After seeing how sensitive Manchester Museum is to the debates surrounding the display of human remains, it was interesting to observe a very different strategy at York Museum. Human skulls are used in two exhibitions, one dealing with how objects are dated and the other about the Roman inhabitants of the area. Temporal distance and interpretation that makes the subject object seems to work against the kinds of re-sensitizing manoeuvres employed by Manchester. Perhaps this will change after the Museum closes for refurbishment later this year as the collection is reassessed. I don't feel able to offer a judgement as to which is more ethically sound, although I tend to agree that discomfort and provocation have their places in a museum context.
York Museum also takes this week's prize for daft taxidermy. I hope this becomes a regular feature.
Whilst watching the BBC pre-Comic Relief programme last night, the role and presentation of human remains was again (not so) subtly raised. The visitors to the camps in Rwanda was taken to a building where the skulls and bones of those subjected to the genocide there were stored. Moving - yes, provocative - yes, and in those circumstances I would suggest entirely appropriate for 'display'.
ReplyDeleteOur desensitization to the real, or to the reality of the origin of museum/gallery artifacts, could (or has) result(ed) in the 'trend' or 'fashion' for consumerist consumption of raw materials, fashion garments or home/interior decorative objects. To what extent are we conditioned to appropriate these items into our own cultures, and how could we, as consumers, influence the collection or display of such items in our cultural institutions?
Could there be a popular uprising, influencing the role and interpretation of our heritage experiences?