Ways of seeing
For many people, exhibitions and displays are just there. Most museum collections displays are not authored which gives them an authority, implicitly underlining the division between expert and lay person. Given many museums’ and their curators’ academic credentials, it is surprising that names are rarely attached to the displays.
If an historian did not put her or his name to a book, we would wonder why they did not feel able to be associated with the text. If we are committed to breaking down some of the barriers between museum experts and the general public, then authoring displays, even showing photographs of curators could help to humanise the institution and what it does.
How should we display specialist collections that are seen as relating to one or more of the communities of interest specified as under-represented in the museum?
An obvious response is to display the objects or collection as a stand alone entity, or to place it within the context of, for example, an existing ethnographic collection. This may be helpful for scholars who wish to maintain disciplinary integrity but for many people, separate collections do not help to develop an understanding of the wider context within which an object has evolved.
Another potential pitfall emerges from creating specialist exhibitions or isolating particular parts of the collection without having developed earlier connections with the community concerned. This can lead to visitors viewing the objects as examples of something exotic and removed from present, London circumstances, and the display of their cultures as tokenistic.
By making links through a more thematic approach to collections – and, where practical and legitimate, connecting older objects to contemporary experience and practices – it is possible to encourage people to explore a wider range of various cultural and other references. Thus collections that were brought together many years ago or that have a specialist focus can still have relevance to contemporary, diverse audiences.
An illustration of an imaginative and productive tactic in terms of developing community networks came out of the recent events celebrating the arts and culture of Africa – Africa 2005. This London-wide festival has involved a wide range of events and exhibitions, and is funded and promoted by a partnership including the Arts Council of England, the South Bank Centre, and the British Museum.
One of the exhibits in the British Museum’s African Galleries is Throne of Weapons by Mozambiquan artist Kester. The Throne in question is made from decapitated, decommissioned guns. The sculpture was loaned to the Horniman Museum in south London as part of its Africa 2005 events programme. Initially, Horniman colleagues proposed that the museum should display Throne in the gallery dedicated to African objects.
After some discussion though, it was decided instead to place it with other pieces in the museum relating to weaponry. By placing Throne alongside other objects designed for violence, the symbolic meaning of the piece was heightened, and visitors who would not usually go to the African gallery would see it in a setting that emphasised the universal nature of the issues raised by it.
In addition, an event was set up to examine the messages and the issues arising, invoked by the object. The local community was invited to the museum, and it was clear that some of them had never been to the Horniman before this event.
They came because Throne resonated with local concerns regarding the involvement of local young people in gun crime, and they connected to the critique of violence inherent in Kester’s art. In a relatively simple way, Throne was transformed from a reified, exotic and somewhat remote object into something that was full of meaning for the museum’s constituency. It would be possible for an expert in African cultures to assume that the best setting for a sculpture by an African was alongside other African objects and artefacts.
By repositioning the work in a broader context, a wider group of people was enabled to view it as a contribution to a very important public debate – present at the meeting were community activists such as Mothers Against Guns, and Don’t Shoot, as well as individuals who had had relatives and/or friends injured or killed by guns in the locality.
The discussion panel included Bishop Sengulane from Mozambique and the global nature of the trade in guns was debated but due to the emotional connection to bereavement and loss, the London issues were of equal concern. The use of art to turn boys away from guns, here and in Africa was also discussed.
Building on a new set of relations will be the challenge now but an important point was reached through this approach. The person who lived locally, came to the event and asked ‘How long has this museum been here?’ now knows that the building is not remote and can connect with communities.
Some of the young people who attended the discussion articulated the feeling that they lacked a voice, and that the anger at disenfranchisement was sometimes vented through violence. This issue was taken up later and the young people concerned invited to participate in other museum activities.
Could they be the curators of the future? Who knows? At least they have had a glimpse of a world hitherto considered unfamiliar and disconnected from them and their concerns. But to build on those audiences that come to the one-off event of special interest, it may well be necessary to reassess the way in which the existing collection is displayed. Otherwise, the new work appears to come from and return to a conceptual vacuum and is not seen as embedded in the museum’s everyday practice.
See essay pages: