Anna Andrisová, Adam Bartalský, Bc. Barbora Kopecká, Zuzana Poláková, Katharina Prietl, Bc.
                                      Kateřina Sadílková[bb1]

   Advantages and disadvantages of oral history in the interpretation of topics on controversial
                            history of the 20th century in the museums

[INS:   :INS] [DEL:                                               :DEL] [INS: Introduction :INS]
[DEL: :DEL]

“During the Second world war, when my grandfather was about 12 years old, his family owned a pub in
a small town in eastern Slovakia. A main dance hall of the pub served as an accommodation for
German soldiers, who slept, ate and drank there every day. At the same time, the back part of the
pub was a secret place for the meetings of the partisan commanders. If those two groups - the
Germans and the Partisans - had met, my family would have been probably killed.”

            The introductory quote is a good example of the discussed topic – advantages and
disadvantages of the oral history in the interpretation of topics on the controversial history of
the 20^th century in the museums. This story happened to a grandfather of one of the authors [DEL:
of this article. He told about his experience to his granddaughter and afterwards, she retold the
story to the other authors of the article. :DEL] Hence, this quote suggests that thanks to some
witnesses, people can better understand the past epoch nowadays. These witnesses interpret [DEL:
the :DEL] history[INS: for :INS] [DEL: to :DEL] us. But what exactly is the oral history? What is
the real meaning of it? How it could be used in [DEL: the :DEL] museums? These questions [DEL: and
many other will be answered in :DEL] [INS: are focused in the course of :INS] this article.

Th[INS: is :INS] [DEL: e present :DEL] article is divided into five parts. The first part attempts
to define the term “oral history”, its relation to [DEL: the :DEL] museums and it tries to give a
basic overview of the advantages and disadvantages of [DEL: the usage of the :DEL] [INS: using
:INS] oral history in [DEL: the :DEL] museums. In the next part, the relation between [DEL: the
:DEL] interpretation and [DEL: the :DEL] narration gained from [DEL: the :DEL] oral history is
analysed by means of the basic principles of [DEL: the :DEL] interpretation [DEL: ( :DEL] [INS:
using :INS] Freeman Tilden and Umberto Eco[LM2] [DEL: ) :DEL] . The third part of this work gives
few examples of [DEL: the :DEL] places from Graz which are somehow connected to [DEL: the :DEL]
certain controversial historical moments of the city that can be retold by [DEL: the :DEL] museums.
This part is intertwined with the following one, since it tries to formulate possible methods of
the ways in which the museums may interpret [DEL: this :DEL] oral stories and narrations to the
audience. It searches other more creative means of the interpretation than the presentation of the
stories inside of the buildings of the museums. [DEL: There is not :DEL] [INS: Instead of :INS] a
typical summary at the end of the work. The last part [DEL: of this article :DEL] tries to open a
discussion on the topic “problems of the usage of the method of the oral history in [DEL: the :DEL]
museums”. There are three questions suggested with potential answers. Thus, the main goal of this
final part is not to conclude the previous information, but to make readers think about this topic
and the problems which are connected to it, so that they may attempt to formulate their own answers
to these questions.

1.      [INS:   :INS]

[DEL: The o :DEL] [INS: O :INS] ral history is a qualitative method and a working process thanks to
which we can find [DEL: new :DEL] information about [DEL: the :DEL] historical topics. It is based
on an interview between an interviewer and [DEL: the :DEL] [INS: a :INS] witness[DEL: es :DEL] of
[DEL: the :DEL] contemporary history. The result of this process is an image of human past, which
the contemporary witnesses of the specific incident, process or epoch described by their own words.
This method is [DEL: always :DEL] used[INS: e.g. :INS] for studying [DEL: the :DEL] contemporary
history. It is usually applied when one is dealing with the topics [DEL: like :DEL] [INS:
concerning :INS] the Second World War, the communist regime, the expulsion of Germans from
Czechoslovakia, tense relationships in Balkan and many others. The narration gained from [DEL: the
:DEL] oral history may be used in many ways, for example for [DEL: the :DEL] science, research,
publications, theater performances and exhibitions in the museums, too.  These educational
institutions apply the narrations from the oral history as a part of [DEL: the :DEL] exhibitions,
workshops, educational programs (stories, songs and poems), didactic materials or on seminars and
discussion.

