Magnificent Objects from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Jennifer Quick, ed. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2004. 224 pp.
Reviewed by Regina Richter
The
University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology
boasts an impressive, culturally diverse collection, informing us of
thousands of years of human existence; but did you also know that its
objects are beautiful? In purposefully detaching selected objects from
their anthropological context, senior editor Jennifer Quick takes a
refreshingly new and likely controversial look at the extensive Penn
Museum collection, charting the visually stunning collection in the
museum publication Magnificent Objects from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
The book consists of two parts: a brief, four-page introduction to the
history of the collection by museum research associate Deborah
Olszewski followed by a photographic series of over 200 full-page,
color images of selected objects. With the majority of the book devoted
to images of these objects, organized around the various curatorial
departments found at the Museum, the volume emphasizes the perceived
aesthetic beauty inherent in these objects rather than their cultural
meaning.
The
book hinges on the concept of “magnificent,” defined by Olszewski as
both “intriguing” and “beautiful” (p. 1), and enforces a methodology of
interpretation commonly reserved for fine arts institutions. For the
publication, curators from the various museum departments selected
objects to illustrate the beauty and depth of the Penn Museum
collections, revealing more about how these objects inspire and shape
our understanding of humanity than about the represented cultures in
the collection. Olszewski’s introductory essay wonderfully elucidates
the rich collecting history of the institution, highlighting
museum-sponsored archaeological expeditions, ethnographic fieldwork,
and museum purchases. In choosing to speak to the history of the
collection rather than the cultures represented in it, Olszewski
skillfully imbues the objects with more than just a strict cultural
meaning. These objects, for a variety of reasons, speak to museum
curators, anthropological researchers and archaeologists.
Objects
are arranged in alphabetical order beginning with Africa and ending
with Oceania. Three additional, non-regional sections follow
Oceania—European Archaeology (which includes objects manufactured by
early humans and not Europeans hence its non-regional classification),
Physical Anthropology, and Archives—thereby touching on the entirety of
the Penn Museum collections. The large photographs of the objects
easily dwarf their explanation, emphasizing their beauty. The
alphabetical ordering by region, though arguably logical, has no
intrinsic significance and is essentially arbitrary. The system
effectively prevents any implied meaning from the ordering of objects,
again focusing attention on the aesthetics of the pieces and not their
relative significance.
This
reorganization around the concept of aesthetics of the collection does,
however, create some tension. Though Olszewski defines “magnificent” in
both aesthetic (beauty) and contextual (intrigue) terms, the emphasis
on the image of the object combined with the sparse and varied
explanatory texts accompanying each object—ranging from pure
description to detailed information on ritual, ceremony and social
stratification—deemphasizes the so-called contextual, or “intriguing,”
qualities of the pieces. Likely due to the different emphases within
each of the departmental collections (and perhaps differences in
opinion over an aesthetic approach to cultural material by museum
curators), the varying degrees of information and lack of a standard
approach to the writing in each section can be distracting, essentially
challenging Quick’s attempts to equally manifest the magnificence of
each object.
Also
of concern, the alphabetical organizational method creates some
unintentional and perhaps unwelcome associations among objects, most
specifically between those selected objects in the last regional
section, Oceanic Art, and those found in the first non-regional
section, European Archaeology. Largely rejected now as a method of
classification, the misnomer “primitive art,” also known as traditional
indigenous art or aboriginal art, was applied by scholars in Europe and
the United States to the art of peoples from Africa, Oceania and the
Americas and was based on the conception that somehow these cultures
were less evolved or less civilized than their Western contemporaries.
To place these two sections back-to-back inadvertently and
unfortunately reconnects, a la 19th century evolutionist anthropology, primitive man to contemporary indigenous peoples.
Though the aesthetic approach to material culture remains controversial, Magnificent Objects
does offer a new perspective on an old collection. In the “Archives”
section the Museum’s archival curator makes the point that “Many of the
images in the Museum Archives’ extensive collection of 19th century
photography are colored by the attitudes and mores of Western society
of the time” (p. 198). How do 21st century values and mores influence
our approach to the study of culture today? Quick attempts to
definitively reduce the collection to a baseline, aesthetic form
through visual representation of each object, essentially normalizing
the collection. However, in staging and then arranging sequentially
these selected objects, Quick ignores the fact that our perception of
aesthetics is equally determined and shaped by our 21st century values
and mores.
With
the overall emphasis resting on the aesthetic quality of the objects,
the book asks the reader to approach material culture from a very
different perspective than that normally expected from a museum of
anthropology and archaeology. In placing these objects within a
framework more typical of a fine arts institution, the book’s
organizers attempt to alter how we look at, and consider, cultural
material. However, the disconnect between the images, which invite us
to marvel at the beauty of these objects, and the explanatory text,
still firmly rooted in an anthropological discourse, underscores some
of the problems inherent in such a project and the difficulty in
(re)categorizing archaeological and anthropological material as art.
Regina
Richter is a recent graduate from the masters Program in Museum Studies
at New York University. With colleagues from that program, she
co-authored a review essay on the Darwin exhibition that appeared in Museum Anthropology 30(1).
Her interests include cultural property rights, the categorization of
art, museums, and the construction of national identity.