Yes, a wonderful evisceration of the woke agenda. The remaining skin should be put on permanent display in the museum of the internet, with footnotes for future generations to glance at whilst pretending they know what they’re looking at.
Surprisingly woke, though. Why so understanding about the idea that “Museums encode a hierarchical power relation between observer and exhibit, and another secondly between curator and visitor.” and, implicitly that some alternative is possible? Why take seriously the concept of a ‘power relation’ between a museum visitor and a pottery fragment?
Exactly, ‘sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar’. The curator is a teacher, the visitor is a learner; good teachers excite and capture attention while imparting information – you can leave egos out of it mostly.
“Museums extend this worldview beyond the sciences, implying that this is what “learning” is: a detached, observing consciousness standing at a little distance from an object whose meaning is contained on a little sign’
No, we all know that learning happens in many ways, especially if we’ve had experience of music, or athletics.
” something violent, or violating, happens when an “exhibit” is removed from its social context and placed on display: a literal objectification, made only starker when it happens to a living person.”
Somehow made me think of those out of context, objectified. living persons up on the stage for Swan Lake. If that’s all you see in the ballet, you’ve missed the main point. Which is what ‘woke’ does: fastens on one aspect of a thing and blows it up to be the only important thing to be considered, missing entirely the really important things.
I agree. This article supposedly talks about the woke but is so woke itself it may be put in a museum in the future! Life is more simple: people like learning, seeing stuff and passing some idle hours acquiring stimuli. Museums often provide all of the above. A supply satisfies a demand and the only power game played is the same one between any consumer and their green grocer.
Yes, think of all those Renaissance and Medieval paintings torn out of the context of church. Impossible to restore to a social context of belief now. Beauty, a sense of the progression of history, inquisitiveness about the multifarious expression of the human spirit etc – such incommensurate considerations are not reducible to expressions of power alone.
I agree. This article supposedly talks about the woke but is so woke itself it may be put in a museum in the future! Life is more simple: people like learning, seeing stuff and passing some idle hours acquiring stimuli. Museums often provide all of the above. A supply satisfies a demand and the only power game played is the same one between any consumer and their green grocer.
Yes, think of all those Renaissance and Medieval paintings torn out of the context of church. Impossible to restore to a social context of belief now. Beauty, a sense of the progression of history, inquisitiveness about the multifarious expression of the human spirit etc – such incommensurate considerations are not reducible to expressions of power alone.
I agree that the power relation is not between the exhibit and the visitor, but it is between the exhibitor and the visitor. After all, the exhibitor decides what is to be put on display, how it is to be displayed, with what the item is juxaposed, and how it it labelled and what information is presented or left out. All of these factors (and probably more) affect how the visitor sees the item..
And power goes the other way too: the visitor can decide exhibitions aren’t for them and that can mean curator positions will be cut. The board of the gallery, and large donors, have power as well. There’s power flowing all over the place, the point is how important is that in the process, how important is that compared to what the expert curator is trying to share (their passion and knowledge) with the wider community? The other aspects need to be raised and considered, but the important thing is the quality of the exhibition and what the public gains from it.
I have great respect for the expert curator, however, a visitor should always be aware that the curator’s view, or more often the museum governor’s view, is being presented. I suppose what I am saying is don’t be a passive consumer, think and question what is being presented. I have been known to embarrass some companions by challenging musem presentations, when I have knowledge of the particular period, but even without that knowledge one must always question.
I have great respect for the expert curator, however, a visitor should always be aware that the curator’s view, or more often the museum governor’s view, is being presented. I suppose what I am saying is don’t be a passive consumer, think and question what is being presented. I have been known to embarrass some companions by challenging musem presentations, when I have knowledge of the particular period, but even without that knowledge one must always question.
And power goes the other way too: the visitor can decide exhibitions aren’t for them and that can mean curator positions will be cut. The board of the gallery, and large donors, have power as well. There’s power flowing all over the place, the point is how important is that in the process, how important is that compared to what the expert curator is trying to share (their passion and knowledge) with the wider community? The other aspects need to be raised and considered, but the important thing is the quality of the exhibition and what the public gains from it.
Exactly. This article is thoroughly woke. It attacks wokism, sure, but only to take even that extreme ideology to a still more extreme conclusion. The question that we should be asking here is about “power relations” per se as the sole criterion for understanding human existence, which is the height of cynicism.
Exactly, ‘sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar’. The curator is a teacher, the visitor is a learner; good teachers excite and capture attention while imparting information – you can leave egos out of it mostly.
“Museums extend this worldview beyond the sciences, implying that this is what “learning” is: a detached, observing consciousness standing at a little distance from an object whose meaning is contained on a little sign’
No, we all know that learning happens in many ways, especially if we’ve had experience of music, or athletics.
” something violent, or violating, happens when an “exhibit” is removed from its social context and placed on display: a literal objectification, made only starker when it happens to a living person.”
