ever see. How can that be right?

[jake.koch]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

I've been lucky enough to have been able to visit Gettysburg at least once a year from home in Ohio with my dad since I was 7 or 8. I am probably right on the borderline of the generation that grew up with video games. Don't get me wrong, I loved the walls and walls of muskets, but how many other taxpayers are interested in that? (I know - everybody should but that isn't reality)

One of the things that always shocked me about Gettysburg, which is so different from many other parks is the fact that they have never for as long as I can remember charged an entrance fee, I noticed someone earlier say that the NPS must be out to make money with the new visitor center. I've been going there for almost 20 years with my dad. I may not remember exactly right but I think the only thing you had to pay for in the museum was to see the electric map and the cyclorama.

If all these gadgets and electronics are what it takes for new generations to get into history, then I'm all for it. The main thing we have to remember is that we are a minority when it comes to the thousands that visit gettysburg each year. When planning goes into a project like this, the main goal is to try to best interpret to the most people.

I don't mean to rant here at all, and I am not trying to attack or offend anyone in anyway (remember, I loved the gun wall too) I just think the most important object of all the money that the NPS put into this is to interpret the battle to a range of people from nerds like us to the people that ask "why aren't there any bullet marks on the monuments?" If some new technology is what it takes for kids to care about the civil war, then that is what the park service should do. All this worry is aimless until we can actually see the new visitor center in person.

Jake

[echamp6165]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

The Visitor Center was supposed to open today. Has anyone had the chance to take a look yet?

[Ken]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

I was in Gettysburg on Friday and rode through the grounds of the visitors center. From the outside the building certainly is impressive and does fit into the landscape very nicely. Lots and lots of parking available. I think I was able to ID the office space for the NPS and at least from the outside it looks like they have first class accomodations. I too would be interested in knowing if anyone visited today and what they thought. Oh, by the way, I spoke to the guy running the electric map and it is definitely going to be moth balled. Anyone want to buy an electric map of the battle of Gettysburg?;)