|
[Page 2: Why is the Customer Right? by
Miranda Belarde-Lewis]
Printer-friendly version
The Power of a Name
 Since European contact our artistically fashioned utilitarian artifacts have been increasingly categorized as ''art''. To have our objects labeled as ''art'' by collectors, auction houses and museums, belittles the objects' functions within our community. Although we can fully appreciate fine workmanship, expert manipulation of materials and culturally established aesthetics, we usually do not see our creations as purely art. During the last four hundred years African, Oceanic, Native and all other forms of non-Western material culture have been defined as ''art'' and have suffered a marginalization, being defined as a simplistic ''craft'' or as ''outsider art''. With it, outsider art carries pejorative connotations, categorizing the abnormal, those outside of the mainstream of society and, the mentally ill.
The titles of exhibits have an impact on public and private opinions. Museums are confusing the public and themselves when using the term ''art'' interchangeably with ''artifact''. It is here that one of the biggest divide exists between Native artists, their patrons and museums. Although we appreciate the skill, symmetry, and workmanship of a historic item, Native artists tend to understand that artifacts were not created ''for art's sake''. Each artifact had and has its own specific function in our respective societies. The fact that it is a beautiful piece of work shows that the creator of the piece had pride in their work, loved the person they were making it for and realized it would be a walking billboard (or disclaimer) for their teacher, their tribe, their family and themselves.
Using the word ''art'' in a major museum exhibition title defines the contents as such. This is problematic when the contents of those exhibits are comprised of artifacts. By defining historic works as ''art,'' the museum curators, exhibit designers and the public are assuming that the maker chose and intended to create a thing of beauty, simply because that is what they would be left with. Many persons outside of a Native community do not understand that the pieces our ancestors and predecessors created don't have to be called ''art'' for us to respect them as things of high status. In an ever increasingly politically correct world, museums tried to make up for the centuries of disrespectful field notes and object collecting by elevating the status of our objects to the levels of ''high art''. Although it was in defense of Native cultures, to say that many of our objects were in fact ''fine'' or ''high art,'' created by complex groups of diverse peoples, it may have been fueled by trends and sales in the newly developing Native artifact market, which categorizes the pieces as ''art.''
Museums and cultural institutions have considerable persuasive political power when judging and confirming the validity of art forms and dispelling stereotypes. This is possible because of the accepted position museums have in our societies, as measures of culture. Because museums have an educational role in society, their visitors will in large part believe the assertions put forth by them. Both Native artists and collectors/patrons are eager to be involved with museums, hoping their intimate involvement with the museum will bring opportunities for wealth, prestige, accessions, purchases and publicity.
Lifting Heavy Weight
Two museums come to mind when influence, respect, knowledge and patronage are discussed: The Metropolitan Museum of Art (Met) and the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). Both museums are viewed as authorities presenting accurate information and pride themselves on their vast collections and knowledgeable staff. Both institutions also have very influential patrons. The ways in which patrons interact with Native artists from whom they've collected, and the ways the patrons exert their influence and intentions upon the museums, can have very different outcomes and can serve as precautions or models for others. Following is a comparison of the ways Ralph T. Coe and Charles and Valerie Diker utilize their influence as patrons of Native art and as benefactors of major museums. Mr. Coe and Mr. and Mrs. Diker are not alone; a large number of individuals are patrons to a large number of museums and public institutions. These examples are brought forth because their situations can help to generate further discussion regarding this topic.
Ralph T. Coe has been collecting Native works for over fifty years. With a background in anthropology and conservation, Mr. Coe collected many of his pieces directly from the people who made them, along with their stories. Formerly a curator and director in major museums including the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, Missouri, Mr. Coe's historic and contemporary collections have been the subject of several major exhibitions of Native works which have traveled internationally. Mr. and Mrs. Diker, who are based in New York City, started collecting fine art paintings and made the switch to non-Western art. While they acknowledge cultural significance, their collection focuses on aesthetics. They have relied heavily on art dealers to inform their purchases. Both Mr. Coe and the Dikers are highly regarded as collectors of Native art and artifacts.
Renowned as a leader in curation for its prehistoric, historic and contemporary works, the Met is virtually unquestioned by its national and international audience when presenting masterworks from any part of the globe. Established in 1870, the Met has amassed over two million objects from every part of the world, yet its Native collection was thin compared to the rest of its holdings. That is, until Mr. Coe donated a large portion of his collection to the Met in the early 2000's, and promised his entire collection to the museum. Mr. Coe increased his status as a benefactor to the Met in a significantly greater way than money alone would accomplish. By donating his Native collection, Mr. Coe made it publicly available to the Native and non-Native public, academic researchers and to the curators within the Met. The exhibit ''The Responsive Eye: Ralph T. Coe and the Collecting of American Indian Art'' opened at the Met in the fall of 2003 featuring Native art and artifacts, all from the Coe collection.
The Museum of the American Indian (MAI) was founded by collector George Gustav Heye in 1916 and was absorbed by the Smithsonian Institution in 1989. The majority of the NMAI's 800,000-plus objects have been created by Native peoples. The NMAI is known for its mission of disseminating knowledge about and promoting the present day lifeways, cultures and art of the indigenous peoples of the western hemisphere. Although the NMAI has various benefactors, Charles and Valerie Diker are benefactors with special circumstances. They have contributed undisclosed sums of money toward the completion of the National Museum of the American Indian on the National Mall in Washington D.C.; they now have a vote on the Board of Trustees for NMAI; and they were elected co-chairs of the board of the NMAI's George Gustav Heye Center (GGHC) in New York City.
The exhibition ''First American Art: Selections from the Charles and Valerie Diker Collection'' opened at the GGHC during the summer of 2004. ''First American Art'' exclusively features the Dikers' private collection of Native artifacts; almost all on exhibit are historic, ethnographic pieces. The fact that the NMAI has such a large collection of Native art and artifacts, yet chose to host an exhibit comprised entirely of an outside collection, is fascinating.
The main difference between Mr. Coe and the Dikers is that while the Coe collection started as a private one, a large portion of the collection has already been donated to the Met by Mr. Coe, and the entire collection has been promised as a gift to the museum. To my knowledge, the majority of the Diker collection remains private. Another difference is that ''Responsive Eye'' featured contemporary works alongside historic works. This illustrated the continuity of forms and methods of creation as well as the adaptation of iconography employed by present-day Native artists. A similarity between the shows is that they both featured the word ''art'' in their titles. This problematic term, discussed above, continues to lead to confusion both within and outside the museum.
It should be said that the NMAI would not exist today if it was not for the collecting efforts of George Gustav Heye. Regardless of his dismal outlook for the continuance of Native peoples, their cultures and lifeways, his actions positively impacted both the museum and Native world. This helps to illustrate the fact that collectors and patrons are a necessary component in the art market and have always had close relationships with museums. Private interests and funds provide the means for collections such as the one started by Mr. Heye, which now are very favorably looked upon by the NMAI and its constituents. Whether or not contemporary relationships have questionable ethics is a subject for another discussion and will have varying answers, depending on which angle one approaches the question from.
|