Somehow made me think of those out of context, objectified. living persons up on the stage for Swan Lake. If that’s all you see in the ballet, you’ve missed the main point. Which is what ‘woke’ does: fastens on one aspect of a thing and blows it up to be the only important thing to be considered, missing entirely the really important things.
I agree that the power relation is not between the exhibit and the visitor, but it is between the exhibitor and the visitor. After all, the exhibitor decides what is to be put on display, how it is to be displayed, with what the item is juxaposed, and how it it labelled and what information is presented or left out. All of these factors (and probably more) affect how the visitor sees the item..
Exactly. This article is thoroughly woke. It attacks wokism, sure, but only to take even that extreme ideology to a still more extreme conclusion. The question that we should be asking here is about “power relations” per se as the sole criterion for understanding human existence, which is the height of cynicism.
Yes, a wonderful evisceration of the woke agenda. The remaining skin should be put on permanent display in the museum of the internet, with footnotes for future generations to glance at whilst pretending they know what they’re looking at.
Surprisingly woke, though. Why so understanding about the idea that “Museums encode a hierarchical power relation between observer and exhibit, and another secondly between curator and visitor.” and, implicitly that some alternative is possible? Why take seriously the concept of a ‘power relation’ between a museum visitor and a pottery fragment?
Precisely. They just want to be able to tell you what to do for its own sake.
J Bryant
1 year ago
A clever and scholarly essay that explains in a tightly-reasoned form what I’ve instinctively believed all along: wokeism is just a power grab.
Paul Blew
1 year ago
Perhaps I’m just dim but….museums are like pre digital encyclopedias gathering and showing knowledge to people. My local museum is fantastic, showing the rich history of my town and area. Its the same for Wellcome, the only ‘power’ it has is that it is so diverse and broad in its exhibits and can bring together these artefacts to be seen.
Plus- how will it be rationalised sending back Bronzes to an originating monarchy and country/ continent that was the source of the slave trade by selling its own people?
Nice point, Paul: We have to remember that it is only the “West” who takes this interest in other Cultures, as an attempt to understand (1) our origins, Origen of the species, (2) how different other cultures are from our own.
There is also something almost sacred in the West about the “Original” object – we preserve the Parthenon (and Liberty Hall in Philadelphia etc), whereas the Japanese often rebuild a sacred temple from scratch to reproduce the way it looked, rather than the thing itself).
Query – what would have happened to those Grecian Urns carefully preserved and restored in, say, the Art Institute of Chicago, if they’d been left in the ground in Athens or Sparta? It would be dust, and all these Bronze reflects – melted into bullets? But now preserved for the world to see. The Rosetta Stone? If not taken by Napoleon, would Egypt still be trying to interpret the hieroglyphs?
Nice point, Paul: We have to remember that it is only the “West” who takes this interest in other Cultures, as an attempt to understand (1) our origins, Origen of the species, (2) how different other cultures are from our own.
There is also something almost sacred in the West about the “Original” object – we preserve the Parthenon (and Liberty Hall in Philadelphia etc), whereas the Japanese often rebuild a sacred temple from scratch to reproduce the way it looked, rather than the thing itself).
Query – what would have happened to those Grecian Urns carefully preserved and restored in, say, the Art Institute of Chicago, if they’d been left in the ground in Athens or Sparta? It would be dust, and all these Bronze reflects – melted into bullets? But now preserved for the world to see. The Rosetta Stone? If not taken by Napoleon, would Egypt still be trying to interpret the hieroglyphs?
Paul Blew
1 year ago
Perhaps I’m just dim but….museums are like pre digital encyclopedias gathering and showing knowledge to people. My local museum is fantastic, showing the rich history of my town and area. Its the same for Wellcome, the only ‘power’ it has is that it is so diverse and broad in its exhibits and can bring together these artefacts to be seen.
Plus- how will it be rationalised sending back Bronzes to an originating monarchy and country/ continent that was the source of the slave trade by selling its own people?
Dominic A
1 year ago
I look forward to the day when the terms ‘woke’, and ‘problematic’ are merely artefacts to be read, under the soft flickering gaslight of the Museum of Rhetoric.
Dominic A
1 year ago
I look forward to the day when the terms ‘woke’, and ‘problematic’ are merely artefacts to be read, under the soft flickering gaslight of the Museum of Rhetoric.
I’m now genuinely thankful that I passed many a mildly hungover Saturday afternoon in the ‘classic’ incarnation of the Pitt-Rivers before this humourless clown ruined it. I recall thinking that the writing was on the wall when several artefacts were returned and his predecessor declared that tribal ‘knowledge systems’ (specifically smoking a pipe and convening with the spirit world) were as valid as Western ones. Clearly not a graduate of computer science or medicine then.
