The Hall of American History, the Ethnographic display along with the Print and Graphic Art collection were thus integrated within what Looby (cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 146) describes as a ‘total system of concepts, representing the natural world, that could also correspond to the total form of society.’ The entire collection within the U.S. National Museum provided what Looby (cited in Carbonell, p. 143) terms as ‘a visual map to help the visitor imagine the shape of the new society’ based upon natural order and harmony. In this way, the curatorial approach of Koehler saw art take its place in the scheme of the museum with the artist becoming a valuable member in the social organisation of humankind (Koehler 2007, p. 47). In a similar way, Looby (cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 154) places the portraits at the top of this hierarchy with ‘the heroes of the Revolution presiding over the natural order.’
In providing a metaphoric and visual key to the vision held by progressive thinkers such as Jefferson and Smithson, that nature could provide the answer to creating a new nation, the museum practices of the Smithsonian provided a model of coherence that would validate and affirm American identity (Looby cited in Carbonell, p. 145). In further referring to this ‘natural law’ presumption as espoused by Hippolyte Taine and S G W Benjamin, Fink (2007, p. 85) concurs that in accordance with these scientific laws which direct human and social development, with the realization of identity, would come the affirmation of the nation’s aesthetics.[i]
Certainly, at this point in the Smithsonian’s history, Fink (2007, p. 51) refers to a concurrent enthusiasm for public education in art as well as several calls to establish a connection between the nation’s art and the federal government with the Smithsonian being the concerning link. Finally, it was a bequest of artworks left by Harriet Lane Johnston in 1906 that initiated court activity resulting in the title of ‘The National Gallery of Art’ being legally bestowed upon the Smithsonian collection in 1909.[ii] Whilst the Harriet Lane Johnston collection, with one third of its works of art by American artists, is cited by True (1946, p. 44) as the catalyst for arousing interest in the formation of a national art collection, third secretary Samuel Pierpoint Langley (1887-1906) also played a crucial role in the court proceedings.
In supporting the Smithsonian’s right to the title, Langley, who Fink (2007, p. 55) describes as having an informed interest in the arts, was able to account for the Institution’s holdings and past exhibitions, as well as expound a future vision for the National Gallery. Indeed, in the same way that this research paper has traced the vital role of art at the Smithsonian Institution, the court decreed that the Smithsonian was already constituted as a gallery of art. The judgment also recognized that the Smithsonian had ‘developed its collection from a potential one into an actual one and that the gallery was national in character’ (Fink 2007, p. 58).
The scientific side of the Institution’s activities has been in the past greater than its aesthetic, that it is well to recall the undoubted fact that it was intended by Congress to be a curator of the national art and this function has never been forgotten.[iii]
At the Institution’s founding in 1846, the programs of the art collection were to be focused on living artists (Fink 2007, p. 85).[i] With the scientific display of the collection allowing for the consideration of themes that could inspire the nation’s aesthetic expression, this sense of identity along with the title brought in immediate responses from other benefactors, most significantly William T. Evans. Evan’s donation of 150 works by mainly living American artists inspired confidence in contemporary art communities (Fink 2007, p. 61). Included in this collection was A Family of Birches (1907) by Willard L. Metcalf (1858-1925). In reinforcing the connection to the scientific practices of the Smithsonian, which based its collections upon truths and lessons found in the natural world, this painting by Metcalf (fig. 28) is described as ‘portraying nature as an eternal fountain that could refresh a parched soul and suggests that a simple life lived in harmony with nature would lead to an utopian ideal.’
Art embodies, and insistently exhibits personal and collective identities, aesthetic and instrumental purposes, mundane and spiritual aspirations. Around Art – the most human of things – material culture gathers, blending nature and will…[ii]
This final section considers the practices of the Smithsonian in terms of contemporary museological theory.
Ethnographic Display
Bouquet (2001, p.1) cites that a current wave of interest in anthropological collections presents ongoing challenges for the display of ‘cultural production in contemporary museums.’ In the post-colonial era, museums are exploring new ways to re-discover and re-interpret these collections. As pre-empted by the Smithsonian, new understandings of ethnographic collections are being created through similar juxtapositions of art and object.[i] This innovative ‘critical anthropology, advocated and practised by Shelton’ is hailed as a new style cultural laboratory that allows for the creative exploration of similarities and differences between cultures (Bouquet 2001, p. 12). In fact, Bouquet refers to the David Livingstone and the Victorian Encounter with Africa Exhibition that was held in the National Portrait Gallery in London and the Scottish Portrait Gallery in Edinburgh in 1996. In this way, this exhibition that may be seen to emulate the nineteenth-century museum practices of the Smithsonian.
Contemporary approaches to anthropological and ethnographic display encompass other early fundamental Smithsonian practices, such as connecting the collection to ongoing study and using thematic displays that merge disciplines thus allowing for new approaches in understanding cultural objects (Bouquet 2001, p. 9;14). Indeed, Henry shared Smithson’s view ‘that knowledge could not be viewed as existing in isolated parts’ and hence the widening of ethnographic parameters to include aesthetic considerations ‘became an important factor in the Smithsonian’s development (Lewis 1984, p. 14).’[ii]
James Bennett (2003, p. 35) recommends contemporary ethnographic practices that affirm traditional activities as well as the fostering of relationships with indigenous peoples, so that specific insights into collections may be gained. True (1946, p.21) confirms that Smithsonian investigators saw the value in cultivating an understanding of the indigenous mind and were hence rewarded with admittance to secret ceremonies and rituals.[iii] Thus cultural exchange can become more meaningful (Bennett 2003, p. 36). Certainly, Bouquet (2001, p. 6) agrees that in terms of the Aboriginal collections in Australia, the clarification of the ‘invisible networks of relations behind the collections’ will have great impact upon the ‘process of re-fashioning the Australian past.’
Thematic and Object Based Display
In exhibiting collections based on a largely thematic rather than a sequential display, the Smithsonian presented an alternate narrative to the traditional practices of the European art museum. According to Duncan and Wallach (cited in Bennett 1995, p. 168), the chronological hang would place the host state in a privileged position in terms of national progress and artistic achievement. With the Smithsonian developing and organising their collection around works by mainly contemporary American artists, the notion of historical privilege and cultural inheritance was thus challenged (Altshuler 2005, p. 1). Further to this, with the immersion of art into the scientific display, in an ordering that was not chronological allows for consideration of Greenblatt’s (1991) ‘principle of wonder’ which reflects upon the uniqueness that could also be found in nature (cited in Bennett 1995, p. 43).
Furthermore, in regard to the display of art with objects, this American model was able to address the gaps between its artistic heritage and relatively young history. According to Anderson (1997, p. 5) ‘objects exist in a symbiotic relationship with culture...it is impossible to consider one without the other.’ Today, object based displays are considered to be ‘a highly significant source for the interpretation of history and culture.’
As the text is located in context after context, associations will assemble and multiply. The reading becomes rich. The artefact swells with meaning and accomplishes its mission (Glassie 1999, p. 48).
Correspondingly, a report by the American Association of Museums (1984) recommends visitor orientation galleries that put on display the underlying text of collections, such as the reasoning behind certain acquisitions. In this report, entitled ‘Museums for a New Century,’ importance is placed on fostering public appreciation of collections through exhibits that reveal the ‘process’ of museum work as well as the motives behind the formation of collections. Certainly, Koehler’s Print and Graphic Art exhibit, as discussed in Chapter Four, may be seen to have anticipated these existing recommendations for enhancing the museum experience.
Moreover, according to the report above, in shaping the image and increasing the use of the modern museum it is vital to make visible the values upon which a museum is founded, the heritage it collects and the knowledge it embodies. In a speech made on August 10th 1946 on the one hundred year anniversary of the Smithsonian, President Truman referred to the Institution as a world centre for the promotion of science, art and other cultural activities. He stressed that it was:
a time for further consideration of the ideals of the founder James Smithson...the Smithsonian should continue to strive toward the end that humankind should not only know better its earthly abode, but should acquire the means of knowing itself better (cited in True 1950, p. 295).
Indeed, in this way, the Smithsonian has progressed from fostering identity to becoming a symbol of American identity and a source of civic pride – ‘it is an American heritage and has become an American tradition, belonging to the people’ (True 1950, p. 27).
[i] According to Goldwater 1938 (cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 136), the appreciation of the aesthetic values of ‘primitive’ art came late in the development of European museums of ethnology.
[ii] According to Bennett, T (1995, p. 180), George Brown Goode also envisaged the relations between natural history museums, anthropological museums, history museums and museums of art.
[iii] True also asserts that ‘patient diplomacy’ also went a long way in achieving this end.
[i] Refer to Appendix C.
[ii] Glassie 1999, p. 42.
[i] French philosopher Hippolyte Taine established new criteria for the evaluation of ethnological artefacts thus expanding the definition of art (fink 2007, p. 69).
[ii] In her Will, Harriet Lane Johnston, the niece of President Buchanan, bequeathed her modest collection of paintings to a national gallery of art, ‘when one should be established by the Government.’ In the meantime, the Corcoran was named temporary custodian.
[iii] Samuel Pierpoint Langley (cited in Fink 2007, p. 56).
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Ch 4: The Second Phase - The Progression of Knowledge
This chapter moves forward to 1876, eleven years after the end of the Civil War and the devastating fire of 1865 that resulted in the most valuable pieces of the Smithsonian art collection being deposited in the Library of Congress and the Corcoran Gallery for safekeeping.[i] With a highly successful exhibit at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, Congress awarded the Smithsonian new funds with which to build a new National Museum Building (the Arts and Industries Building). With the divisive politics of the Civil War resolved on the battlefield, this new building saw the realization of Spencer Baird’s dream of establishing the Smithsonian as the National Museum of the United States.[ii] With works of art, once more being utilized to enhance the scientific frameworks underpinning the display, the new museum which opened in 1881 was to play ‘an important role in creating a national identity for the young nation’ (Hensen, Henry Papers Project).
I do not distinguish science and art, except as methods… Art is the representation, science the explanation of the same reality.[iii]
In maintaining that art at the Smithsonian was far from playing a minor or secondary role to the scientific aims of the Institution, this chapter traces three elements from Henry’s initial display and examines their integration into the new National Museum collection: namely the prints from the Marsh collection in the Library, the busts and portraits of Revolutionary figures from the cloisters and the Indian collection from the main gallery room. Further to this, the second manifestation of the collection and its underlying ideology, as discussed earlier in Chapter Three, becomes enhanced by the Freer Collection of Asian Art and Whistler prints.
Moreover, in establishing a continuous vision for art at the Smithsonian it is notable that it was Henry himself who selected his successor Spencer Baird for the role of preparing the exhibits for the Centennial Exposition. Working under Baird was his young protégé, George Brown Goode (1851-1896), who went on to become the leading figure in American Museum theory and display.[iv] Whilst Goode supported the view of a museum as a powerful tool for research, he was also keen on further exploring the ‘possibilities for public enlightenment’ within a museum (Karp 1965, p. 80). Accordingly, Goode placed much emphasis on the power of the object and the resulting observable knowledge as being fundamental to imparting scientific meaning (Kohlstedt 2005, p. 588). In this way the second phase of the art collection may be seen as a continuation of the underlying pedagogic intent of the first manifestation which aimed to highlight the intrinsic value of art within a scientific display.
What is more, the National Museum brought America back into line with the late nineteenth-century awareness of scientific ‘truths’ and a knowledge of reality that could be revealed through artistic representation (Nochlin 1971, p. 53). Goode’s method of display made explicit connections to the ideals of the Enlightenment which were upheld by the nation’s founding fathers as well as their anticipation of a national progress that could be attained through scientific endeavour.[v]
The celebration of enlightened optimism was exemplified by a statue which stood in a central rotunda under a domed atrium in the new museum building. Representative of peace, justice and liberty, Fink (2007, p. 42) describes the art as providing the metaphoric linchpin that connected all the components of the museum display. This 20 foot tall sculpture by Thomas Crawford, entitled Liberty looked ‘serenely down upon the pageant of brave men and glorious deeds that made the American nation what she is today’ (True 1950, p. 141). The statue faced the main room that opened off the main entrance – the Hall of American History.
The Hall of American History
According to Fink’s (2007, p. 42) description, this room exhibited the portraits of leaders and scientists amongst other items that denoted American achievement. In his endeavour to create effective public displays which combined science and history, Goode organized memorabilia of combat and patriotism alongside artifacts of commerce, social life, political activity and technical innovation (Kohlstdedt 1988, p. 22). Historic legacy and scientific innovation were presented as an inherent part of America’s socio-cultural fabric and were thus injected with a new sense of vitality. In the same way, the portraits of the great patriots and heroes of America had a potent impact when they were displayed next to the tangible objects associated with them, such as the military gear worn by the sitter. The objects and artifacts used by the historic figures who were depicted in the artworks, contributed in revitalizing the events and personalities of the past (True 1946, p. 121).The desk upon which Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the swords of Washington and the scientific instruments of Franklin were amongst the relics and portraits of the men who ‘planned for the advancement of civil and religious liberty and of art and science’ (True 1946, p. 130).
This grouping of historical objects, works of art and technical gadgets created a narrative that conveyed a sense of the nation’s struggle for self-realization as well as an appreciation of the deeds of valor, sacrifice and discovery that made such progress possible. According to Kohlstedt (1988, p. 23) Goode’s museum exhibited a totality of knowledge in which science, art and industry were the conscious part of a natural process of development, ‘whereby the history could show the results of the purposeful action’ of the individual. In effect, the underlying raison d’être of the American portrait was to commemorate such achievement and contribution to history. In this way, the ideals, values and biographic detail that were expressed through American portraiture became interwoven into the underlying theme of the vibrant display and thus the acts of founding the fathers took on an iconic status.[i]
In further encouraging the public to appreciate and ‘read’ art within a scientific framework, Goode intentionally organized the collection to show a slow technological change over time. With the relics and objects arranged around the events of the Revolution and Civil War, perceptions of time and the realization of scientific advancement could be powerfully illustrated using art. For example, two masks made from the living face of Lincoln before and after the Civil War communicated the socio-cultural consequences of such events (True 1950, image 35). The youthful expression that characterized the first mask is absent from the features of the second mask, where only weariness is apparent. Apart from highlighting the sense of tragedy associated with warfare, the masks help to communicate the impact of the civil war upon the scientific programs of the Smithsonian, with resources and personnel being diverted for the war effort.[ii] Furthermore, the masks personify how such confrontation can work against enlightenment notions of what constituted a harmonious and cultured society.
In a similar way, two commemorative vases made for the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, The Struggle (1776) and Prosperity (1886) displayed in the great hall of American history served to impart further, a sense of refinement, progress and civilization upon the museum visitor. Not only did the Haviland Limoges Faience porcelain vases re-emphasize the alliance between America and France, the exposition pieces signaled a shift in attitude from seeing ‘vases as pottery to becoming works of art’ (Dietz, 2010).[i]
The degree of civilization to which any nation, city or province has attained is well indicated by the character of its public museum and the liberality to which they are supported (Goode, 1895, p. 209).
America’s emergent identity is thus profoundly evident in the philosophy that underpinned the system of classification and display of the museum collection in which works of art played a prominent role. Kohlstedt (1988, p. 7) describes Goode as a museum innovator and theorist who ‘wrote several pioneering essays on interpreting the museum object.’ Though Goode had travelled extensively to find new and effective ways to portray scientific and historical knowledge, Kohlstedt (1988, p. 13) reports that he was largely disappointed with what he found, and consequently he developed a ‘democratic’ and educational approach to museum display that would allow the visitor to make discoveries for him or herself thus affirming a egalitarian society than merely amusing or entertaining a privileged elite (Kohlstedt 2005, p. 588).
Goode’s views on museums came at a time when there was conflict between naturalists and a faction of biologists, who espoused Darwin’s evolutionary theory (Kohlstedt 2005, p. 586). As a naturalist Goode firmly believed that,
in dealing with the history of an object, the value of each successive contribution should be estimated in light of the knowledge of the period and not that of the present time (Kohlstedt 1988, p. 7).
In taking on a naturalist approach to scientific display rather than an evolutionist one, the Smithsonian resisted in assuming the archetypal Colonial museum ideology and method of display that was largely developed in England, in particular the typological theory developed by Pitt Rivers.[i]
River’s supposition of evolution, reflective of Imperial attitudes, invariably led the museum visitor to a conclusive, irreversible and cumulative view of human development (Bennett T. 2004, p. 77), whereby the survival of the fittest reigned supreme. Though he adapted elements from Pitt’s method, Goode did not make a firm commitment to this evolutionary theory and he placed the entire American Indian exhibit in cases on casters that could be moved around according to a developmental or functional theory (Kohlstedt 1988, p. 14). Furthermore, his method of display allowed the object to provide a layered meaning that could be configured under various interpretive schemes (Kohlstedt 2005, p. 588). In this way, unlike the particular museum that presented the evolutionary viewpoint whereby objects and their meaning would freeze in time, Goode’s ‘living’ museum could be open to fresh analysis (Alberti 2005, p. 567). Described as a ‘visionary narrative’ by Kohlstedt (2005, p. 500), Goode’s sympathetic organisation which supported a theory of heredity, adaptation and maturation is clearly evident in the underlying ideology that gave meaning to the Smithsonian’s ethnographic collection.
