“Work sets you free.” This
infamous phase wrought in iron on the gate leading into Auschwitz misled
countless victims who were heading to their death. Auschwitz, now a museum and
memorial, is a popular tourist attraction, bringing in over 1.5 million
visitors this past year. In an article titled “Auschwitz ‘Showers’ Highlight
Challenge of Balancing Tourism and Memory,” it takes the serious topic of death
at Auschwitz and makes us question, how far is too far?
Auschwitz, a place for solemn remembrance, was
recently faced with the controversy of the installation of mist showers (pictured above) that
some would argue are comparable to gas showers used by Germans to execute the
Jews en masse. Though the Auschwitz Memorial stated that the showers were
installed to combat the overbearing heat at Auschwitz, this did not sit well
with some of the public. In this case there is a fine line between respect and
spectacle. Did the museum cross that line?
The Auschwitz Museum’s
Facebook post about the incident expresses that the mist showers installed by
the museum, and the fake shower used by the Germans are not related, due to the
fact that Germans administered poison gas in a different way. Many of the
comments that can be read on the Facebook post support the museum’s decision of
using mist showers as a cooling station, but the critics are still vocal. The
way that gas chambers are portrayed in media is one of the reasons why some
think mist showers are similar to gas chambers.
The misconception regarding the mist showers is reminiscent of a scene from Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List. The scene shows women being sheered and forced into a chamber-like room, where they assume that they are about to be gassed, but in all actuality it is simply a shower.
This tense clip from Schindler’s List illustrates the fearful
reality in which victims of the Holocaust lived, constantly wondering if at any
moment it would be their last. Spielberg’s movie, based on a true story, is an
example of how the public can get ideas from media and be outraged by something
that would otherwise be considered innocuous, such as a mist shower. The
article poses a similar moral dilemma regarding what to do with Auschwitz
itself. The gas chambers of the death camp are in a state of decay and require
reinforcement and renovation to continue to stand. Though, from the standpoint
of a museum or a person working to preserve the history of the site, it makes
sense to reinforce the structure, it could also be viewed as allowing a
structure that marked the end of millions of lives to continue to stand,
whereas it should be allowed to decompose and have the remnants erased by
nature and time. The article asks “do you stop the hair from disintegrating or
not?” Is it going too far to fortify such a horrific site and allow it to stand forever as a constant reminder of the extent of human cruelty, or is
reinforcing the gas chambers an attempt to provide a glimpse into history and hopefully
provide closure and healing to the families of the victims and educate the
world?
Something else stood out from
the shower scene in Schindler’s List: the
women getting their hair cut. In our reading for the week, Edward T. Linenthal’s
Preserving Memory, creators of the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum proposed displaying human hair in the
museum, and naturally it met objections from both survivors of the Holocaust
and museum staff. Witnessing how hair is butchered from their heads, one can
see how shameful of a process it was, and what it was used for is even worse. Used
to make yarn, socks and stockings, even furniture, hair was nothing more than a
resource for Reich agencies. Once again it begs the question, how far is too
far? Unlike other items given to the USHMM from Auschwitz, such as shoes, hair
brushes and suitcases, hair physically belonged to a human being with emotions.
To use hair in an exhibit would be borderline insensitive due to the fact that
it was an intimate part of someone, which was forcefully taken.
Two questions were stressed
throughout Preserving Memory; what is
the purpose of this museum, and how will it preserve the memory of those affected
with integrity. Both questions are essential to this book because they provide
the framework of understanding the relevance of the museum and its effectiveness
in translating such an abhorrent episode of history into creating a place of
healing and learning. It is important to understand the purpose of a museum
because if a museum serves no purpose, then it is a pointless collective of
objects and a waste of time. It is important to ask if the museum will preserve
the memory of those affected with integrity, especially in dealing with a period
of time like the Holocaust. Millions of people were killed and it is one of the
most brutal genocides in human history. As such, it remains a sensitive issue
and preserving their memory without integrity would come across as if those in
charge were satirizing the Holocaust and its ghastly history, which would be
going too far.
