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.
No comments:
Post a Comment