Exhibits

This section contains examples from exhibits for which I either served as a team member or team leader.  I believe the most successful exhibits result from team efforts, where each member brings his or her own perspective and expertise.  Most of the way I approach exhibit development I learned through working with the staff at Exhibit A Design in Brooklyn.  They taught me how to brainstorm ideas, keep to a schedule, and collaborate.

In particular, Brenda Cowan, now head of the exhibit design program at FIT, introduced me to the process of using a card sorting exercise to identify potential exhibit themes.  In this process everyone on the team has the opportunity to participate in what is basically a stream of consciousness word association exercise.  Participants respond in one word to questions about the exhibit topic, while one member of the team writes the responses on note cards, using one card for each word response. The questions should be related to possible audience responses, assumptions, perspectives etc. The participants then sort the cards, looking for connections between the words.  In this way particular themes emerge from the general exhibit topic and in ideal reflect the interests of potential visitors as well as the knowledge of the exhibit team.  The card sorting exercise proved especially effective for the exhibit “Down Freedom’s Main Line” because we had previously conducted an audience survey and were able to shape our questions accordingly.

In general, museums should provide more time for exhibit development and assessment than they often do.  Today’s best practices emphasize the need for visitor empowerment and engagement.  One of the best ways to insure this is to utilize a variety of means to gather information about your audience and community prior to making major decisions about the interpretive direction of an exhibit.  It is also important to test exhibit elements during development to make sure that the design fits the purpose.  Too often exhibits still sacrifice user friendliness for aesthetics and/or expertise.  This is another reason for exhibit development to be a true team effort.  Exhibits affect the entire life of a museum, from the visitor services staff to the maintenance staff.  They should not be created in an academic vacuum if you want them to have life.

Education and Interpretation

Here you will find examples of programs designed both for drop in visitor use and for school groups.  My basic educational philosophy is that teaching consists largely of facilitating.  This might come in the form of using guided questions to help visitors or students think analytically, or to make connections with their own experiences.  Shaping programming and literature to encourage group interaction is also an important form of facilitation, or, to use educational terminology, “scaffolding.”  Finally, I believe it is important to find ways to tap into as many different “intelligences” as possible.  This means thinking about the use of movement, space, formal analysis, visual cues, sound, etc. when we create exhibits or supporting programs.  As Stephen Weil put it in a late 1990s article, museums now need to be for someone rather then about something.

Historic Buildings

I have traced the history of 1601 Caroline St. in Fredericksburg, Virginia, including its date of construction, approximate dates of additions, and ownership changes.  The story emerged through examining the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, the lot deeds (granted I had help from lawyer Blanton Massey with the deed search), local tax rolls, census records, and various newspaper articles and advertisements.

This house embodies much of the story of the post Civil War south and illustrates the value of retaining the physical evidence of our past.  It was built on land originally owned by  a member of the of the most prominent old Virginia families, the Fitzhughs.  This land remained undeveloped through the Civil War.  Shortly after the war, the owner began developing the lots she owned one street over for worker housing, as mills appeared on what was then the outskirts of town.  Records suggest that she planned to do the same with the Caroline St. property because she divided it into small parcels.  Ultimately J.W. Colbert, a local war veteran and up-and-coming merchant purchased a number of the contiguous Fitzhugh lots on Caroline and used them to build a spacious two story, four over four house  between 1889 and 1890.  Given that most of the immediately surrounding neighborhood was working class housing, his decision to build there seems odd.  If, however, he wanted to build new, rather than purchasing an existing house, putting these lots together allowed him space for a large house and lot that went down to the Rappahanock River.  Unfortunately, Mr.Colbert did not enjoy his new house for very long.  His business failed in 1892, and he turned legal ownership over to his wife, who held it until 1898.  The famiily, however, moved to Portsmouth, Virginia in 1896, so the property was probably rented out for the next two years. Colbert died in 1906, when he was struck by a trolley car while visiting Richmond.

We know that it was rented out subsequently after it became the official property of the Merchants and Mechanics Building and Loan Association.  Census records for 1900 list its inhabitants as Henry Ward (a farmer) and family.  The Association held it until 1901, when they ceded it to the Presbyterian Church Assembly,, after which it disappears from the tax records for several years.  The Sanborn map of 1902, however, shows the first expansion of the house, with an addition of one room width and three rooms depth with a side hall. The Assembly also had a one story covered porch constructed in front, just over the doorway.  In all likelihood these additions were made to accommodate the use of the house as a boarding house, possibly for teachers and/or students of the girls school run by the Assembly.  It is also possible, however, that it served members of the workforce for the nearby factories.  The 1910 census specifically designates 1601 Caroline as a “boarding house” run by Natalie Smith and Julia Henley.