It is important to never
forget the dark periods of human history, as those who forget the past are
doomed to repeat it. The efforts of the Auschwitz Memorial and the United
States Holocaust Museum and Memorial have made great strides in preserving the
history and creating spaces dedicated to learning and healing. Their efforts,
as good-intentioned as they are, though, do and will spark up controversy as
they skirt the line of good taste. In dealing with details and sites that
exhibit such a grizzly part of history, it is important to ask to what extent those
in control should go to preserve history. It is important to ask, whether it is
mist showers that invoke mental images of gas chambers or efforts to preserve
said gas chambers for their historical value, is this going too far? Does this
add to the museum’s purpose? Does this preserve the memory of those affected
with integrity? Yes, it is important to have sites where we can learn about the
awful parts of human history, but when it comes to presenting something like
the Holocaust, a word synonymous with death, in great detail, what are we
willing to accept and how far is too far?
“How far is too far” - I argue more relevant point is the fact that the organization installed the misters after a number of fainting cases. The administrators are doing the opposite of what the Nazi’s were doing inside the gas chambers - one brought people down the other (mist sprinklers) are meant for relief. It is this aspect that completely removes any connection to the gas chambers. You brought up something even more significant though with the theatrical representation of gas chambers. It is this false cultural creation of the gas mists that are causing people to connect both together. I also think displaying hair can be a very moving, and powerful aspect to the museum but does it provide closure and healing to those affected? Which is much more important than the visual effect of displaying hair. I like how you connect this to “what the purpose of the museum is?” Who is their audience? Is the museum displaying relating history and , nostalgia, or merely presenting the facts? Perhaps before any of us “go too far” it may be best to discuss such displays and technology (mist sprinklers) with those more closely associated with the Holocaust. What do they have to say and what are historians arguing for - facts or aesthetics?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the showers are a bit much, why can’t they think of a way to cool down the visitors without such a reference. It is clear that many who visit Auschwitz are survivors and that “cooling mist” could trigger a horrid memory. I find it odd that instead of recognizing their failure, the museum took to social media to defend itself. Why not apologize and think of a better way, possible a bucket of ice water with complimentary water bottles inside or a structure that would provide shade. Preserving Memory stresses the importance to never forget the cruel treatment that people of Jewish decent received in the Holocaust yet if someone really could not forget because it was imbedded in their heart and mind because they lived it I believe this could truly set them off and I believe it is insensitive for the museum not to recognize this.
ReplyDeleteThe issue with the mist showers seems like a good example of popular conceptions of history (in this case, the conception that the Nazi’s delivered Zyklon B through showerheads) having a real, if mundane impact. The showers are there to cool people down in the hot, shadeless lines before the museum but because of that aforementioned idea about gas delivery, it’s a problem. As for the hair, I think it’s an incredibly powerful thing to have included in a museum of this nature. It shows the dehumanization that went on during the Holocaust through something as innocuous as hair put in the right context. Though, as you pointed out, it can be seen as insensitive and the hair itself isn’t necessary for such a thing; images or maybe even some of the socks that were made could carry a similar effect while putting at least some distance between the victim the hair was taken from and the exhibit.
ReplyDeleteI think an overarching issue at play is the differences between a museum and a memorial. Both preserve memory, but where a museum intends to educate, a memorial commemorates. And while both attempt to fulfill their missions with dignity, a museum sometimes needs to risk making people uncomfortable for the sake of making a point. Sometimes it is necessary to unnerve in order to shake people's perception of reality and leave a powerful impression.On the other hand, a memorial aims to soothe and heal. So, when one site or institution attempts to be both museum and memorial, as is the case with the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, conflict is inevitable.
ReplyDeleteCaitlin I agree with your statement. I read the article that Brigette references prior to reading Preserving Memory and I was baffled at how ironic it was that this article surfaced at this particular time. All throughout reading both pieces I was troubled with the idea of trying to create both a museum and a memorial. I found myself on many occasions wanting to yell at the various players involved in the planning process. As Caitlyn points out it is pretty much impossible to encompass both aspects. I personally am a huge advocate of displaying the uncomfortable past. I believe that is what museums are all about, education, even though it may make one feel uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteThis was a well-written article depicting controversial issues crossing museum studies and memorial recognition. I personally would not criticize the Auschwitz museum for the installation of mist showers; they explained how and why they were installed as a reaction to visitor discomfort. If anything, I would incorporate that controversy into the museum itself, educate visitors that the popular media images of gas showers as seen in the video clip is false, explain the actual methods even further. Combat the controversy with education. In thinking of the overall issue presented here, I believe Caitlin explained it best. Education should not always be pleasant, for historical events, trends, behaviors did not exist in an emotionless vacuum; the shock and awe value should be expressed to emphasize the true horror to visitors, that human beings are indeed capable of such barbarism, and seeing the tangible evidence will reinforce that in visitors. I really do believe the shock value needs to exist, for even though this was the largest organized genocide in recent history, it is not the only one; the Holocaust is a thing of the past, but the potential to commit the same atrocities still resides within people today and that is worth remembering.
