Guest Post: Anita Burton reviews Soul Soldiers at the Western Reserve Historical Society

This week I am pleased to share the first of four guest blog posts written by the students in my Exhibition Development and Design class at Walsh University. This semester my students are learning about the elements and principles museums employ in creating successful exhibits and valuable visitor experiences. As we draw nearer to the end of this fall term, each of my students will present her own perspective on an exhibit, book, or experience that resonates with her.

Soul Soldiers: African Americans and the Vietnam Era

Guest Post by: Anita Burton

Senior, Museum Studies Program

Walsh University

Last weekend I was able to go to the Western Reserve Historical Society to see an exhibit they are currently featuring called Soul Soldiers: African Americans and the Vietnam Era. This traveling exhibit was developed by Pittsburgh’s John Heinz History Center, and its Cleveland appearance is sponsored by the African American Archives Auxiliary of the Western Reserve Historical Society. Soul Soldiers is about African American soldiers fighting in Vietnam, while their friends and family members were fighting their own battle during the Civil Rights movement. The African American soldiers were called "soul soldiers" because they brought their souls to war with them and brought “soul” to the war, a phrase that can have many different meanings. I was drawn to the exhibit initially because it has to do with the Vietnam War, which as morbid as it may seem is one of my favorite eras in history. 

I had my own expectations upon entering the exhibit as most visitors do, something both Nina Simon and John Falk discuss in their recent books. I knew I was going to see artifacts and pictures pertaining to the war in Vietnam and the African American soldiers who were fighting in it. Of course, I did see both photographs and artifacts in the exhibit, but I got a lot more along with it. From the music of the time, to the issues African Americans faced while fighting for their own rights here in the United States, the exhibit covered multiple aspects of the Vietnam War from an African American perspective. The exhibit also included some social objects, which were very meaningful objects, and audio/visual tools that helped to drive the meaning home to the visitor.

As all visitors do, when I arrived I also had expectations of my enjoyment of the exhibit. I knew I would like it, just because of the subject of the exhibit. Object wise, I figured on seeing the typical photographs and artifacts, possibly uniforms, or even diaries written while fighting. As far as content or the information included, I am not sure what I expected, but I got a lot more then one might have initially thought. The exhibit talked about everything pertaining to the Vietnam War and the African American perspective. The very beginning starts off with information about Vietnam and the history of the war itself. It gave just the basics for those who do not know much about the war or the country. It then moved into a quick background on the Civil Rights movement, again to give those without much knowledge on these events a basis for viewing some of the other parts of the exhibit. 

Image courtesy of the Western Reserve
Historical Society

As you move on through the exhibit you see how some African Americans were drafted-- it even showed some of the draft posters that targeted African Americans specifically. The exhibit then went on to cover African Americans fighting in Vietnam, and how they dealt with the aftermath of the war. It talked about the ways the black soldiers communicated. They had this form of communicating with their hands that was described by some as their own form of sign language. The soldiers could meet up with friends they had not seen in a while and tell them everything their unit had been through without saying a word to each other. Finally, at the very end, the exhibit even included some artwork done by some of the veteran Soul Soldiers. I felt the exhibit did a good job of detailing facts about the war and the struggles the African American soldiers went through. Too many times we only see the white aspect of the war.

I felt that there were a couple good social objects featured in the exhibit. These were the ones that particularly caught my attention and caused me to think. One was a carving done by a Vietnamese woman and presented to one of the soldiers. It was a figure of two fists. While this may not seem like much, once you put it into context it makes a great deal of sense. Yes, it was a statue depicting two fists, but this was the symbol for black pride. It was used during the civil rights movement for African Americans to show their strength and pride. This carving was given to a soldier, who was a commanding officer of some units, and it became a kind of good luck charm. The label next to this statue said that it was placed somewhere where all had access to it, and before leaving to go on any mission every man in the unit touched it. It was a symbol of luck and even prayer for these soldiers. 