By the time of the of the 1920 census, 1601 Caroline was back in private hands.  W.A. Mullen, who, with his family, had moved to Fredericksburg from Indiana, owned it outright. He was listed in the census as being the “superintendent of a farm/factory” but earlier records indicate he was editor or publisher of a newspaper called simply The Journal.  He also served as the city delegate to the American Mining Congress in 1910. Mullen was responsible for the final changes to the house.  It is probable that he purchased the house prior to 1920, because the Sanborn map of 1919 shows a new automobile garage and a final two story single room addition to the house.  Most significantly, by 1922 he had a very impressive addition put onto the front, consisting of a large, two-story porch with a tile flooring base and double columns.  In all likelihood he also added the gateway to the river path, and the outdoor hearth.  All indications are that Mullen intended 1601 to be a showplace in true 1920s colonial revival style.  As a newcomer to Viirginia, he may also have wanted to identify with the antebellum gentry and secure his family’s place in Fredericksburg society.  This is also suggested by Mrs. Mullen’s membership and activity in the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities.

The development of 1601 Caroline St. thus illustrates the development of Fredericksburg itself after the Civil War.  The property moved from the hands of an old line Virginia family to a veteran who prospered, at least initially, in the post war years that also saw industrial development.  It then became a boarding house to meet the needs of industry and the progressive attempts to offset industrialization’s worst impacts.  Finally it became the embodiment of the “newly rich” outsider’s ambition and the showy wealth of the “roaring twenties.”

History Detectives at the Thomas Wolfe House Curriculum Tour

The following is the interpreter’s guide for a tour that I developed and tested at the Thomas Wolfe State Historic Site.  It is aimed at junior and senior high school ages, which, I think, are often neglected by museums.

History Detectives at the Thomas Wolfe House (8^th– 11^th grades)

Interpreter’s Guide

 The following tour has two different themes and can be done either by dividing the class into two groups, each taking one theme, or with the entire class focusing on one of the themes.  The purpose of the tour is to introduce students to some of the methods of historical investigation, with a particular emphasis on how objects and architecture can reveal aspects of the past.  As an integral part of the investigation, students will need to understand the larger historical context of late 19^th and early 20^th century America.  Their exploration of the physical evidence will then underscore their study of the written sources.

Social Studies Curriculum Goals Addressed

Grade 8

Competency Goal 4: Examine the causes, course, and character of the Civil War and Reconstruction, and their impact on North Carolina and the nation.  Particular focus on objectives 4.03 and 4.05.

Competency Goal 5: Evaluate the impact of political, economic social, and technological changes on life in North Carolina from 1870 to 1930

Competency Goal 6: Analyze the immediate and long-term effects of the Great Depression and WW I on North Carolina.  Particular focus on objective 6.01 (Great Depression).

Grade 11

Competency Goal 3: Analyze the issues that led to the Civil War, the effects of the War, and the impact of Reconstruction on the nation.  Particular focus on objective 3.04 (impact of Reconstruction).

Competency Goal 5: Describe innovations in technology and business practices and assess their impact on economic, political, and social life in America.  Particular focus on objective 5.01 (influence of immigration and industrialization).

Competency Goal 7: Analyze the economic, political, and social reforms of the Progressive Period.

Competency Goal 9: Appraise the economic, social, and political changes of the decades of the 20s and 30s.

Introduction: Ask students if any of them have ever watched “History Detectives” on PBS.  If yes, ask what the show is about and how it works (The “detectives” take various historical objects or buildings and try to answer a question about them by investigating documents and the things themselves); if no, explain what it is etc. (see above).  Tell students that they will be playing a type of history detectives=figuring out what the Wolfe House/Old Kentucky Home can tell us about life in the late 1800s and early 1900s.  They will be challenged to observe things carefully and make educated guesses on the basis of their observations and background knowledge.

Investigating Technology and Change

Tell students we need to know how the technology of lighting in the OKH may have changed over time and have them explore the hallway, look in the parlor and dining room.

•  How is it lit now? (electricity=wires running current visible, fixtures hang down from the wires).
• Ask if they remember (figured out) when the house was built=c.1883; did Asheville have electricity then? (not until 1887—their pre-visit includes a timeline indicating this);
• Can the students figure out how OKH might have been lit before 1887? (get them to look at the knobs in the ceiling beside each hanging electrical fixture=explain or lead them to conclude that these were gas pipes for gas lighting fixtures; you can do this by asking them how they think the gas was distributed to the lights throughout the house=not liquid like kerosene, couldn’t be poured into lamps by hand; can also connect it to modern gas heat or stoves).
• Tell students that in 1899 about 75% of the gas in U.S. used for lighting, by 1919=29% and ask them what that implies; compare with figures for wiring=8% of homes wired in 1907, 34.7% wired in 1920
• When possible: Take group into the front bedroom, pull shades and compare light from gas light (using carbon lamp) with electric light (using “ziz-zag” bulb).  Discuss pros and cons of each (brightness, safety, cleanliness)

Take students into the kitchen and tell them we need to figure out how “modern” the kitchen was and what Julia added in 1916.

