Metadata Isn’t Neutral: Addressing Orientalism and Patriarchy in OpenGLAM Art
Metadata doesn’t have to be neutral. In fact, it never can be. This case study proposes ways to acknowledge Orientalism and sexism embedded in museum objects and records.
“Oriental Princess After the Bath,” circa 1866, is a painted print by Miner Kilbourne Kellogg in the collection of the Smithsonian American Art Museum’s Renwick Gallery. It is not famous or well-studied, but its ordinariness underscores how exotic and sexist representations of Middle Eastern and Asian women were common and accepted in mainstream 19th century American culture. Now that these attitudes have been recognized as reductive and harmful, how should this object be represented in the museum and on its website? Is it possible to intervene in these discussions through metadata? This essay suggests some alternatives and additions to the object’s description in an attempt to provide more up-to-date context for viewers.
Above is its image and below is its metadata as presented in the public domain and free of charge on the Smithsonian’s Open Access website.
The problem with “Oriental” in the title
Even without knowing anything about this artist or this particular image, we can bring a critical eye to this record. Let’s start with the problem with the use of “Oriental” in the title.
“Oriental” is an old-fashioned term used since ancient times to describe Asian and Middle Eastern peoples and cultures. It is the Eurocentric opposite of “Occidental,” a dyad that positions Europe and Asia as separate from each other: essentially “us” (Europeans) and “not us” (Asians, including those from West Asia and the Middle East). Edward Said, the scholar who defined our modern understanding of Orientalism and its power dynamics, wrote: “Orientalism is a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between ‘the Orient’ and (most of the time) ‘the Occident.’” He goes on to assert that it is, “…a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.” Because “Oriental” represents this reductive and imperialist worldview, it is no longer considered an accurate or respectful term.
This hand-painted print was created in the late 19th century, in the U.S., where the term “Oriental” and the worldview it represents, had yet to be critically interrogated. The title data is therefore an accurate representation of what the artist called his work at the time of its creation. However, has the presenting institution avoided its responsibility to its visitors in reproducing this derogatory term without comment?
The Smithsonian does make a statement on its website about the content of its collections, but it is buried in its Open Access FAQ:
Please note that the language and terminology used in this collection reflects the context and culture of the time of its creation, and may include culturally sensitive information. As an historical document, its contents may be at odds with contemporary views and terminology. The information within this collection does not reflect the views of the Smithsonian Institution, but is available in its original form to facilitate research. For questions or comments regarding sensitive content, access, and use related to this collection, please contact openaccess@si.edu
It would be nice if there was a way for this statement to be included in or linked from problematic records. General users of the Open Access site won’t necessarily know which items this statement applies to, so a little more context for information such as titles and descriptions for such artworks would help make it clear that the institution is aware of the issue.
This issue could also be addressed in other ways:
- Adding a tag under the “Topic” section in the metadata, such as this Library of Congress Subject Heading:
2. But perhaps the most responsible and powerful solution might be the addition of a note to this record. Something like this:
The Smithsonian recognizes that the language used to describe people of Asian and Middle Eastern descent in the title of this work is outdated and offensive. While this language is represented as originally written for historical and research purposes, the reductive worldview it represents was harmful then and is harmful now. For more information on the history and use of this term, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism
Where racism and sexism intersect
Another omission in the metadata is the intersection of exotification and gender. What was this male painter doing in this royal woman’s boudoir, if only in his imagination? Indeed, imagination is part of the problem. Too often, non-white women are viewed and represented through the doubled lenses of sexism and racism. As with countless representations of white women, as viewers we inadvertently assume the role of male voyeurs, gaining unquestioned access to this private sanctum of the bath. Layered on top of this problematic gaze is exotification, the invocation of a foreign locale further distancing and objectifying the woman represented. Our presence in this space, and the artist’s desire and ability to render it for us, is the product of imperialism, where access by a conquering power to another culture’s seat of power, the royalty, and to even their most private moments is unquestioned. This is not an American woman from the painter’s culture, nor an ordinary woman from the exotified culture, but an “Oriental princess,” baring herself for our titillation. The dehumanizing effects of the objectification of women are magnified through the lens of exoticism.
Nowhere in the metadata is this dynamic even alluded to. In the “Topic” section, the image is described merely as “Figure female\nude” and “Ethnic\Asian Indian.” This ethnic designation may not even be accurate, but to be sure, catalogers of the past were likely unaware of these issues. Such omissions have often been excused in the name of “neutrality” with the claim that such ideas are interpretations and not facts. Contemporary catalogers may have the desire but not the wherewithal, resources, or institutional support to make such changes. The wheels of change often turn very slowly at large institutions. It is interesting to note, however, that the Smithsonian and many other institutions have poured resources into Open Access programs without first redressing the metadata they are making freely accessible. This emphasis on opening up metadata to public view is laudable, but it prioritizes openness over respect for oppressed communities, putting metadata into broader circulation that reproduces harmful and exclusionary language.
What would it mean to incorporate a feminist lens into this metadata?
Again, this could be addressed in the record in a few ways:
- Addition of a “Topic” term such as the Library of Congress Subject Heading:
2. We could also add a Wikidata term:
Wikidata defines this term as a “depiction of girls and women as sexual objects for the pleasure of a male, heterosexual viewer.” It is not yet part of LCSH or the Getty’s Art and Architecture Thesaurus, but its inclusion in Wikidata suggests it is a concept that is widely recognized and understood on the internet. (It’s arguable that this term applies to most of the works depicting women in Western art historical collections, but that is a subject for another post.)
3. As with “Orientalism” it would also be beneficial here to add a note:
The Smithsonian recognizes that the way in which women are depicted in this work is objectifying and dehumanizing. While this view of women may have been accepted at the time of the image’s creation, the reductive worldview it represents was harmful then and is harmful now. For more information on why this image is problematic, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze
Metadata can take a stand
Metadata doesn’t have to be neutral. In fact, as this case study demonstrates, it never can be. We can’t change the attitudes and perspectives represented in artworks and artifacts, but we can prevent them from circulating unquestioned, without additional context. It is more important to respect people — both those depicted in artworks and those who view them — than to let outdated and harmful ideas persist in the name of historical accuracy. Metadata professionals and educators need to help viewers develop a critical eye about what they see, not just perpetuate a narrow view of what culture is and does.
References
- Said, Edward W. Orientalism. Vintage Books, 1978, p. 2–3.
- Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Screen, Autumn, 1975.
Opportunities
This case study introduced a common conundrum in OpenGLAM metadata, regarding biases in the content and omissions in the inherited metadata. We hope this case study and the ones to come give you ideas or starting points for addressing the biases and/or gaps in your metadata. We see these omissions as opportunities — sites for collective, dialogic, and reflexive intervention and addition.
What topics or concerns would you like us to address in future posts?
If you have a topic you’d like to write about in the Metadata Learning & Unlearning series, please get in touch.
Sharon Mizota is a DEI metadata consultant who helps archives, museums, libraries, and media organizations transform and share their metadata to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion in the historical record. She has over ten years of experience managing and creating metadata for arts and culture organizations. She is also an art critic, a recipient of an Andy Warhol Foundation Arts Writers’ Grant, and a coauthor of the award-winning book, Fresh Talk/Daring Gazes: Conversations on Asian American Art. Follow her on Twitter or LinkedIn.