I’m now genuinely thankful that I passed many a mildly hungover Saturday afternoon in the ‘classic’ incarnation of the Pitt-Rivers before this humourless clown ruined it. I recall thinking that the writing was on the wall when several artefacts were returned and his predecessor declared that tribal ‘knowledge systems’ (specifically smoking a pipe and convening with the spirit world) were as valid as Western ones. Clearly not a graduate of computer science or medicine then.
Last edited 1 year ago by Alphonse Pfarti
Matt M
1 year ago
This Dan Hicks seems like a barrel of laughs.
Bill Wainwright
1 year ago
“It says: I, the curator, am in command of what’s knowable about this thing, which you observe from a distance while absorbing facts about it.”
Change the word curator to author and the sentiment works for books, too. We live in a world where willful ignorance is celebrated as enlightenment.
Bill Wainwright
1 year ago
“It says: I, the curator, am in command of what’s knowable about this thing, which you observe from a distance while absorbing facts about it.”
Change the word curator to author and the sentiment works for books, too. We live in a world where willful ignorance is celebrated as enlightenment.
laurence scaduto
1 year ago
Perhaps I’m alone in this but I would rather see just the simplest labels. No label or catalog entry could ever allow me to truly know the Benin bronzes (for instance); who made them, why, to what purpose, by what method. And there’s always the question of what other purposes they were put to during their long lives. Questions about how they wound up in London pale in comparison and rob the crafts-people and their culture of the credit they deserve. The “power struggle” between me (the observer) and the curator (jack-booted thug of the patriarchy) is a comical idea; best ignored. “Explanations” that drag up someone else’s pet peeves are not welcome.
To really appreciate the artistry, the almost in-human wonder of the things, they should be left to speak for themselves.
laurence scaduto
1 year ago
Perhaps I’m alone in this but I would rather see just the simplest labels. No label or catalog entry could ever allow me to truly know the Benin bronzes (for instance); who made them, why, to what purpose, by what method. And there’s always the question of what other purposes they were put to during their long lives. Questions about how they wound up in London pale in comparison and rob the crafts-people and their culture of the credit they deserve. The “power struggle” between me (the observer) and the curator (jack-booted thug of the patriarchy) is a comical idea; best ignored. “Explanations” that drag up someone else’s pet peeves are not welcome.
To really appreciate the artistry, the almost in-human wonder of the things, they should be left to speak for themselves.
Richard Barrett
1 year ago
I cannot see why all artifacts must only be exhibited in their original locations. Could we not have the Mona Lisa housed in an African museum, or move some Rembrandt paintings to Singapore? Lets start thinking about a glorious world wide mix and match of great works of human achievement.
Richard Barrett
1 year ago
I cannot see why all artifacts must only be exhibited in their original locations. Could we not have the Mona Lisa housed in an African museum, or move some Rembrandt paintings to Singapore? Lets start thinking about a glorious world wide mix and match of great works of human achievement.
Mark Vernon
1 year ago
All very well said, thank you. Reminds me of hearing that some people leave offerings to certain religious objects in the British Museum, or bow as they pass by, in an attempt to acknowledge the original participatory context, a church or temple.
I suppose the museum is a manifestation of the death of God, as well as scientistic objectification.
Mark Vernon
1 year ago
All very well said, thank you. Reminds me of hearing that some people leave offerings to certain religious objects in the British Museum, or bow as they pass by, in an attempt to acknowledge the original participatory context, a church or temple.
I suppose the museum is a manifestation of the death of God, as well as scientistic objectification.
Methadras Aszlosis
1 year ago
I’m a split fan of archeology, but archeology in the sense of inorganic things that are found in prior civilizations; pottery, clothing; jewelry, etc. What I’m not a fan of is the archeology of the dead. Often times we see the dead from prior civilizations on display. From mummies to ancient peoples found in ice and everything else in between. This is akin to grave robbing and it has to stop. I’m not afraid of death or getting freaked out about seeing dead bodies, but the idea that archeologists can go digging around, see the dead and then think they can disturb and remove the body and then put it on display and make money from it is macabre and disgusting and it needs to stop.
Also, I believe zoos should become extinct. If you want to engage in biology or zoology, then do it in the wild, take videos, make it a show, then put it out in media. Capturing animals, putting them in enclosures, charging people to see them, and making an entire industry from them under the guise that you’re saving them is another repugnant. If you want to conduct genetic revitalization of a species, you don’t need a zoo to do it. Capture the species, extract the DNA you need, release it back into the wild, and go do your experiments in a lab onsite or offsite.
At one time putting bodies on display didn’t worry me, afterall they’re dead, but gradually I started to become uncomfortable with this treatment of “our ancestors”. These people were buried, often with the rituals that they and their families believed in, at times in land that was sacred to them or sanctified; for us to dig them up and stare at them in a musem is, as you say, macabre, whether or not they make money from it. I do understand that information can be gained from bodies, but if they are to be disturbed then the remains should be treated with repect and they should be reburied. It can be difficult to give them the riruals of long forgotten religions, but I have seen that remains of people who were probably Christian (judging by their burials) have been reinterred with Christian rites, if they were not obviously Chritian perhaps some other way can be found to honour the original intentions.
