Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Nainika Dinesh
Susan Degnan (University of Oxford)
Send message to Convenors
- Stream:
- Who Speaks and for Whom?
- Sessions:
- Tuesday 30 March, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
Museums in a post colonial era have struggled with navigating the troubled histories of colonial collecting that inform most collections. From ‘contact zones’ (Clifford) to repatriation, this panel seeks to examine what it means to be an ethical museum institution in the contemporary world.
Long Abstract:
This panel seeks to unpack the theme of this conference: ‘responsibility,’ in the context of the modern-day museum institution. Ethnographic museums have particularly been criticised for the problematic arrangement and management of their collections but they - along with all types of museums - seem to only be gaining in popularity. We need to ask - how, then, can museums respond to the changing concerns of an ever-globalising public? Considering the difficult heritages for many of a museum institution’s objects, we ask what responsibilities these museums have to the outside world. How is knowledge produced in the museum (museum ontologies)? Whose voices are heard? Who gets to organise collections, write labels, etc? What new and emerging methods of display may allow for new ways of knowledge construction and dissemination (i.e. Clifford’s ‘contact zones’, or the ‘sensory turn’)? What responsibility does the museum as an institution have to the outside world? What responsibility does it have to the people from whom their collections stem (i.e. what does responsibility does the British Museum have to Athens, or to India), and vice versa? Do museums have a responsibility to respond to crisis situations/be social activists? We encourage any papers thinking about the ways in which museum institutions (not micromuseums) have and could respond to calls to responsibility; as well as papers exploring where a museum’s responsibilities come from and to whom they are directed.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Tuesday 30 March, 2021, -Paper short abstract:
Am Ll.2 is a little thing that traveled from the interior of Newfoundland to the British Museum. The story of Am Ll.2 is story of how, in the institutional making of objects, we uncouple things from histories of violence that constitute the circumstances of their coming to rest in museum stores.
Paper long abstract:
This paper is about a little thing made of bone that left the interior of Newfoundland in the early 19th century and, after passing through the possession of a number of people, came to rest in the stores of the British Museum on Orsman Road, London and, in coming to rest, became known as Am Ll.2. In telling the story of this thing, as it is revealed by a series of labels that have attached to it during its travels, we will consider how things become objects possessed of certain associations and attributes and, in this becoming an object of certain kind, we domesticate the unruly power of things which carry with them histories of violence and dispossession - histories which constitute the very conditions of their coming to rest and, in coming to rest, becoming an object such as Am Ll.2. In so doing, we will indulge in a rather speculative consideration of how such things may exceed their domestication as objects and so be haunted by that which is unwritten, an elsewhere (perhaps a line of stony beach by a lake in the interior of Newfoundland), and so are possessed of (or by) an uncanny dis-locatedness which renders them restless and unsettles their seemingly settled condition as an object in a museum collection. Based on the speculation we may invite discussion of creative forms of labeling, cataloging and curation which elide or disrupt the domestication of this little thing made of bone as object Am Ll.2 (harpoon-head, part of).
Paper short abstract:
Musuem artifacts are indeed very rare and represent an interesting opportunity to study how such museums have adapted over time to balance the cultural and for not only academic but also for commercial/popular consumption. The paper focuses on contemporary musuem classification practices.
Paper long abstract:
Today, there has been a shift in the role of museum practices representing their collections as artifacts of the past. Previously museums not expected to follow the ethics of representing the 'other'. As a result, the museums with human and non-human artifacts like artilleries, potteries, cultural dresses, tattoos, cultural through use of face etc., were less scrutinized in the past. However, those same museums have an even bigger responsibility of how they represent the past through their artifacts to te postcolonial subjects. This paper deals with the question of modern day classification practices followed by museums and how far they have gone in either showing similarities or dissimilarities between different global cultures, races, ethnicities, and various societal practices like hunting, ritual, dwelling, etc. For this, the paper will discuss these practices at the Pitt Rivers Museum. As Stanton (1999) has pointed out, "classification remains a fundamental issue for today's curators, especially in considering the impact classification has had on effectively distancing one culture from another - even, indeed, creating the very notion of 'the other' ". Pitts River museum, Oxford, Great Britain, is an ethnographic Museum. It houses cultural artifacts that were private collection of General Pitt Rivers and has artifacts for all,over the world where the British Empire had its presence. The paper will discuss how are these classifications of past changing and why are these changes much needed?
Paper short abstract:
This paper will present some ideas on the relationships between ‘authenticity’, ‘storytelling’, and ‘responsibility’ in museums. Authenticity will be considered to be a phenomenon that is constructed and performed, and therefore vulnerable to normative criticism over how it is specifically wielded.
Paper long abstract:
This paper will explore the multiplicitous relationships between ‘authenticity’, ‘storytelling’, and ‘responsibility’ in museums; touching upon what authenticity might be, how it might appear and function, and what its implications might be for so-called ‘good’ museum practice. Authenticity will be situated as constructed and performed; contributing to the particular identity of any given artefact within the museum. This makes its possibilities and manifestations near-on endless, given the unique, often contradictory lives of each artefact within most collections. It is accordingly interested in such questions as: is authenticity, then, a powerful epistemic tool to be wielded by museums, in order to construct collections for specific ideological purposes? Or is this idea going far-too-far? How is the function of authenticity tied to the function of museums themselves? And what are their responsibilities when it comes to this phenomenon? This paper then, is concerned with how authenticity - in relation to an artefact - is constructed within the museum collection, versus in competing situations; and will discuss how such institutions are vulnerable to both criticism, when it comes to the construction of authenticity - and normative claims over how it should be constructed and performed instead. Examples from multiple collections will be employed to support this discussion, in order to advocate a case-by-case approach to analysing collections through the lens of authenticity.