One of the other pieces I personally found to be very expressive was a piece of art created by one of the African American veterans. This particular piece was called “Crossfire” by William M. Myles. The painting showed an African American man in the midst of war with bullets going in every direction, and he himself getting hit many times. Bullets hit him and caused him to bleed red, white and blue blood. This image struck me as very moving, and again could start many conversations as to the significance behind the different parts of the artwork. For being a smaller exhibit, they had a good deal of what can be considered social objects-- objects that can start discussion on touchy subjects, such as both the civil rights movement and Vietnam War.

Also included in the exhibit, which I thought was a good touch, were the audio/visual parts of the exhibit. Today it seems like everyone wants to listen and watch, as if nobody wants to read information; they want it read to them. At the very beginning of the exhibit is a video that sums up the subject and gives you a little bit of a background on what you are going to be seeing in throughout the exhibit. This video was very well put together and informative. There were two places where you could hear the personal accounts of different soldiers talking about how they got drafted, and one also talked about his part in the civil rights movement. Another audio portion of the exhibit was the station that included about twenty or so songs written and performed by black artists and also talked about the war. Some were popular songs, others were very rare, but visitors could listen, and the lyrics were available as well. Since I personally love music, especially from that era, I was drawn to it. I sat for a few minutes listening to some of the different songs and briefly reading some of the lyrics to songs that had a lot of meaning. I felt the audio/visual parts of the exhibit did their job in drawing in the visitors, but did not overpower the objects and photographs placed throughout the exhibit.

The Soul Soldiers exhibit was very well put together and I greatly enjoyed it. It did a good job depicting the Vietnam War through an African American soldier’s perspective and helped to show what they went through, having to deal with fighting a war overseas and also fighting for their own rights at home. I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of information included and the detail put into the exhibit. The social objects and audio/visual portions of the exhibit helped to capture the visitor’s attention and start conversation among visitors. In all, I very much enjoyed my visit to Soul Soldiers exhibit and would recommend it to many. 

Soul Soldiers is on view at the Western Reserve Historical Society now through November, 27th, 2010. For more information, visit the museum online at www.wrhs.org.

Sustainability challenge: museums struggle to maintain relevance, court diverse audiences, preserve integrity of mission

Lately there has been a lot of chatter regarding the way museums go about increasing their attendance and broadening their audience. Earlier this week, the New York Times published an article about the limited success of the Brooklyn Museum's "populist" efforts. The article's author, Robin Pogrebin, rebuked the museum's leadership for pandering to the masses with exhibits like the Star Wars blockbuster and free First Saturdays where visitors can explore the museum one Saturday evening each month undeterred by admission prices. All of this set off a wave of opinions on both sides of the issue, as Twitter and blog postings flew through cyberspace supporting and further calling into question the wisdom of the museum's programmatic choices.

I take a middle of the road stance on the particular example offered by the Brooklyn Museum. On the one hand, I do not think that an exhibit entitled Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination belongs in a fine art museum. At the same time, opening your art museum on a Saturday night so that patrons can roam the galleries at their leisure, enjoy an adult beverage or two, and chat about life, sounds pretty much like your run-of-the-mill fundraiser. In the case of the Brooklyn Museum's First Saturdays, it was a friendraiser targeting young, urban, anti-elites without a hefty cover charge, and therefore it seemed pointless to some. It was assumed that these younger visitors and people of color were not really looking at the art. The argument was even made by Maxwell Anderson that these folks are not members of an art museum's "core constituency" and it's unlikely that the people coming in for free would ever pay to come back, so they don't have "residual value." Does anyone check up on members of the coat-and-tie crowd who shuffle in for a black-tie, big ticket gala to make sure they are all adequately examining the artwork? What if some of the who's-who only attend for the open bar, or to be seen writing a check, and never take the time to see the art? Do we make a fuss about that? Nah, because there are already enough white elites who do look at the art, so what if some of them just like to get their picture on the society page. Right, they matter.