•  Ask students to see what “modern” conveniences they can find and what made them improvements=hot and cold running water piped in (no need to get it from well or pump, no need to heat it on stove unless needed to be boiled); electric lights; gas stove (domestic use spread in 1880s; common by 1910s; cleaner than wood/coal=no ashes or soot, also easier to control temp)
• Ask if they think the gas stove might have been one of the improvements Julia made in 1916 (gas available when house built, but unlikely to have installed wood/coal and gas stoves at the same time; use gas stoves in homes still not common in early 1880s)
• Ask students to find examples of “old fashioned” technology=a. all tools are hand-driven; b. still using flatiron, but also one with detachable handle—show students trade card for this=electric irons available by 1890s, discuss need for electrical outlets in order to use one, wall outlets not in wide use until after 1910 when wiring prices dropped–Julia unlikely to pay for more wiring; c. icebox=electric refrigerator available for home use in  1916 for cost of $900

Have students go into the sun parlor.  Tell them we need to know what this room can tell us about the technology of entertainment in the early 1900s.

•  Ask students to find the most “modern” entertainment equipment in the room (phonograph)
• What did it supplement or replace? (piano)
• Place the phonograph on the center table and have students investigate how it works (hand crank, not much action needed, speaker in wooden base box (early models had trumpet speakers, needle “reads” grooves in record similar to laser “reading” compact disc but recorded much less info to be read)
• Home phonographs common by 1916=500,000 sold in 1914 alone; discuss impact of records (allowed for enjoyment of music without necessity of musician or musical instrument, but not really suited for sing-alongs that fostered communal gatherings)

Stop students in hallway and ask them to investigate the telephone.

•  How does its structure differ from modern telephones? (clearly, quite a bit=mouthpiece on base stem, separate earpiece, corded, ringer in base under table, most significantly no keypad or even rotary dial) This basic structure established by 1892; 1.3 million telephones in 1900, 13.3 million by 1920
• Ask them what its structure suggests about the interface between technology and people in this early telecommunication period=a caller could not contact another party directly, but contacted an operator who put her through, thus still needed a human operator to link callers to their machines (example of rural areas where operators or “Central” were asked to make wake up calls, act as baking timers, etc).
• Ask them about the implications of having a telephone in the OKH (by 1916 more urbanized areas no longer dependent on telephones in public places like stores and post offices; also could and did call between  houses instead of sending someone as a messenger; replaced face to face visiting).  Read passage from LHA as example of Wolfe including telephone use in his portrait of life at OKH.

Take students upstairs and tell them we need to figure out the impact of the addition of bathrooms in 1916.

•  Ask students to compare the 1916 bathroom with the typical home bathroom today (1916 generally smaller, tub on feet, no sink, mirror etc.). Link with term “bathroom”=room with a bath, toilets usually in closet=”watercloset”; began to change around WW I but sets of tub, sink, and toilet available in Sears Catalogue of 1910; “cutting edge” tubs in 1915=similar to modern tub with double shell and no feet (OKH inclusion of bathrooms expected in urban areas by 1916)
• How were guests’ needs provided for before the addition of bathrooms? (students will need to look in the bedrooms for items used for washing etc.=wash bowls, soap dishes, towels, chamber pot).
• So what did the addition of the bathrooms (three total) offer to guests? (option of full bath without having to go to a pond, no need to use a chamber pot in the room, no need to get water from downstairs for room use)
• Why, then, did the rooms continue to have wash bowls etc.? (no sinks in bathrooms, some advantage to wash bowls in rooms given limited number of bathrooms, chamber pots for emergencies, people still used to chamber pots and not as revolted by the idea as today).

Tell students the last thing we need to know is whether the OKH was built with wood-burning or coal-burning fireplaces.   This investigation can be done upstairs or down.

