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).
No comments:
Post a Comment