Methodology Exercise

We have been set an exercise to set some methodology, and use it to compare and contrast two museums.  We can choose between: Dennis Sever's House; Camden Arts Centre; Sir John Soane, and Freud House. Dennis Sever's House is fully booked until the New Year, costs 15GBP, and I have already been there.  We went as a class to Camden Arts Centre (free entry) and it left me cold.  However, I have never been to Sir John Soane (free entry) or Freud's House (4GBP student entry, ticket valid for a year), so I decided to pick these two, largely because they were originally private homes.

My preparation:

Define a reason for selecting these two - both originally private homes.

Identify questions to consider while going round the property.:

How do these museums show their respect for women?

By their artefacts?
By their staging?
By the narrative provided?
By their policies?
By how they treat their customers?
How do they target their marketing?

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!

I had a look at the policies that each museum published on its webpage.  The Sir John Soane had a few policies available, and the Collections Policy made it clear that very few artefacts were accepted by the museum.  They had a Committee that applied very strong criteria around period and subject matter before they accepted anything from the public for the museum.  I noted Sir John Soane had 2 sons, and no mention of any wife or daughters.  Nothing specifically about women. I was not looking forward to going to this museum, as class members from a previous study group had reviewed it and not had a favourable time there.  NB Photos not allowed.

The Freud Museum had very few policies on its web page, but was much more informative about Anna Freud, his daughter.  I did not know anyone who had been there, but I was looking forward to the visit, and had meant to visit the location for some time - this exercise just galvanised me into action.  Photos allowed, no flash.

The Visits:

The Sir John Soane is a deceptively large house on Lincolns Inn Fields.  The entrance appears to be to one house, but actually extends to 3 houses.  Sir John Soane left his house and estate to become a museum, on the terms that nothing was to be altered.  He had a huge collection of architectural artefacts, maps and plans, and other 18th century bric-a-brac. Very few information boards or handouts, unless you paid for a 3GBP pamphlet or 20GBP guidebook! There are a couple of rooms facing the square which are decorated and styled for the period and feel quite spacious.  However, the complex rooms at the rear of the house are absolutely stuffed with a plethora of architectural features, artlessly displayed.  One room had walls that were layered with hinged, wall sized panels, and had huge paintings were stored/hung on them, and the museum assistant was moving them so visitors could see the paintings.

Features about women included:

Coins - mostly with male profiles, but a few female as well.  If a male and female profile was present, the male was in front.
Oil paintings.  Mostly of high class men, but a few women were present.  In my opinion the women portrayed were in the role of 'attractive appendage to a man'.  Typical of the period in which the painting was made.
Oil painting of Emma Hamilton in a coquettish pose, with a small child.
Firescreen - textile with a faded image of a woman.
Pencil drawing of a woman, with a label in french.  I could not translate it, using my basic French.
Ceiling murals of semi-clad women, personifying various graces.

There was a room describing a project 'Opening up the Soane Museum', which had information.  The script in the information boards referred to men by job role and name - Curator, John Smith - but Helen Dorey did not have a job role (I later found out she was the Deputy Director).

On a Recognition Board (high on the wall and illuminated), high status staff, both men and women were named and titled. It mentioned there had been turnover of Musuem Directors, leading to deputies covering the role.  Lower status staff (Assistant Conservator, Community Outreach Officer, Volunteers and Visitor Assistants were mentioned but not named.  Except for "Special thanks due to Lewis Bush, young and upcoming photographer".

In another corner (unilluminated) on a board, Visitor Assistants are named, and photographed, and this shows they are mostly women.  Volunteers and visitor assistants were plentiful at the venue, with an approximate ratio of 4 women:1man.  No way of telling who was paid/volunteering.

