The essays in Part Three of Wallace's text focus on the how historic preservation has been perceived and conducted in the United States. His first essay begins by examining this history from its origins in elite local movements to save landmarks from being destroyed due to business/ progress in a young American state. He then focuses on the rise of American business and its contributions to the field in the form of large magnates preserving their own forms of American history. He then touches upon the various agencies and programs of the New Deal that employed various professions to work towards preservation. He links the 1960’s with the rise in preservation law and rounds it off by looking at the backward steps taken during the 80s (Why the eighties I wonder?).
The second essay focuses mainly on the political theatre of historic preservation and his concerns about how it is losing the political muscle it once possessed, most notably in the decreased amount of funding and protection it received under, you guessed it, the Reagan years.
While he acknowledges the start of the movement as starting with elitist co-ops rallying to save what they thought was an important piece of their heritage, he often is critical of their narrow focus and the limited access to the public. However, if you want to look at this from a purely technical view, is this not the best way to physically preserve something, by limiting access to it? One of the biggest concerns with some historic district is the amount of traffic that is passes through them on a regular basis. Of course even maintenance itself might become an issue. What constitutes maintenance vs. restoration or reconstruction, which some might view would lessen the overall historic value of an edifice? Are the elites not a part of the public as well? I guess Wallace would argue that it was not so much that he doesn’t believe they should not preserve, he is concerned that since their image would become the homogenized public view of what is important to save and what is not.
Wallace stresses the need for other groups to become involved in their own history and to become dedicated to preserving it. However, if historic preservation is is field in public history, is it important to define what is “the public”? Do local, specialized museums/historic structures add to a rich and varied culture? Or do they serve to alienate groups from one another, that they become so focused that they are only accessible by one sector of the public.
2 comments:
Is limited access really the best way to preserve something? Doesn’t it rather prevent broad scope of audiences from accessing their national historic heritage? Even from a purely technical point of view, the benefits of limited access could be discussed. Indeed, what should we say about European cathedrals dating from the 14th century, still being opened to the public and still being used for religious services? Could we say that those cathedrals are in a bad shape? I am not entirely sure about it. They are almost constantly being restored, preserved and looked after. But this does not imply limitation of access. Historic preservation might be one of those areas where public/state control is dearly needed. And that is something the United States have been slowly drifting away from. The less public control, the better things are. Individuals should have total freedom. But what if this is to the detriment of historic heritage? I agree that the elites are part of the public, that they should not be pushed on the side of the road simply because they are “elites”. However, they should maybe try to support historic preservation via public initiatives, rather than for their own profit.
To answer your question about who is “the public”, in the realm of public history, I would suggest that any visitor to a historical institution, be it a museum, historical landmark/building/park, etc., should be included as part of this group. But why stop there? Surrounding communities, governments, ordinary citizens/residents are all affected in one form or another by historical preservation projects. However, the problem of ousting minority and lower-class residents from their historical dwellings, whether intentionally or not, does in fact, indirectly force the alienation of groups from one another. A chasm is created between three groups, those who are “financially motivated” towards historic preservation, those who are “culturally motivated” and those who have a personal stake in the matter, such as personal housing. If preservationists are to be successful in the future, they must incorporate the needs of all of the above with the help of all those affected. A joint effort is necessary for the successful preservation of our surroundings.
Post a Comment