This policy refers primarily to the operation of artifacts (specifically steam engines) in museums and heritage sites. The policy addresses arguments relating to interpretation, preservation, research, aesthetics, marketing, safety, and cost.
Introduction
Operating artifacts in a museum setting must strike a balance between the ethics of preservation and interpretation. It must recognize:
- the relative significant heritage of the artifacts in the collection;
- the importance of interpreting that heritage to the public and the range of effective techniques available;
- the likely effect operation will have on the condition of the objects;
- the consequences for that heritage should accidents occur;
- the ability of museum staff to protect the safety of the public, staff and the collection;
- the ability of the museum to provide the resources to operate a given object;
- the specifics of other museum policies, such as volunteer, conservation, interpretation and exhibit policies.
Notwithstanding the above, any operational program must accept safety (for the public and staff) and artifact preservation as its highest priorities.
The resolution of the artifact operation issue and the statement of the museological positions underlying the resolution lie at the heart of the vision of the HMST and the goals of the long term preservation of the site, machinery and auxiliaries.
Surprisingly, relatively little has been written on artifact operation and no single source discusses the issues completely.
For our purposes, operation refers to a wide spectrum of the uses of the artifact from hand powering a large machine tool to running a model of compressed air to steam operation of an artifactual engine driving an artifactual machine tool. Operation also includes maintenance.
In whatever case, whether it is making butter in a 19th Century churn, firing a cannon, or running an old engine, some attempt is being made to demonstrate how the artifact was used in its “use period”. Many gradations of authenticity are possible. Some artifacts are operated with rigorous attention to accuracy. Some sites have cut large portions from artifacts to show inner parts. In between, many variations of authentic motion are possible.
Any complete analysis of the viability or appropriateness of the operation of an artifact must assess both the justification for operation and the mode of that operation. The criteria which the assessment is discussed more fully in the Artifact Operation Plan of the Long Range Plan.
This paper will refer primarily to the operation of steam engines on electricity, compressed air or steam. It will not distinguish (unless otherwise stated) between artifacts and former artifacts that have been deaccessioned to a capital inventory. On one level, the latter class of objects has already been deemed to have relatively less heritage merit and therefore, some of the issues do not apply. At the same time, other issues remain relevant.
The Case for Operation
There are essentially 5 justifications usually cited in favour of artifact operation:
- the Interpretive Argument
- the Preservation Argument
- the Research Argument
- the Aesthetic Argument
- the Marketing Argument
(i) The Interpretive Argument
The interpretive argument in favour of artifact operation holds that operation is the only effective way to communicate how the object worked. Conversely, only visitors with previous technical background can comprehend the workings of the static machine.
Some observers argue that technology museums are at their best when they are “the museums of how things work.” In this view, technology museums, (or science centres, as they tend to be called in Canada) use models, cutaway engines and working exhibits to teach people how the tools of the past and their everyday life work. In many cases, a visit to the resulting facility can be an extremely interesting and enjoyable experience.
In contrast, a static engine is just “a lump of iron”. In this case, the engine is reduced to or becomes the equivalent of an art object, “a pot on a plinth,” which is only understandable and appreciated by the expert.
Just as a military museum is visited by military history enthusiasts, and historic houses are visited by antique collectors, an industrial heritage museum or historic site has a small core of devoted visitors, keenly interested in technology. Although the strongest supporters of any museum, the “buff” is numerically a relatively small part of a museum’s client base.
Therefore, the interpretive programme at the museum must be directed primarily (but not exclusively) at these non-expert visitors and must take into account their interests, needs and perspectives. The interpretive argument in favour of operation assumes that non-technical visitors need to see a working engine to have an enjoyable and educational experience.
The related but purist argument is that the operation should be “real”. That is, that a steam museum’s engines should run on steam not electricity or compressed air. This argument holds that simulated operation is a lie and it perpetuates false ideas.
(ii) The Preservation Argument
The preservation argument in favour of artifact operation makes two distinct points. First, the preservation argument holds that an engine can only be preserved through operation. Without operation, decay will set in. As well, operation forces the institution to allocate sufficient resources to maintain the artifact. This is a very popular argument. In fact, it is virtually an article of faith among some collectors and museum workers. Although it has recently been questioned by many conservators and curators, the argument makes the valid comment that it is all too easy not to allocate resources to a project if the consequences are not immediately obvious.
The second, and very different, preservation argument holds that what is, or should be preserved, is not the material culture but what has been called by some writers, “the knowledge of the hand.” That is, an artifact should be used and even used up so that a knowledge of how the object was used, maintained and repaired can be perpetuated. This is the argument used at marine museums for the operation of large sailing ships. By using a vessel in sail training programmes, operating the shipyard, and training the staff and volunteer workers, the original fabric of the artifacts is used up. In the process, however, the knowledge of early skills and techniques is past on to another generation.
