Last week, I told a colleague that I was going to Berlin for research purposes and asked her what else I should see while I’m there. She had excellent recommendations for museums and historic sites to visit, while also noting that (and I paraphrase), “except for the archaeology museums, it’s hard to avoid confronting the darker parts of history while in Berlin.”
In contrast to her statement, even within the archaeology and art museums there was a confrontation with Berlin’s history as a city, particularly with regards to WWII. In this post, I want to highlight some of the displays that I thought were a particularly compelling; focusing on displays that deal with missing/damaged objects.
Clarification: these displays are not about archaeological objects, but rather later sculptural pieces. However, I think that these examples are important to consider for an archaeologist (or art historian) because it does deal with the secondary and after lives of objects.
Display 1
The first display mostly caught I my my attention with a sign that started “Dear visitors…” The aforementioned colleague is currently doing museum visitor research, and this caught my eye as something I should send to her.
The display was designed to test a method of displaying objects using plaster casts. For anyone who doesn’t know; in the late 19th and early 20th century, many museums made plaster casts of famous pieces. These pieces were sent to other museums to be displayed and studied. Sometimes the casts were seen as just as good as the original object–especially in the US where people may not be able to go and visit the original piece. However, as time went on, these pieces became de-valued to the point where by the last few decades of the 20th century, they were mostly used as models for artists (more about this here). At the University of Amsterdam, the archaeology department has several plaster models as decoration–including the below image of a winged Victory of Samothrace–that once may have been used as proper display collection (below). Also, the University’s archaeological collection (the Allard Pierson Museum) is currently working to conserve and display the collection of plaster casts pieces.
At the Bode, this display used plaster casts to be able to present objects that have been destroyed or lost. In this display, the casts were also used it to display objects and their various stages of condition over the years– showing damage and restoration in a physical way that doesn’t affect the original object. In addition to the plaster casts, the exhibit included photographs of the original layout of the exhibit before the war.
This leads me to think, though plaster casts have come and gone out of fashion, maybe we are entering a new phase where they are beginning to have resurgence in utility to museums–to show stages of damage/restoration or to present destroyed objects. This is all the more interesting to consider, given that just days ago an article was published about the instillation of a 3D printed version of the arch from Palmyra in London. Regarding the 3D printing of monuments, at first there was anticipation about. After all, technology used in order to preserve knowledge is always exciting. However, since the opening of the exhibit in New York, the process has come under quite a lot of scrutiny. I believe that even a few weeks later, there is still quite a conversation happening on Twitter about whether or not the 3D printing of monuments is good or bad.
Display 2
The second display also tackled issues of destruction and damage. In 1945, a fire and explosion broke out in an anti-aircraft bunker situated close to the location where evacuated artwork from the Berlin Museums had been located. Many pieces were destroyed. However, 3 pieces were recovered. The text label states,
” exhibited here with all their “wounds,” [these pieces] serve as cautionary reminders of the effects that irresponsible human events have had on the world’s heritage”
Exhibiting the objects with the damage apparent is powerful, especially in comparison with the images of the intact pieces (included on the introductory text):
Though the first display uses casts to present objects that are no longer available, the second display presents objects that have been damaged. I find that both displays are compelling because they invite the visitor to engage with the object’s history–not only it’s primary story (who it shows, when it was made, who it was made by), but also the secondary histories–what else have these pieces seen? Are they (and if so how) viewed differently now?
Museum Archaeology 