Words of Prey Artifacts vs. Exhibits

Over the last few months, I have frequently encountered the terms artifact and exhibit, used to describe the Streets of Old Milwaukee (and other dioramas). I’ve taken some time to reflect on this and believe I’ve come up with some worthwhile insights.

The Smithsonian Museum in Washington, DC, houses the slippers worn by Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz. If I recall correctly, they are displayed in a small, approachable but well-protected Plexiglass case—the kind that might tempt a master burglar. In this context, the slippers are the artifact, and the display is the exhibit. The exhibit, naturally, holds no value without the artifact it protects.

Many people also think of an exhibit as something larger and more dynamic, perhaps housing artifacts but not always. Again, the exhibit seems to hold less value, as it doesn’t feel as timeless as an artifact.

But what’s being omitted is whether these labels indicate any measure of value. It’s perfectly reasonable to assign value to an exhibit and, conversely, to diminish the value of an artifact. Is a diorama an artifact or an exhibit? Viewed this way, there’s no reason to believe that anything is deemed expendable based solely on its descriptor.

Words of Prey (c’mon, that’s clever)

Words can be used to support a larger point, something I hope mine are doing now. They can also be used to cloak alternative intentions, and too often, they’re used to distract the reader. Continually labeling the Streets of Old Milwaukee (SOOM) as an exhibit is an attempt to weaken what these local treasures are. It serves to soften the reader by, for lack of a better word, dehumanizing the subject. It becomes just another talking point to keep us busy while “progress” moves forward, with no real public input and inadequate funding.

Here is a quote from a letter dated September 27, 2024, from the Milwaukee Public Museum (MPM) to the County Board. It seems to suggest that you, the public, are in favor of the destruction of these works:

“In fact, a recent independent ‘Survey of Museum Goers’ conducted nationally by Wilkening Consultants showed that MPM visitors are ‘much more likely than average to suggest that MPM could improve by making exhibits more engaging or meaningful, changing exhibits more often.’”

Excluding people who write referendums, who talks like that? Lots of contradictory terms. This isn’t a question but a poorly disguised distortion. It’s an indefensible justification for abandoning our public treasures. If this question were posed to you, would you reason that you just agreed to bring in the wrecking ball?

We should remember that MPM is a private operation, entrusted with protecting the public property of Milwaukee County. Abandoning these works in favor of someone’s reimagination seems counterintuitive to what a curator does. It forces the skeptic in me to ask if a new building is really in the public’s best interest. Certainly, it serves someone’s interests, but not the public’s.

So, the real question, the one MPM avoids while we loudly proclaim it, is quite simple: Should we keep the Streets of Old Milwaukee and other significant dioramas? The answer doesn’t depend on labels; it’s a question of their moral and subjective value.

So, who determines whether these works have value and should be preserved?

You do! I do! Even the individuals at MPM do, but not MPM alone. We have every right to classify these works as historic treasures and demand their preservation. For that matter, we have every right not to want them. MPM is entrusted to protect the public’s valuables, not to rebrand them in terms more favorable to their demise. Why isn’t the protection of these works their passion? Perhaps, since they became their own entity, it never was.

https://preservemke.org/articles/f/words-of-preyartifacts-vs-exhibits