Media Heritage and Memory in the Museum: Managing Dennis Potter's Legacy in the Forest of Dean Hannah Arlia Grist
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Media Heritage and Memory in the Museum: Managing Dennis Potter’s Legacy in the Forest of Dean Hannah Arlia Grist A thesis submitted to The University of Gloucestershire in accordance with the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Media, Art and Technology January 2015 Abstract This research explores the ways in which Dennis Potter (1935-1994) is made inheritable to audiences through a rural Heritage Lottery Funded project. With the sale of the written Potter Archive to the Dean Heritage Centre, Gloucestershire, in 2010, this study explores in great detail the processes enacted to interpret the Potter Archive as cultural (television) heritage. Through a creative and innovative research design which utilises autoethnography, inventive qualitative methods and a level of quantitative analysis, this study examines the ways in which Potter is made intelligible to past television audiences, project members and collaborators, local people, and the casual tourist within the heritage environment. A unique and irreproducible study, this interdisciplinary research sits as a contribution to an emerging field that is located at the interface between Memory studies and Museum Studies and explores the way various forms of mediation are connected to these fields. Inherently at stake in this research is the valorisation of television as heritage, as Potter remains well within living memory. Through proximate and intimate connections to this multifaceted heritage project this work represents one of the first interventions to explore turning television into heritage at a local level drawing together the macro level of cultural policy with the micro level of enacting that policy. In asking how Dennis Potter’s legacy is managed in the Forest of Dean heritage environment, this thesis explores the ways Potter’s legacy is mediated, how television heritage is consumed and made meaningful (or struggles for meaning) in the museum space, how a writer’s legacy is interpreted by heritage professionals, volunteers, past television audiences and museum visitors, and how television as heritage is consumed online. This thesis makes visible the underlying mechanisms by which the Dennis Potter Archive is (or might yet become) articulated as television heritage, through examining the core managerial, interpretive and memorial processes involved in this high stakes, multi-partner project. 2 I declare that the work in this thesis was carried out in accordance with the regulations of the University of Gloucestershire and is original except where indicated by specific reference in the text. No part of the thesis has been submitted as part of any other academic award. The thesis has not been presented to any other education institution in the United Kingdom or overseas. Any views expressed in the thesis are those of the author and in no way represent those of the University. Signed …………………………………………….. Date ………………………………………….... 3 Acknowledgements There are number of people that I am indebted to for offering endless love and support throughout the course of this PhD. First, I would like to say a heartfelt thank-you to my wonderful supervisory team. To Dr. Jo Garde-Hansen: without your incredible knowledge and your belief in my abilities, this study would be far less rigorous and I would have challenged myself a great deal less. You are an inspiration and I have been privileged to work with you. To Jason Griffiths, I would like to say how much I appreciate all the time you have spent working with me, helping me to work through complicated and frustrating issues, and for helping me to question and understand the Forest of Dean in ways I had never even considered. And finally, Dr. Ros Jennings, to whom I owe a great deal: not only did you equip me with the skills I needed to complete this PhD, but you helped me to recognise the value of ‘taking time for myself’ and (at the risk of sounding cliché) helped me to become a better person. I would also like to say thank-you to the University of Gloucestershire for offering me the PhD Studentship in the first place and thank my fabulous colleagues at the University. In particular an enormous thank-you is owed to Dr. Eva Krainitzki for the advice, the chats, the road trips, and the coffee. I owe a great deal of thanks to the staff, trustees and volunteers at the Dean Heritage Centre, without whom the Dennis Potter Archive would not have a home, and I would not have this thesis. Thank-you to Nathalie, Harri and Phillippa for agreeing to countless requests and favours, for opening up your work place to me and for the friendships I have gained throughout the course of my research. To Paul, Rosemary, Charlotte, Belinda, Ian, and Tom I would also like to say a great big thank-you. You were all so generous in allowing me to observe the trials and tribulations of cataloguing the Archive and I will never forget the hours we all spent griping about Accession numbers and bull dog clips! A very big thank-you is also due to Adrian and Rachel Lambert of the Rural Media Company who agreed to have me observe them on location in the Forest of Dean, and who were both so generous with their time for interview. You both do absolutely fantastic work, and I have been privileged to spend time with you both. I would also like to thank Dan Salter for allowing me to use as research data some of the fantastic pictures he took on location at the Buried Heart shoot. The photographs are fantastic, and every time I look at them I am reminded of this fun, inspirational and creative experience. 4 I would also like to say a big thank-you to the Digital Storytelling participants John Belcher, Lyndon Davies, Andrew Gardiner, Glenda Griffiths, Doug MacLean, Paul Mason, Julia Sykes, Maurice Thomas, and Roger Wood for sharing your memories of Potter and his work. Your stories highlight the multidirectionality of memory, and remind us that television has an impact on the lived realities of everyday life, a crucial consideration for research such as this. It is hard to put into words how grateful I am to my family and friends for their constant support, reassurance and patience. In particular I would like to recognise the love and support provided by my Mum, Dad and Sam, and the love and belief in me shown at all times by Jill and John. I am also indebted to the rest of the Gritley Clan for their patience, honesty and encouragement. To my friends – thank-you for bearing with me, for reading drafts, listening to hours of ‘research talk,’ for (pretending) to get excited about research methods and ethics, and I promise that now my studies have come to an end I’ll finally have my weekends back! And finally, the biggest thank-you is owed to Joe, whose unwavering strength has guided me through the process of completing this PhD, and kept me anchored despite patches of rough weather and a series of minor disasters. Thank-you for your tireless crisis management skills, the constant supply of coffee and for patiently reading and listening to countless drafts of this thesis. You have been (and still are) my rock and I would like to dedicate this thesis to you. 5 Contents 1. Thesis Introduction .............................................................................................................. 12 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 12 1.2 Research Aim and Lacuna.............................................................................................. 13 1.3 Structure of the Thesis.................................................................................................... 15 2. Research Design................................................................................................................... 19 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 19 2.2 ‘Occupying the Borderland’: Good-timing and ‘finding’ autoethnography .................. 19 2.3 Proximity and Intimacy: Researcher Roles .................................................................... 22 2.4 Participant Observations & Mapping Visitor Routes ..................................................... 24 2.5 Netnography (Kozinets, 2010) ....................................................................................... 27 2.6 Questionnaires ................................................................................................................ 27 2.7 Obtaining Interviews ...................................................................................................... 29 2.7.1 Self-Disclosure: Interview Techniques ....................................................................... 30 2.8 Using ‘Visitor Books’ as a Research Resource .............................................................. 31 2.9 Data Analysis Technique ............................................................................................... 32 3. Literature Review (Part 1): Heritage Theory ....................................................................... 34 3.1 Introduction to Literature Review .................................................................................. 34 Literature Review (Part 1) .................................................................................................... 35 3.2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 35 3.3 Defining Heritage