Musee du qual Branly mostly deal with “primitive” arts — arts from Africa, Aisa, America and Oceania. There are strong controversies about the ways of exhibition this kind of art. Someone argued in the discussion after the visit that the museum seems to believe that those “primitive” arts have to have a mysterious environment or a sense of adventure to attract visitors. Other also mentioned that they felt like they are going to see a waterfall in the museum because it felt so much like a Amazon jungle.
For me, I think the environment itself is great — not too many visitors (perhaps that’s a bad thing for the administrators) and it focus more on the aesthetic aspects rather than the context. However, this does created a burden as I am not so familiar with the subject as well. Some criticized that the the interactive screen besides the object have not direct connection with the subject.
Anyway, it is incredible to see the Boli and all the mask we mentioned in “Scared Arts of Africa” from last semester and that class does gave me some foundations about museum and exhibitions. For example, the level of context shown, the ethnics of showing some of the art work that is not supposed to be shown, and the soundspace created for the audience, and how the curators is telling your a story.
Also, in the reading we did someone mentioned that the American museums are mostly story-oriented whereas for European museums, they are more object-oriented. For now, I personally prefer still story-oriented because I have have a stronger memory for later. However, I think it is also important to remind people (audience and the curators) that museums are not for children but for adults.
From Clifford’s “Quai Branly In Process” To the Mission of Museums
Written in 2006, James Clifford’s “Quai Branly in Process” drawn from personal impressions from opening day of Museum of Quai Branly on June 20–25th as well as other publications at that time. Described the museum as “dynamic, pretentious and raw”, the author begins with the architect Jean Novel’s vision, comments on the motto of the museum “where cultures converse”, the architecture, and details about the exhibition. Overall, he speaks from a relatively neutral perspective and suggests some of the limitations and challenges the new museum is or will be facing. This year is the tenth anniversary of the opening of the Quai Branly Museum, and this paper is aimed to provide a review of Clifford’s criticism by going back to the museum ten years later.
As a “container ship in dry dock”, the Quai Branly Museum’s external environment and the architectural style is being criticized by Clifford harshly, especially the small trees and the incongruous architecture. However, ten years has passed and the trees have grown bigger, acting as a shelter for the strange-looking architecture — so now people from the outside could no long see the structure of the building itself. Clifford also discusses the usefulness of the garden. This problem apparently still remains today: not only it is a barrier to see the building; its functionality is extremely limited. The plantations have not grown in a systematical or aesthetic enough to be appreciated by the public and thus the visitors would rather rest near the river or the large area of grass in front of the Eiffel tower.
It is evident that unlike a traditional museum, the museum of Quai Branly provided a strong theatric experience that still created a dramatic effect today — most of the people would feel amazed once they walked up the hills and enter the main exhibition hall. Nevertheless, the audience would eventually get used to the architecture unless they are lost. Questioning the absence of an explicit transition to different part of the world, Clifford marks the visitors as “explorers.” And this is another crucial drawback of the design by Jean Nouvel. In its description of the river — the passageway in the center of the exhibition floor, he wants the visitors to “discover remarkable places, whether they be imaginary or actually inhabited by some non-European societies”. This sense of discovering is so strong that visitors are confused by which section they are in. For example, as the public walked out of the Oceania area to the Asia section, there are two main routes. The first route goes through a “music box”, which is intended for the audience to “participate a particular musical event and presented in a living context”. With this route, there is a sign labeling Asia stepping outside of the box. However, if the public takes the other route, there is no visual sign or indication showing that the works are in fact created from thousands of miles away from the previous show boxes. No to mentioned that the four programs of the “music box” are from random parts of the world — not only Asia and Oceania but also South America and Africa. Thus, the dominance of architecture over content is not an issue but rather the arrangement and division of sections.
Moreover, imagined as a “bridge museum”, the Quai Branly, in fact, has only a river but no bridge. The museum described as a way to illustrate how different culture has interacted or even affected each other; sadly they have failed to do so (Clifford 4). According to the label of Asia, “the arrangement highlights cultural and trade contacts between peoples, and the mutual influences this produced.” However, there is completely no connection between each show box, and there is no sign of “the transformations that have taken place over time” as Clifford in the article has accentuated. An area or people just jump out with objects such as ornaments and necklace while another area is jumping with masks and aprons. It is foreshadowed on the introduction text; the arts are arranged in a geological order to show the influence of two areas. However, with the modern cloth from Miao in China hanging side by side with the ancient ritual masks from Nepal, the object neither show any sign of connection or influence. Therefore, after a closer look, it is evident that “Là ou dialogue les cultures ” is simply an expression that is not put into action.
