Monday, August 6, 2007

Criticism: Judy Garland Museum (yes, really!)



Oh, my gosh, I HAD to stop at this museum! Actually, I only live a couple of hours away and had been meaning to go there forever. All I had heard of it before was that it once displayed a pair of the original ruby slippers from the Wizard of Oz (I guess there are 4 or 5???) and they were stolen maybe a year or two ago. Sad!




Anyway, the Judy Garland Museum is located in Grand Rapids, Minnesota, off of Hwy 169. You have to watch carefully to find it - the area is kind of full of strip malls and Targets and whatnot. I missed it at first and had to turn around to find it. The museum is fairly new and consists of 3 parts: The home in which the Gumm family lived in Grand Rapids, where Frances Gumm (JudyGarland) was born, two galleries of Garland exhibits, and several large galleries of a children's museum. The museum's website is: http://www.judygarlandmuseum.com/ On the day I visited there were several other visitors, mainly adult couples in their 50s and 60s. The museum staff were present, dragging boxes around and cutting up boxes, which was a little distracting.


At present you enter the museum in the center of the complex, then either go left to see the Judy Garland displays or right for the children's museum galleries. It is important to note this, because it seems from the vague chronology of the exhibits as though the visitor was originally intended to start in the house and then flow through the Garland galleries then into the children's museum. Maybe they changed this flow for security reasons after the ruby slippers were taken? Am not sure.


Anyway, the house was rather bare. It was supposed to represent the period 1922 - 1926 when Judy Garland lived there. There were labels that explained that none of the furnishings were original to the Gumm family. There were also signs that a specific "interior designer" had helped to furnish the historic house display. I am in doubt about the accuracy of the furnishings - there were several pieces which pre-date the 20s (which is fine, I know) but there were also some textiles which I KNOW due to designs dated as late as the 1950s. Someone could quibble with me on this, as I'm not an absolute textile expert - but I would have to see proof of dating! The labels on the materials in the house were very odd, and kind of tie into my primary criticism of the entire museum - there was no clear chronology or storyline. For example, on the bed which was meant to represent the bed on which baby Judy slept in her parents' room, there was labelling about her death and funeral. Since there was the rest of the museum in which to address her later life, I would have been more impressed if the house really focused on the 1923 - 1926 period in Judy's life, her parents' lives, and in Grand Rapids history.


From the house there was a kind of connecting hallway which had some Garland displays, including a dress which either WAS or represented Garland's screen test dress for the Wizard of Oz. Pretty cool if it was the original! WOZ is such an iconic movie for many of us! But again, there was a problem of unclear labeling, lack of lableing, and no clear chronology or storyline.


From the hall way the visitor enters the Garland gallery. The gallery consisted of a large television playing an ongoing video about Gumm/Garland's life, and several wall displays, vitrines, and enclosed room displays. This gallery seemed a little flat, as the majority of materials were posters, original photographs, and song sheets. There was, however, the carriage in which Dorothy et al rode in the Emerald City (drawn by the horse of a different color.) It did seem clearest here that the visitor was intended to come from the house then go out through this gallery into the central hall, but at present the visitor flow is reversed. Even though I think I could tell what the intended flow was, many of the exhibits contained materials from a mix of periods, and there was no clear storyline. The video was interesting, but the staff said it was an hour and a half long! I wonder if it was originally made for television? At any rate, no museum visitor is going to sit and watch a video for a full hour and a half. I take that back - maybe some Garland crazies do.


I'm not going to criticize the children's museum portion because I don't feel qualified to do so. It seemed fairly big, and there was one room which had lots of nice tables, drawers, and a sink area for arts and crafts (wouldn't most of us just love this?). The part I most enjoyed was "Treesa", a giant plastic tree that talked - it had eyes that open and closed! I want one of my own. Kind of tackycool.
There is also a nice small garden next to the house, with a grove of apple trees and a gazebo.


Were the exhibits object oriented? Yes. I think because Garland is such an icon herself, objects from the icon become icons themselves. Were the displays accurate? Well, I have some quibbles about mixing periods together, but in general I think they were fairly accurate. Were objects displayed in such a way that they were not harmed? Yes, I think so. Most items in the gallery were behind plex. The objects in the house were open to being touched, though, and there was no human security. There may have been video security, though, I don't know. So security may have still been an issue there. Were the exhibits propagandistic? No, but they didn't cause me to think, either. The museum in general, as you could tell from above, needs to have a much clearer storyline and labels which directly relate to the objects with which they are displayed. I would say that this museum is not innovative.


Would you enjoy visiting this museum? Yes, I think so, if you're not a stickler for a clear storyline. My grade: B.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Wow! Lack of a storyline seems like a critical error. You have to engage people and stories are the most effective means.