(iii) The Research Argument
The research argument in favour of operation holds that much of the information available about an object can only be discovered through operation. Specifically, by attempting to operate an engine in an authentic manner, researchers can understand the advantages and disadvantages of different designs appreciate the modifications made by later operators and fill in gaps in the documentary evidence.
Similarly, through restoration to artifact operation, researchers uncover and expose areas not usually seen or examined. The methods of construction and use become evident. Usually, truly close analysis of objects is only carried out in the context of major restoration or operation. As well, a great deal of information about an object cannot be found in technical literature.
(iv) The Aesthetic Argument
The term, “aesthetic,” is used in the absence of a better term for what is probably the least discussed but most persuasive argument in favour of operation. Museums operate machines because people involved with the history of machinery can not bear to see them sit still. Collectors and curators love the sound, smell and sight of working machinery. For many, a well-designed and maintained machine doing its job is a thing of beauty and a work of art.
A recent local example was the return of a World War II era Avro Lancaster to flying condition. Lancasters are fairly common static exhibits in parks and aviation museums and elicit very little reaction or comment. The Canadian Warplane Heritage has restored and flies a Lancaster (now one of a very few operational Lancasters in existence). Spectator reaction is dramatic. When the plane takes off, circles and passes overhead with the distinctive roar of the engines, some people cheer and clap. Others cry. The reaction has little to do with preservation or research but is based on a direct emotional connection.In contrast, a silent engine is seen, by some, to be “dead,” like a ship hauled on shore or a vacant house.
It is impossible to understand the impetus to operate artifacts until the power of the aesthetic appeal of working machinery is recognized and appreciated. The feeling is real and powerful.
(v) The Marketing Argument
The marketing argument for artifact operation holds that the operation of an engine under steam is an excellent visitor draw. As an attraction, steam engines can be very powerful. Because operating steam engines are increasingly rare, people will travel large distances to watch them in action. The continued appeal of steam shows (such as the Annual Antique Steam and Gas Engine Show at the museum) tends to support the contention.
The Case Against Operation
There are 5 arguments against operation:
- the Preservation Argument
- the Interpretation Argument
- the Safety Argument
- the Cost Argument
- the Marketing Argument
(i) The Preservation Argument
Peter Robert Mann has written:
- Let us be quite clear that working any machine causes wear and tear, which requires maintenance, repair and substitution of new parts to keep it running. It may happen imperceptibly, it may happen rapidly and catastrophically. Either way, the originality and evidential value of the artifact are compromised, and no amount of justification and rationalization can alter that.
The preservation argument holds that the eventual destruction of an artifact is not an acceptable trade-off. This argument contends that while museums are involved in a variety of activities (community development, volunteer facilitation, education, research etc.), they preserve objects as their defining activity and the destruction of artifacts, for whatever purpose, is not appropriate.
Museums share activities with many cultural institutions (libraries, science centres, archives, art galleries, theatres, recreation centres). What sets museums apart is the preservation of artifacts. This activity must remain as a guiding principle of museum work.
This view of preservation also holds that a distinction must be drawn between preserving an engine (or car, machine, tool or whatever) and preserving an artifact. The former is a working object: its primary value is its ability to work. To preserve that value, changes can and should made to the object. Worn out parts are replaced and modifications are made to preserve the object as a working item. It is true, then, that the best way to preserve a working engine is to operate it.
An artifact’s primary value lies in its heritage significance and its ability to carry or retain information in the form of the material evidence contained in the artifact. The running condition of an artifact is not as important as the presence of the information related to the time when the object did run (e.g. original paints, wear marks, or later modifications from the use period etc.). Maintaining an artifact in such a way as to eliminate that information (by replacing parts for example) actually reduces the artifact’s value.
As the United States Department of the Interior/National Parks Service has argued in its recently released document, Recommendations of the Large Industrial Artifacts Advisory Panel, America’s Industrial Heritage Project:
- Conservation involves the preservation and stabilization of historic objects, and aims most fundamentally at the prevention of further deterioration. This approach differs from restoration in its belief that information an artifact embodies can be as important as its appearance. Restoration often entails a major effort to return artifacts to their original appearance and condition. But in making artifacts look as good as new, restorations sometimes disrupt or overlook important documentary evidence, such as paint layers, patch repairs, and wear marks. While the “restored” machinery may appear to be in pristine condition, information about its operation and modifications may have been lost.
As Mann points out, the destruction of an artifact can take place quickly or slowly.
At one end of the spectrum, Mann cites the destruction of the last Bristol Bulldog. A museum artifact owned by the Science Museum in Great Britain, the last remaining Bulldog (a 1930s era RAF fighter) was restored to flying condition by the original manufacturer with the permission of the museum in the 1950s. Unfortunately, the aircraft was destroyed in a crash during an air show in 1961. The only tangible remains of this design of aircraft are the plans and some wreckage.
