Ring Them Bells

About a week and a half ago my boyfriend and I visited what are probably Philadelphia's best-known historic sites: Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell. Since I have lived in Philadelphia for almost a year, and because fewer numbers of tourists would be around during the cold, winter months, we figured the time had come for a visit to these iconic sites. Not surprisingly, I have some thoughts to share about each.

Matt and I both agreed on a favorite between the two sites. Although I cannot speak for his opinions, I believe we both felt more connected to the Independence Hall than to the Liberty Bell. The building itself is beautiful. I particularly enjoyed the gorgeous woodwork. Although I cannot do justice to the building, here are some photos:





I had the sense of being somewhere important, in a location where something absolutely vital had occurred. Because I have previous knowledge of the process by which the Founding Fathers put together the U.S. Constitution, I found myself imagining what it must have been like. The image of the men locked in a room, roasting in the heat of a Philadelphia summer, became real to me in a way it previously had not been.

Unfortunately, the weakest part of our experience at Independence Hall was the guided tour led by an individual from the Park Service. The content of the tour was jumbled and did not present a nuanced version of the building's history. Matt and I both agreed that individuals without prior knowledge of American history would likely come away having learned very little.

The Liberty Bell Museum provided the opposite experience. I enjoyed the exhibits at the museum highlighting the history and importance of the Liberty Bell. Although the signage contained copious amounts of text I never felt overwhelmed or bored. The information provided a nuanced and fairly complete history of the Liberty Bell.

However, when it came time to stand in front of the Liberty Bell, this supposedly iconic piece of American history, I felt underwhelmed. I felt more attached to the Bell as a symbol of other things than as an object.

That said, the Bell has been perfectly situated in a circular glass room looking out at Independence Hall. I found the setting pretty enough to enhance my otherwise unremarkable experience of the Bell.




I am in no way saying that one should opt out of a visit to either Independence Hall or the Liberty Bell Museum. Please go! I would, however, recommend visiting during the winter so that you avoid the crowds of people that swarm over Independence Mall during the summer months. I would also suggest tempering your expectations. Not everyone will feel a deep connection to these sites, despite their cultural and historical significance.

Stunned

I was recently having a very pleasant conversation with a museum volunteer, until she said something that stunned me. She claimed that if we (Americans) stop funding our museums, we will lose our culture and become a third world country.

Here are the things I feel are wrong with that statement.

1. The volunteer's statement completely misunderstands what it means to be a third world country. That designation has nothing to do with how many museums a country has. Plenty of third world countries have museums, though their quality and standards vary wildly.

2. The statement assumes that museums are the sole creators of culture. Anyone who has ever thought seriously about "culture" simply cannot come to that conclusion. Museums may be the guardians of culture, but their existence has nothing to do with whether or not a society has "culture."

3. The statement limits "culture" specifically to fine art, and more broadly to anything contained within a museum. But the arms of culture reach far beyond the kinds of things that museums house. It includes the songs you sing, the stories you tell your grandchildren, the clothes you wear, the books you read, the food you eat, the words you speak, and every little piece of ephemera that hardly anyone thinks of saving.

4. The statement assumes that museums cannot exist without some kind of government funding and, by extension, that those museums are superior to those that do not receive government funding. Can government funding improve the quality of museums? Absolutely. One need look no further than the London's National Gallery or the V&A to understand that government money can not only help improve the content of museums, but also make those museums free and accessible to all. But one can also look at the U.S. Park Service, with its years-long backlog of maintenance requests and its continual budget deficits to see the problems associated with government funding. I am in no way advocating that the government stop funding museums; many small museums and historic societies could not exist without the funding they receive from the state or federal government. I am merely pointing out that the end of government funding would certainly not mean that all museums or all culture would be permanently wiped out of the American landscape.

To be fair, I am probably reading into the woman's statement. But I do believe that her comments are indicative of many individuals who work or volunteer at art museums. "Culture", for them, begins and ends with fine art, an idea which is not only erroneous but dangerous.