Voting on History: Richard III in the Tower of London
In her book Destination Culture,
Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett contemplates the future of museums.
She writes, “What is the fate of the 'museum product,' however it
is defined, in today's tourism economy? The presumption in some
quarters is that visitors are no longer interested in the quiet
contemplation of objects in a cathedral of culture. They want to have
an 'experience'” (139). In her chapter in Theorizing Digital
Cultural Heritage, Andrea Witcomb presents multimedia as “an
opportunity [for the museum] to reinvent itself and ensure its own
survival.” (35). Both of these concepts, that the modern museum
must make use of experience and multimedia in order to compete in an
economy of tourism, are present in historical exhibits at the Tower
of London.
One of the more popular tourist destinations in the Tower of London is the Bloody Tower, the tower in which the “Princes in the Tower,” nephews of Richard III, were housed during Richard's early reign. Their bedchamber has been turned into an exhibit in which the “museum product” is not an object but an experience reliant upon multimedia. The chamber is staged to manipulate the emotions of its visitors so that, upon exiting the room, they will vote to condemn Richard III as the princes' murderer. Through use of video and music, the exhibit performs an atmosphere of intrigue that capitalizes on the Tudor tradition of vilifying Richard III. While reading material discussing the historical figures of Richard, the princes, and Henry VII is present in the chamber, the experiential nature of the room counteracts history and propagates popular opinion of Richard III. Under the influence of tourist expectation, this exhibit uses experience and multimedia to allow its visitors the opportunity to rewrite history. Is this the future of the museum?
2 comments:
Jenna,
This is very cogent and provocative project, one that is perfectly situated between the theatrical (Shakespeare as historian) and the performative (the new museology as history-making). I have a few quick questions here. First, do we really know where the princes were housed? Or is that aspect of the museum invented too? My understanding is that there is very little evidence that the princes were indeed banished to the tower, let alone of where they might have slept. The special memory of this history is the effect of a rash of 19th century poems, tales and paintings depicting the two boys sleeping in their (big Tudor four-poster) bed. I ask because it seems worth thinking about the different claims to factuality that exist in old spaces versus old stories. Doesn’t the room itself authenticate or disguise the bad historicism of the exhibit? Second, though you don’t discuss it here, you mentioned in class that there is an opportunity to vote on this story. The vote seems to me an indication that true ‘History’ isn’t available here—that facts can’t be produced to achieve a definitive verdict. So might we not say that the museum exhibits the way popular history happens? Might we not read it as a form of historiographic experiment, that reproduces the lore it (theoretically) puts to question? Here I want you to put some pressure on your own disdain or indignation—yes, I feel sure that many tourists feel they have been told the definitive history of the princes. But isn’t there something conceptually richer embedded in the consensus-driven nature of the exhibit? If participants are asked to make history, they are also asked to see history as a phenomenon that they can make? This double focus would make for an especially compelling inquiry.
Hi Ellen,
Thank you so much for your comments and for pointing out the question of the princes' presence in the Tower. I've only recently started reading nonfictional accounts of Plantagenets and have likely fallen prey to popular history myself! But you are certainly right, I think one of the most fascinating aspects of the exhibit is that it does present itself as experimental historiography. When placed in the position of history maker, it becomes easier to view history as a construct (and within the exhibit as a construct playing into a particular narrative.) This line of thinking makes me wonder about Henry VII's place in this narrative. Is he placed in the exhibit as a murder candidate to document popular skepticism in popular history?
Post a Comment