The Ethnographic Collection
Although the Smithsonian’s scientists prepared exhibits for the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia it was largely for pragmatic reasons. In an article published in 1895, Goode made clear distinctions between the purpose of the Exposition and Public museum. According to Kholstedt (2005, p. 599), whilst the World Fair could serve to perpetuate a racist imperial attitude with the invariable display of the colonial subject, Goode saw the museum as the opportunity to increase the boundaries of such knowledge. Furthermore Goode (1895, p. 199) attributed a degree of competition to the Exposition, reflective of the evolutionary theory of development, that was based upon a notion of ‘competitive opportunity,’ whereas Goode’s display of Indian culture revealed a premise of development that supported human agency and choice (Kholstedt 1988, p. 23). Whilst Fink (2007, p. 40) maintains that Goode could not entirely avoid evolutionary theory which did affect the organisation of collections, Kohlstedt (2005, p. 590) argues that he did provide an alternate narrative and ‘orderly way to present natural and humanly constructed objects.’
The ethnographic display showed lifelike indigenous cultural groups arranged in traditional occupations.[i] According to True (1950, p. 17), these exhibits were the most popular and thus reflected ‘a lively and ongoing interest in the original race that populated America.’ Furthermore, whilst the evolutionary display of ethnographic artefacts presented an impression of a culture ‘on its way to inevitable extinction’ (Bennett J. 2003, p. 32), the Smithsonian’s life-like exhibits fostered and promoted cultural heritage. Upon referring to museums that ‘simply served as storehouses of materials,’ Goode (1895, p. 200) avowed that, ‘a finished museum is a dead museum and a dead museum is a useless museum.’
Although, the Mix Stanley collection of portraits was destroyed in the fire, the Smithsonian finally managed to procure George Catlin’s vast ‘Indian Portrait Gallery,’ which was exhibited amongst the ethnographic display. According to Fink (2007, p. 28), Henry had repeatedly attempted to convince Congress to purchase these portraits which captured the ‘moral beauty of the noble warrior.’ In the mid 1800s when he exhibited these portraits in London and Paris, Catlin would present a crusading lecture on the dignity of the Indian (Karp 1964, p. 97). Living amongst Indian tribes and regarding himself as a historian of Indian culture, Catlin’s works of art preserved the history, customs, manners, costumes and landscapes of America’s native people.
I have designed to visit every tribe of Indian’s on the Continent, if my life should be spared; for the purpose of procuring portraits of distinguished Indians, of both sexes in each tribe, painted in their native costume; accompanied with pictures of their villages, domestic habits, games, mysteries, religious ceremonies, etc. with anecdotes, traditions, and history of their respective nations…the result of my labours will doubtless be interesting to future ages.[ii]
True (1946, p. 20) attests that the anthropological display which included Catlin’s gallery allowed for subdivisions of science that could be co-ordinated into a logical body of knowledge. Insights into differentiation in beliefs, customs and arts could also be gained from Catlin’s depictions. In this way, the Smithsonian has been able to promote American ethnology in ways tangible and intangible, such as through the artistic representation that was first initiated by Joseph Henry (True 1946, p. 23).[iii]
Whilst Kohlstedt (2005, p. 595) asserts that the ethnographic display is indicative of ‘fresh historical insights into society and culture whereby the exchange between colonial and provincial outposts is suggestive of a common quest for knowledge,’ it is the inclusion of the Freer Asian Art collection within the museum that best demonstrates the Smithsonian’s ongoing attitude towards such cultural exchange.
In 1905, the Smithsonian accepted the gift of 2000 works of art from Detroit millionaire Charles Lang Freer that would ‘have the power to broaden aesthetic culture and the grace to elevate the human mind’ (Karp 1965, p. 99). With Smithsonian scientists having traced America’s indigenous heritage back to Asia (True 1950, p. 80), the placement of the ‘Oriental’ artefacts next to the ethnographic display had a significant impact upon American artistic identity. The philosophy underpinning Freer’s study based collection was to provide insight into inherent aesthetic characteristics shared by Eastern and Western art. Freer was convinced that the artistic object of any culture could articulate ‘the underlying principles of creative production in soundness of thought and workmanship in artwork of all times and all peoples’ (Freer cited in True 1950, p. 246). In placing these objects within a museum whereby the display stressed interdependence and a universal comprehensiveness (Fink 2007, p. 41), the ethnographic artifacts took their place amongst other objects that were considered to have equally high artistic merit. Furthermore, the Freer Asian collection allowed the young nation to boast an inherent artistic lineage.
In the article of 1895 in which Goode outlines the aims and ambitions of modern museum practice, he identifies the museum of nature and art as one of the most valuable material possessions of a city. Certainly, under the heading Public Appreciation of the Value of Collections (Goode 1895, p. 207), Goode alludes to the aesthetic value of works of art in their capacity to inspire others to produce the same. This principle is best demonstrated through the development of the Print and Graphic Arts Collection.
The Print and Graphic Art Collection
Placed in front of the Hall of Technology, the Graphic Arts display included etchings and prints in various stages of production as well as the tools and methods associated with the practice (Fink 2007, p. 46). With the inclusion of gouges, printing presses, woodblocks and engraving plates, the display emphasised how an artist would use such tools to transform and express an idea into a material result (Fink 2007, p. 34). In spite of the inclusion of tools that signified a technical progress, the manual production of art was clearly shown to come from the hand of the artist, with the continuing emphasis on human endeavour and artistic enterprise.
With craftsmanship being the pedagogic intent of the display, the Smithsonian was enforcing the idea of the museum’s role in the advancement of learning and scientific inquiry. Again, in making a clear distinction between the Exposition and the intent of the Smithsonian, Goode (cited in Ferguson) was adamant that ‘rather than show what goes on in a factory’ the museum would foster aesthetic and even spiritual values. Whilst Fink (2007, p. 45) observes that the Ethnological collection was placed ‘a distance apart from the progressive potential of the technological displays,’ it is likely that Goode wished to distance the scientific practices of the Smithsonian from that of the technical museum that reflected in philosophy and practice, the international exhibitions that gave them birth (Ferguson 1965, p. 46). According to Ferguson, these museums with their focus on the superficial and spectacular did not address the unsolved problems posed by progress and the acceleration towards an ‘undiscriminating mechanisation of humankind’s environment.’[i]
The inclusion of Whistler prints from the Freer Collection into the graphic art display in 1905 provides a provocative addendum to the entire graphic art collection. It was Whistler who inspired Freer’s love of Asian art. Described by Karp (1965, p.100) as having a mocking contempt for Victorian ways, Whistler controversially espoused ‘art for art’s sake’ that could be free from political, social or moral association. At a time when the British Empire was asserting its dominance through industry and in light of the fact that Bolton (2004, p. 206) indicates that Whistler was in fact inspired by Courbet’s Realism, it is likely that his belief in ‘art for art’s sake’ developed in protest to the growing industrialisation of society. Further to this idea, Whistler’s impressionist style embodied the break with the Official Academy Art that was encouraged by the ruling regimes in both France and England.[ii] On the other hand, with Whistler borrowing a concept from Baudelaire that ‘painting was an evocation, a magical operation,’ the Whistler prints would have also presented to the viewer an alternate facet to Koehler’s display of art as a process. Nevertheless, with an emphasis on the key to art being found within the very soul of the artist, this Graphic Art collection saw the Smithsonian realising its original aim – the education and fostering of the American artist.
...it is not true that the only aim of art is pleasure, for pleasure is not an end; it is not true that it has no other aim but itself, for everything sticks together, everything is conjoined, everything has its aim in humanity and nature...Art has the objective of leading us to the knowledge of ourselves...[iii]
[i] Whilst the curator of the graphic art collection Sylvester Koehler (1886-1990) wished to highlight the manual processes of art and convey a sense of the ‘artist as a labourer’ (Fink 2007, p.46), this notion of ‘industry’ seems tied to the Manifesto of Realism as espoused by Courbet. In opposing a collection that would merely ‘dazzle the eye,’ Koehler saw the value in teaching the skills that would foster and develop the artisan rather than the production line worker. In this way Koehler did not see the practice of graphic art as inferior to painting and sculpture that were often placed in a hierarchy above prints and drawings (Fink 2007, p. 46); http://www.siarchives.si.edu/history/exbitis/arts/1893x.jpg
[ii] President Roosevelt convinced the Smithsonian Board of Regents to purchase the Freer Collection along with the Whistler etchings and prints.
[iii] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-65), French socialist, in an interpretation of the Realism of his friend Courbet (cited in Honour & Fleming 2005, p. 668).
[i] The museum became renowned for the life groups created by anthropology curator William Henry Holmes.
[ii] George Catlin, Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs and Conditions of the north American Indians (cited in Archives of American Art Journal, 2002).
[iii] True (1946, p. 22;24) reports that by cultivating an understanding of the ‘Indian’ mind, Smithsonian ethnologists were given access to secret ceremonies and rites never before witnessed by White Men. Henry’s initial vision of creating a visible connection to America’s cultural heritage has led to what is now a comprehensive body of knowledge relating to the American indigenous civilisation.
[i] In an article written in 1895, whilst Goode does acknowledge that the development of the museum did owe much in Great Britain, in particular Ruskin, Owen and Cole. Pitt Rivers does not receive a mention in this section of the article and is instead listed in Goode’s introduction to the article when he refers to a ‘particular class of museum.’
[i] Haviland & Co. developed an innovative lithograph or transfer technique of decoration.
[i] To demonstrate the value placed on portraiture in America to this day, a teaching guide created by the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery in 2009, expounds the importance of ‘reading’ a portrait as if it were a historical document (Appendix H: ‘Reading’ Portraiture – A Guide for Educators).
[ii] According to Dorman (online, Henry Papers Project), the war affected the national network of weather observers, who relied on the mail and telegraph systems and the international exchange system was also disrupted. Most significantly was the ‘number of persons connected with the Institution who had passed away since the beginning of the war’ (Joseph Henry).
[i] Wallach (1998) refers to the Corcoran as ‘a would-be national gallery.’ Established by financier and ‘opportunist’ William Wilson Corcoran in the 1850s, the gallery projected a version of art history that saw American art stemming from the tradition dating back to the ancient Greeks. A Southern sympathizer, Corcoran went into exile in Europe and his gallery was handed over to the Union Army. Upon his return the 1870s the gallery struggled to achieve success on a national level.
[ii] Henry hired Spencer Baird as the natural history curator in 1850 and gave him full responsibility for the management of a ‘National Museum’ collection in 1872.
[iii] Sir Herbert Read (1893-1968), English anarchist, poet, philosopher of modern art (cited in Mayer, 1974).
[iv] Baird’s Dream – The Arts and Industries Building (online exhibit), URL: http://www.siarchives.si.edu/history/exhibits/arts/index.htm
[v] With America’s founding fathers being regarded as ‘the pupils of European Enlightenment,’ Guy offers that ‘disciples tend to learn their lessons a generation behind’ (cited in Howe 1970, p. 48).
I do not distinguish science and art, except as methods… Art is the representation, science the explanation of the same reality.[iii]
In maintaining that art at the Smithsonian was far from playing a minor or secondary role to the scientific aims of the Institution, this chapter traces three elements from Henry’s initial display and examines their integration into the new National Museum collection: namely the prints from the Marsh collection in the Library, the busts and portraits of Revolutionary figures from the cloisters and the Indian collection from the main gallery room. Further to this, the second manifestation of the collection and its underlying ideology, as discussed earlier in Chapter Three, becomes enhanced by the Freer Collection of Asian Art and Whistler prints.
Moreover, in establishing a continuous vision for art at the Smithsonian it is notable that it was Henry himself who selected his successor Spencer Baird for the role of preparing the exhibits for the Centennial Exposition. Working under Baird was his young protégé, George Brown Goode (1851-1896), who went on to become the leading figure in American Museum theory and display.[iv] Whilst Goode supported the view of a museum as a powerful tool for research, he was also keen on further exploring the ‘possibilities for public enlightenment’ within a museum (Karp 1965, p. 80). Accordingly, Goode placed much emphasis on the power of the object and the resulting observable knowledge as being fundamental to imparting scientific meaning (Kohlstedt 2005, p. 588). In this way the second phase of the art collection may be seen as a continuation of the underlying pedagogic intent of the first manifestation which aimed to highlight the intrinsic value of art within a scientific display.
What is more, the National Museum brought America back into line with the late nineteenth-century awareness of scientific ‘truths’ and a knowledge of reality that could be revealed through artistic representation (Nochlin 1971, p. 53). Goode’s method of display made explicit connections to the ideals of the Enlightenment which were upheld by the nation’s founding fathers as well as their anticipation of a national progress that could be attained through scientific endeavour.[v]
The celebration of enlightened optimism was exemplified by a statue which stood in a central rotunda under a domed atrium in the new museum building. Representative of peace, justice and liberty, Fink (2007, p. 42) describes the art as providing the metaphoric linchpin that connected all the components of the museum display. This 20 foot tall sculpture by Thomas Crawford, entitled Liberty looked ‘serenely down upon the pageant of brave men and glorious deeds that made the American nation what she is today’ (True 1950, p. 141). The statue faced the main room that opened off the main entrance – the Hall of American History.
The Hall of American History
According to Fink’s (2007, p. 42) description, this room exhibited the portraits of leaders and scientists amongst other items that denoted American achievement. In his endeavour to create effective public displays which combined science and history, Goode organized memorabilia of combat and patriotism alongside artifacts of commerce, social life, political activity and technical innovation (Kohlstdedt 1988, p. 22). Historic legacy and scientific innovation were presented as an inherent part of America’s socio-cultural fabric and were thus injected with a new sense of vitality. In the same way, the portraits of the great patriots and heroes of America had a potent impact when they were displayed next to the tangible objects associated with them, such as the military gear worn by the sitter. The objects and artifacts used by the historic figures who were depicted in the artworks, contributed in revitalizing the events and personalities of the past (True 1946, p. 121).The desk upon which Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the swords of Washington and the scientific instruments of Franklin were amongst the relics and portraits of the men who ‘planned for the advancement of civil and religious liberty and of art and science’ (True 1946, p. 130).
This grouping of historical objects, works of art and technical gadgets created a narrative that conveyed a sense of the nation’s struggle for self-realization as well as an appreciation of the deeds of valor, sacrifice and discovery that made such progress possible. According to Kohlstedt (1988, p. 23) Goode’s museum exhibited a totality of knowledge in which science, art and industry were the conscious part of a natural process of development, ‘whereby the history could show the results of the purposeful action’ of the individual. In effect, the underlying raison d’être of the American portrait was to commemorate such achievement and contribution to history. In this way, the ideals, values and biographic detail that were expressed through American portraiture became interwoven into the underlying theme of the vibrant display and thus the acts of founding the fathers took on an iconic status.[i]
In further encouraging the public to appreciate and ‘read’ art within a scientific framework, Goode intentionally organized the collection to show a slow technological change over time. With the relics and objects arranged around the events of the Revolution and Civil War, perceptions of time and the realization of scientific advancement could be powerfully illustrated using art. For example, two masks made from the living face of Lincoln before and after the Civil War communicated the socio-cultural consequences of such events (True 1950, image 35). The youthful expression that characterized the first mask is absent from the features of the second mask, where only weariness is apparent. Apart from highlighting the sense of tragedy associated with warfare, the masks help to communicate the impact of the civil war upon the scientific programs of the Smithsonian, with resources and personnel being diverted for the war effort.[ii] Furthermore, the masks personify how such confrontation can work against enlightenment notions of what constituted a harmonious and cultured society.
In a similar way, two commemorative vases made for the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, The Struggle (1776) and Prosperity (1886) displayed in the great hall of American history served to impart further, a sense of refinement, progress and civilization upon the museum visitor. Not only did the Haviland Limoges Faience porcelain vases re-emphasize the alliance between America and France, the exposition pieces signaled a shift in attitude from seeing ‘vases as pottery to becoming works of art’ (Dietz, 2010).[i]
The degree of civilization to which any nation, city or province has attained is well indicated by the character of its public museum and the liberality to which they are supported (Goode, 1895, p. 209).
America’s emergent identity is thus profoundly evident in the philosophy that underpinned the system of classification and display of the museum collection in which works of art played a prominent role. Kohlstedt (1988, p. 7) describes Goode as a museum innovator and theorist who ‘wrote several pioneering essays on interpreting the museum object.’ Though Goode had travelled extensively to find new and effective ways to portray scientific and historical knowledge, Kohlstedt (1988, p. 13) reports that he was largely disappointed with what he found, and consequently he developed a ‘democratic’ and educational approach to museum display that would allow the visitor to make discoveries for him or herself thus affirming a egalitarian society than merely amusing or entertaining a privileged elite (Kohlstedt 2005, p. 588).
Goode’s views on museums came at a time when there was conflict between naturalists and a faction of biologists, who espoused Darwin’s evolutionary theory (Kohlstedt 2005, p. 586). As a naturalist Goode firmly believed that,
in dealing with the history of an object, the value of each successive contribution should be estimated in light of the knowledge of the period and not that of the present time (Kohlstedt 1988, p. 7).
In taking on a naturalist approach to scientific display rather than an evolutionist one, the Smithsonian resisted in assuming the archetypal Colonial museum ideology and method of display that was largely developed in England, in particular the typological theory developed by Pitt Rivers.[i]
River’s supposition of evolution, reflective of Imperial attitudes, invariably led the museum visitor to a conclusive, irreversible and cumulative view of human development (Bennett T. 2004, p. 77), whereby the survival of the fittest reigned supreme. Though he adapted elements from Pitt’s method, Goode did not make a firm commitment to this evolutionary theory and he placed the entire American Indian exhibit in cases on casters that could be moved around according to a developmental or functional theory (Kohlstedt 1988, p. 14). Furthermore, his method of display allowed the object to provide a layered meaning that could be configured under various interpretive schemes (Kohlstedt 2005, p. 588). In this way, unlike the particular museum that presented the evolutionary viewpoint whereby objects and their meaning would freeze in time, Goode’s ‘living’ museum could be open to fresh analysis (Alberti 2005, p. 567). Described as a ‘visionary narrative’ by Kohlstedt (2005, p. 500), Goode’s sympathetic organisation which supported a theory of heredity, adaptation and maturation is clearly evident in the underlying ideology that gave meaning to the Smithsonian’s ethnographic collection.
