This essay will reflect upon my experience of the ways in which cultural objects from around the world are presented as art at Musée Quai Branly (MQB), Paris. The purpose of this essay is to attempt to find a justification for MQB's presentation of their 'artefacts' as 'art' by sifting through theories of art, which may explain the grounds by which the objects in MQB can be considered art, as well as cultural artefacts.
On Saturday 22 March 2014, I spent the day at Musee MQB. On arrival my fieldtrip group was introduced by Jane Cowen (our tutor) to a member of staff at the museum, who began to communicate some of the philosophies and histories of MQB. She expressed that the aesthetics of the building and displays are purposely constructed to "leave you with the object", to allow you to connect to the object and dwell on it in relation to yourself and as a valuable piece of art. She continued that essentially the museum is actively trying to show that artefact enters concepts of 'art', and for this she says, "we are a reference in anthropology". Although some information of history and cultural context is available on labels, in the vast collection of books in the Museum's libraries and on the museum's online catalogue of objects, the main focus is in each exhibition is the visual aesthetic dimension of cultural objects.
As I wondered around the museum's permanent exhibition rooms, presenting objects from Oceania, Asia, Africa and America, I tried to maintain these explanations of MQB's aesthetic values and their concept of artefacts as art in the back of my mind. However I could not help but notice how these exhibitions conflicted everything I know to be the intentions and ways of representing in a 'cultural museum exhibition'. As Ivan Karp (1991) points out, many individuals tend to think of exhibitions as "either a vehicle for display of objects or a space for telling a story." Karp states that this is the difference between ideas of art museums and cultural museums, however it is commonly noticeable that most exhibitions are both vehicles of display and story-telling. I associate cultural exhibitions heavily with the latter, which is why I struggled to understand how a cultural exhibition could communicate stories of cultures through objects which have been displayed similar to those of an art gallery.
I suppose my issues revolve around the fact that I am unsure of the distinction between what is 'art' and what is 'artefact' and whether artefacts can be art. Perhaps if I can tackle this issue I might be able to appreciate why MQB display their objects as "valuable treasures protected by Plexiglass and haloed in sanctifying spotlights" (Vogel, 1991) accompanied by vague information labels if any, as if they are art.
Gell (1996) grapples with the different definitions of art and attempts to find the loophole where artefacts become art. The 'aesthetic' theory concludes that a:
"work of art can be defined as any object that is aesthetically superior, having certain qualities of visual appealingness or beauty. These qualities must have been put there intentionally by the artist." (Gell, 1996)
However this can't be true of the objects in MQB, because as Vogel (1991) states, "almost nothing displayed in museums was made to be seen in them"; suggesting that many of the objects in the museum exhibitions cannot be art, as their maker may not have created the object with the intention of aesthetic evaluation, nor do we know if these are the intentions as not all objects belong to a known artist who has communicated so (Faris, 1988; Gel, 1996).
Perhaps we can consider 'interpretive' theory, formulated by Danto (1981, 1986; Gel 1996). Here artworks are not defined by their aesthetic superiority, rather something becomes a work of art if it can be related to and interpreted within concepts of Western traditional characteristics of established art, formed over a period of art-history. In this instance, none of the objects can be considered art, because even if they were created to be such, they are created outside of Western concepts of art and therefore, are 'mere' artefacts.
Gell (1996) alludes that this is an extremely Ethnocentric criteria for art, and works against MQB in that none of the objects have been created within a Western framework of art history, meaning everything there is a 'mere' artefact. The only way the 'interpretive' theory can conclude MBQ's objects are indeed works of art, is if Danto accepts that Western art-history can relate to different cultural contexts in their symbolic similarities. If this is so, objects that are not just created for utilitarian purposes (tools), but are also "vehicles of complete ideas, stemming from, and illuminating, the human conditions in its full historic density and fatefullness", are indeed art. Danto (1988; Gel, 1996) states "artworks have some higher role, putting us in touch with higher realities: they are defined through the possession of meaning. They are to be explained through what they express". For example the 'Reliquaire en forme de crocodil'¹ (Reliquary in the shape of crocodile), part of the Oceania exhibition . This object is used for spiritual ceremonies so it might be concluded it is an art object which would validate its reasons to be represented as one in such a display.
However again, the issue with this is that we assume that it is realistic that every object comes with an anthropological ethnography that contains the cultural truths of the objects meaning and use (Faris, 1988; Gell, 1996). Even if MQB do have ethnographic and historical documentation on all of its objects, this is something the viewer remains oblivious to due to the severe lack of information provided about most of the displayed objects in the permanent exhibitions. This in turn means the viewers must put their trust into the curators and collectors that they have full knowledge about the object's purpose and that it shares similarities to Western art-history.
