Anyone who believes the world of museums was staid and
unchanging needs only read a few pages of Adam Kuper’s book to realise the
civil wars that have broken out in recent years, most notably around museums of
anthropology – which were typically founded as “museums of other people”, or as
part of a cabinets of curiosities. It all began with terms like “civilization”
in the 18th century:
Museums of civilization [such as
The British Museum and The Louvre] embodied the Enlightenment theory of
history. All human societies progress from a lower to a higher condition … the
goal toward which all must travel is what French philosophers in the late C18
began to call Civilization.
At this point, you remember how, while most museums seem to have
existed forever, some have closed, and you ask yourself why. There was once a
Museum of Mankind in London, and a Musee de l’Homme in Paris. Both were in the
tradition of collections of the artefacts of “primitive” people. Over time,
questions began to be raised, and today, any collection with an ethnographic
angle reveals a fundamental uncertainty, a defensiveness, towards the displays,
as the museums have been caught unawares that their current treatment of “other
people” is inadequate – we no longer call them “primitive”, for a start. This
was very visible, for example, from a recent visit to the London National
Maritime Museum Pacific gallery, which had many glass cases, and looked to me
as if it had been set up forty or fifty years ago, but which now has signs
prominently displayed at each entrance, stating something like “we recognise
this collection is presented with colonialist assumptions, but we haven’t had
time to fix it". That is the quickest, and most unsatisfactory, way to
deal with the problem.
Kuper’s book makes for gripping reading, as museum after
museum struggles to rethink its collection policy, its view on returning objects
(return to where?), and lurches from justifying its collections on artistic,
then on ethnographic grounds, and then changes track again.
The issue of how many of the famous objects came to be held
in European and US museums, such as the Benin bronzes, is described in horrific
detail – looting, or via a dealer after looting, is the usual route.
Nonetheless, however compelling the reading, the problem remains for the
anthropologists: how do you hold a collection that represents a people? Is it
possible to build such a collection without being patronising? I don’t think the
first chapter, “Faraway people”, quite matches the coverage of the subsequent
chapters. A recent
visit to the Museum of Manchester suggests one idea increasingly seen in
museums: information boards featuring a living person, who is interviewed for
the display.
This isn’t the first book to describe a problem without identifying
a successful solution. Nonetheless, Kuper has a gift for narrative, and brings
the unexciting subject of founding and managing museums to life. His narrative skilfully
combines fascinating background details about pioneers whose name we know but
whose background we don’t – who, for example, knew about James Smithson, the
illegitimate son of an English duke and his lover, christened Jacques Macie,
and subsequently founder of the Smithsonian? The breezy style makes for
compulsive reading, and the reader doesn’t (usually) notice when the narrative
drifts off to something unrelated but a good story, such as how Jeremy
Bentham’s body came to be preserved at University College London. Kuper is such
a fluent writer that he keeps your attention throughout, and we don’t worry too
much that he is better at describing what has gone wrong rather than suggesting
better solutions. He points out, for example, that the modern concept of
providing “closure” by reburying skeletons dug up for experimental purposes in
the 19th century may well be inappropriate, in that it was in many cases
unlikely that these dead people were buried in the first place. In other words,
we are still imposing our ideas of what the civilization might have been like.
I recommend the book highly, if for no other reason than as
a corrective to the way that some museums claim to have solved the problem of
their collections of skulls and artefacts by stating the provenance – back to
the white European (usually) who acquired the objects in not very clearly
stated deals.
No comments:
Post a Comment