The Ethnographic Collection
Although the Smithsonian’s scientists prepared exhibits for the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia it was largely for pragmatic reasons. In an article published in 1895, Goode made clear distinctions between the purpose of the Exposition and Public museum. According to Kholstedt (2005, p. 599), whilst the World Fair could serve to perpetuate a racist imperial attitude with the invariable display of the colonial subject, Goode saw the museum as the opportunity to increase the boundaries of such knowledge. Furthermore Goode (1895, p. 199) attributed a degree of competition to the Exposition, reflective of the evolutionary theory of development, that was based upon a notion of ‘competitive opportunity,’ whereas Goode’s display of Indian culture revealed a premise of development that supported human agency and choice (Kholstedt 1988, p. 23). Whilst Fink (2007, p. 40) maintains that Goode could not entirely avoid evolutionary theory which did affect the organisation of collections, Kohlstedt (2005, p. 590) argues that he did provide an alternate narrative and ‘orderly way to present natural and humanly constructed objects.’
The ethnographic display showed lifelike indigenous cultural groups arranged in traditional occupations.[i] According to True (1950, p. 17), these exhibits were the most popular and thus reflected ‘a lively and ongoing interest in the original race that populated America.’ Furthermore, whilst the evolutionary display of ethnographic artefacts presented an impression of a culture ‘on its way to inevitable extinction’ (Bennett J. 2003, p. 32), the Smithsonian’s life-like exhibits fostered and promoted cultural heritage. Upon referring to museums that ‘simply served as storehouses of materials,’ Goode (1895, p. 200) avowed that, ‘a finished museum is a dead museum and a dead museum is a useless museum.’
Although, the Mix Stanley collection of portraits was destroyed in the fire, the Smithsonian finally managed to procure George Catlin’s vast ‘Indian Portrait Gallery,’ which was exhibited amongst the ethnographic display. According to Fink (2007, p. 28), Henry had repeatedly attempted to convince Congress to purchase these portraits which captured the ‘moral beauty of the noble warrior.’ In the mid 1800s when he exhibited these portraits in London and Paris, Catlin would present a crusading lecture on the dignity of the Indian (Karp 1964, p. 97). Living amongst Indian tribes and regarding himself as a historian of Indian culture, Catlin’s works of art preserved the history, customs, manners, costumes and landscapes of America’s native people.
I have designed to visit every tribe of Indian’s on the Continent, if my life should be spared; for the purpose of procuring portraits of distinguished Indians, of both sexes in each tribe, painted in their native costume; accompanied with pictures of their villages, domestic habits, games, mysteries, religious ceremonies, etc. with anecdotes, traditions, and history of their respective nations…the result of my labours will doubtless be interesting to future ages.[ii]
True (1946, p. 20) attests that the anthropological display which included Catlin’s gallery allowed for subdivisions of science that could be co-ordinated into a logical body of knowledge. Insights into differentiation in beliefs, customs and arts could also be gained from Catlin’s depictions. In this way, the Smithsonian has been able to promote American ethnology in ways tangible and intangible, such as through the artistic representation that was first initiated by Joseph Henry (True 1946, p. 23).[iii]
Whilst Kohlstedt (2005, p. 595) asserts that the ethnographic display is indicative of ‘fresh historical insights into society and culture whereby the exchange between colonial and provincial outposts is suggestive of a common quest for knowledge,’ it is the inclusion of the Freer Asian Art collection within the museum that best demonstrates the Smithsonian’s ongoing attitude towards such cultural exchange.
In 1905, the Smithsonian accepted the gift of 2000 works of art from Detroit millionaire Charles Lang Freer that would ‘have the power to broaden aesthetic culture and the grace to elevate the human mind’ (Karp 1965, p. 99). With Smithsonian scientists having traced America’s indigenous heritage back to Asia (True 1950, p. 80), the placement of the ‘Oriental’ artefacts next to the ethnographic display had a significant impact upon American artistic identity. The philosophy underpinning Freer’s study based collection was to provide insight into inherent aesthetic characteristics shared by Eastern and Western art. Freer was convinced that the artistic object of any culture could articulate ‘the underlying principles of creative production in soundness of thought and workmanship in artwork of all times and all peoples’ (Freer cited in True 1950, p. 246). In placing these objects within a museum whereby the display stressed interdependence and a universal comprehensiveness (Fink 2007, p. 41), the ethnographic artifacts took their place amongst other objects that were considered to have equally high artistic merit. Furthermore, the Freer Asian collection allowed the young nation to boast an inherent artistic lineage.
In the article of 1895 in which Goode outlines the aims and ambitions of modern museum practice, he identifies the museum of nature and art as one of the most valuable material possessions of a city. Certainly, under the heading Public Appreciation of the Value of Collections (Goode 1895, p. 207), Goode alludes to the aesthetic value of works of art in their capacity to inspire others to produce the same. This principle is best demonstrated through the development of the Print and Graphic Arts Collection.
The Print and Graphic Art Collection
Placed in front of the Hall of Technology, the Graphic Arts display included etchings and prints in various stages of production as well as the tools and methods associated with the practice (Fink 2007, p. 46). With the inclusion of gouges, printing presses, woodblocks and engraving plates, the display emphasised how an artist would use such tools to transform and express an idea into a material result (Fink 2007, p. 34). In spite of the inclusion of tools that signified a technical progress, the manual production of art was clearly shown to come from the hand of the artist, with the continuing emphasis on human endeavour and artistic enterprise.
With craftsmanship being the pedagogic intent of the display, the Smithsonian was enforcing the idea of the museum’s role in the advancement of learning and scientific inquiry. Again, in making a clear distinction between the Exposition and the intent of the Smithsonian, Goode (cited in Ferguson) was adamant that ‘rather than show what goes on in a factory’ the museum would foster aesthetic and even spiritual values. Whilst Fink (2007, p. 45) observes that the Ethnological collection was placed ‘a distance apart from the progressive potential of the technological displays,’ it is likely that Goode wished to distance the scientific practices of the Smithsonian from that of the technical museum that reflected in philosophy and practice, the international exhibitions that gave them birth (Ferguson 1965, p. 46). According to Ferguson, these museums with their focus on the superficial and spectacular did not address the unsolved problems posed by progress and the acceleration towards an ‘undiscriminating mechanisation of humankind’s environment.’[i]
The inclusion of Whistler prints from the Freer Collection into the graphic art display in 1905 provides a provocative addendum to the entire graphic art collection. It was Whistler who inspired Freer’s love of Asian art. Described by Karp (1965, p.100) as having a mocking contempt for Victorian ways, Whistler controversially espoused ‘art for art’s sake’ that could be free from political, social or moral association. At a time when the British Empire was asserting its dominance through industry and in light of the fact that Bolton (2004, p. 206) indicates that Whistler was in fact inspired by Courbet’s Realism, it is likely that his belief in ‘art for art’s sake’ developed in protest to the growing industrialisation of society. Further to this idea, Whistler’s impressionist style embodied the break with the Official Academy Art that was encouraged by the ruling regimes in both France and England.[ii] On the other hand, with Whistler borrowing a concept from Baudelaire that ‘painting was an evocation, a magical operation,’ the Whistler prints would have also presented to the viewer an alternate facet to Koehler’s display of art as a process. Nevertheless, with an emphasis on the key to art being found within the very soul of the artist, this Graphic Art collection saw the Smithsonian realising its original aim – the education and fostering of the American artist.
...it is not true that the only aim of art is pleasure, for pleasure is not an end; it is not true that it has no other aim but itself, for everything sticks together, everything is conjoined, everything has its aim in humanity and nature...Art has the objective of leading us to the knowledge of ourselves...[iii]
[i] Whilst the curator of the graphic art collection Sylvester Koehler (1886-1990) wished to highlight the manual processes of art and convey a sense of the ‘artist as a labourer’ (Fink 2007, p.46), this notion of ‘industry’ seems tied to the Manifesto of Realism as espoused by Courbet. In opposing a collection that would merely ‘dazzle the eye,’ Koehler saw the value in teaching the skills that would foster and develop the artisan rather than the production line worker. In this way Koehler did not see the practice of graphic art as inferior to painting and sculpture that were often placed in a hierarchy above prints and drawings (Fink 2007, p. 46); http://www.siarchives.si.edu/history/exbitis/arts/1893x.jpg
[ii] President Roosevelt convinced the Smithsonian Board of Regents to purchase the Freer Collection along with the Whistler etchings and prints.
[iii] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-65), French socialist, in an interpretation of the Realism of his friend Courbet (cited in Honour & Fleming 2005, p. 668).
[i] The museum became renowned for the life groups created by anthropology curator William Henry Holmes.
[ii] George Catlin, Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs and Conditions of the north American Indians (cited in Archives of American Art Journal, 2002).
[iii] True (1946, p. 22;24) reports that by cultivating an understanding of the ‘Indian’ mind, Smithsonian ethnologists were given access to secret ceremonies and rites never before witnessed by White Men. Henry’s initial vision of creating a visible connection to America’s cultural heritage has led to what is now a comprehensive body of knowledge relating to the American indigenous civilisation.
[i] In an article written in 1895, whilst Goode does acknowledge that the development of the museum did owe much in Great Britain, in particular Ruskin, Owen and Cole. Pitt Rivers does not receive a mention in this section of the article and is instead listed in Goode’s introduction to the article when he refers to a ‘particular class of museum.’
[i] Haviland & Co. developed an innovative lithograph or transfer technique of decoration.
[i] To demonstrate the value placed on portraiture in America to this day, a teaching guide created by the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery in 2009, expounds the importance of ‘reading’ a portrait as if it were a historical document (Appendix H: ‘Reading’ Portraiture – A Guide for Educators).
[ii] According to Dorman (online, Henry Papers Project), the war affected the national network of weather observers, who relied on the mail and telegraph systems and the international exchange system was also disrupted. Most significantly was the ‘number of persons connected with the Institution who had passed away since the beginning of the war’ (Joseph Henry).
[i] Wallach (1998) refers to the Corcoran as ‘a would-be national gallery.’ Established by financier and ‘opportunist’ William Wilson Corcoran in the 1850s, the gallery projected a version of art history that saw American art stemming from the tradition dating back to the ancient Greeks. A Southern sympathizer, Corcoran went into exile in Europe and his gallery was handed over to the Union Army. Upon his return the 1870s the gallery struggled to achieve success on a national level.
[ii] Henry hired Spencer Baird as the natural history curator in 1850 and gave him full responsibility for the management of a ‘National Museum’ collection in 1872.
[iii] Sir Herbert Read (1893-1968), English anarchist, poet, philosopher of modern art (cited in Mayer, 1974).
[iv] Baird’s Dream – The Arts and Industries Building (online exhibit), URL: http://www.siarchives.si.edu/history/exhibits/arts/index.htm
[v] With America’s founding fathers being regarded as ‘the pupils of European Enlightenment,’ Guy offers that ‘disciples tend to learn their lessons a generation behind’ (cited in Howe 1970, p. 48).
Ch 3: The First Phase - The Foundations of Knowledge
This analysis of the first art gallery at the Smithsonian reveals how Henry used visual and metaphorical devices to acclimatize the American public to a more rational view of their world based on scientific principles. In laying down the foundations for new understandings Henry had to create an iconographic program for the museum that would:
i. Establish the Smithsonian as a place of scientific learning.
ii. Reconnect the American public with their cultural heritage that included the indigenous Indian populations and the ideology of the nation born out of Republican idealism.
iii. Unite religious beliefs with scientific theories of nature.
iv. Counteract the moral and social damage caused by Civil War.
In his youth Henry was an enthusiastic amateur actor who organized a theatre company, including writing scripts and directing them. Goode (1897, p. 118) suggests that this early experience may have contributed to the success of the educational rationale that underpinned the display of the first art gallery. Accordingly, this chapter considers the juxtaposition of art and science and nature in terms of the narrative script of the collection. In viewing the exhibition’s iconographic program as three distinct theatrical acts, it becomes apparent that Henry was utilizing artworks and the setting to stimulate the imagination and interest of the viewer and thus prepare the mind for scientific conceptualization.
The Setting
The first art collection was arranged across three rooms in the west wing of the original Smithsonian building – the chapel-like library, a cloistered reading hall and ‘main gallery’ room (fig. 3). The medieval style architecture was intended to evoke the refined atmosphere associated with English colleges and thus emphasized the Smithsonian’s devotion to scholarly activities.[i] Reflective of Romantic philosophy, the reference to gothic revivalism also conveyed new attitudes to history that included non-classical periods in the continuum of time (Brown 2006, p. 197-198). Whilst the architectural design of art museum’s in Europe such as the Louvre in Paris incorporated the Classical ideology of civilization descending from ancient Greece, the Smithsonian in Washington clearly challenged this attitude to ‘primitive’ cultures, human achievement and historical time.[ii]
In this way the Smithsonian could consider the inclusion of American indigenous people into the establishment of the nation’s cultural heritage. The eclectic design of the building embodied the concerns of the socio-political civil war climate and the debate regarding cultural superiority. In the same way the attitudes of freedom and equality upon which the new Republic was founded still resounded in the ideology of the architecture style.
The Enlightenment era of scientific invention raised new theories about God and nature. In colonial America religious cause became intertwined into the justification of revolutionary events (Thompson 2004, p. 41). By the time the Smithsonian building was completed in 1855, the only way that Henry could achieve his scientific vision was through an explicit connection to existing religious and moral belief systems. Indeed, in outlining the noble purpose of the Smithsonian to Congress, scientist and former president John Quincy Adams spoke of a knowledge that made it possible for humankind to improve one’s condition on earth and thereby ‘discover its own nature as the link between heaven and earth’ (cited in Goode 1897, p. 27).Thus the building reflected the stage of scientific perception in America at the time.
Recent study by Bouquet 2000 (cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 195) asserts that ‘the re-incorporation of religious like structures into the secular public space was indicative that the Enlightenment division between Reason and Belief was anything but a clean break.’ Of the incorporation of the ‘native’ culture into the architectural ideology, Bouquet refers to the ‘continuing importance of other-worldly experience such as contact with ancestors of various kinds.’ In this way the traditions of America’s indigenous cultures provided a scientific opportunity into revealing the correlation between creation, nature and the rational explanation for phenomena.
The architectural setting added to the understanding of scientific knowledge and formed what Sophie Forgan (2005, p. 580) describes as the art museum’s visual vocabulary. Further to this the building situated on the boulevard near Capitol Hill not impacted upon the regeneration and identity of the city, it also ‘created a trust in the authoritarian nature of knowledge.’ In concert with the architecture, the art collection which included indigenous artifacts would create a visual link to the esoteric ideas of morality, national glory, history and the natural world. In propelling America toward the ideology of the modern era whereby, according to Nochlin (1971, p. 41) ‘art could provide direct knowledge of reality itself’ and was regarded as a product of the mind comparable with science, Henry could broaden the existing schemata of the American public and facilitate an atmosphere for new discovery and self-knowledge. ‘The more art develops, the more scientific it will be, just as science will become art’ (Flaubert cited in Nochlin 1971, p. 42). Act One began in the Chapel-Library.
Act One – The Library
The role of the artwork against this backdrop may be understood through a consideration of the Classical Etymology and Renaissance Genealogy of the Museum as explained by Findlen, 1989 (cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 24). In this context, Findlen refers to the notion of the museum as epistemological structure, the starting point from which to enter a wide range of philosophical discussions on knowing, perceiving and classifying. The library setting endorsed Henry’s vision for scholarship and collection in the sciences as well his aim to communicate such knowledge through publication. In this way, the chapel like surroundings directly link Henry’s conception to the library at Alexandria (290BCE) which served as a research centre and congregating point for scholars as well as to the monastic ideal of study as an introspective endeavor (Findlen 1989, cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 25; 23).
In keeping with the original intention for the role of art at the Smithsonian that included not only a gallery but also learning studios whereby young American artists study, copy and pursue artistic knowledge, the library held a collection of ‘theoretical, historical, descriptive and critical works on the fine arts’ purchased from George Perkins Marsh in 1849 (see Appendix D, an account of the collection). The Marsh collection was regarded by the Institution as the nucleus to a natural history museum (Goode 1897, p. 291). In the same way, Findlen (1989) describes the Renaissance Museum as an axis through which practices of categorizing and collecting in the natural world was interwoven with words, images and things (cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 29).
With woodcuts prints by Durer, etchings by Rembrandt, engravings by Lorraine and drawings by Da Vinci amongst the collection, the aim was to educate the eye and foster the fundamental skills observation. According to Meder (1978, p. 5), the study of drawing is one of the most absorbing and difficult pursuits of knowledge,
…demanding a rich acquaintance with the arts, much personal manual experience of techniques, great powers of observation, a good memory, and as complete a set of references as possible.
It is within this context that the connections between the artist, art and the study of science could be shaped. Indeed, according to Meder (1978, p. 5) it was only in the nineteenth century that scientific evaluations of old-master drawings commenced as part of the study of the education of artists. Fink (2007, p. 12-13) explains that both scientists and artists required a mastery of the technique of drawing, such as in the portrayal of spatial relationships or human anatomy so that the truths hidden in nature could be revealed. Indeed, the use of artwork as a means to make known new discoveries in science is clearly mentioned in Henry’s ‘Programme of Organization for the Smithsonian Institution 1847.’ This program covered the entire scope proposed activities of the Institution (See Appendix E).
