Dickinson College Humanities Program in Norwich

Something that’s unexpectedly been a big part of my experience so far has been the chance to look at museums from a broader perspective. Recently, I’ve been averaging about one museum a day, and while I’ve enjoyed all of them at least to some degree on a “these are interesting things to look at” level, what I’ve really had a chance to do for the first time is think about museums from a comparative perspective and critically think about narratives and curation. For example:

What purpose does the Victoria and Albert Museum serve? Does it have an overall theme? Should it have one?

For More on the V&A, read Grace/Kelley’s post from yesterday. I too got a disjointed vibe from the place, but also felt it was quite pleasant. The Museum bills itself as “the world’s greatest museum of art and design”, and while all of the museum’s contents vaguely fit in those two categories, that doesn’t really do the institution justice.

A basic exhibit on fashion led to giant Raphael cartoons, which we followed with Iranian and East Asian cultural artifacts and a room so full of medieval sculpture, I thought they might all topple over like dominoes if I were to trip over one. Upstairs we found metallurgy, miniature paintings, and a vague exhibit about modern design. At face value, the V&A looks like leftovers from the rest of London’s great museums thrown together, and yet we all learned things and generally had a good time. In this case, the V&A didn’t need an overarching theme or narrative for its contents to interest us, but I’m not sure I’d recommend it to someone who’d seen a lot of the other great London museums and was looking for something new.

Secondly, does the British Museum need to make itself less stuffy?

I took another shot at finishing the BM today (maybe next time). One thing I noticed the second time around was that a conscious effort is being made by the Museum to reorganize some of itself along thematic rather than geographic lines. One smaller exhibit Henry, Brandon and I all liked dealt with living with death from a broad and cross-cultural perspective. A sign we caught before we left implied more of these types of exhibits were soon to come. So, what does it mean that after depending on a geographic display of its vast collection with a few special exhibits for its entire history (which the National Gallery and the V&A to some extent do as well), the British Museum has decided to start to make changes. I don’t really know why they are now (anyone have a guess?), but I think I approve.

Finally, I thought I should add some thoughts about the Notting Hill Carnival today. Rather than picking up a two pint bottle of Strongbow and joining in on the fun I thought I’d use the opportunity to take some mental field notes on Londoners and public events in Britain. Here are a few of the many reasons the Carnival could not have taken place in the States:

– No American event would allow outside alcohol and alcohol vendors when it’s just as easy to close the place off and jack up the price
– Americans hate thinking about trash, and certainly don’t want to see it or think about how much they create. Rubbish bins are few and far between, so this is not possible at the Carnival
– I find it hard to picture one of the wealthiest parts of an American city allowing itself to be opened up to the masses for two days of drinking and very loud music. I got the sense that some locals were elsewhere or were fortified in their flats, but most had joined in at their windows or in the streets.

People who also went: if you disagree or can think of another reason, put it in the comments.

Sorry to finally be blogging about Wednesday’s events today, the new blog link wasn’t working last night. The number of interesting trips and tours have begun to snowball this week, and blogging about them in a timely way has gotten a bit more difficult.

That said, I feel as though I must write about my experiences on Wednesday, which for me included both Westminster Abbey and the Churchill Museum/Cabinet War Rooms. I’ll echo what I think everyone’s opinion of Westminster Abbey was: unfathomable, in both size and historical importance. I had not realized just how much of the church is dedicated to graves and memorials. It felt overwhelming to be walking from Newton to Darwin to Elizabeth I while flying past David Lloyd George, Edward Elgar, and other very important people for whom the tour just had no time. Certainly no public building other than Westminster Abbey gives an impression of the richness and grandeur and power present in the totality of English history.

And yet, personally, I think I probably got as much out of the Cabinet War Rooms as I did the Abbey. One of the most amazing things about World War Two, I’ve always thought, was that something as powerful as 20th Century Great Britain was brought so close to annihilation, and survived not through brute force but rather determination, cooperation, and strong and unwavering leadership.

Seeing the Abbey and the War Rooms in the same day meant seeing Britain’s at its most epic and powerful and at its simplest, starkest, and truly finest. (Here I’m using juxtaposition, a strategy never before employed on this blog). The Rooms themselves, for those who’ve not yet seen them, are presented with simply an audio guide and some signage, (rather than overblown multimedia) which I think serves them well. Even recreated, they do not appear visually impressive as they were reserved for the PM, the Cabinet and important staff, and there was a minimum of space under the concrete/steel buffer. If one didn’t know the decisions made and the speeches given from that place, one might find it unremarkable.

I might not have recommended the Churchill Museum adjoining the War Rooms if it were on its own. It does gloss over the poorer choices of his career and has quite a confusing setup and superfluous multimedia. My favorite part, frankly, was the loop of video from his remarkable memorial service.

On the tube home I was thinking how tremendous it is that the nerve center of Britain could be confined to those dozen or so rooms in 1940, and only 13 years later it could be back in all its splendor at Westminster Abbey for the coronation of a new queen (with nary a toilet flush to be heard).

I’ll start by saying what a thrill it was to go to St. Martin
in the Fields today. As a classical music fan, I’ve long admired the recordings of Sir Neville Marriner and the Academy of St. Martin in the fields. 18 Handel_ Water Music Suite #1 In F Hopefully, that is the Air from the Water Music Suite #1 in F by Handel, recorded at St. Martin in the Fields. I enjoyed the trio today, but especially relished the chance to take in the space where the Academy plays.

