Often, early house museums were simply shrines to the owners, the architecture of the house, and the art or furniture inside. These aspects of the museum only connected to the life of white male elitists. A story would be told about the accomplishments of the owner, or possibly the architecture of the house, but not a story that would weave all the intricacies of the time period together using all possible objects and people. However, in recent years, the public historian has been challenged to connect these objects with places, ideas, and people. For example, Howell uses a colonial era teacup to explain how a good interpreter will take the teacup and explain how it was a symbol of America s pre-revolutionary affinity and reliance upon English goods.
Several factors come into play.
The changing ways in which historians believed that museum interpretations should be formatted had a definite impact. In the 1930 s, Arthur C. Parker, director of the Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, was a pioneer in the modern art of interpretation. Parker was greatly influential in envisioning a modern museum interpretation, one that connected all parts of a concept, and therefore made a compelling story that would be far more beneficial to the visitor. In addition, the social movements of the mid-20 th century made many Americans realize that our society could not and should not be any longer a monoracial and sexist one. Academic and later public historians soon took heed of this rapidly changing society.