Dioramas reflect history, not a true representation
July 3rd, 2008, 1:45 pm · 5 Comments · posted by Le Templar
Upper Photo: Original diorama of Battle of Palmetto Ranch (Tribune file); Lower photo: Reconstituted diorama now on display at Texas Military Forces Museum (submitted photo).
There has been some interesting reaction to a prior post this week about the Civil War battle diorama from Highland High School that’s again on display at the Texas Military Forces Museum in Austin. Supporters of museum director Jeff Hunt seem to be ignorant of a fundamental fact about dioramas that has shaped my thinking on this issue.
I didn’t understand this fact, either, until Highland history teacher Glen Frakes explained it to me during a lengthy interview a couple of months ago. Frakes said battle dioramas are a single scene intended to represent events that take place over the course of minutes, hours, days or even weeks. So dioramas have to compress both time and space to create a coherent, comprehensive picture that viewers can understand and learn from.
As such, dioramas always include some artistic interpretation of these events by their crafters and never offer a competely accurate telling of the story as might be offered in a video or the written word. Sometimes, a diorama maker might add something (or leave something off) that would seem wrong to a historian seeped deeply in knowledge of the diorama’s subject. But that intentional act conveys important information to the uninitiated, or removes distracting clutter.
For example, a diorama might leave off the roof or wall off of a particular building so viewers can peer inside to gleen additional details. Military units and equipment might be placed closer together than is porportionally accurate in order to fit other relevant items onto the same diorama.
And sometimes, key details are simply unknown to modern historians and the diorama maker has to make a good guess. Frakes said when he worked with his students to create the first of Highland’s five dioramas at the Texas museum — about the Battle of the Alamo — it wasn’t known where some of the major players were killed that they wanted to represent. So the students tried to place those figures in logical locations or where they were more likely to be seen by viewers.
What all of this adds up to is dioramas never should be changed or rebuilt without at least consulting with the original crafters, when possible. Frakes made it clear that serious thought and planning goes into every detail of a diorama.
Hunt has claimed he tried to consult with Frakes before he took the diorama apart, but Frakes didn’t want to make any changes. Frakes has told me that never happened. Based on my research, Frakes’ version of events has held up as more credible so far.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
From Le Templar’s article “battle dioramas are a single scene intended to represent events that take place over the course of minutes, hours, days or even weeks” the key words here are “events that take place”. No matter how many minute, hours, days or weeks, there was only one death at the Battle of Palmetto Ranch. The original diorama had the field littered with dead bodies and horses. Dramatic, yes. Events that took place, no. The new diorama has one body, as happened. Army Regulation 870-20, para 3-15 Exhibits, d. “Historical accuracy, both implied and implicit, will be scrupulously maintained, and misrepresentations will be avoided both in content and in presentation.” Le Templar: “dioramas never should be changed or rebuilt without at least consulting with the original crafters, when possible” Everything anyone makes can be considered artistic, and the owner (or authorized agent) of any thing can change it at will. Was this not the case, no one could buy a house and paint and redecorate. Remodeling would be illegal. Jeff Hunt, unlike the former Director and MAJ (R) Aanenson, is to be lauded for caring whether the diorama was as accurate as possible, and for taking steps to ensure that the most accurate representation of the know facts is displayed in the Museum that he has responsibility for, - even, if temporarily, nothing at all was displayed. Surely Mr. Frakes would have to agree that Jeff Hunt is an expert on the Battle of Palmetto Ranch, or he would not have consulted Jeff’s book as reference material while working on the diorama. It is a shame he did not read more carefully, and accurately portray what is in the book. As an expert, and as the person with responsibility for the accuracy of the Museum displays, Jeff Hunt had every right to personally oversee the restructuring of the diorama. The students of Mr. Frakes have learned a lot about the Battle of Palmetto Ranch from this endeavor, and their efforts have been recognized in a bronze plaque on the revised diorama: “The TMFM gratefully acknowledges the contribution of the students and their teachers of Highland High School, Gilbert, AZ to the construction of this diorama”.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Okay. Here we go again. Jeff Hunt an expert? Blah, Blah, Blah. And for those who defend him! Jeff Hunt had no right to go into PROPERTY that did not belong to him. The museum cannot show that it had sole ownership. Also, Hunt misinterprets AR 870-20. He twists information to suit his goals.
