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).
No comments:
Post a Comment