Zachary Stocks, Grays Harbor Historical Seaport

Proposal Type

Panel

Seeking

  • Seeking Additional Presenters
  • Seeking General Feedback and Interest
Related Topics
  • Museums/Exhibits
  • Public Engagement
  • Reflections on the Field
Abstract

How do “living history” institutions maintain relevancy as society becomes more and more removed from the skills, lifeways, and technologies on display? Immersive built environments alone do not engage audiences beyond the level of spectators in a diorama. In order to attract a population that increasingly values active participation over traditional interpretation, museums and historic sites must utilize their resources to create experiential education opportunities for guests to investigate and understand the past. A panel of public historians from diverse institutions share how they facilitate visitors “doing things” above “seeing things” at their sites.

Description

Looking for co-presenters from living history institutions that actively engage their guests in the labors and activities of the historical era they interpret (for example, my site presents maritime heritage on tall ships by having our guests help set sails, haul line, sing shanties, wear period attire, etc.).


If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to pass along someone’s contact information confidentially, please get in contact directly: Zachary Stocks, [email protected].

All feedback and offers of assistance should be submitted by July 1, 2018. If you have general ideas or feedback to share, please feel free to use the comments feature below.

Discussion

2 comments
  1. Cathy Stanton says:

    Living history always raises important and challenging questions! In this case, I wonder if rather than approaching this from the perspective of “how do we keep living history approaches relevant?”, you might think about the question “how does traditional [costumed/staged] living history fit within other forms of experiential historical performance in the present moment?” There are some important reasons why living history sites are finding it difficult to compete and stay financially viable these days, including the cost of labor but also the competition from so many other immersive technologies (as the Pokémon Go phenomenon showed – audiences simply took over Pokémon sites on their own, without the kind of traditional mediation that cultural institutions are used to providing).

    It might be worth getting in touch with the other two proposals here that focus on historical performance, Bryer and Nightingale. They’re thinking more about conventional theater forms, but adding living history into that mix could be a good way to explore what some possible futures for living history might look like.

    1. Andreas Etges says:

      I have visited a number of the more prominent places doing living history. What i found interesting in Colonial Williamsburg is how they have tried to incorporate their own reflection on what they are doing, with in critical talks about how they do reconstruction, but also in a performance, where the actors discuss visitor reactions, their feeling when playing certain roles and being identified with it, etc. Now while this was too scripted in my view, that type of reflection might be something to discuss as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.