Month: January 2018

I chose to focus on a colored apron, which was found both in the Staplehurst workhouse inventories and the St. Andrew Undershaft records which we used for our pauper biographies.

In terms of it being presented in both physical and digital forms, a dual approach would be particularly interesting. This could be an object that would be purely on display, but it could also be integrated in an exhibit where visitors could try on and experience the clothes firsthand with replicas. This would be much more of an experience, though difficulties might arise in the making of the exhibit.

As for the digital side, that too has a great deal of potential. An image or even a 3D model of a person wearing everyday wear, including the apron, would aid in understanding the period visually. Furthermore, digitally it becomes significantly easier to illustrate how a colored apron would be special. Having multiple people in plain aprons with one person in a colored apron in an image, etc. gives the visitor a better context and understanding of the significance that the apron is colored, as opposed to a single item on display.

Gressenhall was one of a few workhouses that provided these shoes to the paupers in their care instead of giving them an allowance and letting them fend for themselves. Despite coming from the late 1700’s or early 1800’s, these shoes resemble modern day work shoes quite a bit. They appear to be made of brown leather with slightly raised heels (the newer shoes have heels made of rubber, but the older shoes’ heels may be made of wood). The laces are made out of leather as well. The material of the shoes, even to this day, is considered both durable and waterproof, although it’s unclear exactly how waterproof these older shoes are (current leather boots are treated with chemicals to be more water resistant).

The children’s shoes of Gressenhall are much more plain in color and decoration than the shoes of their peers. They also are of a different material: some shoes would be made of linen, cotton or even silk. Another thing to note is that the heel of the boots is rather low. This is another signifier of class; the richer the person, the higher the shoe’s heel. The fact that this idea was passed down to even the youngest of English people shows the extreme class stratification for English society at the time.

 

Men’s Boots & Shoes | Official Dr Martens Store. http://www.drmartens.com/us/c/mens.

“Girl’s Tie Shoe.” Girl’s Tie Shoe – MAAS. https://collection.maas.museum/object/239340.

“Pair of Silk Satin Buckle Shoes Wiith Buckles.” Pair of Silk Satin Buckle Shoes Wiith Buckles – MAAS. https://collection.maas.museum/object/239900.

Styles, John. The Dress of the People: Everyday Fashion in Eighteenth-century England. Yale University Press, 2013.

“Cobbler_replica_child.JPG.” Google Drive. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebOhl4TLRr_GIywjQ3z9qBzA_Zu6yrWC/view.

 

In the pauper dormitories of the St. Sepulchre Workhouse, a looking glass is listed in the 1751 workhouse inventories. By exploring the narrative of this object further we can uncover some aspects of the paupers’ lives as well as the true nature of the St. Sepulchre Workhouse as an institution.

The looking glass may seem insignificant at first, but upon further consideration, it seems out place and does not at all fit the common perception of the workhouse as an institution that attempts to destroy any shred of individuality that once belonged to its inmates. Additionally, looking glasses were not as common as they are today and probably would have belonged mostly to members of the upper class.

In a museum setting, this looking glass could immerse the visitors as an element of a larger display containing more of the elements of the dormitory environment. In this way, the setting would be more immersive and would also provide an opportunity to think critically about the workhouse institution and about the everyday significance of a looking glass for the average pauper.

 

In the 18th century workhouses, many tools allowed for paupers to create, repair, and go about their daily lives. Awl’s provided just that. It was a tool that gave paupers to build or repair clothing and various other items. These would typically be found in tool shops, alongside

In the context of a museum, it would be useful to have visitors use awl’s to create something simple that paupers might have used them for. It would be a great hands-on, interactive experience for visitors of all ages. Some simple examples might be making holes for shoelaces, holes for buttons on a blouse, or holes on a belt.

A digital implantation of this tool could be used in an interface where users can use a set of materials to fabricate clothing or items using the awl alongside other tools, to virtually create or repair an item. This way users can get a glimpse into the labor that it would have taken in order to fabricate or repair items.

The locations and uses of large tables in the English workhouses during the 18^th and 19^th centuries are able to provide us with information about the differences in lifestyle between those in charge and the working poor. The stories of two particular tables, one located in the governor’s room in the workhouse of Assington and the other located in the parlour in the workhouse in the parish of Staplehurst, help to highlight these differences.

I don’t think that the stories behind these large tables show in anyway that the workhouses were pernicious, but they definitely show that they were fairly institutionalized with disparities in power between those in control and those working, where only minimum care was provided for the latter.

Museums could help to contextualize this by showing, for example, a model to help visualize the difference between the cramped wardroom with a few smaller tables and the governor’s room with the large table in Assington. The same could be done with the table in the parlour in Staplehurst, as the use of a large table in such a room would have been for leisure time and socializing, something that not many poor workers had. Additionally, showing actual replicas of the large tables and what they would have been used for in comparison with smaller tables cramped with workers would also help to contextualize and explain the significance of large tables in a museum.

In the 1789 edition of the inventory, there appears to be a single mousetrap located in one of the Butteries of the workhouse. A mousetrap in a location of food or drink preparation calls into question the sanitation, cleanliness, and even safety of workhouses.

In a museum, an eighteenth-century mousetrap could evoke numerous responses from visitors. In a recreation of a location of food preparation such as a kitchen, pantry, or buttery, a mousetrap set up as if it were trying to catch a live rodent would instantly put people at unease. In today’s day and age, vermin near food is disgusting and extraordinarily unsanitary so this would make today’s public think about the questionable cleanliness of workhouses in the eighteenth and nineteenth century.

On a different note, mousetraps today are very recognizable objects, but as I discussed in my object biography, the mousetraps used back then may have looked extremely different; there were many possible designs, most of which not very similar to modern traps. The comparison of current mousetraps and a mousetrap of the 1800s would almost certainly lead to thoughts about technological development in mundane objects, which is often not thought about.

The simple, wooden cradles listed in the inventories of 18^th century Workhouses tell us of the dire conditions that pregnant women living in poverty outside of the houses would have had to endure.

When introducing the cradles of 18^th century and their significance in Workhouses in a museum context, it would be helpful to first show physical examples. Some of lesser quality which would more likely have been in the Workhouses, with infant dolls in them showing the visitor that children were born there. In addition, to display the idea that the pregnant women did not become so in the Workhouse, but rather came to the Workhouse afterward but before having their children, a video of pregnant women walking up to the doors of the Workhouses could be shown in the display.

To lead the visitor to consider the circumstances that poor, pregnant women would have had to endure at the time, other cradles of more elaborate and ornate construction could be shown. This could be in some digital context in which the locations of such cradles – more affluent places – could also be observed, contrasting these to the simpler ones found in the Workhouse. Why, then, would women choose to have their babies in places in which the furnishings were so relatively poor? Conditions outside must have been even worse.