Such catastrophes are relatively rare and should be seen as only the most extreme example of the preservation argument against operation. The question, which those interested in heritage preservation must ask, is: for any given artifact, are the risks worth the benefits? What are the consequences for the eventual destruction of the item? The answer will vary depending on the mandate of the museum and the particulars of the artifact itself.
The second preservation argument against operation holds that the preservation of knowledge through the operation of artifacts can be illusory and deceptive. While important insights can be gained by actually using an object, humans tend to overvalue their own experience. In fact, knowledge that has been lost, remains lost. All that remains is the object and theory (however well-informed).
Where the knowledge of how an artifact was used has been lost, preserving the information within the object (e.g. wear marks etc.) becomes even more crucial. In that context, operating the artifact becomes less acceptable.
Compare the history of birchbark canoes and Newcomen engines. The bark canoe has had a continuous history from pre-contact times to the present. Although raw materials are in short supply and relatively few are still being made, there is no real danger that the knowledge of canoe construction, maintenance and use will be lost.
There would be little to stop a museum from using and maintaining a birch bark canoe for the purposes of keeping the skill of working birch bark alive, unless the canoe in question is the only one in the museum’s collection with no expectation of acquiring another or if the item has specific and valuable historical associations of some kind.
In contrast, very few Newcomen engines survive from their use periods in the 18th and 19th Centuries. There is no one alive who has built a Newcomen and no one who has personal experience of being trained to use one. Although textbooks and memoirs survive, no direct knowledge of the capabilities of the engine remains. Although we can describe most of the techniques involved, no one has the actual skill.
Museums attempting to perpetuate the knowledge of Newcomens through the operation and maintenance of the few surviving examples might be prevented on two grounds. First, the consequences of error are enormous and potentially irreversible. Second, the museum would only perpetuate modern day speculations.
(ii) The Interpretive Argument
Many interpreters working at technology museums, while acknowledging the appeal of operating engines, question the contention that engines can be interpreted best through operation. Many feel that such a claim does not give sufficient credit to the intelligence or imagination of the interpreter or visitor.
In fact, the experience of industrial heritage museums and historic sites has shown that, if sufficient effort is made to develop a well-rounded public programme, non-technical visitors can understand how an engine or machine works without actually seeing it run and while having, at the same time, a more fully rounded experience.
It is important to consider the interpretation of an individual engine, not in isolation, but rather in the context of the entire public programming at a site. If artifact operation is inappropriate for a specific engine, it is possible that other engines could be run on steam (or air or whatever). As well, working models, diagrams, videos and demonstrations can to substituted to meet the interpretive goals more completely.
The opposite claim can be made that a stationary engine can, in some instance, be a more effective learning opportunity by allowing the visitor to make a closer analysis (guided by the interpreter) than would be permitted safely while the engine is in operation. A static display can move the experience away from a superficial “gee whiz” reaction to a more contemplative analysis. A static display places more responsibility on the interpreter to breathe life into artifact and to inspire the imagination of the visitor. This can be done through a variety of techniques, including working models or involving the visitor in demonstrations. The results, in terms of the visitor experience, however, can be impressive.
A related argument holds that visitors tend to take a passive attitude to working displays. A number of writers have commented on a similar challenge at living history sites. Like a television viewer, visitors tend to take a non-critical attitude to a historic site environment. The feeling of being transported to a different place and time can be so profound that people lose the ability to question the accuracy of what they see (in much the same way that we do not question the “accuracy” of our everyday world).
Since all such re-created environments must make some compromises with historical accuracy (for reasons of cost, safety or conservation), working displays can perpetuate false ideas about the past. As well, too much emphasis on the “spectacle” of the moving engine encourages two false views of the industrial past:
- the “heroic” past where noble individual inventors led the inevitable march of progress and where no disruption was caused by the changes; and
- the “dark ages” past where everything was dangerous and nothing like the more enlightened and progressive present day.
Both views of the past are simplistic but technology museums have been guilty of perpetuating them by focusing too much how machines work and not enough on the implications and consequences of technological change.
In the past, interpretation at the Steam Museum has been guilty of perpetuating this over-simplified view. The tendency, all too frequently, has been to let the moving engine interpret itself. The interpretation does not go beyond the “Gee Whiz, isn’t that amazing” level.
In today’s highly competitive tourism and recreation market, a simplistic or one-dimensional approach to public programming is not sufficient. Visitors may visit once but, if they have no expectation that a return visit will provide new experiences, they will not return.
The museum has a responsibility to give a fuller view of the past than is described above. The public programming must ask the visitor to consider the impact that the pumphouse and steam technology had on the history of Hamilton and the people who lived in the city. To do this, the programming must get beyond watching the engine and explaining how it worked to discussing what the engine means.
