#National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

lonelywretchjervistetch · 7 months ago

Note

Thoughts on making the Mourning Dove the new State Bird in Ohio? Sorry if this isn't a good bird for Ohio, I'm not too good at birds.

Thanks for the question! And no worries; all suggestions are welcome, and nothing's off the table!

Y'know, it's funny. I've always loved Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura), personally. They're extremely common and recognizable (by sight and sound), they're found in urban and suburban environments, and they're generally charming. When I moved back to the continental USA as a kid, this was one of the first birds I recognized. But is it Ohio? At first blush, I would say that it's about as valid as the present state bird, the Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), in that it's a recognizable backyard bird that would probably be received positively by the public. So, hey, maybe it could work, but I'm not sure it's the best fit.

However. There is an argument to be made, in a very...odd way. Because if we want to use the state birds to tell a conservation story, and we want to tell a story in Ohio in particular...there is a story to be told for a different species. But to tell it, we would have to use the Mourning Dove. And that's because...

...the Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) is very VERY extinct. OK, is this cheating? Kind of. Obviously, this isn't a species of conservation concern...anymore. BUT!!! It's an important story about how humanity can drive even an extremely common species into extinction. But why use this for Ohio? After all, some of the last wild individuals were reported in Indiana, not Ohio. However, the last Passenger Pigeon EVER was Martha, a pigeon living in the Cincinnati Zoo until 1914, when she passed away some years after her mate did in the same zoo. So, in a very real sense, the story of the Passenger Pigeon ends in Ohio, and her legacy can be carried out by the only native pigeon species that breeds in the state, the Mourning Dove.

So, hey, there's an argument there for the Mourning Dove to be Ohio's state bird, outside of its recognizability and status as a common backyard bird! Do I think it's the ideal choice? Well, I don't know, honestly. I have yet to look into Ohio in more detail, but it's not impossible! Plus, thank you for bringing this up to me, because I may not have thought of it otherwise! Oh, and for the record, if you're interested in Martha, you can still see her! After her death, she was sent to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C., where she's currently on display in the Objects of Wonder exhibit at the National Museum of Natural History! But I'd go finder her there soon; the exhibit closes in 2025, and who knows when and where she'll go on exhibit again after that!

But I'll remember this question when I get to Ohio, and I'll bring this idea up! We'll see what others think about it; maybe they'll agree!

7 notes · View notes

jadagul · 9 months ago

Note

One of my favorite art museum curations is the Modern Art wing of the National Gallery at the Smithsonian. The main building has all the pre-1900 stuff, basically, and then there's a second building that has the Modern Art.

But the way the permanent exhibitions are laid out is, there's one room on each distinct movement in modern art. And they go in chronological order, and each room has like a 3-4 paragraph essay on what this movement was doing, what they were thinking about and responding to. So it does genuinely take you on an informative, chronological tour of the development of modern art; and the artworks are part of that historical narrative.

(Now it doesn't have your idea, of showing prints of important pieces that aren't in the museum. That would be an interesting thing to do! Although at some point I'd start asking why you don't just put the prints in a book and then I can read that book at home. Or do that on the internet.)

But conversely, one of my favorite museum exhibits right now is the Smithsonian Natural History museum's Objects of Wonder exhibit. Which, as far as I can tell, is just the "all the coolest stuff that doesn't fit anywhere in particular" exhibit. Most of the Smithsonian exhibits are narrative, but this is just a bunch of cool shit. And it's great!