We say we want our museums to be relevant, we say we want our visitors to better reflect the diversity of our communities, and we say we want to make experiences in our museums meaningful, but we don't want to do the hard work it will take to achieve these goals. We are already working so hard and not achieving these ideals, we say we just can't do anything more. We know that addressing the goals above will mean dramatically changing the way museums do business. It will mean pissing off board members who like doing it the way we've always done it. It will mean evaluating our current programs, getting rid of some we are very comfortable providing, and then replacing those with less comfortable alternatives. It will mean reaching out into our diverse communities on their terms and letting them tell us what they need. It will necessarily mean taking risks. Some new programs will fail, some will only record a modest victory, but if museums are to remain relevant and survive we must tackle this hard work, and then not define success towards these goals in outmoded terms.

Looking back at the history of museums, we started out as cabinets of curiosities and fine art collections held by the religious and aristocratic elite. These collections reflected the courtly world of artists' wealthy patrons and the fabulous grand tours and expeditions of Victorian gentlemen. Fast-forward to the present, and our challenge is to make these vast repositories of our cultural heritage meaningful to generations who have never used a typewriter, text while driving, and don't remember televisions without remote controls. The good news? According to a report from the Corporation for National and Community Service released June 15th, volunteerism in the U.S. is increasing at its fastest rate in six years, and a study from the American Association of Museums released in February of this year shows that despite the sour economy museum attendance for 2009 was up at nearly 60% of museums, and over 25% responded that they experienced a "significant increase" in attendance. So, if volunteerism and visitation are up, why are museums closing their doors, swimming in debt, and selling off collections? Where is the disconnect?

I believe we have a sustainability crisis on our hands. The size of our museum buildings, collections, staff, and in many cases even our missions is becoming unsustainable under the old model of how to run a museum. And it's not just museums, all kinds of our cultural and heritage organizations are straining, if not crumbling, under the weight of their current operations and missions in the reality of "the new normal." Here in Cleveland, it seems the tough times began in 2007 with the loss of Healthspace after their ill-fated expansion. Today, the Cleveland Botanical Garden is encumbered by debt, the Western Reserve Historical Society has sold off objects and cars to keep the doors open, Opera Cleveland stages fewer operas a year, and our incomparable Cleveland Orchestra weathered a strike by its musicians last January. What is the common-denominator? Let's see, how about our aging donor base, and core constituencies? Yes, we are all elbowing each other for the same slimmer slice of pie, and unfortunately, some just aren't getting enough to survive. That said, there are huge portions of our community who do not participate in all that our cultural organizations have to offer. We must learn to present ourselves in an approachable, comfortable, and compelling way to expand our audiences. We must tear down our programmatic barriers and open our doors to people of color, young people, and those who are intimidated just by our labels-- museum, gallery, historical society, arboretum, opera, and orchestra. We need to make these people part of our new core constituency.

Back to populism, that word that seems to strike fear into the upper echelon of artistic aficionados, patrons, and promoters alike. If we choose to ignore the aging demographic of our traditional museum financiers, and turn a blind-eye to the trend away from passive experiences, if museums, and others of their cultural kin, talk about populism, but thrive on elitism, they will die of insignificance and attrition.

To counter the foreboding do or die tone I have taken thus far, I offer a great example of a traditional art museum maintaining its relevance within its community. Today, I read Tahree Lane's report in The Toledo Blade about the Juneteenth celebration this Saturday, June 19th, at the Toledo Museum of Art. The museum is holding its 6th Juneteenth event, commemorating the end of slavery and reaching out into the community with a free event focused on African American art, culture, heritage, and traditional African crafts. How do we measure the impact and success of a program like this one? Hopefully, careful evaluation of outcomes can maintain the level of community engagement and ensure the future sustainability of efforts like the Toledo Museum's Juneteenth.

I am afraid there are no easy answers to many of the questions we raise when discussing issues of building audiences, finding resonance in our collections and exhibits, making meaning for followers (especially in 140 characters or less), and ensuring sustainability in a rapidly changing world. However, I am sure that slinging cheap shots from the moral high ground at museums who are down in the trenches trying to address these complicated problems is not the path to enlightenment.

Photo of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 2009.