Gone Primitive: Art or Artifact?
An exploration of ethnographic and aesthetic approaches to
museum exhibits
Audrey Lawson
Fortunately for museum patrons, the traditional ethnographic displays of the art and artifacts that functioned as political propaganda to publicize superiority and imperialistic ideals has been replaced with what Torgovnick considers a more civil means of displaying primitive works. Glass cases and calculated spotlights emphasize the need to protect and illuminate such highly regarded pieces of historical importance. The irony lies in knowing the guarded objects were originally intended to be touched and used, not sit burning under lights mounted on museum walls(Torgovnick 78). Still, one must question whether the careful displays will convince observers to feel a stronger creative connection with objects once revered as purely functional tools the same way a Michelangelo sculpture might evoke spiritual ecstasy. This is not to say that functionality negates the possibility of aestheticism. The idea of exclusivity, either only function or aesthetics, is one that bears the potential to call into question the ethics of a museum. Using the example of the Incan bowl on a pedestal in any established art museum, the issue arises as such: is the bowl on display because it is a primitive tool? because it is visually appealing? or both? A less attractive bowl of the same purpose and age would more than likely receive less attention. However, there is likely not a bowl of Incan origin that serves no purpose other than ornate decoration; thus providing support for the argument that the museum chooses to display the most appealing bowl in order to justify its artistic value. The very fact that Western cultures, founders of the museum, classify ancient or lesser advanced tools as “primitive” suggests a sort of self imposed superiority. This idea of superiority has crept so deeply into societal beliefs, no one questions whether or not the museum possesses the right to exploit (sometimes sacred) objects of remote cultures by encasing them and profiting from the subsequent display. Torgovnik discusses the exploitation of a half naked young girl whose photograph hangs on display at the Margaret Mead Hall of the American Museum of Natural History. Although this essay primarily addresses the artifact as it functions in an art museum, this example demonstrates how an historical institution profits from artistic endeavors in the same way an art museum benefits from artifacts. Referring to the young girl’s photograph, Torgovnik goes so far as to call it “child porn,” and as radical a statement it may be, the sentiment can be shared with artifacts displayed purely for profit and notoriety; those presented without respect or appreciation for historical value (79). The catch twenty-two therein is the fact the museum is dependent on any artifact’s historical value to maintain credibility. Otherwise, there would be nothing to stop the inclusion of a beautifully crafted Pottery Barn bowl into the thousands of years old primitive cookware collection. The emphasis placed on the aesthetics of primitive artifacts demonstrates the power driven priorities of Western culture. To assert what is “good” and “acceptable” as art reestablishes the ideals of the West as it functioned during colonization. This assertion of social, political, and sexual control over primitive artifacts is a reflection of the actions Western people tend to believe ended with the death of colonization. Upon closer review, however, analyzing the internal structure of a museum (specifically an art museum) provides ample evidence of the contrary. The curation of primitive art based on the standards of Western aestheticism is direct proof a pseudo-colonization operates presently, and still embodies the ethnographic charge denied by a political correctness decades ago. The museum profits from the display of primitive tools and art that was potentially (literally) seized from the hands of a people and therefore perpetuates, if only subconsciously, the sanctioning of political power over the rights of humanity. Torgovnik draws attention to a widely held misconception that the “elevation” of primitive objects to artistic beings assists in the process of decolonization. The mere fact that the word “elevate” is applied to the situation counteracts any progress toward equalizing once believed superior people with the primitive people over whom they asserted control. One must not forget the pieces deemed not good enough, beautiful enough, or practical enough to be elevated to art; are only some primitive objects privileged to decolonization? The biased selection applied by museums when choosing the fortunate pieces of elevated status creates a contradiction within the ethical core of the institution. What is seen by the public is the good willed, philanthropic attitude of a museum that graciously displays a primitive cup and labels it “art.” The unfortunate other half of the situation is hidden away in cleverly phrased rejections of less than desirable primitive artifacts. Only partial decolonization is allowed if the museum desires to remain an institution of superior high art. As a result of the many years of first qualifying and displaying primitive artifacts in a strictly ethnographic manner, followed by a subjectively skewed aesthetic approach, the issue of ethically acquiring and displaying the aforementioned objects has made little to know progress. The problem for contemporary ethnographers and art historians has become how to find a balance, if there is in fact one to be found, between narrow minded antiquated methods of placing all the spears of all the tribes on one wall, and the self righteous act of a museum choosing the most “worthy” spear to be displayed alone. The segregation of primitive artifacts from artistically driven institutions has proven as equally ineffective as the integration of all primitive artifacts haphazardly acquired for sake of boasting foreign material. Scholars and laymen alike are forced to form allies on either side of the opposing schools. Ethnographic displays, while more comprehensive, possess the tendency to impose on a viewer an obvious political message. Such is Torgovnick’s example of the Congolese exhibition at the Exposition Universelle of 1897: the walls clustered with objects of the colonized Congo imply a sense of chaos and send the message that the “primitive man” needed to be organized by the West (75-76). However, as stated throughout this essay, taking a purely aesthetic approach limits the available images and thus inhibits an authentic understanding of the object’s cultural origins. One must decide if the object defines the culture or the culture defines the intent of the object. If primitive artifacts define the culture a greater variety of tools and artistic items should be presented to allow for the exploration of cultural identity. Alternately, if the culture defines the intent of the object, an example being two different cultures with similar knives, one knife used for hunting, the other as a display of wealth, carefully chosen objects should be displayed to avoid any sweeping stereotypes from being drawn between the two cultures. The preservation of these cultural tools must not be limited to the mere act of keeping the integrity of the object in tact, museums and their patrons should work towards salvaging the cultures and keeping the value systems intact. Eurocentric, as Torgovnick describes them, ideas of ethnographic and aesthetic displays do nothing to preserve the genuine nature of the objects, instead only work to preserve the objects themselves. As is demonstrated by the flawed systems of both schools of display, no approach yet has simultaneously preserved both the cultural and visual identities of primitive objects. Perhaps this is because the opposing ethnographic and aesthetic schools refuse to integrate the other’s techniques into their own, or more likely, because neither possess the divinely impossible universality of what qualifies art. Work Cited Torgovnick, Marianna. “But is it Art?” Gone Primitive. 1990. University of Chicago , Press. 75-84.
