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).
No comments:
Post a Comment