Whilst the scholarly aspirations using the metaphor of the library setting is perceptible, the print based collection which included works in Greek, Finnish, Japanese and French also initiates a philosophical consideration of written symbolism, modes and tools of communication and linguistics. This linguistic theme is revisited in the Second Act, as the script moves into the Reading Room.
In closing, whilst complete records of the early collection do not exist, lists of items that the Smithsonian inherited from earlier museums such as the National Institute and Patent Office Building indicate that a group of busts also occupied the Library (Fink 2007, p. 22). Included in this assortment was the bust of Ceres, in porphyritic marble, from Pompeii (fig. 6). In the Middle Ages Ceres stood for the Church, however one wonders if Act One intentionally ends in humorous anecdote. In recalling the exchange between Senator Douglas as described earlier on page 31, Ceres the Greek Goddess of agriculture may indeed have graced the library in the hope that the scholarly pursuits at the Smithsonian would eventually yield so much more than ‘the desire for good potatoes.’
Act Two ~ The Cloisters/Reading Room
The cloistered reading room provided a visual experience that linked the library to the main gallery space. This event built upon the idea of establishing connections to a cultural heritage by introducing the iconography of revolution, republic and the indigenous population. On one side of the room were hung portraits of distinguished American and European men, including military officers, scientists and statesmen (Fink 2007, p. 21). Below these images, casts of antique works and plaster busts of other illustrious individuals sat on plinths that lined one side of the rectangular room.
The portraits of the heroes of the revolution together with the casts and busts were indicative of the existing artistic practices and knowledge of the fledgling nation.[i] Portraits were the mainstay of American art, common to the ‘best-room’ of any American home (Karp 1965, p. 96). There was a common belief that portraits could ‘teach character traits such as leadership and scientific thoughtfulness’ (Leone & Little 1993, cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 367). Further to this, concerning the artistic educational value, the casts and replicas of statuary provided the opportunity to study form, workmanship and technique and thus foster respect for the originals (Wallach 1998, p. 41).
Whilst providing explicit knowledge to the American artist, the display of these pieces also suggests an implicit purpose, one that would conjure up the ideology and Republican idealism upon which the nation was founded. According to Wallach (1998, p. 46), the only way that the American public could acquire the benefits of a higher civilization was through the perusal of casts and reproductions. These items formed the heart and soul of the public art museum and played a key role in influencing an ideal of national character. The tradition of the Republic came from Roman antiquity and in describing the iconographic subtext that underpinned the replica of the bust, civic qualities such as virtue, citizenship, participation and democracy come to the fore. In this way, through the object, Enlightenment ideology could be re-introduced to the public mentality. Furthermore, according to Paine biographer Nelson (2006, p. 118), America’s founding fathers, some of who appeared in the portraits, modeled themselves on classic Roman orators and thus the thematic association to modes of communication and the diffusion of such knowledge becomes a part of the ideological sub-text.
Indeed, presiding over this gallery was a portrait of Francois Pierre Guillame Guizot, a celebrated author who translated the life and writings of George Washington into French. Paper and manuscript are the visual focus of this portrait by Peter Alexander Healy (fig. 8) Amongst the busts was Ferdinand Pettrich’s sculpture of statesman and ‘true republican’ Joel Poinsett (fig. 9) who in 1841 gave a stirring public address on the significance of art for the nation, (cited in Goode 1897, p. 38):
Here the people reign – all power is centered in them…no expense or pains should be spared to inspire them with…a taste for the fine arts…it must originate at the seat of the government and spread from this place over the populous plains and fertile valleys of the land.
Whilst Henry tried to keep the Institution separate from the ‘corrupt’ government as explained earlier on page 29, one can argue that the state of divisive politics that existed in America in the years following Poinsett’s address contributed largely to the lack of a coherent national identity.
The socio-political message is continued on the other side of the Reading Room, where indigenous American portraits sit above cabinets displaying the cultural production of Indian life (fig. 10). The significance of equality is evident with the Indian portraits hung on the same level as those of the distinguished American and European men. They faced those who through noble action contributed to the fabric of American society. In contrast, the Indian portraits revealed an inherent nobility and dignity of character. With veiled references to the war climate now being added to the script, the ‘hang’ in this space evoked a sense of peaceful and civil relations at a time when the very existence of the United States did in fact, in True’s words, ‘hang in the balance’ (1950, p. 180). Further to this metaphor, a copy of the sculpture Justice and Minerva sat at the end of this gallery. The interpretation of this inclusion to the display is manifold and may be reference to (1) civilizing influences; (2) wisdom in the face of the inevitable military action of the states; (3) the fight for just cause such as the commitment of Henry to research native American culture that was in danger of being lost forever; (4) the justification of past fighting between the settlers and Indians, whereby Western expansion meant national progress.
The scholars at the Smithsonian believed that knowledge of the indigenous culture was critical to a full understanding the role of art as an aid to cultural advancement (True1950, p. 241). In fact, in returning to the theme of communication, Smithsonian researchers of linguistics were eventually to discover the importance of decorative art upon the development of writing and that early American hieroglyphics signified the beginnings of a definite art of graphic expression (Goode 1897, p. 382-383). In this way a further connection may be made to the Renaissance genealogy of the museum, whereby initial studies into hieroglyphics by Jesuit missionary Kirchner revealed that these symbols were richly encoded and had the potential to unlock the mysteries of past civilizations (Findlen cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 34).[i]
With a final reference to the etymology of the Museaum, the presence of the bust of Apollo Belvedere, in this room emphasized the direct ties to ancient wisdom and learning in the arts (Findlen cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 26). Similarly, Revolutionary thinkers in America also referred to the natural wisdom of Native American political and socio-cultural philosophy (Nelson 2006, p. 117). This artistic juxtaposition of time and cultural objects that encompassed philosophies of science, art, religion, politics and nature led to a dramatic finale in the gallery room proper, Act Three.
Act 3 ~ The Main Gallery Room
According to Fink (2007, p. 22), the Main Gallery Room displayed 145 portraits of Indians by Charles Bird and 152 paintings of Indian life by John Mix, hung in five tiers on one wall. Also in this room were display cases filled with Native American costumes, war implements, artifacts and objects of indigenous life and nature specimens. This exhibit which combined art, natural history and ethnology served to re-emphasize the connection between nature and science and how a fascination with nature intrigued both the artist and scientist. Through direct observation the truths inherent in nature could thereby be revealed (Fink 2007, p. 14). Whilst the Native American images were of significant ethnological value, they were also considered to have considerable artistic merit. In a report written by Henry in 1852 (Rathburn 1909, p.58), he describes the picture room as containing ‘a very interesting series of portraits, mostly full-size of…North American Indians, with sketches of the scenery of the country they inhabit.’
The Royal Academy style hang of these portraits raises some interesting philosophical consideration of the correlation between scientific and artistic practices. Fink (2007, p. 13) refers to the way in which scientists of the era would focus on the general attributes of a natural form. In the same way the five tier hang reflected the nineteenth- century relationship that art had with scientific representation. In presenting the viewer with a vast landscape the hang of the gallery reflected the opinion of Royal Academy director Joshua Reynolds whereby ‘an artist should regard the invariable and general ideas of nature and avoid being distracted by minute particularities and accidental discrimination’ (cited in Fink 2007, p. 12).
Furthermore, it appears that the hang may have been utilized to demonstrate the extent of the Smithsonian’s interest into the research of the Indigenous populations. In a review of Hinsley’s (1981) account of the emergence of American anthropology, the Wilson Quarterly reveals that it was ‘inspired by moral and religious commitments, bent on constructing a unified science of humanity that would help bring about the future generalized race.’ The five tier hang emphasizes this sense of unity. In drawing together concepts of art, science and nature the picture wall may be read as a metaphor for the belief in human existence stemming from one spiritual Being (Goode1897, p.155). The idea of a Being made visible through the ‘glorious benevolence of nature and the astounding order of the cosmos’ signaled the Enlightenment view of religion whereby the mysteries of the universe could be revealed through science (Nelson 2006, p. 117). In this way Henry conveyed the moral and religious implications of natural philosophy and his vision of science as more than physics and biology (Henry Papers, 2007).
The portraits were largely of indigenous chiefs who visited Washington to transact business with the government. Whilst in the capitol on such business, the gallery became a place of great interest to groups of representatives from various Indian tribes. A report by Henry in 1852 mentions visitors to the gallery recognizing personal acquaintances amongst the likenesses (Rathburn 1909, pp. 62; 58). In this way, the Native American Gallery can be perceived as the central point of a national museum collection (Hassrick 1992, p.26). Both Bird and Stanley’s artwork extolled the beauty and stoic dignity of the Native American’s, often portraying their subjects as ‘heroic warriors, equal in nobility to their Greek and Roman counterparts’ (Slowik 2006, p. 62). According to True (1950, p. 241), in diffusing knowledge, the art collection conveyed that its varied forms were woven into the very history of the American race. Indeed, in commenting upon the subject of the Indian in American landscape, a writer for The Crayon in 1856 links the noble warrior and mythic frontier in a convincing visual metaphor for national identity (See Appendix G, for article).
In allegorical terms, identity as represented by the wall of portraits may be likened metaphorically to the unexplored Western frontier. In describing the viewing behaviours of the public when confronted with the dense tier hang, O’Doherty (1999, p. 16) relates a back and forth movement, the close peering and a retreat ‘at a more judicious distance.’ This strange dance almost sees the viewer enacting out the forward and backward motion that the nation had already encountered when it came to its own advancement and sense of identity! Historically, Western expansion and thus the progress of the nation met opposition from hostile Indian tribes. However, in creating trust amongst the indigenous tribes, Henry’s ‘Indian Gallery’ opened the way to a scientific and organized study of the native cultures, including expeditions into the largely unknown Western lands. In this way, one can consider that the first art collection served to answer the intellectual enquiries of the founder, in his own desire to understand and therefore advance the frontiers of American anthropological knowledge (True 1946, p. 19).
Apart from indigenous visitors, the gallery was also frequented by Union soldiers who were encouraged to ‘visit it as often as their duties would permit’ (Fink 2007, p. 25). Serving as a diversion to the confusion, death and disease that came with the influx of soldiers to the capitol, the art collection could also impart vital information about national heritage at a time when the nation’s inherent identity itself was being questioned on the battlefield. With a copy of The Dying Gaul by John Gott being the central feature to this room, one can appreciate that whilst the statue may refer to the dying race of indigenous warrior, its poignant significance during the time of civil war is extremely powerful.
Whilst the Classical concept of time was concerned with a linear destiny, the Medieval notion of time was cyclic (Bazin1967 cited in Carbonell 2004). With the Gothic Revivalist setting facilitating the accommodation of Indian history into the panorama of time, one considers the legacy of the league of Indian Nations that was formed in the sixteenth century that was established for the ‘purpose of stopping the shedding of human blood by violence and by establishing peace…by means of a constitutional form of government based on peace justice and righteousness (True1950, p. 190).
Whilst the stereograph clearly indicates that the statue is in fact a copy of The Dying Gaul, Fink (2007, p. 23) considers that the effigy could very well have been Gott’s Dying Spartacus which ‘depicted a rebel slave falling upon the Roman he had slain.’ In light of this discussion about the loss of Republican idealism and civil war, Fink’s choice of words is provocative. Indeed, Enlightenment thinkers saw senselessness in war, with their correspondence espousing phrases like ‘the sciences, like the muses should be sisters, and ought to know no distinction of country or government’ (Ewing 2007, p. 251). Henry like Smithson ardently espoused this peaceful fraternity of advancement through science. The civil war brought much interruption to the programs at the Institution and in a similar way True (1950, p. 192) considers what far reaching effects could have sprung from the Indian league of nations had not the white invaders from the sea come to disrupt its workings.
[i] Further to this, Chapter Four demonstrates how this appreciation of the artistic production of the indigenous culture led to a realization of aesthetics in American art.
i. Establish the Smithsonian as a place of scientific learning.
ii. Reconnect the American public with their cultural heritage that included the indigenous Indian populations and the ideology of the nation born out of Republican idealism.
iii. Unite religious beliefs with scientific theories of nature.
iv. Counteract the moral and social damage caused by Civil War.
In his youth Henry was an enthusiastic amateur actor who organized a theatre company, including writing scripts and directing them. Goode (1897, p. 118) suggests that this early experience may have contributed to the success of the educational rationale that underpinned the display of the first art gallery. Accordingly, this chapter considers the juxtaposition of art and science and nature in terms of the narrative script of the collection. In viewing the exhibition’s iconographic program as three distinct theatrical acts, it becomes apparent that Henry was utilizing artworks and the setting to stimulate the imagination and interest of the viewer and thus prepare the mind for scientific conceptualization.
The Setting
The first art collection was arranged across three rooms in the west wing of the original Smithsonian building – the chapel-like library, a cloistered reading hall and ‘main gallery’ room (fig. 3). The medieval style architecture was intended to evoke the refined atmosphere associated with English colleges and thus emphasized the Smithsonian’s devotion to scholarly activities.[i] Reflective of Romantic philosophy, the reference to gothic revivalism also conveyed new attitudes to history that included non-classical periods in the continuum of time (Brown 2006, p. 197-198). Whilst the architectural design of art museum’s in Europe such as the Louvre in Paris incorporated the Classical ideology of civilization descending from ancient Greece, the Smithsonian in Washington clearly challenged this attitude to ‘primitive’ cultures, human achievement and historical time.[ii]
In this way the Smithsonian could consider the inclusion of American indigenous people into the establishment of the nation’s cultural heritage. The eclectic design of the building embodied the concerns of the socio-political civil war climate and the debate regarding cultural superiority. In the same way the attitudes of freedom and equality upon which the new Republic was founded still resounded in the ideology of the architecture style.
The Enlightenment era of scientific invention raised new theories about God and nature. In colonial America religious cause became intertwined into the justification of revolutionary events (Thompson 2004, p. 41). By the time the Smithsonian building was completed in 1855, the only way that Henry could achieve his scientific vision was through an explicit connection to existing religious and moral belief systems. Indeed, in outlining the noble purpose of the Smithsonian to Congress, scientist and former president John Quincy Adams spoke of a knowledge that made it possible for humankind to improve one’s condition on earth and thereby ‘discover its own nature as the link between heaven and earth’ (cited in Goode 1897, p. 27).Thus the building reflected the stage of scientific perception in America at the time.
Recent study by Bouquet 2000 (cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 195) asserts that ‘the re-incorporation of religious like structures into the secular public space was indicative that the Enlightenment division between Reason and Belief was anything but a clean break.’ Of the incorporation of the ‘native’ culture into the architectural ideology, Bouquet refers to the ‘continuing importance of other-worldly experience such as contact with ancestors of various kinds.’ In this way the traditions of America’s indigenous cultures provided a scientific opportunity into revealing the correlation between creation, nature and the rational explanation for phenomena.
The architectural setting added to the understanding of scientific knowledge and formed what Sophie Forgan (2005, p. 580) describes as the art museum’s visual vocabulary. Further to this the building situated on the boulevard near Capitol Hill not impacted upon the regeneration and identity of the city, it also ‘created a trust in the authoritarian nature of knowledge.’ In concert with the architecture, the art collection which included indigenous artifacts would create a visual link to the esoteric ideas of morality, national glory, history and the natural world. In propelling America toward the ideology of the modern era whereby, according to Nochlin (1971, p. 41) ‘art could provide direct knowledge of reality itself’ and was regarded as a product of the mind comparable with science, Henry could broaden the existing schemata of the American public and facilitate an atmosphere for new discovery and self-knowledge. ‘The more art develops, the more scientific it will be, just as science will become art’ (Flaubert cited in Nochlin 1971, p. 42). Act One began in the Chapel-Library.
Act One – The Library
The role of the artwork against this backdrop may be understood through a consideration of the Classical Etymology and Renaissance Genealogy of the Museum as explained by Findlen, 1989 (cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 24). In this context, Findlen refers to the notion of the museum as epistemological structure, the starting point from which to enter a wide range of philosophical discussions on knowing, perceiving and classifying. The library setting endorsed Henry’s vision for scholarship and collection in the sciences as well his aim to communicate such knowledge through publication. In this way, the chapel like surroundings directly link Henry’s conception to the library at Alexandria (290BCE) which served as a research centre and congregating point for scholars as well as to the monastic ideal of study as an introspective endeavor (Findlen 1989, cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 25; 23).
In keeping with the original intention for the role of art at the Smithsonian that included not only a gallery but also learning studios whereby young American artists study, copy and pursue artistic knowledge, the library held a collection of ‘theoretical, historical, descriptive and critical works on the fine arts’ purchased from George Perkins Marsh in 1849 (see Appendix D, an account of the collection). The Marsh collection was regarded by the Institution as the nucleus to a natural history museum (Goode 1897, p. 291). In the same way, Findlen (1989) describes the Renaissance Museum as an axis through which practices of categorizing and collecting in the natural world was interwoven with words, images and things (cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 29).
With woodcuts prints by Durer, etchings by Rembrandt, engravings by Lorraine and drawings by Da Vinci amongst the collection, the aim was to educate the eye and foster the fundamental skills observation. According to Meder (1978, p. 5), the study of drawing is one of the most absorbing and difficult pursuits of knowledge,
…demanding a rich acquaintance with the arts, much personal manual experience of techniques, great powers of observation, a good memory, and as complete a set of references as possible.
