According to Diane Barthel, the preservation of historic buildings and lands is essential evidence of the past. While Barthel argues that historic preservation is an important aspect of national identification, she also stresses the complexity of the trade. Her viewpoint in Historic Preservation focuses more on the progression of preservation as a movement of social change and its bureaucratic aspects. By comparing preservation efforts in Britain and in the United States, Barthel depicts the Preservation Project as an effort that is constantly changing and interpreted in numerous ways, yet essential in creating a collective memory.
Although preservation efforts in both Britain and the United States have aimed to create a national identity in each country, Barthel argues that they differ in practice. Preservationists and other activists, mostly artists and intellects, in Britain initially sought to save any property they could get their hands on. As time progressed, preservation organizations became more complex and the local voice in preservation efforts diminished. As a result, preservationists began to follow a more elitist mentality, ranking only lands and buildings of national significance suggested by the organizations. In comparison, the preservation movement in United States followed a more grass-roots upbringing. With preservation efforts associated to patriotic fervor and civic duty, local groups and communities battled their way up to the federal level to see preservation acts performed. While preservation efforts in Britain follow a top-down process, Barthel argues that the United States performs a bottom-up process, making it more of a democratic system.
Whether in Britain or in the United States, Barthel argues that preservation efforts in both countries have to take interpretation into perspective. While preserving a building can contribute a tangible perspective to a time in a nation’s history, each person is still entitled to their own opinion. A preservationist in Britain may look at an upper class country house in admiration of the once simple past, while an onlooker may see it as a symbol of oppression of the elitist classes. Capitalist John D. Rockefeller may view Colonial Williamsburg as a slice of utopian American history, while a tourist may see the reenactments and reconstructed buildings as superficial and unrealistic way of depicting life in the past. Especially in the United States where cultural diversity is present, historic preservation projects are never going to contain one significant meaning. According to Barthel, as long as humans have the instinct to interpret their surroundings and to consider their political and religious beliefs, preservation as an art of total agreement is non-existent.
Since its inception, Barthel argues that the Preservation Project has been successful in establishing the collective memory of various nations, cultures, and classes. As a result of preservation efforts in Britain and in the United States, hundreds of buildings and sites have contributed to each country’s historical narrative. While historic buildings and sites may be subject to various interpretations, there is no doubt that preservation projects provide valuable evidence to the past.
3 comments:
I agree that depicting a single theme within a preservation project is difficult. Interpretation of the project’s historical significance will vary between those that have benefited and those that have suffered, in some way, during the period the preservation project reflects.
I think that the idea of a multi-vocal environment makes preservation that much more important. A single piece of land or a structure can have so many different meanings for so many different cultures and these meanings can change for the same group over time. This is one of the difficulties that, according to the book, the British movement faces. As you said, these grand homes can be negative for some people, by not expanding to preserve structures of all types many voices will be quieted. This is one area where, it seems, that the US preservation movement has made inroads. While obviously not perfect structures from all regions and backgrounds have and are being preserved. This preservation lends credibility and pride to cultures of all types by encouraging this.
I agree with Brent and Antoinette Burton archives are quite difficult to access. I think back to places we have visited this semester and if it were not for being in this class I most likely would have not seen the archives in the museums. Archives hold many pieces of information that not only historians but the general public as well find important. While it is true that archives hold pieces of information on states and people that others may find embarrassing and should remain hidden I do not feel that is why it is difficult for some to gain access to archives. I believe the difficulty comes in the worry that certain people may destroy the artifact. The archivists want to be sure the people they allow in the archives are trust worthy. I believe this is what leads people to not be able to peruse all documents. I also believe it what causes many archivists to misled people because it gives the archivist time to get a feel of why the person is wanting to gain access to the archives. I like Brent’s statement about “Archives unfortunately, are not just warehouses of knowledge; they have to be navigated due to their political nature” because it is the reason I believe people have such difficulty it getting access to archives. If people do not have the right credentials or experience in archiving or historical what business do have in the archives. Archives are used by historians for research. The artifacts and other primary sources are often one of a kind and need our upmost protection. Primary Sources are used by historians to help legitimize their research. Finally Brent is right “archives are not neutral” nor should they be in my opinion. I do not believe everyone who walks through the door has a right to gain access to archives. The archives do have their own needs and motivations and those needs and motivations are to protect the artifacts and other primary sources to the best of their ability. It is in this protection that affects researchers experiences with achieves.
Post a Comment