This semester, a particular museum has served as the focus of not only two projects and a paper of mine, but also as the subject of my fascination with how certain previously (and maybe still, currently) underserved cultures are now represented in a post-postmodern, globalized, multicultural, politically correct, and supposedly enlightened society. You've probably guessed that I'm referring to the National Museum of the American Indian.
I should start by saying that this museum is unique because of its approach. Tribespeople were consulted in the creation of the museum and they were involved in making choices about the content and methods of information dissemination. It's obvious that the Smithsonian made a concerted effort to be as inclusive and sensitive as possible in this effort to celebrate and acknowledge this historically marginalized group. Somewhere along the line, though, there had to be a creative decision made to focus more on contemporary Native Americans, rather than on the 12,000 years of their history. I'm not sure if the Smithsonian purposely did that as to avoid reporting on some messy parts of American history, but anyway...
I personally am a fan of the museum (but then again, the idea of a museum reaching out to hundreds of "ordinary" people to serve as curatorial representatives is a tiny bit threatening to my career aspirations, so maybe I shouldn't be so celebratory). For one, I think the building itself is really interesting and beautiful. I admire the fact that it it distinguishes itself in a city full of stoic federal monoliths. I appreciate the notion that it offers a kind of patchwork experience. Multiple voices, interpretations, etc. might leave you feeling dizzy, but oh well. Especially because of the abundant programming, it's the kind of place that operates more like a community center. It belongs to the people who are represented.
I sort of think of the museum as a gift, a bouquet of yellow roses from the American government, a metaphorical "our bad" gesture. The feeling that the museum is a sort of consolation does make me feel sort of awkward there, even though my ancestors didn't come to America until semi-recently, after most of the damage had been done. Of course we should be sensitive to other cultures and forthcoming about history, even the messy parts, but it is awkward to carry white guilt with you throughout. I think that's probably inescapable, though.
I grew up with a generation that was pounded with lessons about multiculturalism, awareness, and acceptance. I used to watch a popular cartoon called Captain Planet, and there was a team of teenage environmental activists with special powers who were led by an eco-conscious superhero. What I remember most distinctly about this show is that the team of "Planeteers" was very diverse. This is the kind of thing that was pushed on us-- on TV, in textbooks, etc. As a result (or at least in general), my generation seems to have a pretty good level of sensitivity toward culture/race/gender/orientation. So maybe that's why I'm so positive about the mishmash and reluctant to criticize the museum. I'm excited by the level of ownership given to/taken by contemporary Native Americans at this institution. A non-European/American approach to non-European/American subject matter? Awesome.
On the other hand, I can understand some of the criticism that it's not scholarly enough, not linear enough and overly homogenizing. A January article in the New York Times about the challenges of establishing the National Museum of African American History and Culture refers to the NMAI as a chance to learn from past mistakes, calling it "incoherent and clinging to romantic cliche." I'm always a fan of scholarship, and maybe in some ways, more professional-grade curatorial guidance would've been nice, but from what I can tell the NMAI is not the only museum venturing away from tradition. From what I can gather as a museum field newcomer, and I could be completely wrong here, the revisionist histories we as museum people have been embracing turns out to have had some residual effects, like a set of new ideas about how stuff should be exhibited in museums in order to maximize appeal and foster the most relevance and relatability possible.
This, of course, leaves us with questions about the role of museums. I think we could make the blanket statement that museums exist to serve their audiences, but what about their "people?" The museum has been criticized for having a Native American point of view-- is it acceptable for the NMAI to be ethnocentric because of the years of misrepresentation and underrepresentation that we (America) are now trying to awkwardly take back and apologize for?
No comments:
Post a Comment