I would be very interested in hearing the museum design rant

by popular demand: Guy That Took One (1) Museum Studies Class Focused On Science Museums Rants About Art Museums. thank u for coming please have a seat

so. background. the concept of the "science museum" grew out of 1) the wunderkammer (cabinet of curiosities), also known as "hey check out all this weird cool shit i have", and 2) academic collections of natural history specimens (usually taxidermied) -- pre-photography these were super important for biological research (see also). early science museums usually grew out of university collections or bequests of some guy's Weird Shit Collection or both, and were focused on utility to researchers rather than educational value to the layperson (picture a room just, full of taxidermy birds with little labels on them and not a lot of curation outside that). eventually i guess they figured they could make more on admission by aiming for a mass audience? or maybe it was the cultural influence of all the world's fairs and shit (many of which also caused science museums to exist), which were aimed at a mass audience. or maybe it was because the research function became much more divorced from the museum function over time. i dunno. ANYWAY, science and technology museums nowadays have basically zero research function; the exhibits are designed more or less solely for educating the layperson (and very frequently the layperson is assumed to be a child, which does honestly irritate me, as an adult who likes to go to science museums). the collections are still there in case someone does need some DNA from one of the preserved bird skins, but items from the collections that are exhibited typically exist in service of the exhibit's conceptual message, rather than the other way around.

meanwhile at art museums they kind of haven't moved on from the "here is my pile of weird shit" paradigm, except it's "here is my pile of Fine Art". as far as i can tell, the thing that curators (and donors!) care about above all is The Collection. what artists are represented in The Collection? rich fucks derive personal prestige from donating their shit to The Collection. in big art museums usually something like 3-5% of the collection is ever on exhibit -- and sometimes they rotate stuff from the vault in and out, but let's be real, only a fraction of an art museum's square footage is temporary exhibits. they're not going to take the scream off display when it's like the only reason anyone who's not a giant nerd ever visits the norwegian national museum of art. most of the stuff in the vault just sits in the vault forever. like -- art museum curators, my dudes, do you think the general public gives a SINGLE FUCK what's in The Collection that isn't on display? no!! but i guarantee you it will never occur, ever, to an art museum curator that they could print-to-scale high-res images of artworks that are NOT in The Collection in order to contextualize the art in an exhibit, because items that are not in The Collection functionally do not exist to them. (and of course there's the deaccessioning discourse -- tumblr collectively has some level of awareness that repatriation is A Whole Kettle of Worms but even just garden-variety selling off parts of The Collection is a huge hairy fucking deal. check out deaccessioning and its discontents; it's a banger read if you're into This Kind Of Thing.)

with the contents of The Collection foregrounded like this, what you wind up with is art museum exhibits where the exhibit's message is kind of downstream of what shit you've got in the collection. often the message is just "here is some art from [century] [location]", or, if someone felt like doing a little exhibit design one fine morning, "here is some art from [century] [location] which is interesting for [reason]". the displays are SOOOOO bad by science museum standards -- if you're lucky you get a little explanatory placard in tiny font relating the art to an art movement or to its historical context or to the artist's career. if you're unlucky you get artist name, date, and medium. fucker most of the people who visit your museum know Jack Shit about art history why are you doing them dirty like this

(if you don't get it you're just not Cultured enough. fuck you, we're the art museum!)

i think i've talked about this before on this blog but the best-exhibited art exhibit i've ever been to was actually at the boston museum of science, in this traveling leonardo da vinci exhibit where they'd done a bunch of historical reconstructions of inventions out of his notebooks, and that was the main Thing, but also they had a whole little exhibit devoted to the mona lisa. obviously they didn't even have the real fucking mona lisa, but they went into a lot of detail on like -- here's some X-ray and UV photos of it, and here's how art experts interpret them. here's a (photo of a) contemporary study of the finished painting, which we've cleaned the yellowed varnish off of, so you can see what the colors looked like before the varnish yellowed. here's why we can't clean the varnish off the actual painting (da vinci used multiple varnish layers and thinned paints to translucency with varnish to create the illusion of depth, which means we now can't remove the yellowed varnish without stripping paint).

