First of all, Enid Schildkrout. What a name. I should give one of my future children a middle name like that, because then when I'm angry and I use their full name, part of their punishment will just be the reminder that they have a middle name like Schildkrout.
Secondly, this poor Ms. Cannizzo. (Cannizzo? Another unique surname.) Poor, poor Jeanne. I don't think she even knew what she was doing when she created such a controversial exhibition. For me, this article really illuminated the importance of a thoughtful and educated curator, or at least the importance of having curators on staff who are trained to design exhibitions for a specific category of art. In this particular exhibition at the ROM, Cannizzo failed to think about her audience, and to communicate clearly what she wanted to communicate. She wanted to create a dialogue, and instead the exhibition came off extremely biased. She did not give both parties being examined (people involved in colonialism and the people being "colonlized," or in this case, people in Africa) an equal voice. She, even if it was unwittingly, made it so it "appeared that colonialist-collectors were being allowed to speak for themselves (although, even here many observers felt words were being put in their mouths), while Africans were not" (Schildkrout 171). Since her audience was a good amount of African-Canadians, this put her in a bad spot, and also made the museum look bad.
Another quote from the article: "Tracing the life history of objects from Africa takes one through many minefields of history."
I would assume that it's like that in many specific art historical fields of knowledge, but ESPECIALLY when it comes to Africa. Cannizzo opened Pandora's box when she handled the topic of the colonization of Africa in the manner that she did. She shouldn't have tried to be so broad if she was not going to be able to research thoroughly, and accurately give voice to both people groups. It's the museum's job to identify these minefields, and I guess the lesson learned is to choose your curators carefully.
The comparing of the exhibition The Other Museum at the WPA gallery drives this point even further, since the exhibition dealt with colonialism, racial stereotypes, and misinterpretations of these. I mean, you are kind of asking for it when you do such a bold exhibition. Everyone has different ideas of these things! Even when there are stereotypes, people have slightly different ideas of what those are. I like the guts, and I think those things need to be discussed, but maybe framed as an art show of one particular artist, so it's that artist's voice and not the museum's.
Things to think about. Great article. Another blog to come, tonight if possible :)
Another quote from the article: "Tracing the life history of objects from Africa takes one through many minefields of history."
I would assume that it's like that in many specific art historical fields of knowledge, but ESPECIALLY when it comes to Africa. Cannizzo opened Pandora's box when she handled the topic of the colonization of Africa in the manner that she did. She shouldn't have tried to be so broad if she was not going to be able to research thoroughly, and accurately give voice to both people groups. It's the museum's job to identify these minefields, and I guess the lesson learned is to choose your curators carefully.
The comparing of the exhibition The Other Museum at the WPA gallery drives this point even further, since the exhibition dealt with colonialism, racial stereotypes, and misinterpretations of these. I mean, you are kind of asking for it when you do such a bold exhibition. Everyone has different ideas of these things! Even when there are stereotypes, people have slightly different ideas of what those are. I like the guts, and I think those things need to be discussed, but maybe framed as an art show of one particular artist, so it's that artist's voice and not the museum's.
Things to think about. Great article. Another blog to come, tonight if possible :)
No comments:
Post a Comment