Art or Artefact; how the musEe du Quai Branly presents the objects within
‘Almost nothing displayed in museums was made to be seen in them’ (Vogel, 1991).
This is inherently true for the objects we viewed in the Musée du Quai Branly (MQB) during our trip to Paris in March. As Vogel (1991) states museums provide us with an experience of art and artefacts from around the world that does not actually bear resemblance to what their makers intended. This essay will explore the idea behind the architecture of the MQB, why it is laid out how it is and crucially whether the objects within are displayed as art or artefacts. The museum was the idea of president Jacques Chirac and stemmed from the political ideal to see justice rendered to non-european cultures. It is devoted entirely to the arts and civilisations of the 4 continents and involves recognising the influence their art has had on our cultural heritage (Viatte, 2012). Interestingly the guidebook uses this term ‘art’ rather than artefacts for the objects that are displayed. The MQB is free for those living in the European union under the age of 26, however ‘unfortunately, visitors from the very populations that Chirac’s project was intended to honour are explicitly excluded from this privilege’ (Price, 2010). It made me wonder whether there was a reason for this? The MQB has now become an established fixture of the Parisian landscape, with around 730,000 paying visitors in 2008 (Musee du quai Branly 2009) (Price, 2010). As you approach the MQB the first thing you notice is the uniqueness of the building, Nouvel himself identifies it as ‘unique and strange…not so much a building as a territory’ (cited in Price, 2007, p. 113), with an extremely distinctive interior design. The MQB Is built almost directly next to the Eiffel Tower, one of Paris’ most important structures, Jean Nouvel ensured that it was “specifically incorporated into the architecture” (MQB Exploration Guide, 2014). To get into the gardens to enter the museum you must walk through a gap in a two storey glass screen which was said to be erected by Nouvel to protect the museum from the busyness of the roadway and the city (Lebovics, 2006). Strand (2013) would further this and say the glass is there to separate the museum from the modern city and use it to protect the museum and its collections from the contemporary world outside of it. However at first I felt that from the outside of the glass looking in it was made to look slightly zoo like. From the pavement I felt like the combination of exotic plants, the use of aboriginal patterns on the walls and the stone head in the gardens, almost tried to over present the museum as an anthropological museum and over compensated for the indigenous views. As you enter the museum you are met by a light and spacious area adjoining the reception. You follow a winding path that leads you to the main exhibition area. Walking through the passage to the exhibition is almost like the idea of “walking as a rite of passage” (Price 2007: 132), as if the visitor is moving through a liminal space, leaving the urban streets of Paris outside as they enter this new world. Unlike most tunnels which have light at the end, the main exhibition area is dark, almost like a theatre, although we were told that it is not as dark as it used to be. Nouvel’s statement in press interviews is that he lit the hall to evoke the original settings, the mystery and spirituality, of the worlds of the pieces on display (Lebovics, 2006). Items appeared to be displayed in lit up glass cabinets with limited labelling. We were told by a member of staff that the idea is for people to look at the objects as art, rather than the science and context behind the object. This idea of the objects as art interested me and I took note of how things were displayed to make the visitors see them as art which I will look into more later. Although information has been provided, it has been criticised that there is not enough of the objects history and uses before it reached the western world. The information that is provided for each item is in a carefully designed sequence ; first, captions and descriptions beside each object, then maps, texts and still or moving pictures on the side of the display case and finally multimedia stations situated nearby providing audio and visual backup (Viattte, 2012). Although some information of history and cultural context is available on these labels, the main focus in each exhibition is the visual aesthetic dimension of the cultural objects. The argument is that in experiencing an artefact we gain a better understanding than we would if we were given information as to its context and meaning. The views of the objects in front of us are largely created by those who have chosen the artefact and the way it has been displayed. Vogels show in 1988 called ‘Art/Artefact’ demonstrates how the meaning of the displayed objects comes from the way we frame them. The meaning did not come from the object but from us, or more precisely from the dialectic of what the curator did and what the visitor saw (Lebovics, 2006). As I moved around the exhibition made up of the 4 continents; Oceania, Asia, Africa and America I found that unlike other museums there appeared to be no direction or idea of ‘story telling’ as you moved around. As Ivan Karp (1991) points out, many individuals tend to think of exhibitions as "either a vehicle for display of objects or a space for telling a story." I found it confusing to think that the exhibitions in front of me, were trying to communicate a story of the culture it was representing, yet it was displayed as art work. A favourite quote from Vogel (1991) is that ‘almost nothing displayed in museums was made to be seen in them’. To me this suggests that many of the objects within the museum cannot be defined as art, as they were not created with the intention of being an art object with aesthetic value, but most probably as a form of equipment or object used in daily life. We as visitors will only get to view the objects that have been chosen for us and will only know as much about them as has been given to us. Price (2007) discusses the turbulent relationship between collectors, dealers and scientific experts within the MQB, suggesting that ‘even making quiet decisions about what aspects of history to sweep under the rug… are all part of the power that can be abused’ (p. 16). She mentions that MQB places a significant amount of authority and power in the hands of the collectors and dealers. Their personal input can abuse the system by convincing what objects should be exhibited and the type of contextualisation of an object. This limits us as the viewer to know if the object is indeed what it says it is and whether it should be considered as art. What I find most contradictory is that although claiming to display objects as art, MQB refers to itself as a "cultural institution", therefore we, as viewers, expect to arrive at a museum that displays artefacts from different cultures and educates us about these objects, opposed to supposedly educating us about primitive art. Un-surprisingly the MQB has been largely criticized primarily for the way the objects are displayed. A review from England declared that the museum was presenting its collections in what felt like ‘a dark, confused jungle echoing with the sound of distant tribal drums like the worst malarial European nightmare of the dark continent incorporating all the clichés we should be running headlong from… a catastrophe sunk in a swamp of hubris that makes you want to cry’ (Gilbert cited in Price 2010). As stated by Lebovics (2006), Jean Nouvel wanted to contextualize the Musée du Quai Branly according to his idea of the civilizations it will represent. This is shown through the choice of exotic landscaping, the vegetal walls, the mostly earth colours and the lighting as experienced under a dense forest canopy. His architectural and design decisions emphasize the natural and sensual qualities of the objects represented inside. However I feel there will always be critisicms based on the way these objects are displayed and a continued argument surrounding the idea of art/artefact. As an anthropologist entering a cultural institution, I wish to indulge in these objects and understand their cultural contextualization, whether considered art or artefacts, however for me, the lack of labelling in the displays limits this. I personally feel that the MQB has attempted to display many of their pieces as artwork. I would rather they were seen as artefacts. As previously mentioned, most of these indigenous objects were not created to be seen as art but made for a purpose within their culture. Most importantly for me the museum must allow the public to know that it is not a frame through which the art and culture of the world can be inspected, but a tightly focused ends that shows the visitor a particular point of view. It could hardly be otherwise (Vogel, 1991). Bibliography Lebovics, H. (2006). ‘The Musée du Quai Branly : Art ? Artefact? Spectacle!’ French Politics, Culture and Society, 24(3), pp. 96-110 Price, S., (2007). ‘Paris Primitive: Jacques Chirac’s Museum on the Quai Branly’. University of Chicago Press Price, S. (2010). ‘Return to the Quai Branly’ Museum Anthropology 33(1): 11-21 Strand, D. (2013). ‘Aesthetics, Ethnography, and Exhibition at the Quai Branly’ Symposium: A Quarterly Journal in Modern Literatures, 67:1, 38-46, Viatte, G. (2012). ‘Museum Guidebook’, edited by Rausch, M, Chambonniere, S and Solves, J. Vogel, S. (1991). ‘Always true to the object, in our fashion’ in I. Karp and R. Lavine (eds) Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display All images taken by the author |