Museum Framework

History Unframed

framework for the analysis of local history museums

Who makes history? How are those stories told?
Who gets to be part of it and who doesn't?
How is indigeneity understood in that context?
How does the historical museum inform our understanding of the city?

History is designed …

From the location to the typeface on the labels: This Framework should give you a structured starting point for the critical analysis of your local history museum.
Within each of the nine categories there are four major questions which are compiled with more specific ones and a few possible answers. You don't need an answer for everything but you need to ask. This should lead to a deeper understanding and critical view of how the stories are told. Every category also holds an exemplary analysis of the Potsdam Museum to get a glimpse of how the framework might be applied and what insights it might result in.

↓

Environment

The direct environment in which the museum is situated and its historical context are often ignored. It might be perceived as an isolated, centralized, objective entity within the city. This minimizes the relevance of historic collections for the present and future of the city and all its people.

What is the historical context ↓ of the museum?

How is it situated ↓ within the city?

Does the museum contextualize itself ↓?

Does the museum extend ↓ into the city?

Potsdam Museum ↓

↓

Space & Connection

Apart from different means to draw explicit connections between artifacts, the organization and thus spatial positioning impacts the implicit connections the visitors make themselves. Spatial analysis can also hint at which eras, cultures, regions and stories might be over- or underrepresented.

How are artifacts organized ↓?

How are explicit and implicit connections ↓ made?

Are there distinct sections ↓ with boundaries?

Can new connections be made or the structure changed by visitors ↓?

Potsdam Museum ↓

↓

Navigation

The navigation is integral for how the visitors experience the history of a city. It also directly represents the understanding of history by the museum itself. The usual default narrative is a linear-teleology: a comprehensible, straightforward storytelling. History as being only the simplified predecessor of the present and not inherently complicated, interconnected and interdependent.

How are visitors guided ↓ through the exhibition?

Which symbols and shapes ↓ are used?

Is it possible to deviate ↓ from the navigation?

Which kind of storytelling ↓ does the navigation imply?

Potsdam Museum ↓

↓

Staging

The museum on a macro-level only exists because of its components. Those can be mainly artifacts, texts, visualizations: Different forms of knowledge. The staging of every bit of information is relevant to the visitors perception. It could be understood, ignored or not even noticed. The relevance will be weighed differently depending on different means of presentation.

Which lighting ↓ is used for the artifacts?

How is the artifact displayed ↓?

By which means are artifacts emphasized ↓ within a narrative?

How are different visualizations of information ↓ staged?

Potsdam Museum ↓

The first few sections in the exhibition have relatively dim lighting with a few highlights. This might be due to the sensitivity of some of those older artifacts or maybe to differentiate the "darker" middle ages or as a time which is further away. Later on the lighting is more diffuse with more light from the outside combined with flood lights on the ceiling. Those flood lights seem in parts inconsistent and create brighter spots and some dark corners which don't seem intentional within the narrative. There are also quite a few cases which have lights which aren't turned on.
One incredible example is the corridor about the Nazi era. On the left wall there are brightly lit, fascistic paintings and an eagle with the swastika hanging on the wall while a map of places of resistance in Potsdam is in a shadowy corner which is rounded against the wall and half way behind a screen, nearly inaccessible and certainly to be overlooked easily.

Certain objects like the swastika eagle shown before are placed as originally intended in an elevated position as something to look up to. This seems like an ignorant glorification of very dark historic periods but also just hinders the visitor to practice literal multiperspectivity on the artifacts.

Three important days in Potsdam's and furthermore European and World history are displayed within structures best described as shrines which are actually supposed to be stages, as the section name is Potsdam as a World Stage. It is not quite clear why this particular form was chosen. One factor might be the general space limitations resulting in a very compressed storytelling and only a few artifacts which get a lot more emphasis that way. Again there is this feeling of a glorified history in short bits of interactions between powers without any critical reflection, relation and perspective of the city population in those times.

