The Competitive Displays article was really interesting in it's acknowledgement of the strides the museum is trying to take in remaining politically correct, while simultaneously disregarding or confusing highly political aspects to the exhibit. I have to admit I was initially skeptical of the article because it was so bent on being critical of the exhibit, that I feel like certain positive aspects were overlooked. However, I thought Masco made an excellent point of showing the internal negotiations that the museum made in its presentation. I thought this was especially interesting in conjunction with the museums allegiance to Boas versus the Native People they were representing. I felt Masco wasn't partial enough in discussing why the museum chose to support Boas's research despite its inconsistencies, nor did he discuss the stakes for the museum if they didn't support Boas. This lack of discussion, versus just outright criticism, is also in Masco's reading of the lack of colonial discussions in the exhibit. I think this is a really easy point to argue, and I agree that in most all of the cultural exhibits we've seen so far, they're missing a lot of political discussion. However, I think the step following that criticism is asking why the museum made that choice. It can't solely be that the museum is owned by a bunch of intellectualist racists, or that the museum specifically chose to hide it's histories, but rather who's funding the exhibit, what was going on in the mid-90's, and where was anthropology philosophically swayed during that time.
In terms of the Mead piece I feel like I want to experience it before I can comment on it. However, I found the debate of immersion versus detached observation to be really interesting especially in terms of how disjointed an exhibit can become in conjunction with one another. It seems as though modernism (in terms of architecture and design) and what was trying to be possessed just couldn't work.
No comments:
Post a Comment