Response 3/30/10

"Ethnographic museums have played an important role in producing definitions of civilization, self, and nation in North America now for over a century." (Masco, Pg.838) In Competitive Displays, Masco uses the exhibition Chiefly Feasts to show the ways in which something is able to be interpreted through a museum, sometimes resulting in an unclear definition of what is being interpreted. Although much of the reading describes the redefining of a practice, the potlatch, through colonialism, I was interested in the museum's ability to provide contrasting interpretations for a culture and a ceremony. The Chiefly Feasts exhibition, unlike other exhibitions, provided two interpretations on the objects and the people; the AMNH provided one interpretation, and Gloria Cranmer Webster provided the other. Having two interpretations, each attempting to achieve its own goals, gave the exhibition visitors opposing definitions, and created misunderstanding or confusion about the exhibit, despite the goal of both interpretations being to inform and educate. These interpretations serve to define what is being exhibited, and provide a sense of concreteness to something whose meaning has evolved and changed. The AMNH has attempted to define objects, cultures, and ceremonies that, through the process of being interpreted and displayed, have been redefined or misinterpreted. This is problematic because of the museum's role, or perceived role, of being an institution of knowledge and of providing what is known or true. But, given two contrasting interpretations, which do we believe?