Apart from the artifacts there are some different visualizations: Historic city maps but also an interesting combination of a map with building changes over time in form of multiple printed pieces of acrylic glass showing the early development of the city from the first Slavic fortress onward. But some of the simpler maps with pinpoints suffer visual problems as well: Mainly that they don't catch the eye and are hard to read due to the fact that the points are just black on a grayscale map. For example this map of the safe houses used by the secret service of the GDR blends into the background but at a closer look the quite incredible amount of black dots can be observed. If they were in a bright color it would instantly catch attention and most visitors would probably want to find out what there was so many of throughout the city.

At the start of the Producing and Protecting section is a rather large model of the city palace. It is quite beautifully made but apart from that the benefit isn't quite obvious as the visitor will have gotten a good look onto the real building on their way to the museum and from a large panorama window on the first floor before entering the exhibition halls. Why was a model chosen as a form of visualization? On the other hand the Gestapo-prison is only pictured pretty small on a label and highlighted with a black circle on the grayscale photo. Why is there not a more detailed model of this prison for example? Do only the things that might be considered beautiful and fit within the narrative get more detail and emphasis? Other models include a gun factory, a villa, the Einstein-Tower and the GDR border control station at the Glienicker Brücke. It is placed near ground level and isn't as immersive because the visitor can't really look at it from different sides (as is the case with the other models as well).

↓

Labels

To understand the context of artifacts the most established way is the use of labels. Those have the possibility to provide a lot of context but can also be overwhelming if overdone. They need to be actively engaged with to be of use. They are basic means of communication and thus the specifics are important.

What is included or excluded ↓ on the labels?

How specific ↓ is the information?

How are the labels designed and positioned ↓?

What is the context ↓ of the labels?

Potsdam Museum ↓

The labels are color coded according to the current section. They differ in content: Some list only the basic facts like dates and authors, and some have more context also with additional images although mostly rather small. Apart from the inventory number there is sometimes further context of collection, mainly when it was privately gifted. Where did this object come from? Who had it before? Was it bought or donated and why? These questions remain mostly unanswered. An exception might be artifacts found in archaeological digs which are portrayed a little bit in the beginning of the exhibition.

Some artifacts are missing further contextualization as well when there are obviously interesting aspects to them. Why was "forced unification" written in 1990 on this remembrance plaque of the unification of the communist and socialist parties from 1946? This could be a good opportunity to tell an interesting socio-political story but it isn't used.

The placement of the labels is sometimes also rather odd. They might be placed in corners which seem just a bit too close to other artifacts or are placed against the flow of going through the exhibition which makes them easily overlooked as is the case with the labels for the Nazi era paintings even though there is enough space on the wall. Other labels are placed very close to the floor while also having a font size which is a bit too small to be read from a standing position.

Most context is given in text form with a few images as mentioned which satisfies the basic functionalities of labels. But to really spark interest in further context the layout could generally be more dynamic with the labels taking more space and being better integrated with the artifacts combined with a reduction of artifacts on some parts of the exhibition as there is a feeling of cramping as much as possible in the given space.
German and English are the two languages in use throughout the exhibition. If there is text on the artifacts themselves it is translated accordingly on the label which should be expected. Sometimes the kind of language used in the explanations seems rather uncritical. For example "Leben unterm Hakenkreuz" (lit. "Life/Living under the Swastika") has the connotation of the fascistic regime being forced on the general population which wasn't the reality. In the same text the following formulation appears: "Kehrseite dieser Integration war die Ausgrenzung von Andersdenkenden" (lit. "downside of this integration was the exclusion of different-minded people"). This implies that there was a positive upside to this discrimination. That rhetoric isn't evil-minded but careless and ignorant.

↓

Framing & Representation

Due to the limited space in the museum and attention span of the visitors the stories that are being told have to be selected. The result is mostly a strong emphasis on stories of power. Stories and lives of certain groups of people, may they be indigenous, non-white, female or lower-class are not being told or when hinted at framed very differently from the main narrative. This may be further analysed by the different means this framework provides, e.g. Staging or Space & Connection.

Which ↓ kind of stories are told?

Who ↓ is telling the stories?

Which percentage ↓ of the population is represented?

How are different stories and population groups framed ↓?