•  If upstairs: ask students to examine one of the fireplaces—the one in “Ben’s room” may be the easiest.  Could you easily burn wood in it? (grate won’t really accommodate logs; depth also not good for smoke produced by wood=too shallow)
• Tell students that wood-burning fireplaces were generally wider, deeper, and sometimes shorter than coal-burning, and ask them to look for any evidence that the fireplace might have been changed over the years (they are looking for the “ghost marks” that indicate the fireplace has been made narrower, the marks are visible as different texturing of the plaster outside of the metal surround).  Conclusion=some of the fireplaces in OKH were originally wood-burning.
• If downstairs: ask students to compare the fireplace in the large bedroom with the fireplace in Mr. Wolfe’s room (large bedroom fireplace is deeper and has large opening, no grate, wider chimney opening, no metal surround).
• Ask them which type would be better for wood-burning fire and why (logs don’t fit easily into grate, wood produces large amount of smoke, coal doesn’t-thus need for larger opening to draw smoke with wood fire).  Conclusion=the fireplace in the large bedroom was wood-burning.
• If time, have them study the fireplace in Mr. Wolfe’s room for evidence that it might have been wood-burning originally (as above, there are ghost marks faintly visible outside of the metal surround)
• Discuss coal as an improvement over wood=burned longer, didn’t need to be chopped up, didn’t smoke up house.

Investigating Economy and Society through Material Culture/Objects

Introduction: Tell students that many Victorian homes contained some architectural feature that divided the “public” front of the house/hall from the “private” back portion.  Ask them if they can find evidence of this at OKH (archway just in front of stairway area).

1. Have students analyze what the front parlor can tell us about life in the OKH in the early 1900s (split group and have teacher take one section to the “back” door of parlor so that students can see more easily).

•  Ask them what they think the large piece of furniture on the back wall by the fireplace might be (“parlor bed,” looks like a wardrobe).  Why would a bed be in the parlor? (was not uncommon as late as the early 1800s, but concepts of privacy removed beds from public view by the 1850s; presence of Parlor Bed suggests less private nature of OKH as boarding house with need to maximize sleeping space—but, not readily identifiable as a bed, developed originally for small living spaces such as apartments)
• Have students discuss what the furnishings suggest about the role of the parlor in the house.  In particular try to get them to think about the presence of the fancier furniture and the carpet (front parlor as public “showpiece” of any house, rug=Axminister rug—their pre-visit asks them to find out about these=made by machine able to weave intricate patterns previously only available by hand-looming, allowed middle class to own former “luxury” item; cut glass lamp not originally in OKH but as gift from Wolfes to Mabel still example of visible prosperity).  Contrast with what they may have seen in examples of traditional mountain homes/cabins (usually have homemade hook rugs, simple oil lamps etc.)
• space, and why people might have wanted particular things in it=piano/organ (often designated as  “music corner”; illustrated acquaintance with culture); shells on whatnot—not in parlor but in welcoming area of house, still public space  (illustrated appreciation of natural history as well as travels);if added to furnishing plan=book case (appreciation of learning)

2, Have students investigate the sun parlor to figure out what function it had in the OKH.

•  Ask students what room in today’s house it resembles and why (den, rec room, enclosed porch; windows all around, not as formal as front parlor, contains phonograph as well as piano)
• Have students identify objects that people might have used for entertainment=piano, phonograph, stereoscope with stereographs or stereocards
• Let them look through stereoscope, tell them card sets available in wide range of subjects including exotic animals, places, news events, celebrities, etc, and have them discuss why it might have been popular (a NY company sold 300,000 stereoscopes in 1901)=provided conversation piece, new sets constantly available for “updating” information, could substitute for vacation photos for those without portable camera, brought world to doorstep, similar to internet today; mention W.O. and Julia’s first date included viewing stereographs
• Ask students to discuss the following quotation “Whereas Americans in the 1890s might sing around the parlor organ or piano, by 1915 they often danced around the victrola” or gramophone (popular dance tunes not easily played on piano=listen to ragtime music that plays in parlor as example; gramophone also allowed for dancing without necessitating someone to play the piano; more individualized entertainment)

3. Bring students into the kitchen and tell them they’re going to investigate what it suggests about women’s work and the place of servants.  If possible, divide group in two, bring one half in by the back door and the other by the main door.  Ask those that come in by the back porch door to view kitchen through eyes of Black servant, others through eyes of Mrs. W.