I repeat:
Everything you say here is just more of the arrogant excuses given to cover up a criminal act. Your “quotes” are not accurate! It makes no difference if the soldiers were attached with epoxy or not - Hunt should not have gone into the diorama in the first place! The value of the diorama far exceeded what the museum paid for materials and shipping only! That just demonstrated his immature and egotistical nature. His claims of inaccuracies are a cover-up for something - jealousy, resentment, perhaps! He certainly is no gentleman, and his reputation throughout the re-enactment circles is not too great. Groups are still boycotting the museum. You say that Hunt considers it his duty to portray history in a true light - Hunt can’t accurately claim that there was only one casualty at the Battle of Palmetto Ranch. In “The Yankee Invasion of Texas” (2006), author, Stephen A. Townsend, PhD, writes on page 130, “Accounts of the conflict at Palmito Hill have disagreed on the number of casualties for both sides.” Ford reported only 5 wounded among the Confederate forces - another Confederate officer stated that the Confederates took time to bury their dead. “The Federals suffered 101 captured, 9 wounded, and 2 killed.” And in Thomas Knowles’ “They Rode for the Lone Star”, p. 208 and p. 223, 12 of Ford’s men were killed; p. 208, Barrett lost 30 of his men to the Texans, more wounded and some drowned while swimming the river to escape. Even “Rip” Ford’s written accounts prove that Hunt is wrong!
Your reference to “disgruntled” & “clouded emotions” is LAME. The Texas Civil War Museum offered to pay shipping and expenses for repair to display the diorama in their museum Star-Telegram.com May 09, 2008) - THEY ARE NOT DISGRUNTLED. They wanted to add the Frakes’ diorama to their Palmito Hill exhibit. Decent people recognize wrongdoing. Those people who don’t care whom they run over will end up paying the consequences!
By the way, the flag now on the boat- is that the correct 1864-1867 flag?
These comments by Connected wreak arrogance, insensitivity, disregard for others’ property and lack of people skills!
July 4th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Le Templar, I would like to comment on what Mr. Frakes told you about dioramas and “artistic interpretation of these events.” At the Texas Military Forces Museum are four other dioramas created by Mr. Frakes and his students. In one diorama in particular, the WWII battle of Velletri, I adore that Mr. Frakes included the figure of a dog walking beside an American soldier after the 36th ID “Triumph at Velletri”. Those imaginative and creative details cause the viewer to sense the reality of the event.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Connected,
The current diorama has about 175 figures on it.
How many soldiers did the battle have ?
I have Jeff Hunt’s book in front of me… I am sure he represents the battle to have had more than 600 participants … conservatively..
So much for the claim that it was destroyed to make it ‘ historically accurate’….
The idea that you would claim this is in any way comparable to the quality of Frake’s ‘ Veletri’ diorama shows you have no sense and clearly some undisclosed bias.
This is not about the money spent by the TMFM Association ( which is NOT the museum )… because as a member of that association I know that those members were thrilled at the quality of the Diorama and had no problems with anything concerning the money we sent to Mr. Frakes to accomplish this task.
However, for Vinny’s edification in the other blog… all the checks sent to Frakes can be accounted for and they were all approved AT THE TIME they were sent by our Association Board of Directors.
It is not about who is in charge of the museum… Hunt had several other options which no one would deny as Director of the museum… one is to not display it, another is to display and point out what he considered historical flaws, it could have been loaned to another museum…
It is about 7000 hours of donated time and incredible artistic talent which went into the Diorama which was destroyed by someone who did not own it.
Here is Richard Gruetzner’s account ( Deputy Sheriff Travis County) , President of the TMFM Association ) when he finally told what he knew about the situation… his wife Cathleen, was the one who picked up the figures from the diorama case where they had lain for two months…and placed them into boxes with acid free paper around them… NOT Jeff or anyone else at the museum….
“Well……..
Unfortunately he did do what is being reported, in as much as he tore all the figures off the diorama. I do have to say that I cannot comprehend how he thought it was the right thing to do,….”
So much for the lies about ‘ carefully removed ‘ ….. This is not over and the truth will come out one of these days.
October 10th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
This comments deals with the current newsletter that was just sent out by The Texas Military Forces Museum. Right on the front page Mr Hunt starts telling about all the improvements for the museum that he has been ok’d for to spend money on.
Ok, my take on things as they stands on Oct 10, 2008. The nation is in crisis tight. Mr Hunt is getting money to the tune of $2,700,000, which is only part of the $6,000,000 that have been approved for his “new Master Plan” of what the museum should be. First thing, Mr Hunt for some reason cannot get it into his head that The museum is about TEXAS MILITARY FORCES. There were periods in Texas history where Federal troops came into play, but that part of history does not apply to the original story plan that General Scribner tried to stick to.
People, in my personnal opinion, the money that Mr Hunt is getting to up grade the museum is probably, and most likely coming from money the National Guard of Texas was given. It just does not seem right, for us, the middle class workers to bail out the banks, and the Texas National Guard is spending money on up grades for a museum that has less than 20,000 visitors a year some to see the complex.
If you are as concerned as I am about the current state of the nation you might ant to write the Govenor of Texas and ask him why so much money is being spend on a National Guard Museum that so few people actually attend.