To further develop our SCH project, I wanted to reflect and apply specific aspects of Ashley’s ‘perspectives on engagement’, used to critically respond to methods of public engagement in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Words that Changed the World exhibition at the Royal Ontario Museum, to evidence of public engagement within St Cecilia’s Hall. Ashley’s argument breaks down the limitations of public engagement for DSS into categories of perspectives; curatorial, intercultural, marketing, interacting and political. I found the most relevant key points to SCH in the intellectual or curatorial perspective and engagement viewed as participation and interaction.
Ashley presents the idea of the project’s intellectual curating as a ‘scholarly exercise’ that engages the audience though traditional modes to dispense knowledge and suggests this further distances the viewer from the objects by effectively ‘historicising’ them, removing their social context and link to present day political issues. A way I believe SCH combats this is through their concert programme. MIMED (2018) states, ‘St Cecilia’s Hall is the only place in the world where it is possible to hear 18th century music in an 18th century concert hall played on 18th century instruments’. This is important for the museum, not as a ‘status marker’ as Ashley argues of the DSS ‘Engage the World’ tagline that promotes the museum to ‘celebrity’ status, rather, it has a historical link to a very present experience that informs the audience in a very inclusive way.
To expand on public interaction, I also found it valuable how the ROM visitors described their visit to be a ‘spiritual pilgrimage’ to see ‘real’ objects in the flesh and appreciate them. This lies very much with SCH goals in expanding their musical instrument collection, as they only acquire instruments that can be considered historic, (currently up to 20th century), for which there is a genuine interest from the, (albeit niche), community to observe face to face. Whereas Ashley suggests the DSS events programme is lacking due to the focus given to a specific audience that can potentially provide funding or status to the museum, I believe the SCH public events programme, having already acquired their funding, has set out very clear educational/outreach projects in collaboration with other institutions/festivals, to attempt to attract and engage as big an audience as possible for their collection.
Our goal here is perhaps to incorporate further options for potential audiences that would enter on behalf of the historical context of the space itself. As well as architectural students/practitioners, this would include tourists and families, which our current project has already targeted. To conclude, Ashley’s observations equate to the DSS failing to fully engage their audience due to the transactional pull over meaningful content. Through including an aspect of the built halls history and heritage in our project we can increase the diversity of our audience and provide them with strong content that doesn’t just build from existing programmes/staff knowledge but also the significance of the hall that houses the collection. Visitors coming into see the objects will be met with the cultural implication of the building that contains them and vice versa. In this way Ashley’s ideal form of public engagement, a ‘contact zone’, where audiences and staff from various backgrounds can discuss and further understanding, will be achieved.
Ashley, S. (2014) ‘Engage the world’: Examining conflicts of Engagement in Public Museums’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 20(3), pp. 261-280.
Deters, S. (2014) ‘The History and Future of Public Programming at Musical Instrument Museums Edinburgh’, Music in Art: International Journal for Music Iconography, 39(1/2), pp. 257-266.
MIMED (2018) Musical Instrument Museums Edinburgh Available at: https://collections.ed.ac.uk/mimed (Accessed: 17 October 2018).
University of Edinburgh (2017) St Cecilia’s Hall Events Available at: http://www.stcecilias.ed.ac.uk/whats-on/concerts/ (Accessed 17 October 2018).
Jenny
I think its great you have considered both the building and the collection as they are separate but closely interlinked. Its also good that you are highlighting the motivation for doing things – vanity projects are all very well (and we all like to do them when possible), but they are less justifiable today than they may have been 50 years ago, particularly if we are seeking public funding. As you suggest, using all aspects of what is on offer at St C’s is a good way forwards if the historicity of the building and apparent exclusivity of the collection are not perceived to be barriers for potential audiences – how do we keep those barriers down?