It is within this context that the connections between the artist, art and the study of science could be shaped. Indeed, according to Meder (1978, p. 5) it was only in the nineteenth century that scientific evaluations of old-master drawings commenced as part of the study of the education of artists. Fink (2007, p. 12-13) explains that both scientists and artists required a mastery of the technique of drawing, such as in the portrayal of spatial relationships or human anatomy so that the truths hidden in nature could be revealed. Indeed, the use of artwork as a means to make known new discoveries in science is clearly mentioned in Henry’s ‘Programme of Organization for the Smithsonian Institution 1847.’ This program covered the entire scope proposed activities of the Institution (See Appendix E).
Whilst the scholarly aspirations using the metaphor of the library setting is perceptible, the print based collection which included works in Greek, Finnish, Japanese and French also initiates a philosophical consideration of written symbolism, modes and tools of communication and linguistics. This linguistic theme is revisited in the Second Act, as the script moves into the Reading Room.
In closing, whilst complete records of the early collection do not exist, lists of items that the Smithsonian inherited from earlier museums such as the National Institute and Patent Office Building indicate that a group of busts also occupied the Library (Fink 2007, p. 22). Included in this assortment was the bust of Ceres, in porphyritic marble, from Pompeii (fig. 6). In the Middle Ages Ceres stood for the Church, however one wonders if Act One intentionally ends in humorous anecdote. In recalling the exchange between Senator Douglas as described earlier on page 31, Ceres the Greek Goddess of agriculture may indeed have graced the library in the hope that the scholarly pursuits at the Smithsonian would eventually yield so much more than ‘the desire for good potatoes.’
Act Two ~ The Cloisters/Reading Room
The cloistered reading room provided a visual experience that linked the library to the main gallery space. This event built upon the idea of establishing connections to a cultural heritage by introducing the iconography of revolution, republic and the indigenous population. On one side of the room were hung portraits of distinguished American and European men, including military officers, scientists and statesmen (Fink 2007, p. 21). Below these images, casts of antique works and plaster busts of other illustrious individuals sat on plinths that lined one side of the rectangular room.
The portraits of the heroes of the revolution together with the casts and busts were indicative of the existing artistic practices and knowledge of the fledgling nation.[i] Portraits were the mainstay of American art, common to the ‘best-room’ of any American home (Karp 1965, p. 96). There was a common belief that portraits could ‘teach character traits such as leadership and scientific thoughtfulness’ (Leone & Little 1993, cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 367). Further to this, concerning the artistic educational value, the casts and replicas of statuary provided the opportunity to study form, workmanship and technique and thus foster respect for the originals (Wallach 1998, p. 41).
Whilst providing explicit knowledge to the American artist, the display of these pieces also suggests an implicit purpose, one that would conjure up the ideology and Republican idealism upon which the nation was founded. According to Wallach (1998, p. 46), the only way that the American public could acquire the benefits of a higher civilization was through the perusal of casts and reproductions. These items formed the heart and soul of the public art museum and played a key role in influencing an ideal of national character. The tradition of the Republic came from Roman antiquity and in describing the iconographic subtext that underpinned the replica of the bust, civic qualities such as virtue, citizenship, participation and democracy come to the fore. In this way, through the object, Enlightenment ideology could be re-introduced to the public mentality. Furthermore, according to Paine biographer Nelson (2006, p. 118), America’s founding fathers, some of who appeared in the portraits, modeled themselves on classic Roman orators and thus the thematic association to modes of communication and the diffusion of such knowledge becomes a part of the ideological sub-text.
Indeed, presiding over this gallery was a portrait of Francois Pierre Guillame Guizot, a celebrated author who translated the life and writings of George Washington into French. Paper and manuscript are the visual focus of this portrait by Peter Alexander Healy (fig. 8) Amongst the busts was Ferdinand Pettrich’s sculpture of statesman and ‘true republican’ Joel Poinsett (fig. 9) who in 1841 gave a stirring public address on the significance of art for the nation, (cited in Goode 1897, p. 38):
Here the people reign – all power is centered in them…no expense or pains should be spared to inspire them with…a taste for the fine arts…it must originate at the seat of the government and spread from this place over the populous plains and fertile valleys of the land.
Whilst Henry tried to keep the Institution separate from the ‘corrupt’ government as explained earlier on page 29, one can argue that the state of divisive politics that existed in America in the years following Poinsett’s address contributed largely to the lack of a coherent national identity.
The socio-political message is continued on the other side of the Reading Room, where indigenous American portraits sit above cabinets displaying the cultural production of Indian life (fig. 10). The significance of equality is evident with the Indian portraits hung on the same level as those of the distinguished American and European men. They faced those who through noble action contributed to the fabric of American society. In contrast, the Indian portraits revealed an inherent nobility and dignity of character. With veiled references to the war climate now being added to the script, the ‘hang’ in this space evoked a sense of peaceful and civil relations at a time when the very existence of the United States did in fact, in True’s words, ‘hang in the balance’ (1950, p. 180). Further to this metaphor, a copy of the sculpture Justice and Minerva sat at the end of this gallery. The interpretation of this inclusion to the display is manifold and may be reference to (1) civilizing influences; (2) wisdom in the face of the inevitable military action of the states; (3) the fight for just cause such as the commitment of Henry to research native American culture that was in danger of being lost forever; (4) the justification of past fighting between the settlers and Indians, whereby Western expansion meant national progress.
The scholars at the Smithsonian believed that knowledge of the indigenous culture was critical to a full understanding the role of art as an aid to cultural advancement (True1950, p. 241). In fact, in returning to the theme of communication, Smithsonian researchers of linguistics were eventually to discover the importance of decorative art upon the development of writing and that early American hieroglyphics signified the beginnings of a definite art of graphic expression (Goode 1897, p. 382-383). In this way a further connection may be made to the Renaissance genealogy of the museum, whereby initial studies into hieroglyphics by Jesuit missionary Kirchner revealed that these symbols were richly encoded and had the potential to unlock the mysteries of past civilizations (Findlen cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 34).[i]
With a final reference to the etymology of the Museaum, the presence of the bust of Apollo Belvedere, in this room emphasized the direct ties to ancient wisdom and learning in the arts (Findlen cited in Carbonell 2004, p. 26). Similarly, Revolutionary thinkers in America also referred to the natural wisdom of Native American political and socio-cultural philosophy (Nelson 2006, p. 117). This artistic juxtaposition of time and cultural objects that encompassed philosophies of science, art, religion, politics and nature led to a dramatic finale in the gallery room proper, Act Three.
Act 3 ~ The Main Gallery Room
According to Fink (2007, p. 22), the Main Gallery Room displayed 145 portraits of Indians by Charles Bird and 152 paintings of Indian life by John Mix, hung in five tiers on one wall. Also in this room were display cases filled with Native American costumes, war implements, artifacts and objects of indigenous life and nature specimens. This exhibit which combined art, natural history and ethnology served to re-emphasize the connection between nature and science and how a fascination with nature intrigued both the artist and scientist. Through direct observation the truths inherent in nature could thereby be revealed (Fink 2007, p. 14). Whilst the Native American images were of significant ethnological value, they were also considered to have considerable artistic merit. In a report written by Henry in 1852 (Rathburn 1909, p.58), he describes the picture room as containing ‘a very interesting series of portraits, mostly full-size of…North American Indians, with sketches of the scenery of the country they inhabit.’
The Royal Academy style hang of these portraits raises some interesting philosophical consideration of the correlation between scientific and artistic practices. Fink (2007, p. 13) refers to the way in which scientists of the era would focus on the general attributes of a natural form. In the same way the five tier hang reflected the nineteenth- century relationship that art had with scientific representation. In presenting the viewer with a vast landscape the hang of the gallery reflected the opinion of Royal Academy director Joshua Reynolds whereby ‘an artist should regard the invariable and general ideas of nature and avoid being distracted by minute particularities and accidental discrimination’ (cited in Fink 2007, p. 12).
Furthermore, it appears that the hang may have been utilized to demonstrate the extent of the Smithsonian’s interest into the research of the Indigenous populations. In a review of Hinsley’s (1981) account of the emergence of American anthropology, the Wilson Quarterly reveals that it was ‘inspired by moral and religious commitments, bent on constructing a unified science of humanity that would help bring about the future generalized race.’ The five tier hang emphasizes this sense of unity. In drawing together concepts of art, science and nature the picture wall may be read as a metaphor for the belief in human existence stemming from one spiritual Being (Goode1897, p.155). The idea of a Being made visible through the ‘glorious benevolence of nature and the astounding order of the cosmos’ signaled the Enlightenment view of religion whereby the mysteries of the universe could be revealed through science (Nelson 2006, p. 117). In this way Henry conveyed the moral and religious implications of natural philosophy and his vision of science as more than physics and biology (Henry Papers, 2007).
The portraits were largely of indigenous chiefs who visited Washington to transact business with the government. Whilst in the capitol on such business, the gallery became a place of great interest to groups of representatives from various Indian tribes. A report by Henry in 1852 mentions visitors to the gallery recognizing personal acquaintances amongst the likenesses (Rathburn 1909, pp. 62; 58). In this way, the Native American Gallery can be perceived as the central point of a national museum collection (Hassrick 1992, p.26). Both Bird and Stanley’s artwork extolled the beauty and stoic dignity of the Native American’s, often portraying their subjects as ‘heroic warriors, equal in nobility to their Greek and Roman counterparts’ (Slowik 2006, p. 62). According to True (1950, p. 241), in diffusing knowledge, the art collection conveyed that its varied forms were woven into the very history of the American race. Indeed, in commenting upon the subject of the Indian in American landscape, a writer for The Crayon in 1856 links the noble warrior and mythic frontier in a convincing visual metaphor for national identity (See Appendix G, for article).
In allegorical terms, identity as represented by the wall of portraits may be likened metaphorically to the unexplored Western frontier. In describing the viewing behaviours of the public when confronted with the dense tier hang, O’Doherty (1999, p. 16) relates a back and forth movement, the close peering and a retreat ‘at a more judicious distance.’ This strange dance almost sees the viewer enacting out the forward and backward motion that the nation had already encountered when it came to its own advancement and sense of identity! Historically, Western expansion and thus the progress of the nation met opposition from hostile Indian tribes. However, in creating trust amongst the indigenous tribes, Henry’s ‘Indian Gallery’ opened the way to a scientific and organized study of the native cultures, including expeditions into the largely unknown Western lands. In this way, one can consider that the first art collection served to answer the intellectual enquiries of the founder, in his own desire to understand and therefore advance the frontiers of American anthropological knowledge (True 1946, p. 19).
Apart from indigenous visitors, the gallery was also frequented by Union soldiers who were encouraged to ‘visit it as often as their duties would permit’ (Fink 2007, p. 25). Serving as a diversion to the confusion, death and disease that came with the influx of soldiers to the capitol, the art collection could also impart vital information about national heritage at a time when the nation’s inherent identity itself was being questioned on the battlefield. With a copy of The Dying Gaul by John Gott being the central feature to this room, one can appreciate that whilst the statue may refer to the dying race of indigenous warrior, its poignant significance during the time of civil war is extremely powerful.
Whilst the Classical concept of time was concerned with a linear destiny, the Medieval notion of time was cyclic (Bazin1967 cited in Carbonell 2004). With the Gothic Revivalist setting facilitating the accommodation of Indian history into the panorama of time, one considers the legacy of the league of Indian Nations that was formed in the sixteenth century that was established for the ‘purpose of stopping the shedding of human blood by violence and by establishing peace…by means of a constitutional form of government based on peace justice and righteousness (True1950, p. 190).
Whilst the stereograph clearly indicates that the statue is in fact a copy of The Dying Gaul, Fink (2007, p. 23) considers that the effigy could very well have been Gott’s Dying Spartacus which ‘depicted a rebel slave falling upon the Roman he had slain.’ In light of this discussion about the loss of Republican idealism and civil war, Fink’s choice of words is provocative. Indeed, Enlightenment thinkers saw senselessness in war, with their correspondence espousing phrases like ‘the sciences, like the muses should be sisters, and ought to know no distinction of country or government’ (Ewing 2007, p. 251). Henry like Smithson ardently espoused this peaceful fraternity of advancement through science. The civil war brought much interruption to the programs at the Institution and in a similar way True (1950, p. 192) considers what far reaching effects could have sprung from the Indian league of nations had not the white invaders from the sea come to disrupt its workings.
[i] Further to this, Chapter Four demonstrates how this appreciation of the artistic production of the indigenous culture led to a realization of aesthetics in American art.
Ch. 2: Historical Context - Enlightened Visions - Smithson and Henry
I. James Smithson (1765 – 1829)
While introductions to the history of the Smithsonian inevitably begin with a discussion of the English founder, the significance of the bequest is largely attributed to the desire to perpetuate his legacy. Ewing’s biography (2007), however, offers an alternative approach and focuses on Smithson’s involvement in the Enlightenment circles of Europe. She establishes connections with America and proposes an explanation as to why the new nation would have attracted Smithson’s generosity.[i]
Ewing (2007, p. 164) presents Smithson as the archetypical late Man of Reason – ‘a multilingual hub of information, pursuing knowledge in numerous branches of science.’ For example, she asserts that it was most likely that the circles of scientists would have been highly enthusiastic about the many unexplored scientific areas in America that would concern future generations such as its geography and climate; flora and fauna and the variety of native cultures and languages. Certainly, Smithson’s fascination with American anthropology and ethnology is reflected in the underscored marks he apparently made in a guidebook to North America, particularly in regard to accounts of the North American indigenous peoples (Ewing, 2007, p.165). These philosophers of the Enlightenment era believed in a public sphere that would cultivate scientific advancement and therefore society. Central to these aspirations were concepts of freedom and an egalitarian approach to the diffusion of such knowledge (Ewing, 2007, p. 201; p.113).
According to Ewing (2007, p. 302; p. 114), following the disillusioning aftermath of the French Revolution, Smithson and other forward thinkers viewed America as the future, identifying strongly with the American cause. With the American experience involving the winning of a revolution, the reputation of a Utopia was attached to the country and to the scientific mind the young nation was seen as a testing ground for Enlightenment ideals (Gay cited in Howe 1970, p. 45). Gay explains that American philosophers were ‘apt and candid pupils’ of European thinkers and so, ‘utopian visions of liberty and equality became the underpinnings of the new liberal and democratic government’ (Gay 1970, p. 48; Nelson 2006, p. 32). Ewing maintains that the leaders and architects of the American republic, such as Franklin and Jefferson, were in fact scientists themselves who regularly highlighted the role that science could play in societal advancements: ‘Liberty is the great parent of science and virtue…a nation will be great in both, always in proportion, as it is free.’[ii] Accordingly, this paper will demonstrate how these fundamental values are woven throughout the art collection’s development in its promulgation of national identity.
I. Joseph Henry (First Smithsonian Secretary, 1846-1878)
By the early nineteenth century…the citizens of America had entirely repudiated their own founding fathers turning away from the Enlightenment’s optimistic vision of progress…and the admiration for ancient Rome’s republican heroes, in favor of religion, land speculation, bargain corn whiskey…and kaleidoscopes (Nelson 2006, p. 4).
In the midst of civil war and in light of this social-cultural climate, the tasks that the First Secretary of the Smithsonian faced were formidable. According to Ewing (2007, p. 334), the milieu that set in motion the ideals behind Smithson’s bequest had practically vanished. Nonetheless, if Enlightenment figure Benjamin Franklin was regarded as the father of American science, Joseph Henry is acknowledged with carrying his torch. True (1950, p. 296) describes Henry as being fully in sympathy with James Smithson’s ideals. Of scientific knowledge in the area of chemical manipulation Smithson writes:
What we know of it bears so small a proportion of what we are ignorant of; our knowledge in every department of it is so incomplete...that no researches can be undertaken without producing some facts leading to consequences which extend beyond the boundaries of their immediate object (Smithson 1802 cited in True 1946, p. 1).
In considering this statement an analogy may be drawn to the outlook of scientific conceptualisation in America at the time the Smithsonian came into being. According to True (1946, p. viii) science in America was still in its infancy and urgently needed support and co-ordination. In interpreting Smithson’s bequest, Henry bore in mind that Smithson’s interest lay in scientific investigation and therefore his stipulation for the increase and diffusion of knowledge should be within a scientific framework (True, 1946, p. 7)). In meeting these ends Henry saw the Smithsonian promoting scientific progress through publications as a vehicle for putting American science on the map.
Henry is for the most part recognised for this achievement rather than for the conceptual framework that he established for appreciation of the scientific collections displayed by the Smithsonian.[i] According to Goode (1897, p. 312; 318) however, Henry’s foremost concern was in establishing a sound scientific basis for the collections. In a report written by Henry in 1850 (cited in Goode, 1897, p. 313), Henry agreed that ‘a general museum appears to be a necessary establishment at the seat of government of every civilised nation.’ However, in a letter to his friend John Torrey written in 1848, Henry explains that ‘Washington was a pandemonium of all the personifications of evil of the human character.’ This reflection may clarify why Henry wished to keep the Smithsonian separate from political influence.[ii] Nevertheless, True’s claim that a museum would have inevitably risen out of the Smithsonian’s scientific activities and in this way Henry’s influence upon the character of the Smithsonian cannot be underestimated (1946, p. 11).
True (1946, p. 5) maintains that it was fortunate that someone of Henry’s calibre was chosen to shape the destiny of the Smithsonian. Not only did he open up a new era in American science he also made the Smithsonian what he felt the founder wanted it be and thus contributed to the advancement of learning. Furthermore, according to Goode (1847, p. 115), Henry’s commitment to American society came at a formative time when the moral and intellectual welfare of the nation was in need of guidance. Thus, the Smithsonian under Henry’s leadership played a vital role in what True (1946, p. vii) describes as ‘the upward struggle of humankind’ and certainly affirmation of identity may be associated with this determination. In fact similar to a chemical reaction, Smithson’s suggestion of a Smithsonian-like catalyst for the increase and diffusion of knowledge was to have remarkable bearing upon American society (Ewing 2007, p. 304; 140).
