New Interpretations in Polish-Jewish Studies
Edited By Irena Grudzińska-Gross and Iwa Nawrocki
Polin: “Ultimate Lost Object”
In “Objects of Ethnography,” Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett writes that in addition to exhibiting objects, every museum also exhibits the authors of the exhibitions.1 To know the authors is to examine the conventions they have applied, analyze how they construct the subjectivity of the objects they choose to exhibit, and consider the “implications for those who see and those who are seen.”2 I will address Barbara Kirshenblatt’s suggestion as it relates to the core exhibition of the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, curated by Professor Kirshenblatt herself. Who are the authors of the works she has selected to exhibit? What can we say about them based on the decisions they have made about what to exhibit? Who is the imagined audience and counteraudience3 of the POLIN Museum? I can only ask these questions and point toward answers, which have yet to be fully developed.
I will begin with the essay “Categorically Jewish, Distinctly Polish” by Moshe Rosman – an outside consultant for the POLIN Museum.4 Referring to the theories of Hayden White’s equivalent and incommensurable metanarrative, Rosman extols the advantages of a distinctive museum narrative. Rosman argues that a clear thesis constitutes an “Archimedean point,” which focuses discussion among the spectators. There is no need to prove the choice of one narration is right, he claims. The only thing that has to be done is to effectively present the narrative. Rosman ← 49 | 50 → writes: “This means the museum will actively seek to...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.