Potsdam Museum ↓

The exhibition mostly tells stories of aristocrats and royals. This is already apparent by looking at the section titles as listed in space & connection. But also as soon as you enter the main halls: The first artifact the visitor sees is the well-lit replication of a certificate of a territorial gift from a king to his aunt, an abbess. On the wall right to it the Slavic roots with a fortress near the river are mentioned briefly but no further context of who the Slavs were and what happened to them is given. The introduction text to this section states that the land around the river Havel was inhabited by the Slavs and heavily contested at the end of the 10th century. The Slavs were displaced in the 12th century by German princes. This sounds like an interesting and very relevant story to the founding of the city but it doesn't get told.
Further on there is a very clear framing of Potsdam as a purely royal city. This includes the military, science, and even immigration as enabled through royalty. The essence of this being a very important factor within the city's history is of course true but it doesn't represent anything. Again it frames the concept of a city not of the people but of a tiny powerful group and the natural surroundings as things to be formed by this group. Potsdam as an important site for film production through the 20th century is not mentioned even once. There is a separate film museum but if the Potsdam Museum claims to represent the local history than large parts of it can't be omitted.
The leaving out of large population groups continues with the museum's representation - or lack thereof - of the city district Schlaatz. It has the largest population in Potsdam with the most immigrants, most single-parent families and most economically disadvantaged people living in GDR social housing. In the section Identity and Home is an projection with interviews of 13 people none of whom are in the Schlaatz (as identifiable by the backgrounds). The only mention of the history of the district is a small and dark painting of the first housing being built. That's it.

One hint at another side of Potsdam and the struggles of common people is a frame with two pictures and a label with more context of squatting in Potsdam in the early 90s. Especially in 1993 which was the millennium year of the city. It is a rather small hint which is easily missed on the visitor's way out but at least a good start on a topic which is relevant in the present as well.

Even the stories which are told in the section on immigration are very much in the light of upper-class people. Generally the visitor can't get an idea of what Potsdam was like to live in for average people. The narrative of the museum seems to be adjusted to what tourists would expect coming to the "royal city". It doesn't seem to be made for the people of the city at all.

↓

Senses

Learning and understanding is deeply connected with how we perceive the world. If the museum is trying to represent the world at different points in time than it shouldn't be limited to mostly vision and sometimes audition. There are further senses which can make an exhibition more immersive and also attract a more diverse group of visitors as well.

Which further senses, apart from vision and audition, are addressed ↓?

Are different senses aimed at all age groups ↓?

Are the chosen senses appropriate representations ↓ for the subject?

What is the general experience and feeling ↓ of the visit?

Potsdam Museum ↓

↓

Interactivity

Interactivity is not only for kids. Using all senses and being able to explore and learn from that on your own can be one of the most valuable tools in the museum which apart from some multimedia selection possibilities is not used enough. An active museum helps the visitors to internalize the provided contents better and can enhance critical reflection.

Which elements ↓ are interactive?

Which content ↓ is bound to which action?

Is there a clear objective ↓ or is the interaction open-ended?

How is the interaction integrated ↓ with the rest of the exhibition?

Potsdam Museum ↓

↓

Accessibility

The museum of the city should also be for the city. Everyone should be able to access it and gain an experience and new learnings from it no matter their ability. Apart from physical access, this could mean translations, addressing multiple senses and just different ways of access to knowledge from which anyone can benefit.

Is everything physically accessible ↓?

Which language ↓is used?

What is the entrance fee ↓?

Are artifacts accessible through all senses ↓?

Potsdam Museum ↓

A Project by Tilmann Finner
As part of the class Decolonizing Data Visualization – Visualizing Postcolonies
At the University of Applied Sciences Potsdam
Supervised by Prof. Marian Dörk & Lamin Manneh

The Potsdam Museum has had no direct involvement in this project.
My visits were conducted in June and September of 2022 and thus represent only those time frames.
If you feel that I missed something or represented it wrongly, please contact me.

Fonts in Use:
Basteleur Moonlight by Keussel
Abordage by Ange Degheest & Eugénie Bidaut