>> RESPONSE QUESTIONS #4 (posted on the course blog by
Tuesday, noon)
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?
It was important because the
people who were allowed to view it were not determined by social rank or
gender, but simply by the ability to pay a fee, much like museums today. Zoo’s
are often called “arks” because they are areas in which species who face
extinction in the wild may be bred. Often zoos have programs to breed
endangered animals with the intention of re-releasing them into the wild later
on, and great care is taken to avoid inbreeding so that the species would
survive in the wild if released from the zoo. I believe the Tradescant
collection might be called an “ark” for a similar reason. Although the
specimens are not alive, they cannot breed and repopulate the earth, they are being
held here in a sort of stasis. Many of these things could not exist in the
future (or already don’t exist anymore), but pieces of them continue to exist
in the collection. These pieces are evidence of what used to be, whether it is
a species or a culture, and in a more abstract manner than zoo’s, allows that
thing to live on.
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 at the very beginning of the semester.
· I
feel that the purpose of a Wunderkammer is to show things from places that we
cannot see. At the time Wunderkammer’s were popular people could not turn on
Animal Planet or search for images on Google. A the time people wanted to understand
our world, especially the parts of it that were foreign and new. Reports from
explorors and artifacts brought back on ships were about the only evidence
people had for these places, and Wunderkammer’s were a showcase for this
evidence. I believe that cabinets of curiosities go back to the definitions of
Natural History that we listened to the first week of class. In those
definitions, there was a theme of love and curiosity: “Promoting and understanding appreciating of
the living an non living world, in a celebratory way.”, “For me, it is about
the wonder.” and “Natural
History Facilitates people falling in love with the world.” Generally, I think
these wunderkammers were about trying to get an idea what was out there and
share that idea with others, but also about a general awe with what the world
was able to produce.
·
Also a
little bit about showing off, but that goes without saying.
·
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.
In The Mark Dion reading
Krzysztof Pomain defines collected items as “kept temporarily or permanently
out of the economic circuit, afforded special protection in encloses places
adapted specifically for that purpose and to be put on display.” Therefore,
collections are, as summarized by Sheehy, “a purposeful assortment of objects
that are removed from their usual circulation paths, economic or functional to
be preserved and displayed. In this way, the Mark Dion cabinets of curiosities
and the Tradescant cabinets of curiosities are the same. They both contain
objects removed from their ‘natural course of existence’ and placed on display
in a sort of stasis. However, other then that they are both collections of
objects meant to instill wonder, I believe they are intrinsically different in
nature. The Tradescant collection was put together by selecting the most awe
inspiring or exciting objects, per the taste of the collector. The Mark Dion
cabinets of curiosities were selected by putting forth a process (such as
unearthing artifacts on the bank of the Thames river), and then displaying all
artifacts that were unearthed in this process. The objects were not chosen or
discarded by their ability to inspire awe or interest, but simply shown
together as equals. I believe this form of display speaks more to the process
and the character of the place and manner by which the objects were taken from,
while the Tradescant collection speaks more to what interests human beings.
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.
I feel that the Wunderkammer of the past existed
mostly to ‘exhibit’. The cabinets were to show off awe-inspiring artifacts.
Specimens from far away cultures and ecosystems could be showcased to people
who would not be able to see them in other ways, such as we do now with
television and internet. Natural History Museums today still serve this
purpose, by putting together educational exhibits that showcase specimens that
are either awe-inspiring, or important in teaching a focus of the exhibit.
However, this is not the primary focus of a museum collection, and museum
collections are often much larger then what is on exhibit. 99% of the Field
Museum of Natural History’s collection is behind the scenes. This collection
exists to serve as a database of specimens, which are used regularly for
research. This changes from focus from a showcase to a tool for gaining
knowledge.
The Mediterranean Fruit Fly
In 1999 specimens for the US
Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service allowed
scientists to study an agricultural pest, the Mediterranean fruit fly.
Molecular markers were used to show that specimens collected in the range where
the fruit why was introduced ranged in time. This evidence showed that the
fruit fly was introduced in multiple introduction events, rather than one long
term low level infestation.
of the world’s most damaging agricultural pests, the
Mediter- ranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata). Using molecular markers, Davies
and colleagues were able to show that individuals captured in the introduced
range in different years represent separate introduction events, rather than
captures from an in- festation that persisted at low levels. This information
was important in devising strategies to control the invasive fruit fly, and
these strategies have saved agriculture time and money.
DDT
By studying
the thickness of eggs in museum collection, scientists have revealed the link
between DDT use and the decline of certain bird species. A data set of eggshell
thickness from 1880 to 1967 showed that a marked decrease in shell thickness
that coincided with the use of DDT. DDT was traveling up the food chain to the
birds, and causing their eggs to become thin to the point where they would be
in danger of cracking prematurely. The cracking eggs were causing a reduction
of population in many bird species, a connection that may not have been
revealed with museum egg collections dating back to the 1800s.
-Isabella Rotman
No comments:
Post a Comment