•  Ask them why the kitchen might be considered the center of the household (food prep., laundry, ironing=all central to making OKH run smoothly)
• Ask who they think slept in the small bedroom (not the servant, but Julia); if they say the servant, ask why they thought that, and then discuss implications of Julia sleeping off the kitchen (focused on her work at OKH, more concerned with maximizing boarder space than with appearances)
• Give the students a list of labor-saving innovations available by 1916 and ask them how many they can identify in the kitchen (list includes hot/cold running water, gas stove, electric iron, washing machine, vacuum cleaner, electric refrigerator) OKH=only the first two; discuss what that would mean for housework at OKH (no need to haul water, wood, and coal, or clean ashes, but most work still done by hand)
• Have two groups compare work implications for domestic servants at OKH and for Mrs. W. (not a lot of difference in this case, but Mrs. W. unusual in her work arrangements, see below)
• Have student read entry below from Wolfe’s “Autobiographical Outline” re. his mother and domestic help:

“Mama and all the Negro girls—She wouldn’t pay them…Mama’s hardness and resourcefulness—she worked with them always in the kitchen—Papa’s critical attitude—Mrs. Watkins did not, etc.—She never had their respect.  She was not, had never been, used to service.  She nagged at them.”

Also from LHA: “The negress arrived, coming under the built-up house and climbing …the steep tunnel of the back steps.”

Ask students to discuss the quotations=what do they suggest about the relationship between Mrs. W. and her servants, and what do role did race relations play in the tension between them?  Include a consideration of African-Americans using the back entrance to homes (holdover from earlier “servants’ entrance”) and the irony of the negative impact of Mrs. W. working with the help=constant judging and criticizing, also shrank actual distance between “mistress” and “servant”; possible role of Mrs. W.’s lack of exposure to African Americans in her rural youth=saw them as “other”; impact of her withholding wages=early 20^th century saw increasing “professionalization” of domestic work with growing emphasis on proper wages, especially for help that did not get room and board (Mrs. W.’s help did not live in, unless they rented rooms in the basement)

4. Take students upstairs to hallway.

Read the following quotation from the Scientific American of 1909 “Fresh air and plenty of it is the best preventative for consumption (TB), the grip, bronchitis, common colds, and pneumonia.” Also point out that 1909 issue of Country Life recommended fresh air as good for everyone.

• Tell students that Mrs. W. “improved” OKH in 1916 and in part responded to the fashion for fresh air.
• Ask the students to identify the room or rooms she added that could be called “sleeping porches” (this can be done without the students needing to leave the hallway).  As always, have them explain why they chose the room(s) they did (should be a result of the large number of windows that could allow for complete ventilation of the sleeping porches).
•  Tell students that they will be making a tour of the boarders’ bedrooms upstairs and downstairs and ask them to keep a count of the number of metal beds vs the number of wooden beds.

At end of “bedroom tour” ask them the results of their bed count (should be 10 metal, 2 or 3 wooden—check this when upstairs reopens)

• Discuss advice given by decorators in 1915 that brass and iron bedsteads were cleaner and more sanitary than elaborately carved wooden ones.  Why might the middle and upper classes have been more inclined to replace wooden beds with metal ones than the lower classes? (more access to fashion magazines, could afford new bedsteads, not as wed to impressive carved wooden beds as symbols of status and/or family history as working classes and recent immigrants=the bed was often the one piece of furniture that immigrants brought with them)

Conclusion: With either technology or material culture group ask them how the OKH helped them understand changes in America/North Carolina during the early 1900s=objects and physical details of buildings can be primary sources like documents can, but need both written documents and artifacts to achieve best understanding of the past.

Basic Bibliography (does not include individual primary sources)

Foy, Jessica and Schlereth, Thomas eds American Home Life 1880-1930: a Social History of Spaces and Services. Univ. of Tennessee P., 1992.

Green, Harvey, The Uncertainty of Everyday Life, 1915-1945. Harper Collins, 1992 (reissued Unv. of Arkansas P. 2000)

Norwood, Hayden, The Marble Man’s Wife.

Schlereth, Thomas, Victorian America: Transformations in Everyday Life 1876-1915. Harper Collins, 1991.

Wheaton, Mabel and Blythe, Legette, Thomas Wolfe and his Family

Wolfe, Thomas, Autobiographical Outline

Wolfe, Thomas, Look Homeward Angel. Scribner, 1929.

“History Detectives at the Thomas Wolfe House” initially developed by Elisabeth Sommer, July 2007

Freedom Rides Outdoor Exhibit

These are some images of the award winning exhibit “James Farmer and the Freedom Rides” that was installed in Ball Circle at the University of Mary Washington.  It centered on a vintage bus that represented the buses that the Freedom Riders took on their journey south in 1961.  I was a member of the team of five which conceived the exhibit, designed it, and wrote the labels.  In addition to what you can see in these photographs, we had a compilation of civil rights songs that played from the buses interior, and it was lit by floodlights at night.  The exhibit included a blank figure outline to represent “everyone” with the invitation to tell people whether and why you would get on the bus.  During the month that the exhibit was up, visitors filled up three of these figures with their responses.