African Art Exhibit - Conflict of Standards and Expectations

7/31/2019 African Art Exhibit - Conflict of Standards and Expectations

1/6

2

Aimee Ellis

February 26, 1992

The Art Institute's African Exhibit:

A Conflict of Cultural Standards and Expectations

The Art Institute's exhibition of African art does not

create a context through which a viewer can understand the

objects on display. Instead, it attempts merely to reflect the

observations of an average Western mind, a mind that would find

African culture primitive and African art crude. By reinforcing

the Western attitude towards Africa, the Art Institute doesn't

have to take responsibility for the culture that it creates

through its display. Every choice made by the museum distances

the museum from the construction of the display and the

representation of the culture. As a consequence, the museum's

choice not to create a set of expectations for the viewer signals

to the viewer that the art should be judged by Western standards.

The role of the museum is difficult to determine in relation

to objects created by non-Western cultures. The museum, itself a

Western institution, cannot be separated from Western art and the

viewer's expectations of "exhibition value". When a viewer is

confronted with objects from another culture, his expectations do

not change. The objects, however, are not made for exhibition.

In their original cultures, most of the objects are used in

ritual ceremonies. Those without religious significance are

indicative of everyday life. Without a change in orientation,


2/6

3

the viewer is unable to appreciate, or even understand, the art

within the objects. The problem is compounded by the inevitable

consequence that, when non-Western objects are displayed, the

museum, in its representation of the art, creates the culture as

well.

Both the Western viewer and the culture represented are

controlled by the museum and by the choices that shape the

museum's display. Unfortunately, the museum, especially when its

role is unclear, does not always make the right choices--the

choices that allow the culture to be represented as accurately as

possible and the choices that provide a way for the viewers to

change their expectations. The Art Institute's African Exhibit

exemplifies the bad choices that are possible.

The Chauncey McCormick Gallery which houses the African and

Ancient American exhibits is in an unnoticeable location. If a

viewer is intent on looking in front of him when he enters the

doorway from the main entrance, he might miss the gallery, which

is accessible only through unobtrusive openings on the side of

the hallway. That the gallery is in the middle of construction

further gives the impression that the area is unimportant. A

glance into one of the entrances which reveals neutral, earth-

toned colors, not the vivid colors that one might expect or that

might draw one's eye, would not encourage a viewer to change his

course. By the placement of the display, the museum indirectly

diminishes the worth of the objects represented. The


3/6

3

unimportance of the exhibit is a way the museum distances itself

from the exhibit and maintains the viewer's Western response to

the art.

If a viewer enters the first gallery, he is prepared to view

African Art--not Ancient American art. Moving into the next

section of the gallery, however, the transition from African Art

to Ancient American Art is hardly noticeable. The artistry in

the second gallery is very similar to that in the African

section, and the earth-tones of the pieces are common to both.

The area presents a coupling of the African and Ancient American

cultures through the placement of the art. This further removes

the importance of the cultures represented and reinforces the

Western expectations of primitive or underdeveloped cultures

beneath western status.

Within the African exhibit, there is no distinction between

the different African cultures. Only some cultures, called

"people" by the museum, have descriptions: the Yoruba, the Baga,

the Kuba, and the Benun. Moreover, the pieces from different

cultures are displayed randomly; for example, some Yoruba pieces

are in one case, some in another. When each culture is not given

its own description or its own space, the viewer will see the

individual cultures as unimportant, and one "African" culture is

established. The museum refuses to take the risk of describing

the individual African cultures. In its refusal, it is ignoring

the true nature of the African people. By not clarifying the


4/6

4

different cultures, the museum allows the viewers to leave with

the misconception of one "African" culture.

The museum presents this established African culture as

something to be distrusted. This occurs because the choice of

objects to be on display--all but four devoted to ritual--creates

a conflict between Western values and African values. The

Western viewer doesn't respect ritual in the sense of

"witchcraft" or "witchdoctors," connotations which African ritual

is likely to have. When the museum doesn't clearly explain the

use of the objects in the ritual, the objects tend to become more

suspect. That practical life is negated by its exclusion from

the display also gives legitimization to the Western view of

African cultures as primitive or undeveloped. Furthermore, the

exhibit opens with a carving of a royal couple. The woman,

dominating and powerful, stands behind her husband who is sitting

on a chair. To introduce the display to a patricarchal world

with a symbol of women's importance creates a value conflict for

some Westerners.

All of these interactions take place in a sparse, long,

narrow gallery. The cases along the walls, or depressed in the

walls, are smooth, mostly glass; what is not glass is a sand-

colored wood. It is as if the museum has eliminated its presence

from the exhibit. The lack of description, the brief names such

as "Butterfly Mask" and "Dance Figure," and the uncertanity of

dates further remove the museum's presence. The arangement and


5/6

5

organization chosen by the museum is minimal, allowing the

viewer's misconceptions of African art to control his response to

the exhibit. The Art Institute's attempt to remove all of its

influence from the exhibition--an impossible task, given that the

display is constructed by choices made by the museum. Because

the museum does not admit its role in taking ritual objects from

one culture and placing them as exhibition objects in another,

the ordianary Western viewer judges the African art by Western

standards and Western expectations: the viewer's expectations are

the remain the same for the African Art gallery as for the

Reinassance painting. The museum doesn't attempt to change these

expecatations or standards through the display.

The choices made by the museum serve only to heighten the

differences between the African culture and the Western world.

African culture is mystified and subordinated. The museum should

accept the responsibility for the creation of a culture. It

should, through its display techniques, represent the culture as

accurately as possible not by trying to eliminate itself from the

construction, but by revealing the control it uses. Extensive

labeling and descriptions, or even a warning to signal that the

viwwer should suspend his standards for Western art, are ways

that the museum can use to help the viewer change the orientaion

of his expectations. What is important is that the museums don't

remove themselves from anthropological exhibits: the choices for

location, arrangement, and labeling in the African Exhibit serve


6/6

6

only to distance the cultures from the Western world and to

maintain the misconceptions of the viewers. The museums should

try within the display to challenge the viewers; they should try

to re-orient the expectations.

If museums did take the responsiblity to change viewers'

expectations for a gallery holding a different culture's art, it

could be argued that the museum would have too much control over

the representation of the other culture. However, the power to

control the display exists already; it is an inherent feature of

the museum as an institution. To help Western viewers better

understand and be receptive to other cultures might be a

constuctive use of the museum's power. Perhaps Westerns

standards can never be completely suspended from the museum, and

art from another culture will always be subjugated to standards

which it was not meant to meet. Ultimately, learning about other

cultures is the only way that viewers can maintain control over

the museums and the only way that viewers can understand the art.

Unless viewers take responsibility for understanding their roles

as viewers and the museum's role as presenter, the realities of

the cultures and the expectations of the viewers will always be

in conflict in the exhibitions of other cultures.

Documents

African Art Exhibit - Conflict of Standards and Expectations