At one time putting bodies on display didn’t worry me, afterall they’re dead, but gradually I started to become uncomfortable with this treatment of “our ancestors”. These people were buried, often with the rituals that they and their families believed in, at times in land that was sacred to them or sanctified; for us to dig them up and stare at them in a musem is, as you say, macabre, whether or not they make money from it. I do understand that information can be gained from bodies, but if they are to be disturbed then the remains should be treated with repect and they should be reburied. It can be difficult to give them the riruals of long forgotten religions, but I have seen that remains of people who were probably Christian (judging by their burials) have been reinterred with Christian rites, if they were not obviously Chritian perhaps some other way can be found to honour the original intentions.
Methadras Aszlosis
1 year ago
I’m a split fan of archeology, but archeology in the sense of inorganic things that are found in prior civilizations; pottery, clothing; jewelry, etc. What I’m not a fan of is the archeology of the dead. Often times we see the dead from prior civilizations on display. From mummies to ancient peoples found in ice and everything else in between. This is akin to grave robbing and it has to stop. I’m not afraid of death or getting freaked out about seeing dead bodies, but the idea that archeologists can go digging around, see the dead and then think they can disturb and remove the body and then put it on display and make money from it is macabre and disgusting and it needs to stop.
Also, I believe zoos should become extinct. If you want to engage in biology or zoology, then do it in the wild, take videos, make it a show, then put it out in media. Capturing animals, putting them in enclosures, charging people to see them, and making an entire industry from them under the guise that you’re saving them is another repugnant. If you want to conduct genetic revitalization of a species, you don’t need a zoo to do it. Capture the species, extract the DNA you need, release it back into the wild, and go do your experiments in a lab onsite or offsite.
Edward De Beukelaer
1 year ago
In the context of this article it is worth reading : The matter with Things (Iain McGilchrist, yes it is 1300 pages but worth every second of reading..) .
Because, of course, this article is about ‘things’. And whereas ‘things’ have been very highly valued in recent human history we are now spending more time in attaching the narratives to ‘things’, … to increase their sense. Initially tentatively but efforts are increasing. This brings discussions and tensions between those who see everything in things and those who see everything in stories. The discussion will go on forever as there will be humans. There is no right or wrong, what is wrong is not having the discussion and listening to the other argument.
It is noticeable that in eastern language ‘things’ are not named but described by a verb; they become through an action. (McGilchrist…)
The bother here is the Welcome trust. Another philanthropic organisation mainly interested in polishing the status of the pharma industry while continuing to invest in medicine only for financial returns….
Edward De Beukelaer
1 year ago
In the context of this article it is worth reading : The matter with Things (Iain McGilchrist, yes it is 1300 pages but worth every second of reading..) .
Because, of course, this article is about ‘things’. And whereas ‘things’ have been very highly valued in recent human history we are now spending more time in attaching the narratives to ‘things’, … to increase their sense. Initially tentatively but efforts are increasing. This brings discussions and tensions between those who see everything in things and those who see everything in stories. The discussion will go on forever as there will be humans. There is no right or wrong, what is wrong is not having the discussion and listening to the other argument.
It is noticeable that in eastern language ‘things’ are not named but described by a verb; they become through an action. (McGilchrist…)
The bother here is the Welcome trust. Another philanthropic organisation mainly interested in polishing the status of the pharma industry while continuing to invest in medicine only for financial returns….
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Thank you for a most interesting essay.
However I was surprised that you didn’t mention that famous even infamous ‘cause celebre’* the Warren Cup.
Impounded by the US Customs in 1953 and later even refused entry, it is a 1st century, silver, Roman drinking cup that portrays, to lapse into the vernacular, explicit scenes of ‘botty banditry.’
Eéèàåãîõòöùü. On my I-pad. You just hold down the vowel keys and you get a choice.
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Thank you for a most interesting essay.
However I was surprised that you didn’t mention that famous even infamous ‘cause celebre’* the Warren Cup.
Impounded by the US Customs in 1953 and later even refused entry, it is a 1st century, silver, Roman drinking cup that portrays, to lapse into the vernacular, explicit scenes of ‘botty banditry.’
A clever and scholarly essay that explains in a tightly-reasoned form what I’ve instinctively believed all along: wokeism is just a power grab.
And they can only achieve this by wiping away, or ignoring, history which complicates their ideology.
Yes, a wonderful evisceration of the woke agenda. The remaining skin should be put on permanent display in the museum of the internet, with footnotes for future generations to glance at whilst pretending they know what they’re looking at.
Wasn’t in Nietzsche who said that literally every human action can ultimately be explained by the rather simple will to power ?
