The Powel House and the Fate of the House Musuem

After touring the Powel House as part of this week’s museum excursion, I have conflicting answers to the question does Philadelphia need another house museum?  From a financial perspective, my answer is no, from a cultural perspective, yes, and from a historical perspective, definitely.  These houses need preservation to motivate and fuel the study of Philadelphia’s unique history.  House museums began to preserve the buildings (Godfrey 12).  However, the purpose is now beyond sharing the building; it is to place the building’s importance within history and connect it to the present.  The question becomes does the house museum shape the community, or does the community shape it?  From visiting the Powel House, I now have a better understanding of the arguments for each aspect of this question.   

The Powel House is an example of a typical Philadelphia house museum standing as a reminder of the city’s past elite.  In the 18^th century, Samuel Powel resided in the residence facing the waterfront allowing him to view the wharfs where his trades entered the city.  However, the house no longer represents his life as much as it symbolizes Philadelphia’s democratic beginnings inclusively.  Powel was both mayor and the wealthiest man in the city at the time.  His fame and popularity made his home a top gathering place for Philadelphia’s elite.  These aspects of his life are highlighted in the museum. 

The ‘founding fathers’ importance is also emphasized and specifically George Washington’s commitment to the city.  They met at this house to discuss city planning and democratic ideals.  A scale created by Ben Franklin is placed in the drawing room while a china set given to the Powels by the Washingtons is illuminated in the dining room (one of the first dining rooms in America).  The Washingtons also spent their 20^th anniversary at the house.  The history highlighted here agrees with what seems to be the mission of many 18^th century Philadelphia site museums; to show its relation to the creation of democratic ideals and its position within the ‘birthplace of democracy’.

The Landmarks committee takes this history and expands their mission to directly reach the surrounding community.  Similar to how Cliveden and Upsala merged to “revitalize” the community, Powel House merged with Grumblethorp, Physick House, and Waynesboro (Young 53).  Moving beyond tourism, house museums today rely on community involvement (Young 52).  The Powel House provides ‘Hammers and Pens’ program to teach woodshop and editing skills to local children.  However, community involvement does not generate much needed revenue.  One idea discussed for an increase in revenue is to rent the upper floors to tenants.  It is one survival strategy to protect the building and ensure proper care (Godfrey 14).    

Presently, the financial, cultural, and historical aspects of house museums cannot be separated.  There must be a compromise resulting in a reinvention of the system.  These house museums need to project other aspects of Philadelphia’s diverse history.  Immigrants’ importance is downplayed by the more visited house museums in the city.  Their presence is significant today and can be seen with the ongoing unofficial segregation of neighborhoods for different ethnicities.  Philadelphia’s population is almost half black, although this aspect is also underrepresented in house museums.  The Powel House’s upper floors were servant residences, but they are not public.  How can we say these house museums are open to the public if they only attract a specific segment?  This decision to change or not may result from the museums mission.  For example, the James Audubon Center committee neglected preserving the interior to the house because Audubon is most remembered for his conservation efforts (Godfrey 15).  Landmarks is moving beyond volunteerism to professionalization.  However, they may lose funding from traditional supporters.  To combat this confliction, the Powel House, along with other Philadelphia house museums, could revitalize their mission to attract a diversity of tourists and locals.  Although funding is poor, with a reinvention of the Philadelphia house museum missions to publicize a diversity of historical aspects, attendance may expand and local involvement may increase voluntarily.   

Civilizations on Display: The Penn Museum’s Role in Anthropological Publicity

On this week’s excursion, I traveled to the Penn Museum of anthropology on the University of Pennsylvania’s campus.  It was the second time I entered the museum, but the first time I explored many of the exhibits.  I saw them from a modern perspective, but the opinions which the objects were displayed to present may have been similar to when it first opened in 1899. 

The museum began as the second attempted showcase of anthropological artifacts.  The first attempt began during the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair.  Known as the Field Museum, it mainly displayed objects from Native American cultures.  This flaw became the reason for its downfall.  Although, it occupied the Fair’s fine arts building; to locals, this space was culturally significant to the city’s history (Conn 78).    

Established six years later, the Penn Museum inhabited a building of European design.  Modern visitors can still recognize the dominance of European style in the architecture.  This design alludes to the foundational importance of European power and their continued dominance over other nations or ‘cultures’ today (Conn 83).  It sets a president for the displays organized inside as before and after the invention age (Conn 91).  Their organization portrays European superiority but also teaches the public to appreciate earlier cultures (Conn 100).  Many of the objects found in the museum were collected from Europe during the late 19^th century and displayed for the American public (Conn 85).  Each section seems meaningfully placed in a corresponding room.  The "Mummies/Egypt" artifacts are displayed in an enlongated domed room that eerily immitates a sarcophagus.  The room where the mummies reside also alludes to the layout of an Egyptian pyramid's passageways.  Originally, visitors could descend to the first floor where Native American exhibits were or view Mediterranean galleries on the second floor (Conn 89).  Today, a similar “evolutionary hierarchy” is established; although, it is now incorporated with multimedia and interactive exhibits appealing to modern visitors (Conn 90).  The modern changes include Native American or African music playing throughout the respective galleries.  They also provide different ways for visitors to incorporate their opinions.  However, sometimes these modern changes sacrifice the core of the related and interesting artifacts to a side room of a media dominated exhibit (i.e. the Africa wing).  These collections are still organized by region today and present, arguably, the same statements as they did over 100 years ago.  

The museum became the first museum to separate the social from the natural sciences, presenting a “new ethnology” for public knowledge (Conn 86).  One issue can be raised today with this presentation style.  The Penn Museum organized these artifacts in 1899 at a time when immigration into America peaked and cultures clashed.  The exhibits were organized to simplify the inhabitants of each nation or geographical area as unified.  They portrayed this sameness within each region and concurrently, a hierarchy of global power.  It also represented the coming age of global expansionism and informed the American public of the people of these presumably conquerable or manipulatable nations.  It does fulfill its purpose of preserving evidence of past cultures, but the recognized modern public views may clash with the museum’s dated portrayals of these cultures.  Although I enjoy seeing the layout of the museum as would a visitor in 1899, the modern public may receive dated messages from this collection.  For as long as the public continues to view museums as trustworthy information sources, as Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen suggest, then their obligation should be to represent contemporary views.