Henry decreed that no branch of knowledge should be excluded from attention by the Institution. Indeed, as indicated by Fink (2007, p. 14) a close examination of the first phase of the art collection will uncover how Henry deliberately prepared the mind of the American public to take on certain scientific principles and understandings. In regard to artistic knowledge, Goode (1897, p. 118; 121) reveals that Henry believed that the cultivation of imagination should be a part of liberal education. Furthermore, Henry believed that in order to comprehend abstract scientific principles, understanding the tangible as presented in visual art must come before scientific reasoning can be fully developed. In this way, the meaning of the first art collection may be understood in terms of scientific analogy and thus one may propose that this pedagogy was decisively employed by Henry as the means to the end.
Henry’s view on artistic knowledge may also be discovered in an exchange with Senator Douglas whilst debating the role of the Smithsonian in 1852. Criticised by Douglas for wasting funds on ‘esoteric’ research Henry replied that his criticism may be valid if ‘the highest cravings of the human soul were confined to the desire of good potatoes.’[iii] An experienced teacher, Henry wanted his students develop a way of thinking that would be applicable to the wider world.[iv] As follows, True (1946, p. 3) explains, this knowledge would contribute to the appreciation and pursuit of cultural pursuits. In laying down the foundations for scientific reasoning, the first phase of the art museum therefore reflects an important stage in the development of the nation and anticipates the further evolutionary stage of aesthetic appreciation in which it was maintained that ‘the true, the beautiful...its enabling effect on the character...every part of this complex system of nature is connected with every other...’[v]
[i] Fink (2007, p. xvii; 14) explains that Henry’s policy of publishing original research diffused knowledge and became the modus operandi for the Smithsonian.
[ii] The Papers of Joseph Henry, Published Volumes, online description, vol. 9 1854-1857, 2002, URL: http://www.siarchives.si.edu/history/jhp/papers01.htm
[iii] Henry Papers, online introductory article, Rothenberg (ed), Joseph Henry: Advocate of Basic Research, URL: http://www.siarchives.si.edu/history/jhp/joseph04.htm
[iv] Henry Papers, online introductory article, Rothenberg (ed) Joseph Henry: Educator, URL: http://www.siarchives.si.edu/history/jhp/joseph07.htm
[v] Joseph Henry in Henry Papers, online article, Rosenberg (ed) Joseph Henry: Advocate of Basic Research, loc. cit.
[i] Ewing (2007, p. 154) notes that the abolition of inherited privilege in France in 1790, a result of Enlightenment ideology would have ‘alleviated Smithson’s crisis of identity that had gripped his childhood. Whilst England continued to maintain the superiority of the aristocratic classes, the more desirable new world order was also emulated in America whereby a person’s contribution to society was valued more than pedigree.
[ii] Thomas Jefferson (cited in Ewing 2007, p. 201).
While introductions to the history of the Smithsonian inevitably begin with a discussion of the English founder, the significance of the bequest is largely attributed to the desire to perpetuate his legacy. Ewing’s biography (2007), however, offers an alternative approach and focuses on Smithson’s involvement in the Enlightenment circles of Europe. She establishes connections with America and proposes an explanation as to why the new nation would have attracted Smithson’s generosity.[i]
Ewing (2007, p. 164) presents Smithson as the archetypical late Man of Reason – ‘a multilingual hub of information, pursuing knowledge in numerous branches of science.’ For example, she asserts that it was most likely that the circles of scientists would have been highly enthusiastic about the many unexplored scientific areas in America that would concern future generations such as its geography and climate; flora and fauna and the variety of native cultures and languages. Certainly, Smithson’s fascination with American anthropology and ethnology is reflected in the underscored marks he apparently made in a guidebook to North America, particularly in regard to accounts of the North American indigenous peoples (Ewing, 2007, p.165). These philosophers of the Enlightenment era believed in a public sphere that would cultivate scientific advancement and therefore society. Central to these aspirations were concepts of freedom and an egalitarian approach to the diffusion of such knowledge (Ewing, 2007, p. 201; p.113).
According to Ewing (2007, p. 302; p. 114), following the disillusioning aftermath of the French Revolution, Smithson and other forward thinkers viewed America as the future, identifying strongly with the American cause. With the American experience involving the winning of a revolution, the reputation of a Utopia was attached to the country and to the scientific mind the young nation was seen as a testing ground for Enlightenment ideals (Gay cited in Howe 1970, p. 45). Gay explains that American philosophers were ‘apt and candid pupils’ of European thinkers and so, ‘utopian visions of liberty and equality became the underpinnings of the new liberal and democratic government’ (Gay 1970, p. 48; Nelson 2006, p. 32). Ewing maintains that the leaders and architects of the American republic, such as Franklin and Jefferson, were in fact scientists themselves who regularly highlighted the role that science could play in societal advancements: ‘Liberty is the great parent of science and virtue…a nation will be great in both, always in proportion, as it is free.’[ii] Accordingly, this paper will demonstrate how these fundamental values are woven throughout the art collection’s development in its promulgation of national identity.
I. Joseph Henry (First Smithsonian Secretary, 1846-1878)
By the early nineteenth century…the citizens of America had entirely repudiated their own founding fathers turning away from the Enlightenment’s optimistic vision of progress…and the admiration for ancient Rome’s republican heroes, in favor of religion, land speculation, bargain corn whiskey…and kaleidoscopes (Nelson 2006, p. 4).
In the midst of civil war and in light of this social-cultural climate, the tasks that the First Secretary of the Smithsonian faced were formidable. According to Ewing (2007, p. 334), the milieu that set in motion the ideals behind Smithson’s bequest had practically vanished. Nonetheless, if Enlightenment figure Benjamin Franklin was regarded as the father of American science, Joseph Henry is acknowledged with carrying his torch. True (1950, p. 296) describes Henry as being fully in sympathy with James Smithson’s ideals. Of scientific knowledge in the area of chemical manipulation Smithson writes:
What we know of it bears so small a proportion of what we are ignorant of; our knowledge in every department of it is so incomplete...that no researches can be undertaken without producing some facts leading to consequences which extend beyond the boundaries of their immediate object (Smithson 1802 cited in True 1946, p. 1).
In considering this statement an analogy may be drawn to the outlook of scientific conceptualisation in America at the time the Smithsonian came into being. According to True (1946, p. viii) science in America was still in its infancy and urgently needed support and co-ordination. In interpreting Smithson’s bequest, Henry bore in mind that Smithson’s interest lay in scientific investigation and therefore his stipulation for the increase and diffusion of knowledge should be within a scientific framework (True, 1946, p. 7)). In meeting these ends Henry saw the Smithsonian promoting scientific progress through publications as a vehicle for putting American science on the map.
Henry is for the most part recognised for this achievement rather than for the conceptual framework that he established for appreciation of the scientific collections displayed by the Smithsonian.[i] According to Goode (1897, p. 312; 318) however, Henry’s foremost concern was in establishing a sound scientific basis for the collections. In a report written by Henry in 1850 (cited in Goode, 1897, p. 313), Henry agreed that ‘a general museum appears to be a necessary establishment at the seat of government of every civilised nation.’ However, in a letter to his friend John Torrey written in 1848, Henry explains that ‘Washington was a pandemonium of all the personifications of evil of the human character.’ This reflection may clarify why Henry wished to keep the Smithsonian separate from political influence.[ii] Nevertheless, True’s claim that a museum would have inevitably risen out of the Smithsonian’s scientific activities and in this way Henry’s influence upon the character of the Smithsonian cannot be underestimated (1946, p. 11).
True (1946, p. 5) maintains that it was fortunate that someone of Henry’s calibre was chosen to shape the destiny of the Smithsonian. Not only did he open up a new era in American science he also made the Smithsonian what he felt the founder wanted it be and thus contributed to the advancement of learning. Furthermore, according to Goode (1847, p. 115), Henry’s commitment to American society came at a formative time when the moral and intellectual welfare of the nation was in need of guidance. Thus, the Smithsonian under Henry’s leadership played a vital role in what True (1946, p. vii) describes as ‘the upward struggle of humankind’ and certainly affirmation of identity may be associated with this determination. In fact similar to a chemical reaction, Smithson’s suggestion of a Smithsonian-like catalyst for the increase and diffusion of knowledge was to have remarkable bearing upon American society (Ewing 2007, p. 304; 140).
Henry decreed that no branch of knowledge should be excluded from attention by the Institution. Indeed, as indicated by Fink (2007, p. 14) a close examination of the first phase of the art collection will uncover how Henry deliberately prepared the mind of the American public to take on certain scientific principles and understandings. In regard to artistic knowledge, Goode (1897, p. 118; 121) reveals that Henry believed that the cultivation of imagination should be a part of liberal education. Furthermore, Henry believed that in order to comprehend abstract scientific principles, understanding the tangible as presented in visual art must come before scientific reasoning can be fully developed. In this way, the meaning of the first art collection may be understood in terms of scientific analogy and thus one may propose that this pedagogy was decisively employed by Henry as the means to the end.
Henry’s view on artistic knowledge may also be discovered in an exchange with Senator Douglas whilst debating the role of the Smithsonian in 1852. Criticised by Douglas for wasting funds on ‘esoteric’ research Henry replied that his criticism may be valid if ‘the highest cravings of the human soul were confined to the desire of good potatoes.’[iii] An experienced teacher, Henry wanted his students develop a way of thinking that would be applicable to the wider world.[iv] As follows, True (1946, p. 3) explains, this knowledge would contribute to the appreciation and pursuit of cultural pursuits. In laying down the foundations for scientific reasoning, the first phase of the art museum therefore reflects an important stage in the development of the nation and anticipates the further evolutionary stage of aesthetic appreciation in which it was maintained that ‘the true, the beautiful...its enabling effect on the character...every part of this complex system of nature is connected with every other...’[v]
[i] Fink (2007, p. xvii; 14) explains that Henry’s policy of publishing original research diffused knowledge and became the modus operandi for the Smithsonian.
[ii] The Papers of Joseph Henry, Published Volumes, online description, vol. 9 1854-1857, 2002, URL: http://www.siarchives.si.edu/history/jhp/papers01.htm
[iii] Henry Papers, online introductory article, Rothenberg (ed), Joseph Henry: Advocate of Basic Research, URL: http://www.siarchives.si.edu/history/jhp/joseph04.htm
[iv] Henry Papers, online introductory article, Rothenberg (ed) Joseph Henry: Educator, URL: http://www.siarchives.si.edu/history/jhp/joseph07.htm
[v] Joseph Henry in Henry Papers, online article, Rosenberg (ed) Joseph Henry: Advocate of Basic Research, loc. cit.
[i] Ewing (2007, p. 154) notes that the abolition of inherited privilege in France in 1790, a result of Enlightenment ideology would have ‘alleviated Smithson’s crisis of identity that had gripped his childhood. Whilst England continued to maintain the superiority of the aristocratic classes, the more desirable new world order was also emulated in America whereby a person’s contribution to society was valued more than pedigree.
[ii] Thomas Jefferson (cited in Ewing 2007, p. 201).
Chapter 1: Literature Review
A survey of the literature regarding the art collection at the Smithsonian indicates that A History of the Smithsonian American Art Museum by Marie Louise Fink (2007) is the key existing text on this topic. Fink’s study establishes the early origins of the Smithsonian’s art gallery and through a mainly descriptive rather than theoretical analysis she imparts the historical continuity of the collection in useful detail. Even so, whilst Fink’s investigation does emphasize the distinctiveness of the collection within an institution that was managed by scientists, she largely connects the characteristics of the collection to broader global philosophies rather than drawing upon specific sociological theory and considerations of commonly applied museum practices (Fink 2007, p. xix).
Furthermore, whilst Fink’s detailed descriptions of the growing collection does convey a sense of certain values that were peculiar to the nation during the respective phases of the art museum’s development and the simultaneous national progress, her study does not draw explicit and unequivocal links to the actual scientific or pedagogic theory underpinning the collections and the influence of this scientific framework upon this realization of national identity. Nevertheless, Fink does refer to the universal impact of science upon art and museum practices and how this relationship determined the ‘possibilities for accessions and exhibitions’ (Fink 2007, p. xvi).
The nineteenth-century relationship between art and science will be developed further in Chapter Three when analyzing the first manifestation of the gallery under Secretary Henry.
Other sources consulted include the earliest written history of the Institute’s first half century as produced by Smithsonian scholars (Goode 1897) as well as two hundred year retrospectives, also produced by the Institution (True 1946, 1950). These publications accentuate the Smithsonian’s contribution to scientific endeavours and the ensuing impact of these accomplishments upon the progress and identity of the nation. The essential role of the art within this context is largely overlooked. Webster P. True (Goode 1897, p. 324) reports that the ‘Institution had definitely abandoned all efforts towards an art gallery’ by 1874 and thus, in the same publication, art does not receive a mention in the section entitled ‘Appreciations of the Work of the Smithsonian.’[i] What is more, True (1946, p. 44) maintains that the art gallery remained in a ‘state of arrested development’ until 1906.[ii]
In spite of this, however, what is clear in all these scientific accounts is that works of art did in fact play a specific role in the ethnographic, anthropological and natural history collections and it is around these disciplines that the argument for the emergent national identity and the realization of aesthetics resides. Therefore, whilst Fink refers to the seemingly ‘confused identity’ of the art museum as an entity unto itself, which according to True (1950, p. 239) was ‘completely overshadowed by the all absorbing promotion of science,’ this research project revisits the concept of the art collection within this scientific environment. Incorporated into the ethnographic and anthropological collections, American aboriginal artifacts and portraits and scenes of indigenous life formed the nucleus of the scientific collections throughout the art gallery’s history. Accordingly, this paper re-examines how these art objects contributed to national conceptualization and understanding. In further support of this viewpoint is an article by Peter Hassrick (1992, p. 26) which reflects the view of American artists of the time that this ‘Indian’ artwork should be at the core of a national collection. Aboriginal Americans were likened to Roman warriors and with Rome being the birthplace of Republicanism, indigenous artefacts were therefore considered to be crucial to national identity.
In linking these scientific and artistic domains to the design of nation building, a series of articles in Carbonell (2004) provides interesting debate regarding natural history as the foundation for self-realization, the function of ethnology in nation building and the role of taxonomy in establishing the collective order of a nation.[iii] In this way, when analysing the second phase of the art gallery under Secretary Baird in Chapter Four, the relationship between the narrative goals and the integration of the artistic material within the scientific frameworks may be directly linked to the classification and display systems that Baird’s protégé George Brown Goode developed for the National Museum.[iv] Two articles by Kohlstedt (1988; 2005) provide insight into Goode’s mode of display arranged according to a naturalist rather than evolutionary model. Indeed, according to Fink (2007, p. 29), Baird’s aim was to make the presence of a gallery of art more logically a part of the scientific institution. An article by Christopher Looby, 1987 (cited in Carbonell, 2004), provides a decisive discussion on the connection between the taxonomic construction of a collection and its relationship between the establishment of social and political order. In using these ideas and in emphasizing the place of the artwork within this order, the role of art in ‘laying the foundations of collective life of the nation’ will hence be revealed (Carbonell 2004, p. 126).
In a similar way, Fink (2007, p. 85) attributes the development of national identity to ‘natural laws’ that governed an evolutionary progression stemming from a realization of aesthetics. However, whilst this reflection does follow her chapter on Baird’s National Museum, Fink does not directly link this developmental progression to the scientific understandings that the museum itself created. Therefore, in order to clearly relate this scientific theory to the taxonomy and ordering of Baird’s museum, my analysis will include an evaluation of the Freer Asian collection within this museum and how the inclusion of Asian art further led to this aesthetic appreciation. In point of fact, True’s (1946) account of the Freer collection touches upon the importance of this collection on scientific scholarship as well as aesthetics and thus provides an exceptional insight into of the role of art within the scientific domain, albeit from the typical ethnological stance.
Whilst the impact of the art collection upon the ethnographic, natural history and anthropological understandings is appreciable, its assimilation into the historical science components of the museum also warrants further discussion.[v] With busts, portraits and sculptures being displayed amongst the historical collections, the tangibility of American history and thus the founding ideology of the nation and its emerging identity could be more readily conceptualized. Whilst Edward Alexander (1960) suggests that, in general, the American history museum seemed to lag behind the science and industrial art museum in defining its purpose, this analysis of the role of the art gallery within the Smithsonian will demonstrate that the entire collection within Baird’s National Museum was organized to one consistent plan and that art created for posterity, such as portraits and sculpture, was fundamental to the realization and definition of a National Art Gallery.[vi]
Whilst much of the confusion surrounding the identity of the art museum lies in several name changes and movement between Smithsonian buildings, this uncertainty is also reflective of the larger turmoil America experienced following its independence from England and subsequent civil war.[vii] Hence, the next chapter focuses on the historical background and ideological context for the Smithsonian Institution and its emergent art museum. According to an article by Fink (cited in Marstine, 2006), much of the historical development of the museum may be found in primary sources and these records essentially provide the Smithsonian with a sense of identity. Furthermore, the document already cited demonstrates the importance of these archival materials not only to the institutional characteristics but also to the conception of civic identity and the formation of a national cultural heritage.[viii]
In the article written one year before her history of the Smithsonian Art Museum was published in 2007, Fink indicates that evidence from such archives does reveal that a primary focus on American Art persisted as the underlying continuity of the museum’s collection. In spite of this, however, in the introduction of her history on the Smithsonian American Art Museum this sense of historic continuity is presented as imprecise following ‘a meandering, circuitous path through time and space, wandering literally from one building to another’ (Fink 2007, p. xiv). Despite this literary embellishment, a closer examination of this ‘meandering’ history does see the Smithsonian reinstating an ‘original mission of promoting the nation’s own art and artists’ (Fink 2007, p. xi).[ix]
Methodology
For the purposes of this investigation, I adopt the qualitative methodology similar to that of Fink and refer to archival materials including biographical references to establish the philosophy and ideology that underpinned the vision of the art collection. An examination of these sources reveals the concurrent journey undertaken by the Smithsonian and American nation – a journey that began with a bequest born out of the idealism of the Enlightenment and its negotiation through subsequent Revolution and Civil War to its resurgence as liberal thinking entity. Akin to Fink (2006), Goode (1897, p. 23) also suggests that hidden meaning may be found in Smithson’s will and memoires and therein inevitably lies the ‘genesis of the institution.’ Moreover, Goode maintains that scrupulous thought had been given to the intent of the enlightened initiator which included a ‘rigid construction of his own words.’ Accordingly, Smithson’s biography by Ewing (2007), entitled Science, Revolution and the Birth of the Smithsonian provides the initial backdrop to the historical context.