Surprisingly woke, though. Why so understanding about the idea that “Museums encode a hierarchical power relation between observer and exhibit, and another secondly between curator and visitor.” and, implicitly that some alternative is possible? Why take seriously the concept of a ‘power relation’ between a museum visitor and a pottery fragment?
Exactly, ‘sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar’. The curator is a teacher, the visitor is a learner; good teachers excite and capture attention while imparting information – you can leave egos out of it mostly.
“Museums extend this worldview beyond the sciences, implying that this is what “learning” is: a detached, observing consciousness standing at a little distance from an object whose meaning is contained on a little sign’
No, we all know that learning happens in many ways, especially if we’ve had experience of music, or athletics.
” something violent, or violating, happens when an “exhibit” is removed from its social context and placed on display: a literal objectification, made only starker when it happens to a living person.”
Somehow made me think of those out of context, objectified. living persons up on the stage for Swan Lake. If that’s all you see in the ballet, you’ve missed the main point. Which is what ‘woke’ does: fastens on one aspect of a thing and blows it up to be the only important thing to be considered, missing entirely the really important things.
I agree. This article supposedly talks about the woke but is so woke itself it may be put in a museum in the future! Life is more simple: people like learning, seeing stuff and passing some idle hours acquiring stimuli. Museums often provide all of the above. A supply satisfies a demand and the only power game played is the same one between any consumer and their green grocer.
Yes, think of all those Renaissance and Medieval paintings torn out of the context of church. Impossible to restore to a social context of belief now. Beauty, a sense of the progression of history, inquisitiveness about the multifarious expression of the human spirit etc – such incommensurate considerations are not reducible to expressions of power alone.
Excellent reply.
I agree. This article supposedly talks about the woke but is so woke itself it may be put in a museum in the future! Life is more simple: people like learning, seeing stuff and passing some idle hours acquiring stimuli. Museums often provide all of the above. A supply satisfies a demand and the only power game played is the same one between any consumer and their green grocer.
Yes, think of all those Renaissance and Medieval paintings torn out of the context of church. Impossible to restore to a social context of belief now. Beauty, a sense of the progression of history, inquisitiveness about the multifarious expression of the human spirit etc – such incommensurate considerations are not reducible to expressions of power alone.
Excellent reply.
I agree that the power relation is not between the exhibit and the visitor, but it is between the exhibitor and the visitor. After all, the exhibitor decides what is to be put on display, how it is to be displayed, with what the item is juxaposed, and how it it labelled and what information is presented or left out. All of these factors (and probably more) affect how the visitor sees the item..
And power goes the other way too: the visitor can decide exhibitions aren’t for them and that can mean curator positions will be cut. The board of the gallery, and large donors, have power as well. There’s power flowing all over the place, the point is how important is that in the process, how important is that compared to what the expert curator is trying to share (their passion and knowledge) with the wider community? The other aspects need to be raised and considered, but the important thing is the quality of the exhibition and what the public gains from it.
I have great respect for the expert curator, however, a visitor should always be aware that the curator’s view, or more often the museum governor’s view, is being presented. I suppose what I am saying is don’t be a passive consumer, think and question what is being presented. I have been known to embarrass some companions by challenging musem presentations, when I have knowledge of the particular period, but even without that knowledge one must always question.
Agree
Agree
I have great respect for the expert curator, however, a visitor should always be aware that the curator’s view, or more often the museum governor’s view, is being presented. I suppose what I am saying is don’t be a passive consumer, think and question what is being presented. I have been known to embarrass some companions by challenging musem presentations, when I have knowledge of the particular period, but even without that knowledge one must always question.
And power goes the other way too: the visitor can decide exhibitions aren’t for them and that can mean curator positions will be cut. The board of the gallery, and large donors, have power as well. There’s power flowing all over the place, the point is how important is that in the process, how important is that compared to what the expert curator is trying to share (their passion and knowledge) with the wider community? The other aspects need to be raised and considered, but the important thing is the quality of the exhibition and what the public gains from it.
Exactly. This article is thoroughly woke. It attacks wokism, sure, but only to take even that extreme ideology to a still more extreme conclusion. The question that we should be asking here is about “power relations” per se as the sole criterion for understanding human existence, which is the height of cynicism.
Exactly, ‘sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar’. The curator is a teacher, the visitor is a learner; good teachers excite and capture attention while imparting information – you can leave egos out of it mostly.
“Museums extend this worldview beyond the sciences, implying that this is what “learning” is: a detached, observing consciousness standing at a little distance from an object whose meaning is contained on a little sign’
No, we all know that learning happens in many ways, especially if we’ve had experience of music, or athletics.
” something violent, or violating, happens when an “exhibit” is removed from its social context and placed on display: a literal objectification, made only starker when it happens to a living person.”