ReplyDeleteUsing mist showers at the museum is disrespectful in my opinion. I completely understand that employees and visitors need to be cooled down because of the extreme heat. But I agree with Destiny, in the fact that there needs to be another source to keep people comfortable. Why can they not build a shaded area at the entrance way, or even throughout the tour. They had to of known this outrage was to be expected, even though the use of showers for gassing during the holocaust is false.
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to touch on the subject of using human hair for display at the Holocaust museum. I agree with you Brigette, as I am glad it got voted against, since I feel that is inhumane to showcase such a horrific step forced on the Jewish population. Overall, I do see where Caitlin is coming from though, that museums need to educate about history, even the disturbing events. I feel that if should be the choice for the visitor to learn about the horrors of history, as we can all see it makes some more uncomfortable than others.
Such a historic event laden with such strong emotion is bound to be immersed in conflict. Attempting to memorialize something so tragic that affected millions of people differently brings up questions of how to ensure each party is respected, represented, and honored in ways that do not overlook differences or common experiences. This also draws in the question asked in this article, "How far is too far?" In our reading this question could be connected to numerous problems the commission encountered while establishing the museum. One that I think it specifically applies to well is the question of how Hitler and the Nazis were to be portrayed because it can be taken in two lights. How far is too far of overemphasizing Hitler's power, yet what if they went too far in attempting to remove Nazi's stories from the overarching narrative. What would that mean for those trying to learn from this museum? Similarly, to touch on the mention of the use of human hair in museum in the post as well as comments, this can raise the question of what is too far to make visitors feel uncomfortable and "remove" them from D.C. The making of any sort of statement regarding such a horrific event in world history, whether it be in a memorial or a museum, is required to function along a tenuous line of what is deemed acceptable and I believe both our reading for this week as well as this article used by Bridgette portray this struggle well.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the sprinklers were intended to have any effect beyond keeping visitors of the museum cool and any negative feeling that they stirred up in people visiting was truly unintentional.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is good we question the purpose and effectiveness of museums. In this case the Auschwitz Museum is something that needs to be preserved. This is because the Holocaust can be wrote about as much as people want but it is also important to have a visual, an actual location to visit in order to get a better idea of what took place. It is because of this why I feel it is important to preserve a place like this, as horrific as it may have been at one time. I do understand though, the perspective of those that may feel uncomfortable with it.
I saw this debate raging on the internet several weeks back, and it really got me thinking. On one hand the feelings and opinions of the living survivors of the Halocaust, many of whom expressed outraged over the installation of this misting system, I feel must be weighed very heavily when considering the fate of such a system. However, with that generation slowly dying out due to old age, it will be important that Auschwitz remain a viable site for remembrance and education on one of the the darkest stains on humanity's record, for generations to come, and if installing a misting system that allows for people to safely experience the site is necessary, then it should be allowed. However, I do have to agree with Destiny that they ought to attempt to find an alternate cooling system.
ReplyDeleteI understand that people feel uncomfortable with the misters at Auschwitz but they're not there to be offensive. They're not there to make people feel bad. There were no bad intentions about their installation. In fact, they're there to help visitors during a time of dangerous weather. A shaded walkway would be better but perhaps that might have been out of the budget. Destiny's suggestion of the complimentary water bottles is also an excellent idea.
ReplyDeleteAs for the issue concerning the display of hair at the Holocaust Museum, I agree with Steven that images of the hair or even items made from it would be just as effective and maybe less offensive than displaying the hair itself.
The whole concept of showers to cool people off I think is good intentioned, but not the best in practice. My younger sister visited the Holocaust Museum last year, and she said that out of everything exhibited, the hair and shoes creeped her out the most. I hadn't really given it much thought before then, but since our conversation, the idea of human hair on display has made me a bit uneasy. However, I think given the subject of the Holocaust Museum, uneasy is exactly what we need, lest we forget the magnitude and brutality of what occurred.
ReplyDelete