Controversy On Museums

Although the works of all museums are different, the common perception of museums is that they are education facilities striving to bring awareness and education (often surrounding a specific theme or moment in history) through a physical and full-bodied experience of whatever various theme or subject the museum is attempting to present. The pedagogical approach of physicality and experience-based education is what makes museums so remarkable. Although the perception of museums is that they are often elitist, the pedagogy in which museums embody has the capacity to reach far more people than other forms of media. In relation to human rights and the protection of human dignity, museums have the capacity to not only establish a fundamental record of human rights atrocities but also give attention to the contemporary action that must be taken to preserve human rights and protect those who have yet to have their voices heard. In order for a museum of human rights to operate in accordance to the central theme it is sharing, the museum must embody human rights principles by reducing “barriers to entry” and acting with inclusivity. The museum must act as a public good of shared information that can be accessed by all. In relation to the advancement of human rights, museums attempt to not only share a wealth of information through experiential learning but also seek to evoke feelings of empathy for those who have previously been denied and continue to be denied their basic human rights. Louise Purbrick gives an example of a piece in the Le Mémorial de Caen that honors the victims of “Bombed out Cites.” In his description of the piece, he writes, “These are imprints of the absent bodies of innocent people; their clothes are the sign of unarmed civilians struck down in the midst of their daily routine.” He continues, “The whole display… evokes lives that should have been lived; it is a reminder of the right to life and of how that right resides in the form of the human body” (Purbrick 178). Because it is too late for the visitor of a museum to take concrete action against the historical injustices being presented, the museum must deliver their presentation in a method that parallels previous injustices to the contemporary. This …show more content…
A significant controversy in human rights media is the balancing of grossly catastrophic human atrocity and the promoting and protecting of human dignity. It is commonly understood that exposure brings awareness, and awareness brings activism, but Purbrick presents a very realistic alternative: Does overexposure to human atrocity render awareness ineffective? Purbrick cites Susan Sontag, who makes the claim that “viewing such images encourages inaction: helplessness, apathy and even boredom” (Purbrick 168). The argument is that an overexposure to such catastrophic imagery renders the awareness ineffective because visitors feel it is too late and there’s nothing that can be done. Additionally, grossly devastating images may cause the visitor to turn away and ignore the human rights abuses being presented. Regardless, in order to reach maximum effectiveness, without reducing the true devastation of the abuse being presented, a fine balance is required. Lastly, museums of human rights must attempt to present historical information in a timely and effective manner, without leaving out significantly important events in history. The museum must decide what they deem essential to their