Military Pride - a testimonial display featuring lesbian and gay service people - at the Imperial War Museum North is part of our strategy of uncovering hidden histories.
As I am the co-curator, the reasoning behind sourcing and displaying this contemporary material seems robust: to reveal relevant personal experiences made covert by a set of cultural and legislative circumstances.
Military Pride is the showpiece of a solid resource and relationship portfolio, not the sole project outcome; nor is it our first effort at the museum to collect the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in relation to conflict.
We have tried to make this clear in all our communications, but there is a danger that we may still suffer accusations of tokenism. To reflect diverse social contexts, many museums embark on discrete projects, which is a valid attempt to level the playing field.
But without seeing the project rationale, visitors might well assume that museums are just box-ticking: selecting a cause to promote and "using funds which could be used more sensibly on other projects". (This is a quote from a comment made before our display was even installed.)
The other danger is that the communities we are hoping to engage may see temporary projects as tokenistic.
We cannot expect audiences to have blind faith in the value of our projects. Telling our audiences about the online, archival and learning legacies of a project allows a fuller understanding of its scope and highlights alternative access routes, a crucial part of our job.
But typically, museums only clarify project objectives in response to adverse comments. Often a fair visitor comment might be, "Well, why didn't you say so from the start?" How much more effectively might we manage expectations if we outlined our thinking on the gallery walls, not just in funding bids and best practice seminars?
Walking through Military Pride I think our participants, colleagues and the press are fairly clear on the full rationale behind this display, but the general visitor perhaps is not. Personal testimony, portraits, timelines - engaging stuff. But why tackle LGBT issues? Why now? Why in this context?
I'm not sure we have answered all those questions for our daily audience. We will address this through scheduled guided walks and an event within our programme for the Manchester Pride Festival, and we will build on the relationships with participants: their testimony will form part of our permanent Imperial War Museum archives.
But we didn't say this on the wall of the exhibition. It's a great project, but part of it is still in the closet.
Catherine Roberts is the visitor programmes manager at the Imperial War Museum North
As I am the co-curator, the reasoning behind sourcing and displaying this contemporary material seems robust: to reveal relevant personal experiences made covert by a set of cultural and legislative circumstances.
Military Pride is the showpiece of a solid resource and relationship portfolio, not the sole project outcome; nor is it our first effort at the museum to collect the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in relation to conflict.
We have tried to make this clear in all our communications, but there is a danger that we may still suffer accusations of tokenism. To reflect diverse social contexts, many museums embark on discrete projects, which is a valid attempt to level the playing field.
But without seeing the project rationale, visitors might well assume that museums are just box-ticking: selecting a cause to promote and "using funds which could be used more sensibly on other projects". (This is a quote from a comment made before our display was even installed.)
The other danger is that the communities we are hoping to engage may see temporary projects as tokenistic.
We cannot expect audiences to have blind faith in the value of our projects. Telling our audiences about the online, archival and learning legacies of a project allows a fuller understanding of its scope and highlights alternative access routes, a crucial part of our job.
But typically, museums only clarify project objectives in response to adverse comments. Often a fair visitor comment might be, "Well, why didn't you say so from the start?" How much more effectively might we manage expectations if we outlined our thinking on the gallery walls, not just in funding bids and best practice seminars?
Walking through Military Pride I think our participants, colleagues and the press are fairly clear on the full rationale behind this display, but the general visitor perhaps is not. Personal testimony, portraits, timelines - engaging stuff. But why tackle LGBT issues? Why now? Why in this context?
I'm not sure we have answered all those questions for our daily audience. We will address this through scheduled guided walks and an event within our programme for the Manchester Pride Festival, and we will build on the relationships with participants: their testimony will form part of our permanent Imperial War Museum archives.
But we didn't say this on the wall of the exhibition. It's a great project, but part of it is still in the closet.
Catherine Roberts is the visitor programmes manager at the Imperial War Museum North
