Charles Lauer (Response 5 of 5)
I get the impression that museums are named after one of two things: their content or their location. The “New York Transit Museum” has exhibits on the MTA and the subway system, the “Museum of Modern Art” is filled with contemporary art pieces, and the “Museum of Sex” is filled with… well, I think you get the point. The “Newark Museum”, on the other hand, is called the “Newark Museum” purely because it’s located in Newark.
Now if you’ve ever been to the “Brooklyn Museum”, you’re more than aware that the institution falls into the latter category: it’s not a museum dedicated to the borough of Brooklyn, it’s simply located there. This came as no surprise to me when I visited, as I had been to the museum numerous times before. But this time, walking through the museum in order to satisfy a requirement for an NYC-centric class, I came to a realization:
Almost none of the museum even talked about the city.
Yeah, there was the fake Statue of Liberty in the parking lot and the occasional painting or display, but, I don’t know, I guess I was expecting there to be more. I’m aware that the City isn’t the focus of the museum, but I was expecting it more present in the undertones. I was expecting there to be something to write about here. But, there just… wasn’t.
I mean, there was a whole exhibit dedicated to the color blue, yet no space dedicated to the city or its history or its people.
To me, it almost felt like the “Brooklyn Museum” could have been located anywhere, and that thought, led me to an interesting question:
Did the “Brooklyn Museum” have an obligation to talk seriously about the city?
I mean, in Jersey we’ll be lucky if a museum even acknowledges where we are, so why was I expecting anything different in the City?
Maybe I feel indebted to the city and simply assumed that the management did too. Or maybe it just seemed logical to me that a museum based in a city with such a rich and vibrant history would want to explore that seriously.
I don’t really know.
What I do know is that the Brooklyn Museum certainly doesn’t owe NYC any floor space. I just thought it did.
So, after 500 words, this essay turns out to be more about me and less about the Museum I went to go visit. The trip started off as one full of worrying (What in the world am I gonna write about???) and slowly morphed into one of introspection. Viewing the museum through this new lens made me, for the first time, confront the biases I had about how New York institutions and, to a similar degree, other New Yorkers, should feel about the place they call home.
Questions:
- Do you believe that museums located in the NYC have an obligation to talk about the City and/or it’s history? Why or why not?
- Do you have similar expectations when it comes to visiting museums located in the city? Do you think those expectations (or lack thereof) are linked to how you answered Question #1?
PS: I managed to take a couple pictures of the few New York-related pieces in the Museum. Here they are:
