Exhibiting Ancient Greek Architectural Sculpture: a Comparison of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EXHIBITING ANCIENT GREEK ARCHITECTURAL SCULPTURE: A COMPARISON OF THE HERITAGESCAPE AND VISITOR RESPONSES IN TEN EUROPEAN COLLECTIONS by LAURA JANE CAROLINE SNOOK A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham April 2015 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT This thesis examines the exhibitions of Greek architectural sculpture in ten European collections. The exhibitions used as case studies display both original sculptures and plaster copies. These displays can be found in the Acropolis Museum, Athens; the British Museum, London; the Musée du Louvre, Paris; the Archaeological Museum of Olympia, Olympia; Delphi Archaeological Museum, Delphi; the Museum of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge; the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, Oxford; the Kongelige Afstøbningssamling, Copenhagen; and the Skulpturhalle, Basel. These exhibitions are assessed using the heritagescape methodology, considering the boundaries, visibility and cohesion within the displays. This assessment is then compared with the results of a survey of visitors to the same exhibitions, asking for their responses to interpretive material within the exhibitions, specifically, tours, models, pictures, information labels and videos. It argues that while all archaeological or history museums are places of the past, the degree to which each creates a sense of the past for its visitors, rather than relying on the inherent sense of the past present in the artefacts displayed or supplied by visitors themselves, will vary according to a number of factors, including the target audience and the aims and objectives of the different institutions. DEDICATION To my darling Jack τῳ παντι ἐρῳ ἐμου εἰς παντα τον αἰωνα ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisor John Carman for his guidance, direction and encouragement throughout, and for his patience in light of the endless distractions which have extended this project far beyond my initial intentions. Thanks must go to Marsia Bealby, Birgit Haskamp, Sarah Hodgkinson, Dorthe Nielsen and Carlo Virgilio for their help with the translation of the questionnaires and interpretation of seemingly illegible handwriting. I am very grateful to Tomas Lochman of the Skulpturhalle, Henrik Holm of the Kongelige Afstøbningssamling and Olympia Bobou of the Ashmolean Museum for their insight into the collections and their enthusiastic support for this study. To Erika Johnson, Juliette Harrisson, Deborah Kerr, Elizabeth Wheat, Emma Southon, Matt Kears and Emma Login, I would like to give my sincere thanks for your amazing company on this journey, both metaphorically and literally. You have stood with me for hours in galleries; driven me across Greece and back again; shared in the turmoil of numerous ‘office’ relocations; enjoyed and endured countless conferences, some in languages we do not understand; provided incalculable quantities of tea and biscuits; and you are the embodiment of what a ‘research community’ should be: fun, supportive, encouraging and brutally honest. Many, many thanks to my Mum and Dad for all their support throughout. I know you have not always understood why I wanted to do this, but you understood that I did, and have been there all the same, every step of the way. Finally, all my thanks and love to Jack Hill for tolerating ceaseless repetitions of the points in this thesis that proved difficult to phrase adequately; for graciously accepting the enforced servitude of acting as my assistant photographer, exhibition analyst, data-inputter, data-checker and proof-reader; for his incitement, nagging and guilt-tripping when the schedule began to slip and his praise and encouragement when it was back on track. I really could not have done this without you. CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 Aims and Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 2 Sculptures ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Museums.............................................................................................................................................. 9 Art or Archaeology? ........................................................................................................................... 13 Thesis Structure ................................................................................................................................. 19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 25 Sculpture ............................................................................................................................................ 25 Authenticity ................................................................................................................................... 31 Museums............................................................................................................................................ 33 Types .............................................................................................................................................. 36 History ........................................................................................................................................... 37 Cast Collections ............................................................................................................................. 42 Exhibition Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 44 Space Syntax .................................................................................................................................. 46 Heritagescape ................................................................................................................................ 47 Visitor Studies .................................................................................................................................... 49 Market Research ........................................................................................................................... 50 Education ....................................................................................................................................... 53 Social Inclusion .............................................................................................................................. 55 The Current Study .............................................................................................................................. 56 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 59 Heritagescape .................................................................................................................................... 64 Boundaries ..................................................................................................................................... 69 Visibility ......................................................................................................................................... 71 Cohesion ........................................................................................................................................ 73 Scoring ........................................................................................................................................... 76 Visitor Survey ..................................................................................................................................... 77 Pilot Survey .................................................................................................................................... 80 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 81 Questionnaires .............................................................................................................................. 83 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 84 CHAPTER 4 EXHIBITION ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 88 Descriptions ....................................................................................................................................... 88 The Acropolis Museum .................................................................................................................