Following this review, the next chapter examines further the underlying ideology and focuses on the vision of the founding father of the Smithsonian, first secretary Joseph Henry who shaped the destiny of the Institution. Whilst Goode (1897, p. 58) maintains that Baird’s name was also so intricately connected with the story of the Smithsonian that the histories of both secretaries together ‘would form an almost complete record of its operations,’ recent research by the Smithsonian re-examines Henry’s role. Historically, Henry has been presented as wholly disparaging of the idea of museums at the Smithsonian whilst Baird is depicted as the champion of a national museum. However, new insights reveal that ‘no-one influenced the development of the Smithsonian more’ than physicist and educator, Joseph Henry.[x]
With reference to the ‘Henry Papers,’ a project initiated by Smithsonian researchers, these documents compiled from letters and personal writings shed new evidence on the philosophies behind the collections.[xi] According to researchers of the Henry Papers, both Henry and Baird agreed that the Smithsonian should foster research collections but differed over who should take the responsibility for a National museum.[xii] That being said, Chapter Four will clearly demonstrate that Baird and Goode worked along the lines established by Henry. In supporting Fink’s initial claim that the Institution did have a persistent focus on American art and the continuity of the collection, Goode (1897, p. 315) stresses that the farsightedness of both secretaries provided a consistent policy and uninterrupted line of administration. Accordingly, the next chapter will provide a preliminary insight into the developmental phases of the collection as described in Chapters Three and Four as well as substantiating the claim of this paper that far from being in a ‘state of arrested development’ (True 1946, p. 44), the relationship between art and science was largely appreciated and exemplified by the museum practices of the Smithsonian’s scholarly organizers.
[i] Whilst this section focuses largely on mathematical, chemical, biological and ethnographical discoveries, the omission may be partly justified due to the fact that the much of the art collection was lent to the Corcoran Gallery and Library of Congress for safe keeping following a devastating fire in 1865. Nevertheless, by the time the publication was written, new acquisitions had been obtained and were systematically integrated into the scientific and didactic display of the new National Museum (now the Arts and Industries Building).
[ii] This date signals the Harriet Lane Johnson bequest.
[iii] Goldwater 1938, ‘The Development of Ethnological Museums’ (in Carbonell 2004, pp. 133-142); Boas 1887, ‘Museums of Ethnology and Their Classification,’ (ibid, pp. 139-142); Looby 1987, ‘The Constitution of Nature: Taxonomy as Politics in Jefferson, Peale and Bartram’ (ibid, pp. 143-158); Hinsley 1846, ‘Magnificent Intentions: Washington DC and American Anthropology in 1846’ (ibid, pp. 159-171).
[iv] Goode 1895, ‘The Relationships and Responsibilities of Museums’ in Science, vol. 2, no. 34, pp. 197-209. This document outlines Goode’s Principles of Museum Administration as read before the Museums Association at Newcastle-on-Tyne, July 23, 1895.
[v] An article by Edward Alexander (1960) discusses the early historical societies in America run by enthusiastic patriots who wished to preserve America’s revolutionary history. These societies documented the emerging identity of the nation with collections of a civil, literary and ecclesiastical nature. In these contexts, American historical portraits were highly sought after.
[vi] Further to this, True (1950, p. 131;121) states that the purpose of the Smithsonian’s great historical collections, that included heirlooms and relics of the people who ‘planned for the advancement of civil and religious liberty and of art and science,’ was to vitalize the events and personalities of America’s past.
[vii] See Appendix B: Gallery Titles and Building Changes.
[viii] Unfortunately, ‘thirty five thousand letters and reports, including the records of the very founding of the institution and fifty five thousand letters received by the institution’ were destroyed in the fire of 1865 that engulfed the upper west wing of the original Institute building, including the art museum (Ewing 2007, p. 7).
[ix] See Appendix C. Committee report, submitted to the Board of Regents on January 25 1897, containing the recommendations for Fine Arts at the Smithsonian.
[x] Millikan, Historian, cited in Joseph Henry Papers Project, online, URL: www.siarchives.si.edu/history/jhp/project01.htm
[xi] Henry Papers Project initiated in 1966 recognized the nation’s neglect of its scientific heritage, ‘to which Henry made an indispensible contribution.’ Led by Nathan Reingold and later by Marc Rothenberg, researchers collected 136,000 Henry documents and entered them into a database at the Smithsonian Archives. The most important documents were annotated and published in 11 volumes entitled The Papers of Joseph Henry, vol 1-5, 1972-1985; vol 6-11, 1992 -2007. The Joseph Henry Papers Project Overview, URL: http://www.siarchives.si.edu/history/projec01.htm.
[xii] In the grips of civil war, this issue was most contentious, as the Southern states were suspicious of any federal status that the Smithsonian may bear (Dr Seitz 2007, The Joseph Henry Papers Project). That being said, former president John Quincy Adams, son of founding father and second president John Adams, whose viewpoints were similar to that of his illustrious father, maintained high ideals for the bequest and saw the Smithsonian as an opportunity to foster national unity, Goode (1897, p. 41). Fink (2007, p. 84) adds that ‘the carnage of the war underscored the hope that such disunity would never be repeated’ and with its aftermath came a sharpening of national consciousness.
Furthermore, whilst Fink’s detailed descriptions of the growing collection does convey a sense of certain values that were peculiar to the nation during the respective phases of the art museum’s development and the simultaneous national progress, her study does not draw explicit and unequivocal links to the actual scientific or pedagogic theory underpinning the collections and the influence of this scientific framework upon this realization of national identity. Nevertheless, Fink does refer to the universal impact of science upon art and museum practices and how this relationship determined the ‘possibilities for accessions and exhibitions’ (Fink 2007, p. xvi).
The nineteenth-century relationship between art and science will be developed further in Chapter Three when analyzing the first manifestation of the gallery under Secretary Henry.
Other sources consulted include the earliest written history of the Institute’s first half century as produced by Smithsonian scholars (Goode 1897) as well as two hundred year retrospectives, also produced by the Institution (True 1946, 1950). These publications accentuate the Smithsonian’s contribution to scientific endeavours and the ensuing impact of these accomplishments upon the progress and identity of the nation. The essential role of the art within this context is largely overlooked. Webster P. True (Goode 1897, p. 324) reports that the ‘Institution had definitely abandoned all efforts towards an art gallery’ by 1874 and thus, in the same publication, art does not receive a mention in the section entitled ‘Appreciations of the Work of the Smithsonian.’[i] What is more, True (1946, p. 44) maintains that the art gallery remained in a ‘state of arrested development’ until 1906.[ii]
In spite of this, however, what is clear in all these scientific accounts is that works of art did in fact play a specific role in the ethnographic, anthropological and natural history collections and it is around these disciplines that the argument for the emergent national identity and the realization of aesthetics resides. Therefore, whilst Fink refers to the seemingly ‘confused identity’ of the art museum as an entity unto itself, which according to True (1950, p. 239) was ‘completely overshadowed by the all absorbing promotion of science,’ this research project revisits the concept of the art collection within this scientific environment. Incorporated into the ethnographic and anthropological collections, American aboriginal artifacts and portraits and scenes of indigenous life formed the nucleus of the scientific collections throughout the art gallery’s history. Accordingly, this paper re-examines how these art objects contributed to national conceptualization and understanding. In further support of this viewpoint is an article by Peter Hassrick (1992, p. 26) which reflects the view of American artists of the time that this ‘Indian’ artwork should be at the core of a national collection. Aboriginal Americans were likened to Roman warriors and with Rome being the birthplace of Republicanism, indigenous artefacts were therefore considered to be crucial to national identity.
In linking these scientific and artistic domains to the design of nation building, a series of articles in Carbonell (2004) provides interesting debate regarding natural history as the foundation for self-realization, the function of ethnology in nation building and the role of taxonomy in establishing the collective order of a nation.[iii] In this way, when analysing the second phase of the art gallery under Secretary Baird in Chapter Four, the relationship between the narrative goals and the integration of the artistic material within the scientific frameworks may be directly linked to the classification and display systems that Baird’s protégé George Brown Goode developed for the National Museum.[iv] Two articles by Kohlstedt (1988; 2005) provide insight into Goode’s mode of display arranged according to a naturalist rather than evolutionary model. Indeed, according to Fink (2007, p. 29), Baird’s aim was to make the presence of a gallery of art more logically a part of the scientific institution. An article by Christopher Looby, 1987 (cited in Carbonell, 2004), provides a decisive discussion on the connection between the taxonomic construction of a collection and its relationship between the establishment of social and political order. In using these ideas and in emphasizing the place of the artwork within this order, the role of art in ‘laying the foundations of collective life of the nation’ will hence be revealed (Carbonell 2004, p. 126).
In a similar way, Fink (2007, p. 85) attributes the development of national identity to ‘natural laws’ that governed an evolutionary progression stemming from a realization of aesthetics. However, whilst this reflection does follow her chapter on Baird’s National Museum, Fink does not directly link this developmental progression to the scientific understandings that the museum itself created. Therefore, in order to clearly relate this scientific theory to the taxonomy and ordering of Baird’s museum, my analysis will include an evaluation of the Freer Asian collection within this museum and how the inclusion of Asian art further led to this aesthetic appreciation. In point of fact, True’s (1946) account of the Freer collection touches upon the importance of this collection on scientific scholarship as well as aesthetics and thus provides an exceptional insight into of the role of art within the scientific domain, albeit from the typical ethnological stance.
Whilst the impact of the art collection upon the ethnographic, natural history and anthropological understandings is appreciable, its assimilation into the historical science components of the museum also warrants further discussion.[v] With busts, portraits and sculptures being displayed amongst the historical collections, the tangibility of American history and thus the founding ideology of the nation and its emerging identity could be more readily conceptualized. Whilst Edward Alexander (1960) suggests that, in general, the American history museum seemed to lag behind the science and industrial art museum in defining its purpose, this analysis of the role of the art gallery within the Smithsonian will demonstrate that the entire collection within Baird’s National Museum was organized to one consistent plan and that art created for posterity, such as portraits and sculpture, was fundamental to the realization and definition of a National Art Gallery.[vi]
Whilst much of the confusion surrounding the identity of the art museum lies in several name changes and movement between Smithsonian buildings, this uncertainty is also reflective of the larger turmoil America experienced following its independence from England and subsequent civil war.[vii] Hence, the next chapter focuses on the historical background and ideological context for the Smithsonian Institution and its emergent art museum. According to an article by Fink (cited in Marstine, 2006), much of the historical development of the museum may be found in primary sources and these records essentially provide the Smithsonian with a sense of identity. Furthermore, the document already cited demonstrates the importance of these archival materials not only to the institutional characteristics but also to the conception of civic identity and the formation of a national cultural heritage.[viii]
In the article written one year before her history of the Smithsonian Art Museum was published in 2007, Fink indicates that evidence from such archives does reveal that a primary focus on American Art persisted as the underlying continuity of the museum’s collection. In spite of this, however, in the introduction of her history on the Smithsonian American Art Museum this sense of historic continuity is presented as imprecise following ‘a meandering, circuitous path through time and space, wandering literally from one building to another’ (Fink 2007, p. xiv). Despite this literary embellishment, a closer examination of this ‘meandering’ history does see the Smithsonian reinstating an ‘original mission of promoting the nation’s own art and artists’ (Fink 2007, p. xi).[ix]
Methodology
For the purposes of this investigation, I adopt the qualitative methodology similar to that of Fink and refer to archival materials including biographical references to establish the philosophy and ideology that underpinned the vision of the art collection. An examination of these sources reveals the concurrent journey undertaken by the Smithsonian and American nation – a journey that began with a bequest born out of the idealism of the Enlightenment and its negotiation through subsequent Revolution and Civil War to its resurgence as liberal thinking entity. Akin to Fink (2006), Goode (1897, p. 23) also suggests that hidden meaning may be found in Smithson’s will and memoires and therein inevitably lies the ‘genesis of the institution.’ Moreover, Goode maintains that scrupulous thought had been given to the intent of the enlightened initiator which included a ‘rigid construction of his own words.’ Accordingly, Smithson’s biography by Ewing (2007), entitled Science, Revolution and the Birth of the Smithsonian provides the initial backdrop to the historical context.
Following this review, the next chapter examines further the underlying ideology and focuses on the vision of the founding father of the Smithsonian, first secretary Joseph Henry who shaped the destiny of the Institution. Whilst Goode (1897, p. 58) maintains that Baird’s name was also so intricately connected with the story of the Smithsonian that the histories of both secretaries together ‘would form an almost complete record of its operations,’ recent research by the Smithsonian re-examines Henry’s role. Historically, Henry has been presented as wholly disparaging of the idea of museums at the Smithsonian whilst Baird is depicted as the champion of a national museum. However, new insights reveal that ‘no-one influenced the development of the Smithsonian more’ than physicist and educator, Joseph Henry.[x]
With reference to the ‘Henry Papers,’ a project initiated by Smithsonian researchers, these documents compiled from letters and personal writings shed new evidence on the philosophies behind the collections.[xi] According to researchers of the Henry Papers, both Henry and Baird agreed that the Smithsonian should foster research collections but differed over who should take the responsibility for a National museum.[xii] That being said, Chapter Four will clearly demonstrate that Baird and Goode worked along the lines established by Henry. In supporting Fink’s initial claim that the Institution did have a persistent focus on American art and the continuity of the collection, Goode (1897, p. 315) stresses that the farsightedness of both secretaries provided a consistent policy and uninterrupted line of administration. Accordingly, the next chapter will provide a preliminary insight into the developmental phases of the collection as described in Chapters Three and Four as well as substantiating the claim of this paper that far from being in a ‘state of arrested development’ (True 1946, p. 44), the relationship between art and science was largely appreciated and exemplified by the museum practices of the Smithsonian’s scholarly organizers.
[i] Whilst this section focuses largely on mathematical, chemical, biological and ethnographical discoveries, the omission may be partly justified due to the fact that the much of the art collection was lent to the Corcoran Gallery and Library of Congress for safe keeping following a devastating fire in 1865. Nevertheless, by the time the publication was written, new acquisitions had been obtained and were systematically integrated into the scientific and didactic display of the new National Museum (now the Arts and Industries Building).
[ii] This date signals the Harriet Lane Johnson bequest.
[iii] Goldwater 1938, ‘The Development of Ethnological Museums’ (in Carbonell 2004, pp. 133-142); Boas 1887, ‘Museums of Ethnology and Their Classification,’ (ibid, pp. 139-142); Looby 1987, ‘The Constitution of Nature: Taxonomy as Politics in Jefferson, Peale and Bartram’ (ibid, pp. 143-158); Hinsley 1846, ‘Magnificent Intentions: Washington DC and American Anthropology in 1846’ (ibid, pp. 159-171).
[iv] Goode 1895, ‘The Relationships and Responsibilities of Museums’ in Science, vol. 2, no. 34, pp. 197-209. This document outlines Goode’s Principles of Museum Administration as read before the Museums Association at Newcastle-on-Tyne, July 23, 1895.
[v] An article by Edward Alexander (1960) discusses the early historical societies in America run by enthusiastic patriots who wished to preserve America’s revolutionary history. These societies documented the emerging identity of the nation with collections of a civil, literary and ecclesiastical nature. In these contexts, American historical portraits were highly sought after.
[vi] Further to this, True (1950, p. 131;121) states that the purpose of the Smithsonian’s great historical collections, that included heirlooms and relics of the people who ‘planned for the advancement of civil and religious liberty and of art and science,’ was to vitalize the events and personalities of America’s past.
[vii] See Appendix B: Gallery Titles and Building Changes.
[viii] Unfortunately, ‘thirty five thousand letters and reports, including the records of the very founding of the institution and fifty five thousand letters received by the institution’ were destroyed in the fire of 1865 that engulfed the upper west wing of the original Institute building, including the art museum (Ewing 2007, p. 7).
[ix] See Appendix C. Committee report, submitted to the Board of Regents on January 25 1897, containing the recommendations for Fine Arts at the Smithsonian.
[x] Millikan, Historian, cited in Joseph Henry Papers Project, online, URL: www.siarchives.si.edu/history/jhp/project01.htm
[xi] Henry Papers Project initiated in 1966 recognized the nation’s neglect of its scientific heritage, ‘to which Henry made an indispensible contribution.’ Led by Nathan Reingold and later by Marc Rothenberg, researchers collected 136,000 Henry documents and entered them into a database at the Smithsonian Archives. The most important documents were annotated and published in 11 volumes entitled The Papers of Joseph Henry, vol 1-5, 1972-1985; vol 6-11, 1992 -2007. The Joseph Henry Papers Project Overview, URL: http://www.siarchives.si.edu/history/projec01.htm.