Somehow made me think of those out of context, objectified. living persons up on the stage for Swan Lake. If that’s all you see in the ballet, you’ve missed the main point. Which is what ‘woke’ does: fastens on one aspect of a thing and blows it up to be the only important thing to be considered, missing entirely the really important things.
I agree that the power relation is not between the exhibit and the visitor, but it is between the exhibitor and the visitor. After all, the exhibitor decides what is to be put on display, how it is to be displayed, with what the item is juxaposed, and how it it labelled and what information is presented or left out. All of these factors (and probably more) affect how the visitor sees the item..
Exactly. This article is thoroughly woke. It attacks wokism, sure, but only to take even that extreme ideology to a still more extreme conclusion. The question that we should be asking here is about “power relations” per se as the sole criterion for understanding human existence, which is the height of cynicism.
Precisely. They just want to be able to tell you what to do for its own sake.
And they can only achieve this by wiping away, or ignoring, history which complicates their ideology.
Yes, a wonderful evisceration of the woke agenda. The remaining skin should be put on permanent display in the museum of the internet, with footnotes for future generations to glance at whilst pretending they know what they’re looking at.
Wasn’t in Nietzsche who said that literally every human action can ultimately be explained by the rather simple will to power ?
Surprisingly woke, though. Why so understanding about the idea that “Museums encode a hierarchical power relation between observer and exhibit, and another secondly between curator and visitor.” and, implicitly that some alternative is possible? Why take seriously the concept of a ‘power relation’ between a museum visitor and a pottery fragment?
Precisely. They just want to be able to tell you what to do for its own sake.
A clever and scholarly essay that explains in a tightly-reasoned form what I’ve instinctively believed all along: wokeism is just a power grab.
Perhaps I’m just dim but….museums are like pre digital encyclopedias gathering and showing knowledge to people. My local museum is fantastic, showing the rich history of my town and area. Its the same for Wellcome, the only ‘power’ it has is that it is so diverse and broad in its exhibits and can bring together these artefacts to be seen.
Plus- how will it be rationalised sending back Bronzes to an originating monarchy and country/ continent that was the source of the slave trade by selling its own people?
Nice point, Paul: We have to remember that it is only the “West” who takes this interest in other Cultures, as an attempt to understand (1) our origins, Origen of the species, (2) how different other cultures are from our own.
There is also something almost sacred in the West about the “Original” object – we preserve the Parthenon (and Liberty Hall in Philadelphia etc), whereas the Japanese often rebuild a sacred temple from scratch to reproduce the way it looked, rather than the thing itself).
Query – what would have happened to those Grecian Urns carefully preserved and restored in, say, the Art Institute of Chicago, if they’d been left in the ground in Athens or Sparta? It would be dust, and all these Bronze reflects – melted into bullets? But now preserved for the world to see. The Rosetta Stone? If not taken by Napoleon, would Egypt still be trying to interpret the hieroglyphs?
Nice point, Paul: We have to remember that it is only the “West” who takes this interest in other Cultures, as an attempt to understand (1) our origins, Origen of the species, (2) how different other cultures are from our own.
There is also something almost sacred in the West about the “Original” object – we preserve the Parthenon (and Liberty Hall in Philadelphia etc), whereas the Japanese often rebuild a sacred temple from scratch to reproduce the way it looked, rather than the thing itself).
Query – what would have happened to those Grecian Urns carefully preserved and restored in, say, the Art Institute of Chicago, if they’d been left in the ground in Athens or Sparta? It would be dust, and all these Bronze reflects – melted into bullets? But now preserved for the world to see. The Rosetta Stone? If not taken by Napoleon, would Egypt still be trying to interpret the hieroglyphs?
Perhaps I’m just dim but….museums are like pre digital encyclopedias gathering and showing knowledge to people. My local museum is fantastic, showing the rich history of my town and area. Its the same for Wellcome, the only ‘power’ it has is that it is so diverse and broad in its exhibits and can bring together these artefacts to be seen.
Plus- how will it be rationalised sending back Bronzes to an originating monarchy and country/ continent that was the source of the slave trade by selling its own people?
I look forward to the day when the terms ‘woke’, and ‘problematic’ are merely artefacts to be read, under the soft flickering gaslight of the Museum of Rhetoric.
I look forward to the day when the terms ‘woke’, and ‘problematic’ are merely artefacts to be read, under the soft flickering gaslight of the Museum of Rhetoric.
This Dan Hicks seems like a barrel of laughs.
I’m now genuinely thankful that I passed many a mildly hungover Saturday afternoon in the ‘classic’ incarnation of the Pitt-Rivers before this humourless clown ruined it. I recall thinking that the writing was on the wall when several artefacts were returned and his predecessor declared that tribal ‘knowledge systems’ (specifically smoking a pipe and convening with the spirit world) were as valid as Western ones. Clearly not a graduate of computer science or medicine then.