On another note, I’ve enjoyed (despite being overwhelmed by) both the British Museum and the National Gallery in the last two days. Even though Henry and I only got to see the Egyptian statues before the British Museum closed yesterday, we were in awe of the sheer scope and grandeur of the place. We had a similar feeling at the National Gallery today.

This leads me to the chief irony of both of these museums, namely that neither is all that ostensibly British. The British museum has a section for nearly every part of the world, while the National Gallery is dependent mainly on work by mainland European artists. What makes these museums British then? I’ve been slowly coming to the conclusion that Britain (both in the empire era and even today) has thought itself something of an arbiter of all world culture. Our Burton reading yesterday mentioned that the visitors from India in the 19th century approved of the British Museum’s India section, all but saying one need not go to India but rather London to understand Indian culture. Similarly, today I saw French and Italian tourists in London today admiring Pissaro and Titian at the National Gallery.

This British “arbiter of all world culture” role, if it indeed does exist, is a very powerful role that is potentially also very problematic. Certainly it is convenient for a traveler or student to have all of this in one city. However, some time ago, I heard about a nation (I believe it was Egypt) demanding a few of its artifacts back from the British Museum. Besides being a tricky legal issue, I feel this says a lot about the power dynamic between Britain and the rest of the world which has come about both as a result of colonialism and the powerful role Britain has had in relation to most of the world since WWII. For some reason it just seems natural and unproblematic to us in the west that the Rosetta Stone should be permanently in London, because we perhaps have subconsciously come to believe that the British have a natural right to something with such value to civilization, without thinking critically about who actually created and contributed to that artifact.

Thoughts on this “arbiter” theory or what it could mean (presuming its reasonable)?

We arrived at the Camden Town markets around 9:30, after learning that the markets open around 10. In a matter of a half hour, we had found at least 4 different kinds of markets. The first one we explored was the Camden Market, a simple and small market with many snarky T-shirts and punk-rock items. All of us had expected this market to be like the markets you read about in books. Instead of the farmer’s market image with the stands of fresh fruits and vegetables, we were surprised to see many basic retail and punk-rock items. Only a few minutes there were needed. Across the street, was the Inverness Street Market which was smaller and consisted of the produce and tourist stands. However a quick turn put us at the base of the beautiful Camden Lock.

An enchanting bridge provided a pathway into the next part of the Camden market scene. These next three markets: Camden Lock, Interchange and Stable were connected with some indoor, some outdoor, and some both. Camden Lock and Interchange were outdoors and consisted of mostly food stands. Stable, our favorite, was a gigantic, mostly indoor market focusing on vintage clothing and antiques but with different vibes and from different cultures. We were surprised to observe that in the markets there was very little diversity amongst the shoppers. There were mostly white, British, young and middle-age shoppers, hardly any families or other ethnicities. The shops themselves though, were diverse in tastes and products from a Middle Eastern furniture store with beautiful chess sets to Cyberdog, a futuristic-themed clothing and accessory store. At one point there were also 6 restaurants in a row, ranging from Japanese, Indonesian, Mexican, BBQ, Indian, and Italian.

Since the tube stop was packed with people coming off, a quick turn onto a side street revealed a quieter neighborhood with few people about. This could mean that the patrons of these markets are not from Camden town and perhaps that many Londoners are drawn to it as a mecca of the trendy, funky, and diverse.

Having heard so much about Camden Town we were looking forward to spending the day browsing the markets.  However, we found that 3 hours was sufficient to get the feel of the area and its visitors.

Since I think everyone seemed to enjoy the same things about the first half of today, I thought I’d talk about what I did after we left lunch. Brandon, Grace, Henry and I went to the National Maritime Museum (as did a few others, I believe). It was a fairly big museum with a great variety of exhibits.
Among them was an exhibit on the Atlantic in British maritime history, which covered the slave trade and the American colonies, among other things. Another was on art with British ships and naval battles as its subject. A third was on passenger ships since the early twentieth century which, though undeniably is a part of British maritime history, was less interesting to me. The most important thing I noticed about the museum was how almost all of its patrons were British and not tourists, which was nice to see. I wonder if this is because Brits like to look back upon the naval and trade prowess of their past, despite its negative connotations of war and colonialism, as something unique to Britain and something to be proud of still today.
We then visited, as well as others did I’m sure, the Painted Hall and the Chapel. The Painted Hall, which commemorates and glorifies William and Mary’s 1689 ascension to the throne, was evocative of the Christopher Wren/Isaac Newton/Early Georgian era we’d been seeing bits and pieces of all day. The Painted Hall has grandeur, beauty, innovative architecture, represents England’s growing financial and political power, and throws in some anti-Catholic propaganda, too.
The Naval Chapel was not nearly as ornate and boastful, but was still beautiful. It’s a reminder of the centrality of the Navy in British life, and of the gratitude the British have had and continue to have for those who’ve served their country.

Our stop was Notting Hill Gate, a posh residential area in the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.The neighborhood seemed affordable and busy enough on first glance, but a turn onto a side street revealed nothing but lovely and large flats in a quiet neighborhood where everyone seemed to be at work.
As it is not a business district, shopping appears to be the main daytime activity in the Notting Hill/Kensington area. Shoppers, who seemed to be from other parts of London rather than tourists or locals, strolled by high-end boutiques and a few open air vendors on Portobello Road. On a Saturday, Portobello road would be packed for the local market.

Notably, there are no statues or monuments per se in Notting Hill. However, a plaque on Portobello Road indicates that George Orwell lived in a house there at an unspecified time in his life. This led us to wonder how different the neighborhood might have been when he was there, as he was not wealthy and actually spent time early in his career writing about the desperately poor in London and elsewhere.