| Fall 2006 |
It was cold out, but not any colder than usual for a fall day in Ann Arbor. The wind was fierce, and it was surely exacerbated by the constant flow of traffic centered on the intersection of Washtenaw Ct. and Church St.; the exhaust expelling out of car tail pipes like the visible steam exhaled by the despondent lump of monochromatic students huddled together at the bus stop, waiting to depart to wherever it was that the bus was taking them.
 |
| A model of the AIDS virus from the "Explore Evolution" exhibit.
|
I made my way to the elevator, which bared more resemblance to a cargo-lift with its sheet-metal floor and overwhelming size. With every passing floor the elevator let out a low groan. Four groans later, I found myself in a small, dimly lit hallway - apparently where they cluster old rocks and museum staff. I carefully made my way to Room 4512, the office of John Klausmeyer, my guide, and another museum preparator. After greeting each other, we commenced the tour.
 |
| A model of a DNA double helix from the "Explore Evolution" exhibit.
|
One of the more ostentatious pieces featured in this exhibit is a large model of an AIDS virus. It could easily be mistaken for an asteroid in size, shape and to an extent, color, if not for the large label indicating otherwise. John explained the purpose of such a model: "The one problem with science - especially in regards to evolution," he said, "is that a lot of it involves things you can't see. Like with the HIV exhibit. We asked ourselves, 'Well, how do you show something that you can't see?' You can't just put it in a Petri dish and have people look down a microscope and say, 'That's AIDS.' That'd be really boring, and we'd like to have things be more interactive and tactile, so what we've done is we've created some really big models, like this one. And generally speaking people have been really receptive to it."
I asked him how, as the natural history Museum Preparator, he reconciles the art aspect of running a museum - the subjective aspect of it - with the objective nature of science. He responded that, "The way we use art is as a tool, basically in the same nature as graphic and commercial art. We're communicating a message. We try to make it aesthetically pleasing as well, but really it's about public education, not art. We're trying to teach people about the past as well as current events in science. So that's really the big difference between an art museum and a science museum, they both have different missions."
Faced with the question of reconciling art with science, some say that the two live in drastically separate realms—a divide separated by a vast ocean called "objectivity." However, they do both share in one distinct quality, which is their provocative and controversial nature. For centuries, both art and science have faced the issues of what is considered "moral" and "decent" by society, and perhaps there is no better place to have that question addressed than a natural history museum, where fragments of bones and piles of sedimentary rock are collected and labeled; a house for empty visages that hold within them the memory of a once and still vivid, tumultuous world.
Making the Museum: Part II
|
|
![[Page Menu]](http://www.arts.umich.edu/images/menu/menu-end.gif){kind=small}
Music |
Dance |
Literary Arts |
Theatre |
Visual Arts |
Film |
Architecture
![[Page Footer]](/images/footer_corner.gif){kind=small}