Although, it may not be wise to trust this knowledge completely. Sally Price (2009) discusses points made in a lecture by Anne Christine Taylor, Director of the Education and Research Department at MQB (2006) revealing that this museum, more evidently than others places a significant amount of authority and power in the hands of the "big-time collectors and dealers". There is a great deal of trust in what the collectors and dealers express to be the history and value of objects. Often the big time collectors are allowed to override the scientific opinions of the value and history of objects (e.g expert anthropologists, historians and archaeologists), and one cannot assume dealers and collectors are disinterested either. Their personal input can abuse the system by convincing what objects should be exhibited, authorizing wrong pricing, the type of contextualisation of an object and influencing decisions about "what part of the objects history should be swept under the rug or changed to provide a more interesting scenario". So how can one be sure that anything is truly worthy of being called 'art'?
Perhaps the 'institutional' theory discussed by George Dickie (1974, 1984; Gell 1996) could help one to understand this issue. This theory places no emphasis on appearance of the objects, nor the objects connection to concepts of art history. Rather, the idea that if an object is accepted by the "art-world" and circulates as such, then it is art, for it is the living representatives of the art-world (critics, dealers, collectors, artists) who have the power to decide what is art, not history. Art is continuously being redefined, and cannot be absent of the influence of ideology and power (Faris 1988; Gell 1996). This theory might also shed some light on why MQB puts so much trust into the collectors and dealers about what the right objects are for exhibitions which are knowingly going to be presented as art objects. In accordance to this theory, indeed all objects (artefacts) have the potential to be considered as art, and therefore are valid in their presentation.
Whilst the 'institutional' theory seems the most coherent in explaining how the cultural objects at the MQB can be considered with art value, this theory reveals that MQB assumes the viewers are knowingly stepping into the art-world to view 'art'. MQB refers to itself as a "cultural institution"², therefore members of the public like myself expect to arrive at a museum that displays objects cultures and educates us about these objects, opposed to educating us about 'primitive' art. However as John Berger (1972) states, viewers have to "look at images [objects] intelligently", and try to remove ourselves from our concept of cultural understanding and embrace MQB concept of understanding cultural objects as art forms.
To conclude, it would appear that the MQB will always be an issue for anthropological minded people, due to the fact that the debate around art versus artefact being greatly grounded in philosophical ideas that try to universalise the definition of art. In anthropology it is important to understand the ethnography of an object to truly appreciate it as either an artefact or artwork, so the lack of cultural contextualization provided in the displays and labels will always be problematic for a field that seeks original cultural knowledge. It would seem MQB saves itself as a "cultural institution" through its website and vast amount of library books, which stores the ethnographic and historical background of majority of their objects, if it were not for this, it would probably be appropriate that the museum re-define themselves as a 'arts institution'.
References:
Berger. J., 1972. Ways Of Seeing, British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin.
Gell, A. (1996) 'Vogel's Net: Traps as Artworks and Artworks as Traps' Journal of Material Culture 1 (1): 15-38
Karp, I. Culture and Representation: Exhibiting Cultures. Washington Press. London.
Price, S. 2010. Return to the Quai Branly, Museum Anthropology 33(1): 11-21.
Vogel, S. 1991. Always true to the object, in our fashion, in I. Karp and R. Lavine (eds) Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display.
Websites:
1. Background information on 'Reliquaire en forme de crocodil': www.//collections.quaibranly.fr/pod16/#070366f5-7bc4-46c3-900a-1f48684bbc71
2. Background information on purpose of MQB: www.quaibranly.fr/en/a-propos/the-public-institution.html
Gell, A. (1996) 'Vogel's Net: Traps as Artworks and Artworks as Traps' Journal of Material Culture 1 (1): 15-38
Karp, I. Culture and Representation: Exhibiting Cultures. Washington Press. London.
Price, S. 2010. Return to the Quai Branly, Museum Anthropology 33(1): 11-21.
Vogel, S. 1991. Always true to the object, in our fashion, in I. Karp and R. Lavine (eds) Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display.
Websites:
1. Background information on 'Reliquaire en forme de crocodil': www.//collections.quaibranly.fr/pod16/#070366f5-7bc4-46c3-900a-1f48684bbc71
2. Background information on purpose of MQB: www.quaibranly.fr/en/a-propos/the-public-institution.html