(iii) The Safety Argument
The single most common objection to the operation of artifactual machines is safety. Increasingly, many sites are retreating from operation because they are unable to meet US state or Canadian provincial safety standards or boiler regulations without making unacceptable changes to the artifact itself.
The problem is the artificial environment of a museum itself. On the one hand, the desire to show accurately the working patterns of the past can encourage operators into unsafe practices. At the same time, operators, who are also interpreters, are asked to balance their attention between two jobs–with predictable results. Examples of accidents caused by both influences are far from unknown, although no on-going register exists. A death at the Henry Ford Museum/Greenfield Village has forced museums in North America to reconsider their policies.
It is not appropriate to discuss the details of the accident here. However, it can be said that the operator was an extremely experienced volunteer who was maintaining the engine in an historically accurate manner. The operator had been maintaining engines for 70 years or more.
The problem is that, as one observer has noted, if a site operates 19th Century equipment in a 19th Century manner, it should expect 19th Century industrial accidents. Obviously, this is no longer acceptable. Unfortunately, significant changes made to the engine or to procedures to protect staff and visitors leave false ideas for the visitors–”Gee, I didn’t know they had hard hats back then”. Museums and historic sites are caught in a difficult bind if they choose to operate engines.
A rather less tragic incident recently took place at the Hanford Mills Museum. The freshly appointed senior interpreter at the museum was demonstrating the use of a water mill driven table saw to a group of visitors. The work piece kicked back and broke the interpreter’s thumb. The interpreter involved, who confessed he had not taken that much interest in safety issues before, agreed that the key problem was that he was trying to be a good interpreter and a good operator at the same time. Both would normally require his full attention. Distraction, almost inevitable in living history situation, was a significant contributing factor in the accident.
The problem of public and staff safety was confronted by military historic sites some years ago. After a number of accidents and even deaths, these institutions have been forced to adopt very strict and cautious operations policies. Many military sites no longer fire their larger pieces for reasons of safety. Industrial history sites are being forced to make the same painful adjustments.
Obviously, safety is both a public health and labour issue. The question for museum professionals is: what compromises is a site willing to make for safety purposes? The consensus among most museum workers is that no action, whether in the interest of interpretation or preservation, is worth risking the health or life of staff or visitors.
At Greenfield Village, machines are only operated if they can be operated safely in their original form (perhaps because they were originally constructed with guards or had guards added during later use) or if the machine has already been significantly altered. In practice, artifact operation is becoming confined to limited parts of the interpretation programme.
(iv) The Cost Argument
The cost of restoring an artifact to operation is always greater than stabilizing the same artifact. Similarly, the cost of operation is always greater than preserving through non-operation. Therefore, the capital and operating costs of a working exhibit always place special loads on sites.
The greater impact, however, comes from the hidden costs. The danger of operating artifacts is that the staff and resource commitment required can force the site to focus entirely on the operation at the expense of other programmes. In short, the site may operate the artifacts well but the other aspects of a museum’s operation–collections management, education programming, exhibit development etc–suffer.
As with the other arguments, the issue returns to the question of vision. The site must determine what vision it wishes to pursue: a living history site; a museum of how things work; a community museum of industrial heritage; or something else again. A clear vision will affect the balance of resources which can be appropriately be devoted to operation. If these resources are insufficient, hard questions must be asked about the suitability of operation.
(v) The Marketing Argument
Museums have noted the decreasing returns of certain kinds of programming. Visitors will travel great distances to see an unusual or dramatic programme (such as an operating steam engine). Some devoted visitors will even return to see the programme several times. Most will not. With some exceptions, visitors will not return to see the same programme again and again. They, naturally enough, want to see something new.
For this reason, most steam shows work hard to bring new exhibitors every year, to advertise different themes and to develop new activities. Without this approach, visitation will slowly decline. If, however, most of its resources have been devoted to a programme that cannot be significantly altered, a site is faced with an insurmountable marketing problem–how to attract people to an event they have already seen.
For this reason, many sites are cautious about making long term commitments of significant resources to single programmes. All too many museums have found themselves supporting a very expensive programme which no one is interested in seeing.
Conclusion
This appendix is a background paper. It examines the arguments for and against operation and presents them as completely (and as fairly) as possible. Museum staff began preparing this paper in the early 1990s. Their research and discussions have informed much of the Long Range Development Plan, especially the implications of the operation of the Gartshore Engines. From the analysis, some conclusions can be drawn. No single solution exists for the issue of artifact operation. Museum workers must examine each case on its merits and determine the procedure best for the specific item and the site. Assessments of the validity and appropriateness of the operation of a specific artifact must flow from the museum vision and mandate, its resources and the specifics of the object itself.