[xii] In the grips of civil war, this issue was most contentious, as the Southern states were suspicious of any federal status that the Smithsonian may bear (Dr Seitz 2007, The Joseph Henry Papers Project). That being said, former president John Quincy Adams, son of founding father and second president John Adams, whose viewpoints were similar to that of his illustrious father, maintained high ideals for the bequest and saw the Smithsonian as an opportunity to foster national unity, Goode (1897, p. 41). Fink (2007, p. 84) adds that ‘the carnage of the war underscored the hope that such disunity would never be repeated’ and with its aftermath came a sharpening of national consciousness.
Science, Aesthetics and the American Self: the early role of art at The Smithsonian Institution
Abstract
This research project investigates the position of the art gallery within the early history of the Smithsonian Institution and traces its evolution in finally becoming a National Gallery. In light of the Smithsonian’s underpinning philosophical vision, to cultivate ‘the increase and diffusion of knowledge amongst men,’[i] this paper focuses on the role of the art gallery within an educational and research institution which was ‘essentially under the control of scientists’ (Fink 2007, p. xv). Accordingly, the aim of this study is to underline the scientific based pedagogy of the Smithsonian and to determine it how facilitated self-knowledge. In this way, the essay argues that it was the early museum practices of the institution itself that ultimately led to the realization of a national art gallery in the newly independent nation.
In tracing the emerging identity of the art collection within the context of the ideals of the institution, the discourse of this study revolves around three significant stages of the gallery’s development.
I. The impact of scientific knowledge upon the role of an art gallery under the Smithsonian’s spiritual guide, physicist and college professor, First Secretary Joseph Henry (1846-1878).
II. The collection’s evolution and the organisation of the museum under naturalist and collector, Second Secretary Spencer Fullarton Baird (1878-1887) and his protégé George Brown Goode (1851-1896).
III. The cumulative events which triggered the first manifestation of the Smithsonian National Gallery proper in 1909.
In critically analysing the role that the gallery of art played in the early history of the Smithsonian Institution, the study considers the key collections that defined the potential identity of the art museum within the three main developmental stages:
I. The American Indian Gallery and the transferral of the Marsh Print Collection from the National Institute, Patent Office Building and War Department.
II. The addition of Freer Collection of Asian Art and its placement in the US National Museum (Arts & Industries Building).
III. The establishment of the Harriet Lane Johnson and Evans Collections of National American Art.
In analysing the educational rationale supporting the developing collections the philosophical vision of the Smithsonian Institute under its founders becomes further apparent. The evolution of the National Gallery may be understood in terms of scientific ideology and progress; hence its significant influence upon the formation of public art museum practices.
[i] As stipulated in the Last Will and Testament of the Founder of the Smithsonian, James Smithson, October 23 1826. The Smithsonian Archives, History of the Smithsonian, online document URL:http://siarchives.si.edu/history/exhibits/documents/smithsonwill.htm
Introduction
The best blood of England runs through my veins.
On my father’s side I am a Northumberland, on my
Mother’s I am related to kings, but this avails me not;
My name will live on in the memory of men
When the titles of the Northumberlands and Percys
are extinct or forgotten.[i]
With this affirmation of identity in his memoires, James Smithson (1765-1829) penned his last will and made an extraordinary bequest. This study investigates the profound impact that the Smithson bequest had upon the development of American culture and society from the mid nineteenth century. Essentially, the discourse of this research paper revolves around the newly independent nation’s search for national and cultural identity in the post-revolution era at a time when even its sessions in Congress were described by John Quincy Adams as ‘a chaos of confusion.’[ii]
Although literature has assigned a certain aura of mystery to the circumstances and motivations surrounding the gift, Smithson biographer Heather Ewing pinpoints the very first sentences of the will as providing the vital clue to the riddle of the bequest.[iii] Despite the fact that the language of the will has been described as highly irregular and inexact, it is in particular the affirmation of heritage and identity that appears significant to the overall legacy (Ewing 2007, p. 309). With the bequest epitomizing ‘a spark from the last embers of English Enlightenment,’ this research paper reveals how the ‘establishment of an institution for the increase and diffusion of knowledge’ contributed largely to the self-realisation of a society ‘hungry for identity, prestige and progress’ (Ewing 2007, p. 349).
As the Smithsonian grappled with long Congressional debate regarding its very nature, post revolutionary backlash and civil war, the journey to self-realisation as a nation was reflected in the organisation and interests of the institute. This quest for national identity was tied in with the early museum practices of the largely scientific organisation. Accordingly, this paper highlights how the formation of identity of the National Art Museum was conceived alongside the pedagogic intent of the scientific collections and examines how the role of art within these collections allowed for new pathways for understanding the nation as a whole.
Though the effect of national discontent and civil war upon the goals of the Smithsonian may have contributed to what has been regarded as ‘the confused identity of the art museum’ (Fink 2007, p. xi), the lineage of the art collection at the Smithsonian may be understood in three evolving expressions of early nationhood. The first manifestation depicts the art as providing a link to America’s historical and cultural heritage thus enhancing the understanding of an anthropological collection, the second manifestation involves art as representing the progress and achievement of the nation after the Civil War, whilst the third development sees the art finally declaring a national identity with an correlating appreciation of the aesthetic qualities of the nation itself.
In tracing the heredity of the National Art Gallery at the Smithsonian, Chapter One, the Literature Review not only surveys the literature regarding the art collection at the early Smithsonian and the scientific practices of the Institution, but also outlines the methodological approach of this paper based on existing research. Chapter Two, the Historical Context, will establish a clear link between Enlightenment ideology and the scientific character of the Smithsonian Institution. Focussing on how the newly self-determining nation received the Smithson Bequest, the chapter provides an overview of the socio-political climate that surrounded the establishment of the Smithsonian as well as an introduction to the key founding figures – James Smithson (1765-1829) Joseph Henry (1797-1878) - whose visions shaped the formation of the art museum within the Smithsonian Institution.
In presenting James Smithson as a figure of the Enlightenment era, the discussion will highlight how his beliefs in a public sphere whereby scientific process could contribute to the contentment of society were formed in the coffee house society of revolutionary Europe (Ewing 2007, p. 113). The historical background to this socially and politically pivotal time will link America to this philosophical movement as well as provide some correlation to the emerging museum practices that coincided with this school of thought.
Chapter Three explores the first manifestation of the art museum under Henry and places it within the context of the ancient museum, with the collection set amongst a library and cloisters in the original Smithsonian Institute. Comprised largely of print material, busts and portraits, the art collection provided visible links to the nation’s revolutionary and ethnographic heritage as well as to the legacies of civilisation itself. Based on a liberal German ethnographic model, this early gallery reflected the social, political and religious climate of post revolution America. The analysis explains how Henry used artworks to provide cognitive links between nature, art and science. The discussion also measures the supposed civilising effect of the gallery upon Washington society caught up in the throes of Civil War.
Chapter Four surveys the second developmental phase of the art museum reflective of America’s own Enlightenment phase after the chaos and darkness of civil war. Moved to a new location (the Arts and Industries Building) the art objects provided the central pivot around which collections of a scientific nature were organised. Embracing a revival in scientific interest, the National Museum under Baird’s influence saw the incorporation of art objects into the overall display as a very logical part of the scientific museum. The discussion overviews how art was used to promote the success of the nation as it faced the threshold of a new century. With an emphasis on the manual production and processes of art, the additions of the Freer Collection to the art museum signalled the beginnings of the aesthetic appreciation of artwork as opposed to its previous use as historical and ethnographic documentation.
Chapter Five concludes the study into the early formation of the National Art Museum within the Smithsonian with a review of how the interweaving of art into scientific frameworks led to an interest in art and the nation’s desire to affirm its identity through the proper establishment of a National Gallery, featuring artworks by contemporary American artists. Further to this, the significance of these practices in terms of contemporary museological theory is also considered.
As a consequence of his lifelong quest for a proper declaration of identity, Smithson’s extraordinary bequest allowed for a fledging nation to realize and determine its own unique individuality.[iv] The role that the art museum played in this journey of discovery underlines the value of esoteric knowledge that can be gained from the aesthetic experience of artwork. Accordingly, this research paper will confirm that the identity of the art gallery at the Smithsonian existed inside the centre for scientific research all along. Whilst Karp (1965, p. 96) describes the provision for the art gallery within the Smithsonian as vague and unclear, its ultimate purpose as a tool for self-realisation may be best described by First Secretary Joseph Henry:
All knowledge was practical, however abstruse
‘soever it might be to the initiated appear,
and in good time would always vindicate itself
in subserving the practical wants and necessities of humankind.[v]
[i] From the memoires of James Smithson, undated (cited in Ewing 2007, p. 1).
[ii] President John Quincy Adams held Office 1825-1829 (cited in Ewing 2007, p. 329).
[iii] See Appendix A, James Smithson’s Last Will and Testament, Oct 23, 1826.
[iv] Smithson was denied his father’s title and his own birthright as he was born out of wedlock.
[v] Rosenberg (ed), ‘Joseph Henry: Advocate of Basic Research,’ Joseph Henry Papers Project, online, Smithsonian Institution Archives, URL: www.siarchives.si.edu/history/jhp/project01.htm
This research project investigates the position of the art gallery within the early history of the Smithsonian Institution and traces its evolution in finally becoming a National Gallery. In light of the Smithsonian’s underpinning philosophical vision, to cultivate ‘the increase and diffusion of knowledge amongst men,’[i] this paper focuses on the role of the art gallery within an educational and research institution which was ‘essentially under the control of scientists’ (Fink 2007, p. xv). Accordingly, the aim of this study is to underline the scientific based pedagogy of the Smithsonian and to determine it how facilitated self-knowledge. In this way, the essay argues that it was the early museum practices of the institution itself that ultimately led to the realization of a national art gallery in the newly independent nation.
In tracing the emerging identity of the art collection within the context of the ideals of the institution, the discourse of this study revolves around three significant stages of the gallery’s development.
I. The impact of scientific knowledge upon the role of an art gallery under the Smithsonian’s spiritual guide, physicist and college professor, First Secretary Joseph Henry (1846-1878).
II. The collection’s evolution and the organisation of the museum under naturalist and collector, Second Secretary Spencer Fullarton Baird (1878-1887) and his protégé George Brown Goode (1851-1896).
III. The cumulative events which triggered the first manifestation of the Smithsonian National Gallery proper in 1909.
In critically analysing the role that the gallery of art played in the early history of the Smithsonian Institution, the study considers the key collections that defined the potential identity of the art museum within the three main developmental stages:
I. The American Indian Gallery and the transferral of the Marsh Print Collection from the National Institute, Patent Office Building and War Department.
II. The addition of Freer Collection of Asian Art and its placement in the US National Museum (Arts & Industries Building).
III. The establishment of the Harriet Lane Johnson and Evans Collections of National American Art.
In analysing the educational rationale supporting the developing collections the philosophical vision of the Smithsonian Institute under its founders becomes further apparent. The evolution of the National Gallery may be understood in terms of scientific ideology and progress; hence its significant influence upon the formation of public art museum practices.
[i] As stipulated in the Last Will and Testament of the Founder of the Smithsonian, James Smithson, October 23 1826. The Smithsonian Archives, History of the Smithsonian, online document URL:http://siarchives.si.edu/history/exhibits/documents/smithsonwill.htm
Introduction
The best blood of England runs through my veins.
On my father’s side I am a Northumberland, on my
Mother’s I am related to kings, but this avails me not;
My name will live on in the memory of men
When the titles of the Northumberlands and Percys
are extinct or forgotten.[i]
With this affirmation of identity in his memoires, James Smithson (1765-1829) penned his last will and made an extraordinary bequest. This study investigates the profound impact that the Smithson bequest had upon the development of American culture and society from the mid nineteenth century. Essentially, the discourse of this research paper revolves around the newly independent nation’s search for national and cultural identity in the post-revolution era at a time when even its sessions in Congress were described by John Quincy Adams as ‘a chaos of confusion.’[ii]
Although literature has assigned a certain aura of mystery to the circumstances and motivations surrounding the gift, Smithson biographer Heather Ewing pinpoints the very first sentences of the will as providing the vital clue to the riddle of the bequest.[iii] Despite the fact that the language of the will has been described as highly irregular and inexact, it is in particular the affirmation of heritage and identity that appears significant to the overall legacy (Ewing 2007, p. 309). With the bequest epitomizing ‘a spark from the last embers of English Enlightenment,’ this research paper reveals how the ‘establishment of an institution for the increase and diffusion of knowledge’ contributed largely to the self-realisation of a society ‘hungry for identity, prestige and progress’ (Ewing 2007, p. 349).
As the Smithsonian grappled with long Congressional debate regarding its very nature, post revolutionary backlash and civil war, the journey to self-realisation as a nation was reflected in the organisation and interests of the institute. This quest for national identity was tied in with the early museum practices of the largely scientific organisation. Accordingly, this paper highlights how the formation of identity of the National Art Museum was conceived alongside the pedagogic intent of the scientific collections and examines how the role of art within these collections allowed for new pathways for understanding the nation as a whole.
Though the effect of national discontent and civil war upon the goals of the Smithsonian may have contributed to what has been regarded as ‘the confused identity of the art museum’ (Fink 2007, p. xi), the lineage of the art collection at the Smithsonian may be understood in three evolving expressions of early nationhood. The first manifestation depicts the art as providing a link to America’s historical and cultural heritage thus enhancing the understanding of an anthropological collection, the second manifestation involves art as representing the progress and achievement of the nation after the Civil War, whilst the third development sees the art finally declaring a national identity with an correlating appreciation of the aesthetic qualities of the nation itself.
In tracing the heredity of the National Art Gallery at the Smithsonian, Chapter One, the Literature Review not only surveys the literature regarding the art collection at the early Smithsonian and the scientific practices of the Institution, but also outlines the methodological approach of this paper based on existing research. Chapter Two, the Historical Context, will establish a clear link between Enlightenment ideology and the scientific character of the Smithsonian Institution. Focussing on how the newly self-determining nation received the Smithson Bequest, the chapter provides an overview of the socio-political climate that surrounded the establishment of the Smithsonian as well as an introduction to the key founding figures – James Smithson (1765-1829) Joseph Henry (1797-1878) - whose visions shaped the formation of the art museum within the Smithsonian Institution.
In presenting James Smithson as a figure of the Enlightenment era, the discussion will highlight how his beliefs in a public sphere whereby scientific process could contribute to the contentment of society were formed in the coffee house society of revolutionary Europe (Ewing 2007, p. 113). The historical background to this socially and politically pivotal time will link America to this philosophical movement as well as provide some correlation to the emerging museum practices that coincided with this school of thought.
Chapter Three explores the first manifestation of the art museum under Henry and places it within the context of the ancient museum, with the collection set amongst a library and cloisters in the original Smithsonian Institute. Comprised largely of print material, busts and portraits, the art collection provided visible links to the nation’s revolutionary and ethnographic heritage as well as to the legacies of civilisation itself. Based on a liberal German ethnographic model, this early gallery reflected the social, political and religious climate of post revolution America. The analysis explains how Henry used artworks to provide cognitive links between nature, art and science. The discussion also measures the supposed civilising effect of the gallery upon Washington society caught up in the throes of Civil War.
Chapter Four surveys the second developmental phase of the art museum reflective of America’s own Enlightenment phase after the chaos and darkness of civil war. Moved to a new location (the Arts and Industries Building) the art objects provided the central pivot around which collections of a scientific nature were organised. Embracing a revival in scientific interest, the National Museum under Baird’s influence saw the incorporation of art objects into the overall display as a very logical part of the scientific museum. The discussion overviews how art was used to promote the success of the nation as it faced the threshold of a new century. With an emphasis on the manual production and processes of art, the additions of the Freer Collection to the art museum signalled the beginnings of the aesthetic appreciation of artwork as opposed to its previous use as historical and ethnographic documentation.
Chapter Five concludes the study into the early formation of the National Art Museum within the Smithsonian with a review of how the interweaving of art into scientific frameworks led to an interest in art and the nation’s desire to affirm its identity through the proper establishment of a National Gallery, featuring artworks by contemporary American artists. Further to this, the significance of these practices in terms of contemporary museological theory is also considered.
As a consequence of his lifelong quest for a proper declaration of identity, Smithson’s extraordinary bequest allowed for a fledging nation to realize and determine its own unique individuality.[iv] The role that the art museum played in this journey of discovery underlines the value of esoteric knowledge that can be gained from the aesthetic experience of artwork. Accordingly, this research paper will confirm that the identity of the art gallery at the Smithsonian existed inside the centre for scientific research all along. Whilst Karp (1965, p. 96) describes the provision for the art gallery within the Smithsonian as vague and unclear, its ultimate purpose as a tool for self-realisation may be best described by First Secretary Joseph Henry:
All knowledge was practical, however abstruse
‘soever it might be to the initiated appear,
and in good time would always vindicate itself
in subserving the practical wants and necessities of humankind.[v]
[i] From the memoires of James Smithson, undated (cited in Ewing 2007, p. 1).
[ii] President John Quincy Adams held Office 1825-1829 (cited in Ewing 2007, p. 329).
[iii] See Appendix A, James Smithson’s Last Will and Testament, Oct 23, 1826.
[iv] Smithson was denied his father’s title and his own birthright as he was born out of wedlock.
[v] Rosenberg (ed), ‘Joseph Henry: Advocate of Basic Research,’ Joseph Henry Papers Project, online, Smithsonian Institution Archives, URL: www.siarchives.si.edu/history/jhp/project01.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)