Nature's Museums: Victorian Science and the Architecture of Display [BARGAIN PRICE] (Paperback)

by Carla Yanni (Author) "In November 1849, the rhinoceros at London's Regent's Park zoo died..." (more)
Key Phrases: natural ttorld, natural specimens, Crystal Palace, Edinburgh Museum, Aluscum of Practical Geology (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review
Scientists in the medieval and early-modern eras faced many obstacles to sharing their discoveries, among them the lack of organized, comparative collections of specimens. Such assemblages were almost exclusively in the hands of wealthy individuals, and scholars of more modest means had to content themselves with "cabinets of wonder," potpourris of natural curiosities whose message was often no more profound than "behold, death is near."

One of the signal developments of the Victorian era, observes art historian Carla Yanni, was the building of great museums, accessible to both scholars and the interested public, to house large collections of fossils, minerals, and other relics of the natural world. Some of these museums, such as London's Pantherion, offered astonishing and sometimes fictitious spectacles: in the Pantherion, for example, "stuffed animals were staged in frightening battles," while a great artificial swamp filled with sculptures of dinosaurs ringed the Sydenham Crystal Palace. Others, such as the incomparable Natural History Museum of London, became clearinghouses for the exchange of scientific ideas in the age of Darwin and Huxley. By the 1880s, science museums of all kinds had become popular destinations for family outings, and also the subject of considerable debate, with some scholars objecting to the supposed vulgarization of knowledge to which spectacles inevitably led.

But, Yanni notes, in their many forms, these museums also became the "primary places of interaction between natural science and its diverse publics," allowing greater participation in learning and ultimately serving science well. Heavily illustrated with period engravings and architectural renderings, Yanni's book is a useful and entertaining contribution to the history of science. --Gregory McNamee --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Review
"Nature's Museums.... is a major contribution to our understanding of the history of public architeture, scientific practice, and the cultural life of the Victorian era." --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 216 pages
• Publisher: Princeton Architectural Press; 1 edition (July 14, 2005)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1568984723
• ASIN: B0013VZM58
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 5.9 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.4 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,632,897 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Old curiosity shops, May 9, 2009

By	Harry Eagar (Maui) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Nature's Museums (Hardcover)

As a rule, when considering whether to buy an academic monograph, I check the endnotes for the introduction for the name of Foucault. If it's there, I don't buy.

I neglected to do this with "Nature's Museums." Foucault is here, but, for a change, architectural historian Carla Yanni and most of the authorities she cites find his categories of space don't fit Victorian natural history museums.

The news is, however, not all good. Yanni is a confessed postmodernist and believer in its theories of science. Basically, that science doesn't exist. That it is "socially constructed" and "gains legitimacy from its local associations."

This is not so, but if it were so, then, if we follow Yanni's examination of the development of four major (and several minor) natural history museums in Great Britain, then she would have hard time explaining why we are not all creationists still. Because creationists, principally Richard Owen, dominated the money-raising, concepts, iconography, choice of exhibits and public face of the museums.

This contradiction is not apparent to Yanni because she misunderstands the outcome of the creationism/evolution contest. She downplays the triumph of Darwinism (which had swept all before it within three years or so, despite what Thomas Kuhn may say about paradigm shifts) and overstates the coexistence of religion and science in Victorian Britain.

True, many, perhaps most, practicing biologists remained Christians and perhaps not merely nominal ones. But Christianity had changed. Darwin forced it to abandon perfectionism and to give up the doctrine of the fixity of species. Paley, cited often here, would not have recognized scientists of the late 19th century as Christians.

Well, so much for the confusions that underlie the analysis. Is there anything interesting left? Not much.

Yanni makes much of a supposed split between artifice and nature, or "God-created" and "man -created," which, according to her, started the century mixed together in collections but ended it each with its own structures, to which architects -- the focus of her interest -- contributed an intellectual framework. This sounds plausible until you compare it with evidence.

Museums, of course, became specialized, but there was and is no particular animus against mixing. The Bishop Museum, contemporaneous with the British Museum (Natural History), which bills itself as the greatest museum in the Pacific, happily combines ethnological, artistic and natural collections. Many state museums, as for example in Virginia and Iowa, do, too. A good example is the Falls of the Ohio museum operated by the state of Indiana at Jeffersonville. And the ultimate refutation -- in origin Victorian, too -- would be what is probably the most popular natural history exhibit in North America (if not the whole world), which combines natural history, art, technology and social history -- the glass flowers at the Agassiz Museum at Harvard University.

There's not much left, even for people who seek out natural history museums and take an interest in their curatorial history. (Which people do. The Peabody, on the opposite side of the wall from the glass flowers, has preserved a whole floor unchanged from the 19th century in order to demonstrate how display practices have changed.)

Science advances on a broad front, and, unlike architecture, it cannot go back. If Huxley rather than Owen had dominated the design of the British museums, which are almost all still in use today, their 21st century uses would not be much different. It may be incongruous that secularized scientists (and tourists) enter the Oxford University Museum through a portal guarded by an angel, but no more so than to see modern-day Christians who no longer believe in, say, the virgin birth, worshipping in churches layered with statues of Mary.

The text of "Nature's Museums" is not long, as the book is copiously illustrated. The illustrations are, however, too small to reveal much. The book might be of some interest to anyone visiting the museums today: the Hunterian, the Edinburgh, the Oxford or the British are examined in detail, with others, like the Dublin, alluded to.

The Hunterian, by the way, also confutes Yanni's theory of museumology. According to her, the explicit science museums did not develop from the "cabinets of wonder" but were novel Victorian establishments, arising from heterogeneous and haphazard collections that were dumped on the universities or nation.

The Hunterian, however, was a thoughtfully amassed collection that included both curiosities and deliberate "preparations," and it was explicitly pedagogical. It also was Georgian, not Victorian.

Furthermore, Yanni is wrong to suggest that the practice of dumping curiosities on the nation was a 19th century innovation. It's true that middle class collectors of the Renaissance, like Worm, kept their collections in their houses (where else?) for themselves, but in classical times, wealthy collectors did what Victorian scientists and patrons did: They put their most spectacular items on display in public buildings. In their case, temples. See my review of Adrienne Mayor's "The First Fossil Hunters."