A house museum is a historic place that used to be a dwelling but was transformed into a museum. The desire to visit a house museum can be explained by a person’s admiration of a historical figure that used to live there or the era that is reflected in the house’s interior and exteriors. However, these museums differ significantly from the traditional ones, both in their contents and in the way they are managed. This paper will analyze the problems surrounding the pilgrimage to house museums.
House museums are managed differently from the traditional museums, and usually, each location is a part of a greater organization. In the article “Britain’s Reluctant Museums” by Kennedy (2006), the author argues that house museums are often managed by trusts, and these institutions are in charge of collections that any other conventional museum has. This creates a burden in terms of finance and responsibilities. The issues with the House Museum being a place of pilgrimage are the lack of regard for the historical value and the need to display items correctly. However, while house museums remain popular and are pilgrimage, it is unlikely that the approach to managing these institutions will change.
House museums usually do not provide a guide or explanations about the objects they display, which can hinder the experience of the people visiting them. For example, Kennedy (2007) explains that house museums, unlike traditional museums, offer a dramatically different experience to their visitors. For instance, visitors are not greeted at the entrance, and they walk straight into the living space, typically managed by the family that owns the house, which is the case with the Stourhead (Kennedy 2006). In this mansion, there are no signs or text near the furniture or photos that would give the visitors a clue of what has been going on in the house, how it looked before, or what is its historical value. Hence, although there is an evident pilgrimage to this house, people do not receive the same value when visiting it in comparison to the traditional museum since they do not receive an explanation of the place’s value.
Another issue with these house museums is their contents and objects that are on display. According to Kennedy (2007, 2), “over half the collections are on extended loan from their original owners, with obvious implications when future generations feel the blood ties loosen and the taxman beckon.” Other house museums were bough by trusts with no objects at all, or the items inside had to be borrowed. This poses the question of the value that these houses have to the visitors and their pilgrimage. A similar issue is discussed by professionals working in the museum industry in the transcript “What’s Happening in Interpretation at Historic Houses?” (Heal 2006). The discussion in this transcript also focuses on many house museums losing their historically valuable objects. Hence, one can assume that the attitudes of owners towards the things displayed in house museums and the need to protect them are different from the way historical objects are treated in professionally managed museums.
In some cases, the houses themselves do not have a historical value, and their only worthy characteristic is the old items collected by the owners, as is the case with Mr. Straw’s House in Worksop (Kennedy 2007). Again, this requires professionals to question the need and purpose of such houses as the visitors are exposed to a mere collection of old items with little background or value to them.
The lack of a professional approach to the management and preparation of the objects is evident in other elements of the house museum experience as well. For example, Souhami (2007) states that the house-museum of Thomas Gainsborough has poor lighting. Considering that this is a place that should display the art created by this renounced British artist, as well as the items he owned, the lightning factor is disappointing. Souhami (2007) argues that the experience of visiting Gainsborough’s house is confusing, and the only information provided by the administration is a small leaflet. There is no explanation of how to enter the buildings, and the information included in the booklet is confusing rather than enlightening. Moreovoer, Souhami (2007) was disappointed with the way the management of the house approached the display of the artist’s paintings. For example, in some rooms, the lightbulbs were not working, while others did not have enough light to illuminate the entire picture. As a result, the visitors who came to admire Gainsborough’s works at the place where he resided were exposed to subpar experiences.
Another issue with a pilgrimage to historic places is the problem of land ownership and community perceptions, which is discussed in “What’s Happening in Interpretation at Historic Houses?”. For example, the Chiswick House is not owned by the English Heritage organization, which creates an issue with the local community (Heal 2006). This is due to the fact that from a historical perspective, the community living in the area contributed to its development and the value of this place, which is not recognized.
Despite these issues and the problems of pilgrimage, there are examples of house museums that are valuable and examples of which should be followed by others. According to Pes (2007), Anna Akhmatova’s house in Russia is a representation of a house museum that overcomes all negative stereotypes about such institutions. Many objects, including paintings and letters, were donated by the poet’s relatives. The building itself is kept the way it was during Akhmatova’s life, which is one reason why this has become the place of pilgrimage. The ground floor features temporary exhibitions and becomes a place for art shows in summer (Pes 2007). Moreover, the Fountain House has been a residence of other poets and prominent figures from the Russian intellectual elite after the revolution. Hence, the authenticity of Akhmatova’s house museum points to the many issues that exist with these types of institutions and the pilgrimage to them, which is the lack of authentic nature that would convey the spirit of the era of a historical figure. Akhmatova’s house museum is an exception that helps one see the many problems with the way most house museums are managed.
Overall, this paper discusses the issues linked to the pilgrimage of the house museums. While, in theory, these establishments should be the authentic representations of the places where historical figures, artists, or poets lived, in reality, they are usually poorly managed. The collections of objects are typically scarce due to ownership issues. Moreover, these places typically do not have proper information displays that would provide pilgrims with information about items or specific buildings. With some house museums, the ethical problem of heritage and land ownership that should be attributed to the local community arises. Finally, some house museums are poorly managed to the point where the rooms do not have working lightbulbs, and visitors cannot see the displayed objects.
References
Heal, Shannon. 2006. “What’s happening in interpretation at historic houses?” Museums Journal, 1-21.
Kennedy, Maev. 2007. “Britain’s Reluctant Museums.” Museums Journal 107(7): 28-31.
Pes, Javier. 2007. “Poetic Justice.” Museum Practice, no. 37, 25-30.
Souhami, Rachel. 2008. “Picture Imperfect.” Museums Journal, no. 107, 41-43.