Analysis:

I was too tired and uninspired/disinterested to carry out quantitative analysis by counting objects.  So I looked at things, made notes and concentrated on how I felt - qualitative analysis.  Then I thought about semiotics - how we read signs.  Semiotics is a useful theory, but has a major criticism made of it - that the theory says the meaning of signs is static - which it is not.  As culture evolves, things we see change in how they are interpreted.  For example, a lady in the late 1800s is often portrayed in drama, wearing a strident purple - which we now read as Victorian, and fairly ordinary.  In its time, the colour of the dress indicated she was high status because purple was one of the first Perkins artificial dyes derived from a by-product of the coal tar industry, was a recent textile invention for its time, and only worn by high fashion, affluent ladies.

So, the policy of the Sir John Soane, to retain the museum as he left it, is impacting on how the building, contents and artefacts can be interpreted and understood in 21st century society.  It comes across neither as a museum, nor a personal home.

Coins embossed with the head of a monarch, in profile, indicate status.  It is disrespectful for a low status person to look a high status person in the eye, so coins only show high status people in profile, so the plebs cannot stare them in the eye.  But 21st century society does not understand the symbolism of the profile.  As the UK has had a female monarch on its coinage for 60+ years, we probably do not realise how unusual it is for a woman to be portrayed on coins.

I found the room about 'Opening up the Soane' much more interesting for analysis of women.  There was considerable importance attached to the roles that staff carried out.  The Recognition Board appeared to have been written with the Senior Staff (mostly men) as the intended audience, as it recognised and flattered them. One junior team member was mentioned with the senior men, and was male, 'young and upcoming'.   The junior staff were referred to, but by job roles only (impossible to identify gender).  Volunteers were not named, but had a group photograph (women only!) and were not representative of the people who volunteer.

The Freud Museum

This museum is a large family house in Finchley Road, an affluent area.  As we entered, it felt like a family home, built in the early 20th century.  It was the home of Sigmund Freud from 1938-9 - only one year!  Freud was a non-practicing Jew.  Freud and his family fled Austria because of harassment of the Jewish population when it was annexed by the Nazis, immediately prior to the start of WW2.  They were able to obtain visas due to his professional status and connections, and migrated as a family, with their furniture and possessions, and considerable funds.  They were able to pay various 'fees' by selling about a third of his book collection, and using personal funds.  Presumably the Freud family remained sufficiently affluent to also purchase a large house in an expensive area, despite being refugee migrants.  Anna Freud was his daughter, who lived in the house until 1982 (her death) and bequeathed it as a Musuem to Freud.

Dining room contained Anna Freud's peasant style furniture from early 1900s.  Information boards on the dining table gave a brief life history of Freud, Anna, his wife, 2 housekeepers and a friend of Anna. Strong, positive representation of real people.

The downstairs lounge/study/consulting room is furnished as it was during his time, with lots of archaeological artefacts in glass cabinets.  He had many human figures from various archaeological periods which he used in his work.  Nora noted the different periods were all jumbled up together.  Perhaps there was a different reason for assembling the objects the way they were.   There was his consulting couch, with his seat behind the head of the couch, so the patient could not be distracted by seeing him.

Upstairs, on the capacious landing there was an extensive family tree, identifying Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud (daughter and child psychologist) and Lucien (great nephew and artist) and Clement Freud (great nephew and MP/broadcaster) amongst others.

In the rear bedroom, was a display about Anna Freud, a noted child psychologist.  There was her desk and typewriter, and a large glass cabinet with various objects related to her - a thimble and the accompanying letter from a friend who donated it; a wooden woodpecker door knocker, typewriter, books etc.  The display combined artefacts about her professional life and competence, and her domestic interests such as knitting and sewing.  It made for a more rounded presentation of a deceased person.

In a front bedroom there was a consulting couch and table, but little else.  The wall space is used for visiting artistic displays.  The artworks on display were of black and white drawings in a month-to-a-view calendar format, presumably giving a narrative of what happened to the (male) artist throughout the month.  Did not fit with my remit.

However, there were two interaction boards that asked key questions favoured by Freud. I liked the interaction potential of these.