I’m now genuinely thankful that I passed many a mildly hungover Saturday afternoon in the ‘classic’ incarnation of the Pitt-Rivers before this humourless clown ruined it. I recall thinking that the writing was on the wall when several artefacts were returned and his predecessor declared that tribal ‘knowledge systems’ (specifically smoking a pipe and convening with the spirit world) were as valid as Western ones. Clearly not a graduate of computer science or medicine then.
This Dan Hicks seems like a barrel of laughs.
“It says: I, the curator, am in command of what’s knowable about this thing, which you observe from a distance while absorbing facts about it.”
Change the word curator to author and the sentiment works for books, too. We live in a world where willful ignorance is celebrated as enlightenment.
“It says: I, the curator, am in command of what’s knowable about this thing, which you observe from a distance while absorbing facts about it.”
Change the word curator to author and the sentiment works for books, too. We live in a world where willful ignorance is celebrated as enlightenment.
Perhaps I’m alone in this but I would rather see just the simplest labels. No label or catalog entry could ever allow me to truly know the Benin bronzes (for instance); who made them, why, to what purpose, by what method. And there’s always the question of what other purposes they were put to during their long lives. Questions about how they wound up in London pale in comparison and rob the crafts-people and their culture of the credit they deserve. The “power struggle” between me (the observer) and the curator (jack-booted thug of the patriarchy) is a comical idea; best ignored. “Explanations” that drag up someone else’s pet peeves are not welcome.
To really appreciate the artistry, the almost in-human wonder of the things, they should be left to speak for themselves.
Perhaps I’m alone in this but I would rather see just the simplest labels. No label or catalog entry could ever allow me to truly know the Benin bronzes (for instance); who made them, why, to what purpose, by what method. And there’s always the question of what other purposes they were put to during their long lives. Questions about how they wound up in London pale in comparison and rob the crafts-people and their culture of the credit they deserve. The “power struggle” between me (the observer) and the curator (jack-booted thug of the patriarchy) is a comical idea; best ignored. “Explanations” that drag up someone else’s pet peeves are not welcome.
To really appreciate the artistry, the almost in-human wonder of the things, they should be left to speak for themselves.
I cannot see why all artifacts must only be exhibited in their original locations. Could we not have the Mona Lisa housed in an African museum, or move some Rembrandt paintings to Singapore? Lets start thinking about a glorious world wide mix and match of great works of human achievement.
I cannot see why all artifacts must only be exhibited in their original locations. Could we not have the Mona Lisa housed in an African museum, or move some Rembrandt paintings to Singapore? Lets start thinking about a glorious world wide mix and match of great works of human achievement.
All very well said, thank you. Reminds me of hearing that some people leave offerings to certain religious objects in the British Museum, or bow as they pass by, in an attempt to acknowledge the original participatory context, a church or temple.
I suppose the museum is a manifestation of the death of God, as well as scientistic objectification.
All very well said, thank you. Reminds me of hearing that some people leave offerings to certain religious objects in the British Museum, or bow as they pass by, in an attempt to acknowledge the original participatory context, a church or temple.
I suppose the museum is a manifestation of the death of God, as well as scientistic objectification.
I’m a split fan of archeology, but archeology in the sense of inorganic things that are found in prior civilizations; pottery, clothing; jewelry, etc. What I’m not a fan of is the archeology of the dead. Often times we see the dead from prior civilizations on display. From mummies to ancient peoples found in ice and everything else in between. This is akin to grave robbing and it has to stop. I’m not afraid of death or getting freaked out about seeing dead bodies, but the idea that archeologists can go digging around, see the dead and then think they can disturb and remove the body and then put it on display and make money from it is macabre and disgusting and it needs to stop.
Also, I believe zoos should become extinct. If you want to engage in biology or zoology, then do it in the wild, take videos, make it a show, then put it out in media. Capturing animals, putting them in enclosures, charging people to see them, and making an entire industry from them under the guise that you’re saving them is another repugnant. If you want to conduct genetic revitalization of a species, you don’t need a zoo to do it. Capture the species, extract the DNA you need, release it back into the wild, and go do your experiments in a lab onsite or offsite.
At one time putting bodies on display didn’t worry me, afterall they’re dead, but gradually I started to become uncomfortable with this treatment of “our ancestors”. These people were buried, often with the rituals that they and their families believed in, at times in land that was sacred to them or sanctified; for us to dig them up and stare at them in a musem is, as you say, macabre, whether or not they make money from it. I do understand that information can be gained from bodies, but if they are to be disturbed then the remains should be treated with repect and they should be reburied. It can be difficult to give them the riruals of long forgotten religions, but I have seen that remains of people who were probably Christian (judging by their burials) have been reinterred with Christian rites, if they were not obviously Chritian perhaps some other way can be found to honour the original intentions.