As for Clifford’s viewpoint that the small boxes in the African zone are ultimate failures, this is an accurate description. One obvious example would the Boli. Even they tried very hard to create a secret atmosphere for the power object from Bamana Mali inside a box, another one is in the most obvious location in one of the temporary exhibitions, contradicting itself. Moreover, despite some of the boxes that have “special” effects, boxes in the Africa sections are merely coffins burying some of the most amazing work from the Yoruba culture including the Twin memorial figures Ere Ibej in Nigeria. In addition, omitted by Clifford, there is also a problem with unsuitable showcases. Some of the smaller objects are placed in the large container that is extremely awkward and inappropriate, making the museum more like an art gallery — trying to imitate the place on the bookshelf in one’s living room. Nevertheless, the museum devoted almost half of its space to temporary exhibition, giving the curator enough space to create new exhibitions. However, some of the stairs are hard to see, leading people to miss all the incredible materials and information other than the permanent exhibition. (For more information about Boli, Click here.)
According to the former President Chirac in the article, this is a place that “justice to the infinite diversity of cultures, a place that presents another way of looking at the genius of the peoples and civilizations of Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americas.” But from another perspective, the curator is mainly piling up and showing off some of their most famous collections with no history or culture being explained. It is indeed impossible to show the history of the non-European world in this museum, even with the collections from Guimet or the art in the Louvre. For instance, for Asian art, most of them are the only textiles in Quai Branly. The audience cannot, horizontally nor vertical compare any of the work from another region or another time period. Rather than a museum of “primitive” art where the cultures intersect, this is more of a museum of collecting “primitive” art that seemly exotic and foreign through European eyes, structuring 20th-century western knowledge about the rest of the world.
With a closer look, most of the labels, as Clifford has pointed out, provide nothing but the name, for instance the “Komo society mask” with the label: “the making, using and keeping of sacred objects was reserved fro the members of the Kono, a Bamana initiation society for men.” There is no explanation of the allegory of the sublime nor did it provide any information about the about the artist’s ability to govern spiritual energy. Therefore, Clifford made an accurate statement that numerous aspects including the history of culture and the change in meaning have “almost entirely vanished. ”
Viewed as at best “exciting” and at worst “confusing and superficial”, the touch-screen video programs are the only space with much information but still they also received numerous criticisms (Clifford 12). For instance, from where Clifford stands, the video programs are not connected to the context. However, this part of Clifford’s statement is implausible because the videos are rather informative. There are interviews with native people speaking about their heritage. Background information, timeline, pictures and short videos are all complementing the interview and help the viewers to form a bigger picture. However, some of the videos are less credible: there are merely men wearing superficial traditional cloth. And although the physical label is discreet enough, there are too many animations that still distract people from the context. The museum actually made an effort to link the video with the collection with a section called “in the museum”: showing the related object with the topic and the explanation. However, the objects are placed in various areas and thus still hard to find and make the linkage. There is also no information about if the object is still in use, giving you an image but not something you could relate to.
Much are remain un-discussed, for instance, the ethics of holding and exhibiting collections. It is true that the “arts premiers”, the balance between aesthetics and anthropology are not possible to achieve. And one could not underestimate the effort Quai Branly has made to innovate and transform a museum into a “ritual site” and displaying aesthetic aspect of their wonderful collections. The problem remains on how to attract more visitors with this experience even with the advertisement everywhere with the portrait of Jaques Chirac in the subway. While contemporary artists are less willing to show work here, the museum could use the temporary exhibition as a way to answer questions. And with the temporary exhibition on colonial art, the museum directly answer the question of programs on colonial and globalizing forces are indeed receiving encouragement.
For one standpoint, “visitors should not be confused by discrepant messages and context” (Clifford 14), however, the museum should still recognize their limitations and deliver those limitations to their audience. As the object placed in a museum has lost its usefulness or its value as an item for exchange and has become a carrier of meaning and an evidence of humanity, the effort the collection a coherent and meaningful whole is becoming more and more important. And while communicating to the public, if only the aesthetic or the anthropologic value is being transmitted, then the collection lost a part of its meaning. The museum should aim to not only transmit information but also inspire people to think, to act and actively involved, if not possibly physically but at least mentally. To achieve this, the audience should be notified by the gap between research, the actual object and the culture it contains or presents: these are three different domains that cannot be fully disclosed by one another. And the curators should also recognize the gap between the information presented and the information received by the audience. For the museum of Quai Branly, these might be the first few steps to improve in the next ten years.
