MRF responses

1-In Cabinets to Museum the Tradescant collection is discussed. Why is it so significant in terms of who was allowed to view it? It was known by its owner as the “ark” – interestingly zoo as also often described is “arks.” Why would there be this parallel?

The Tradescant collection may have been considered to be an “ark” because it had such an array of specimens under one location. It differs from zoos in that it was not classified in a taxinomically correct order, but rather, divided into two categories: naturalia and artificialia. Naturalia were objects that pertained to nature, either animal, plant, or mineral, while artificialia were objects that were loosely defined, but were fundamentally man made. It is an interesting similarity in that the Tradescant collection was coined with that nickname because at its premise, it did serve as a place of shelter and security as the vast collection was opened to the public. There was no discrimination in class or gender to whom was allowed to view it, being the first recorded establishment that had this accessibility. Zoos might also be coined as “arks” because they do provide shelters for exotic species, and especially provide protection for those that are endangered. Perhaps the Tradescant did not display species that were critically endangered at the time, but it did allow viewers to have close observation to species that were foreign to them, and in this way provided acknowledgement to the foreign species. 

2-What is the primary purpose of a Wunderkammer as described in the readings? Is it simply to collect odd things like a souvenir case of circus show, or something more? Explain in some conceptual detail. In your explanation reference the Dawn of Zoology readings about early natural historians such as Aristotle and Pliny the Elder that you read about tat the very beginning of the semester.

It is to bring enlightenment to the audience. At this time, science was beginning to research studies that were not tangible before, due to religious doctrine or other institutions. As the concept of travel became popular, so did the yearning to learn more about the world, one aspect being the natural world. Curiosity played a significant role in how these collections were able to expand.

3- How are Mark Dion’s cabinets of curiosities similar to the Tradescant one? And how is it perhaps also very different both materially and conceptually? Discuss.

Mark Dion’s cabinets of curiosities are similar to Tradescant’s because they both have an accumulation of both naturalia and artificialia specimens. The way how they are presented, however, is a bit different, because Dion tends to combine the two categories by making subcategories. For example, the cabinet of the air has a vast collection that displays butterflies, an owl, and some animal skulls, but it also has man made handmade with feathers. Conceptually, as a whole, I believe that they both are successful in bringing acknowledgement to the public, and feel that although somewhat classified in an organized manner, there is still a bit of confusion in the way it is presented. From the illustrations and description that was held in the original cabinet of curiosities, there seems to have been a similar way of approaching the display. For instance, in the “Cabinet of the Library or Archive” it displays archival books with scientific illustrations, scrolls, and Latin dictionaries, but it also displays a duck on the ground. This seems out of place and I do not draw the connection immediately.

4-          The essay Why Museums? makes the general case for the importance of museum-based natural histroy today. How does the organization, rationale, and functionality of the museum as they describe it differ from the wunderkammer of the past?

Out of the various examples they discuss regarding the practical scientific use of museums pick one or two you thought as most interesting or surprising and describe why they caught your attention.

Museums seem to have a more structured manner of presenting what they are exhibiting, and explain scientifically, why they are displayed. They identify the source of certain species populations and demonstrate decreased rates in ecological habitats and invaders. Although wunderkammer provided enlightenment in displaying such rarities in species to others who would never have the chance to travel to see them live, it did not have a classified manner of display, taxonomic, or provided background information or data. It only provided the object itself, which fulfilled the task of informing others. With the advancement of technology, it is now possible for scientists to provide information of these types of species, and to explain how declining populations have been altered due to global warming and habitat loss.

I found it to be surprising reading upon “bioterrorism” and how museums try to shift through this to try and create a more balanced manner of explaining when agriculture is attacked by natural causes, or by the aid of human intervention- whether it is accidental or deliberate. I did not think that museums would be a part of this type of investigation.