At one time putting bodies on display didn’t worry me, afterall they’re dead, but gradually I started to become uncomfortable with this treatment of “our ancestors”. These people were buried, often with the rituals that they and their families believed in, at times in land that was sacred to them or sanctified; for us to dig them up and stare at them in a musem is, as you say, macabre, whether or not they make money from it. I do understand that information can be gained from bodies, but if they are to be disturbed then the remains should be treated with repect and they should be reburied. It can be difficult to give them the riruals of long forgotten religions, but I have seen that remains of people who were probably Christian (judging by their burials) have been reinterred with Christian rites, if they were not obviously Chritian perhaps some other way can be found to honour the original intentions.
I’m a split fan of archeology, but archeology in the sense of inorganic things that are found in prior civilizations; pottery, clothing; jewelry, etc. What I’m not a fan of is the archeology of the dead. Often times we see the dead from prior civilizations on display. From mummies to ancient peoples found in ice and everything else in between. This is akin to grave robbing and it has to stop. I’m not afraid of death or getting freaked out about seeing dead bodies, but the idea that archeologists can go digging around, see the dead and then think they can disturb and remove the body and then put it on display and make money from it is macabre and disgusting and it needs to stop.
Also, I believe zoos should become extinct. If you want to engage in biology or zoology, then do it in the wild, take videos, make it a show, then put it out in media. Capturing animals, putting them in enclosures, charging people to see them, and making an entire industry from them under the guise that you’re saving them is another repugnant. If you want to conduct genetic revitalization of a species, you don’t need a zoo to do it. Capture the species, extract the DNA you need, release it back into the wild, and go do your experiments in a lab onsite or offsite.
In the context of this article it is worth reading : The matter with Things (Iain McGilchrist, yes it is 1300 pages but worth every second of reading..) .
Because, of course, this article is about ‘things’. And whereas ‘things’ have been very highly valued in recent human history we are now spending more time in attaching the narratives to ‘things’, … to increase their sense. Initially tentatively but efforts are increasing. This brings discussions and tensions between those who see everything in things and those who see everything in stories. The discussion will go on forever as there will be humans. There is no right or wrong, what is wrong is not having the discussion and listening to the other argument.
It is noticeable that in eastern language ‘things’ are not named but described by a verb; they become through an action. (McGilchrist…)
The bother here is the Welcome trust. Another philanthropic organisation mainly interested in polishing the status of the pharma industry while continuing to invest in medicine only for financial returns….
In the context of this article it is worth reading : The matter with Things (Iain McGilchrist, yes it is 1300 pages but worth every second of reading..) .
Because, of course, this article is about ‘things’. And whereas ‘things’ have been very highly valued in recent human history we are now spending more time in attaching the narratives to ‘things’, … to increase their sense. Initially tentatively but efforts are increasing. This brings discussions and tensions between those who see everything in things and those who see everything in stories. The discussion will go on forever as there will be humans. There is no right or wrong, what is wrong is not having the discussion and listening to the other argument.
It is noticeable that in eastern language ‘things’ are not named but described by a verb; they become through an action. (McGilchrist…)
The bother here is the Welcome trust. Another philanthropic organisation mainly interested in polishing the status of the pharma industry while continuing to invest in medicine only for financial returns….
Thank you for a most interesting essay.
However I was surprised that you didn’t mention that famous even infamous ‘cause celebre’* the Warren Cup.
Impounded by the US Customs in 1953 and later even refused entry, it is a 1st century, silver, Roman drinking cup that portrays, to lapse into the vernacular, explicit scenes of ‘botty banditry.’
Fortunately it is now in the British Museum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Cup
(* Apologies to France, I-pad doesn’t do accents)
Eéèàåãîõòöùü. On my I-pad. You just hold down the vowel keys and you get a choice.
Màny thànks!
Another gîant leap for mankínd!
Mr. Wheâtléy retürns! Seems to work on the iPhone also. Cheers!
Mr. Wheâtléy retürns! Seems to work on the iPhone also. Cheers!
Màny thànks!
Another gîant leap for mankínd!
Eéèàåãîõòöùü. On my I-pad. You just hold down the vowel keys and you get a choice.
Thank you for a most interesting essay.
However I was surprised that you didn’t mention that famous even infamous ‘cause celebre’* the Warren Cup.
Impounded by the US Customs in 1953 and later even refused entry, it is a 1st century, silver, Roman drinking cup that portrays, to lapse into the vernacular, explicit scenes of ‘botty banditry.’
Fortunately it is now in the British Museum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Cup
(* Apologies to France, I-pad doesn’t do accents)
A fine article written with verve and feeling. Many thanks!
A fine article written with verve and feeling. Many thanks!
Ultimately all human relationships are ‘power relationships’ and always will be. It’s a useless concept.
.
.
Pax Americana? Even today the US is waging a proxy war in Ukraine.
So what do you call it that Russia is waging?
So what do you call it that Russia is waging?
Pax Americana? Even today the US is waging a proxy war in Ukraine.