            The oral history is a [DEL: very :DEL] complicated method and it has a lot of
advantages[INS: and also :INS] [DEL: , but :DEL] disadvantages,[DEL: too :DEL] . From the
advantages, one may name mainly the authenticity and an emotional side of these experiences. The
visitors can focus better [bb3] on a topic because of these aspects. They may understand better how
people survived, how they felt or what really happened to them. It is also another way of educating
people, another way of finding and remembering [DEL: new :DEL] information about the[INS: se :INS]
topics. But this method has many disadvantages, too. First of all, and maybe the most serious, is
the distortion of [DEL: the :DEL] history. [DEL: The m :DEL] [INS: M :INS] emories of [DEL: the
:DEL] contemporary witnesses could have changed. After the years, they may see the history
differently than as it actually happened. Sometimes they knowingly or unknowingly add some parts to
their stories, because they want to point to the cruelty and the horror of the particular epoch, or
they just disagree with the past regime, and so they reflect it in the bad light. That is the
reason why one has to be sceptical about the information acquired by [DEL: the :DEL] oral history
and one has to know that it is just an opinion of a person and not a general experience. Secondly,
we can talk about the discomfort of the[INS: se :INS] topics. Sometimes talking about the cruelty
in [DEL: the :DEL] 20^th century may evoke uncomfortable feelings to some groups of visitors, for
example people who survived such an awful experience or young children for whom this could be a
very sensitive topic and they would not be able to take it.  [INS: :INS]

2.

After the theoretical introduction, one can state that the narration of [DEL: the :DEL] oral
history is a kind of interpretation of [DEL: the :DEL] history by [DEL: the :DEL] contemporary
witnesses. Hence, one may reflect on how similar is the narration of oral history to the
interpretation? Freeman Tilden wrote a book named Interpreting Our Heritage, in which he formulates
six principles of [DEL: the :DEL] interpretation. For the purpose[DEL: s :DEL] of this article[DEL:
, the present authors chose :DEL] three of them[INS: are chosen and :INS] [DEL: . These principles
are :DEL] applied to [DEL: the :DEL] oral history. In the first principle, Tilden talks about the
non-sterility of [DEL: the :DEL] interpretation. (Tilden 9) In case of [DEL: the :DEL] oral history
in [DEL: the :DEL] museum[INS: s :INS] , the narration is not sterile, because the visitors
acquaint themselves with [DEL: the :DEL] oral stories of people and the[INS: se :INS] stories evoke
emotions in them. In the second principle, he deals with the relationship between [DEL: the :DEL]
information and [DEL: the :DEL] interpretation. He claims that [DEL: the :DEL] information is not
[DEL: the :DEL] interpretation and that they are two different things. However, he states that all
interpretation[DEL: s :DEL] include [DEL: the :DEL] information. (Tilden 9) In case of oral
history, it is very similar. A narration [DEL: from :DEL] [INS: about :INS] [DEL: the :DEL] oral
history is an interpretation of the contemporary witness of [DEL: the :DEL] historical moment[INS:
s :INS] . The narration contains information about these histories. In the last principle, Tilden
talks about [DEL: the :DEL] making of a suitable way to [DEL: the :DEL] presentation of [DEL: the
:DEL] interpretation for different groups of visitors. (Tilden 9) In case of [DEL: the :DEL] oral
history in museums, one possibility of such an interpretation is an educational program for
children with a didactic material, which could re-tell stories in a more sensitive way.

Tilden is not the only one who is dealing with the interpretation, its meaning, theories and
principles. Another author is a very famous Italian novelist, philosopher, literary critic and
aesthetician Umberto Eco. One of his works was a book named The Limits of Interpretation. In this
book Eco formulated contemporary theories of interpretation which are complemented by his own
semiotic reflection. From these, one should mention mainly the opinion that once the text comes
from [DEL: the hand of :DEL] its originator, there is an endless range of possible interpretations.
(Eco 18) This theory could be applied to [DEL: the :DEL] oral history. Thanks to this process we
can find lots of stories which interpret one historical moment but in many different ways. So, it
should be pointed out that the oral story of the contemporary witness is not a general
interpretation of [DEL: the :DEL] [INS: a :INS] concrete historical moment. In his book, Eco also
tries to prove that there are limits and criteria of [DEL: the :DEL] interpretation. For example,
one of these criteria is that the interpretation should talk about something that we are able to
find and verify its truthfulness. Only then, one may accept it. (Eco 18) It is very similar to
formulating [DEL: the :DEL] interpretation by [DEL: the :DEL] oral history. As it was mentioned
before, people should be very sceptical about the narrations gained by the oral history. With the
passage of time, memories may become distorted and the narrations of the historical moment may
include fiction, which did not really happen.

In conclusion, one may state with confidence that the interpretation is a part of [DEL: the :DEL]
oral history. It is a result of this method. Interpretation in [DEL: the :DEL] oral history
represents the words coming from [DEL: the :DEL] contemporary witnesses who describe [DEL: the
:DEL] [INS: a :INS] real historical epoch, regime or incident. Therefore, it is a subjective
experience retold to other people. [INS: :INS]

3.