even if you don't go into that level of depth about every painting (and how could you? there absolutely wouldn't be space), you could at least talk a little about, like, pigment availability -- pigment availability is an INCREDIBLY useful lens for looking at historical paintings and, unbelievably, never once have i seen an art museum exhibit discuss it (and i've been to a lot of art museums). you know how medieval european religious paintings often have funky skin tones? THEY HADN'T INVENTED CADMIUM PIGMENTS YET. for red pigments you had like... red ochre (a muted earth-based pigment, like all ochres and umbers), vermilion (ESPENSIVE), alizarin crimson (aka madder -- this is one of my favorite reds, but it's cool-toned and NOT good for mixing most skintones), carmine/cochineal (ALSO ESPENSIVE, and purple-ish so you wouldn't want to use it for skintones anyway), red lead/minium (cheaper than vermilion), indian red/various other iron oxide reds, and apparently fucking realgar? sure. whatever. what the hell was i talking about.

oh yeah -- anyway, i'd kill for an art exhibit that's just, like, one or two oil paintings from each century for six centuries, with sample palettes of the pigments they used. but no! if an art museum curator has to put in any level of effort beyond writing up a little placard and maybe a room-level text block, they'll literally keel over and die. dude, every piece of art was made in a material context for a social purpose! it's completely deranged to divorce it from its material context and only mention the social purpose insofar as it matters to art history the field. for god's sake half the time the placard doesn't even tell you if the thing was a commission or not. there's a lot to be said about edo period woodblock prints and mass culture driven by the growing merchant class! the met has a fuckton of edo period prints; they could get a hell of an exhibit out of that!

or, tying back to an earlier thread -- the detroit institute of arts has got a solid like eight picasso paintings. when i went, they were kind of just... hanging out in a room. fuck it, let's make this an exhibit! picasso's an artist who pretty famously had Periods, right? why don't you group the paintings by period, and if you've only got one or two (or even zero!) from a particular period, pad it out with some decent life-size prints so i can compare them and get a better sense for the overarching similarities? and then arrange them all in a timeline, with little summaries of what each Period was ~about~? that'd teach me a hell of a lot more about picasso -- but you'd have to admit you don't have Every Cool Painting Ever in The Collection, which is illegalé.

also thinking about the mit museum temporary exhibit i saw briefly (sorry, i was only there for like 10 minutes because i arrived early for a meeting and didn't get a chance to go through it super thoroughly) of a bunch of ship technical drawings from the Hart nautical collection. if you handed this shit to an art museum curator they'd just stick it on the wall and tell you to stand around and look at it until you Understood. so anyway the mit museum had this enormous room-sized diorama of various hull shapes and how they sat in the water and their benefits and drawbacks, placed below the relevant technical drawings.

tbh i think the main problem is that art museum people and science museum people are completely different sets of people, trained in completely different curatorial traditions. it would not occur to an art museum curator to do anything like this because they're probably from the ~art world~ -- maybe they have experience working at an art gallery, or working as an art buyer for a rich collector, neither of which is in any way pedagogical. nobody thinks an exhibit of historical clothing should work like a clothing store but it's fine when it's art, i guess?

also the experience of going to an art museum is pretty user-hostile, i have to say. there's never enough benches, and if you want a backrest, fuck you. fuck you if going up stairs is painful; use our shitty elevator in the corner that we begrudgingly have for wheelchair accessibility, if you can find it. fuck you if you can't see very well, and need to be closer to the art. fuck you if you need to hydrate or eat food regularly; go to our stupid little overpriced cafeteria, and fuck you if we don't actually sell any food you can eat. (obviously you don't want someone accidentally spilling a smoothie on the art, but there's no reason you couldn't provide little Safe For Eating Rooms where people could just duck in and monch a protein bar, except that then you couldn't sell them a $30 salad at the cafe.) fuck you if you're overwhelmed by noise in echoing rooms with hard surfaces and a lot of people in them. fuck you if you are TOO SHORT and so our overhead illumination generates BRIGHT REFLECTIONS ON THE SHINY VARNISH. we're the art museum! we don't give a shit!!!

#museums #art #modern art #smithsonian #natural history #national gallery

8K notes · View notes