2nd Visit to the Michigan Historical Center

Today we visited the Michigan Historical Center for the second time--and I feel this visit was much more instructive. Listening to Maria Leiby talk through the exhibits on Michigan as we walked through them allowed us to see inside the process of exhibit-making. Her sort of off-hand comments and interesting asides helped at least me to realize new intricacies of designing exhibits. For example, in each exhibit area Maria would explain that certain things had to be left out because there weren't artifacts to fit that story or that stories were included because of certain artifacts. Even at this stage of our planning process, I think we need to keep in mind the feasibility of collecting artifacts--if we have no artifacts all we have is a story, which is about equivalent to an essay, and does not embody public history. I know we have touched on this, but the more she talked, the more I began to realize that if we started finding artifacts, things, perhaps this would help our class form our story.

Maria also emphasized that most of the exhibits were designed as an entire environment rather than by display cases. In fact, in every room she would point out an "ordinary" looking object that actually served as a case with more artifacts. I thought this was a great use of space, but also a way to make exhibits more interesting/interactive.

I did notice however, that many of the exhibits seemed to lack a clear organization. On my own, without Maria, I don't know if I would have proceeded through all of the displays in the proper order. Also, there seemed to be too much information in such exhibits. I consider myself an educated person, and even I wouldn't stand there and read all of the information that was available, let alone small school children trying to take in exhibits.

Concerning the planning/design stages of exhibits, all of our speakers emphasized that they work on teams and committees because the job is just too big for one person. I think Dr. K has already established this precedent for us by making teams, but I think we need to start utilizing this mentality. Maybe this will be easier once we really have a focus and direction.

I found this visit very helpful and interesting--it got me excited about this project again. Therefore, I sincerely hope we can stop spending class time discussing a direction and what we want to do, and just pick one and get working.

From the shores of Daytona

Hello all! I have decided to post about our class project even though I am miles and miles away from Lansing and I-496. Before departing for "sunny" (I have to qualify that adjective as the weather has not necessarily been cooperative here) Florida, I met with my grandparents for an evening of card playing--and the opportunity to pick my grandpa's brain about our class project. As you may recall, I told the class early on that my dad works for MDOT--well so did my grandpa--which means he was working during the time that the I-496 project was underway. While he was not in any kind of supervisory or decision-making position at that point in his career, he was able to tell me quite a bit about the process. Should we choose option 2, I would be able to conduct a more formal oral interview with him. He also said he could connect me with others that could be helpful. My grandma was also very insightful about what the atmosphere in the city of Lansing was like around that time.  She had a lot to say about the perceptions of the project that we wouldn't necessarily find easily.  She suggested that we talk to Mr. Canady and Trustee Ferguson--sources we are already well aware of thanks to Matt Miller's article.

I maintain that I would like to pursue option 2 as I believe that finding sources for that project will be easier.  But more importantly, I feel that we would be exploring a side of the I-496 story that has not necessarily been explained--something good research always tries to do--fill in the gaps. I think projects like option 1 are much more common, for example the "Stan's Walk" website we looked at in the beginning of the course. I think option 2 would force us to think more outside the box and create a truly unique museum exhibit. Doing this more "creative" option, in my opinion, would also likely help us with our own projects as it covers a broader range.

Hope everyone is having a great Spring Break!

Visit to the Michigan Historical Center

Today we visited the Michigan Historical Center in downtown Lansing, right by the Capitol building. I realized I had been there before and was really excited while walking in past the big tree. But I left a little disappointed. Our presenters did an excellent job, but I thought in going to the Center we would get to check it out a bit, and really we sat in an empty room that resembles a classroom at MSU. I know the State Archivist couldn't be with us as planned, but I just thought we could have made better use of where we were. Even discussing how to build an exhibit in front of an actual exhibit would have been better...

That being said, I did have some new thoughts about our project today. Ted Grevstad-Nordbrock of the State Historic Preservation Office mentioned two mansions that would have ended up on the National Register of Historical Places that would have fallen in the path of I-496: The R.E. Olds Mansion and the Orlando Barnes House. It made me realize that we could maybe appeal to an audience with our project by showing them what history they are missing because of the decisions made in the construction of that highway.  Maybe if we could recreate the history of these mansions in our exhibit we could argue for why Lansing should have tried to preserve parts of this neighborhood and what the public could learn if these buildings had made the National Register.