The method of [DEL: the :DEL] oral history could be used everywhere[DEL: in the world :DEL] . One
may find some examples in Graz, too[bb4] . There are presented two of them connected to the 20^th
century. They are also a little bit controversial and one may still find contemporary witnesses of
these historical moments, whose experience could be retold by [DEL: the :DEL] museums. The first
example is Stolpersteine (stumbling stone). These are concrete cubes with the names and the life
dates of the victims of the Nazi persecution in front of their own houses. In Graz, there are 95 of
them. The authors of the article think that there is still a possibility of finding their relatives
and acquaintances who could re-tell the stories of the persecuted people to the audience. The
second example is Marian Column, which is also very controversial. Firstly, this monument was a
part of the propaganda that celebrated the victory over the Ottomans as a triumph of Christianity
over Islam. Secondly, in 1988 Hans Hacke veiled the Marian Column with the sheathing, which
referenced to Hitler’s annexation of Austria in 1939. He reconstructed a Nazi obelisk from 1938,
which covered one of Graz’s older monuments. This artwork caused a huge debate in the public, and
in the end, it was set on fire. This incident happened 30 years ago, so there are still people who
remember it. The creator of the sheathing is still alive; hence he could tell us the story of his
artwork and the reasons for which he created it.[INS: :INS]

4.

The next part of the article [bb5] should talk about the possible methods of how museums can
interpret these oral stories and narrations to the audience[DEL: in another way than just present
them inside the buildings of the museums :DEL] . It is difficult to decide on how to interpret
controversial history in the public spaces orally. One may think of an exhibition in the museum
where a part of it is a discussion with [DEL: the :DEL] contemporary witnesses [DEL: of the :DEL]
[INS: about :INS] controversial history in the 20^th century and listening to their personal
stories and opinions. Museums can use public space as a promotion for the exhibition. But how to
make it orally? One possible example may be a performance in which people in costumes stand in the
streets, parks or stations and sing or read poems or tell stories and the passers-by would try to
find out what is happening. Another possibility may have a form of discussions in the pubs where
people listen to the stories told in a more informal way. It is, thus, better to hear stories
directly from the source rather than listening to a curator in a museum.[INS: :INS]

5.

Finally[INS: , :INS] this topic opens a lot of interesting questions for the discussion. For
example, how could a museum present this controversial historical topic in an acceptable way to the
audience? One may find many different attitudes towards this question. The one widely used claims
that the museum[DEL: s :DEL] should pay attention to the presentation. If one makes exhibitions,
one should adapt the presentation and the content to fit the target audience. The topics should not
be very touching, because contemporary witnesses or young children might feel uncomfortable [DEL:
at :DEL] [INS: in :INS] the exhibition. It means that on the one side, visitors should not feel
completely comfortable and the exhibition should bring out emotions, but on the other side, this
emotional side should be controlled in a way. The other radical opinion to this question is that
museums should show one very strong opinion to the visitors, which could touch their feelings.
Thanks to this opinion, the visitors start to think about the topic and they start searching for
extra information which would agree or disagree with this strong point of view.

Another question is how to convince the contemporary witnesses to talk about the sensitive topics?
One of the most presented opinions is that the contemporary witnesses do not want to talk about
their experiences because they do not want to tell such a sensitive story to their family since it
may hurt them. In this case, people should show them their interest, so that they can open their
hearts to them. People should make sure that they will not judge them, because they want to learn
from the history, which happened to them. If they are reassured, they will talk about their stories
because they will understand the meaning of such a narration.

The final question could be how to find the only one and the “right” example of [DEL: the :DEL]
interpretation in [DEL: the :DEL] oral history? Answer[INS: s :INS] to this question seems to be
very hard[INS: to find :INS] . The subsequent question could be whether there really exists the
only one right example. Or what does the word “right” mean in this case? There are also more
versions of the answer to this question. Someone may say that for him, it is better to have more
than just one interpretation, so that he could think about them, and then, choose the right ones.
Other people may disagree with it and they may claim that what they need is the only [DEL: one
:DEL] interpretation which starts the discussion on the topic. They may claim that having many
interpretations is long-winded and boring. After all, one may state that the finding of the correct
interpretation depends on the curators of the exhibitions and the preferences of the target
audience.

Sources

Tilden, Freeman. Interpreting Our Heritage. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

Eco, Umberto. Meze interpretace. Univerzita Karlova: Nakladatelství Karolinum, 2004.
________________________________

 [bb1]Please add subheadings and quotes concerning the method of oral history

 [LM2]Would be good to add which of their book are you using, please add a footnote or so

 [bb3]Maybe more detailed?

 [bb4]Add literature on the objects

 [bb5]Other wording?