Compare and Contrast Freud and Sir John Soane Musuems

Similarities

Both originally a family home.
Both are named after men - Freud and Soane
Both represent women in some way
Neither have the representation of gender as a key principle
Plentiful staff at both locations.

Differences

Each from a different time - Freud 20th C, Soane 18th C
Women are peripheral to the representation within the Soane Museum, but are central to representation in the Freud
Soane is a 'Gentleman's collection' of disparate objects of whatever interested him at the time - paintings, architectural details, maps/plans, coins, etc.  Freud has a diversity of objects, which all relate to the theme of psychoanalysis in some way - books, archaeological human forms, furniture, personal paraphernalia.
Soane has some Museum policies available on line.  Freud does not.
Soane has portrait of Emma Hamilton, by Sir Joshua Reynolds in a coquettish semi-nude pose.  Freud's wall image is of Gravida, fully clothed.
Soane is free to enter, and has information explaining the house available in a 3GBP booklet. Very little narrative available about house contents.  Freud is 4GBP (annual ticket) and has information boards around the house.  Plenty of narrative available about the people it represents
Soane forbids photos.   Freud allows photos, but requests no flash.

Preparation for visits.

Select my two museums - Sir John Soane and Freud.  Identify opening times.
Identify questions to ask:  How do these museums show their respect for women?

What does 'respect' mean?  To me - treating people positively. Not derogative.

Chambers dictionary - Respect: to heed; to relate to; to treat with consideration; refrain from violating; to feel to show esteem; deference or honour to; value.  Interesting that respect includes Value!

Methodology - qualitatitive

Scopophilia - pleasure of looking.  In relation to my question.

How analysed - by considering why one museum, Soane, did not appeal to me and the other one, Freud, did.

Theory applied - semiotics - visual reading of the sign.  I considered whether semiotics holds true over time or does the interpretation of the sign vary across time.

Reynolds' portrait of The Snake in the Grass (Emma Hamilton) would have been read semiotically by a small audience of affluent men, probably in a rich man's study, in a private environment. It is an image intended to be titillating, and would not have been on display in the public areas of a house, where the mistress and her guests could see it.  It would not have been interpreted as objectifying women, but possibly personifying woman as alluring. However over time, the nude striking a pose, has been interpreted in various ways, and gone in and out of fashion for collectors and for display.  In 21st century Britain, feminists would find it demeaning and objectifying to women.

Gravida, Freud's plaster cast wall hanging, if clearly named, would have been interpreted as a fertile woman in ancient Greek times, and probably also in Freud's time.  My interpretation of the image, without knowledge of the meaning of the name, was to interpret it as a Greco-woman in a flowing robe - with no concept of its representation of fertility.  So semiotics again does not give a consistent representation of a sign.

Lambrous Malafouris' Material Engagement Theory alters the nature of the sign. It is the engagement with materiality that informs understanding.  The materiality of the  object means it has tactility and durability - unlike and separate from a linguistic, i.e. ephemeral, sign.  Semiotics relies on coding and decoding- understanding what it is, and what it means.  However the interaction between material and linguistic signs enables semiotics to work.  Material signs are durable - they can be touched, carried, worn, possessed, traded and destroyed.  They are tactile and spacial and can understood in embodied ways.  However, the linguistic sign is ephemeral, linear and sequential and does not have the properties of the material sign.  Traditional semiotics tends to reduce signification to a contextual encoding and decoding, where there is a specific 'right answer' to decoding the signifier.

Material engagement theory changes this outcome.  Material signs are not message carriers of the pre-defined social universe: they are an example of "something". They are objects of substance, so form instantiation (an instance).  Without the linguistic sign to accompany the object, there is no expressive concept.  Viewing the sign without understanding the concept or code, means the interpretation will vary across time.