After reading Boon’s “Why Museums Make Me Sad” it reminded me of the Koh-i-Noor diamond.
The diamond is one of the largest in the world and originally owned by several South Asian dynasties. After colonization it ended up in the hands of the British Empire and is currently part of the Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom. The Jewels are on display at the Tower of London.
Although I have never personally seen exhibitions of the actual stone or images of the stone in India or in England, I am curious as to how the museum interpretations differs. This relates to the readings acknowledgement of the ever present existence of context or lack their of in museums.
Depending on where it was shown, a different story of who the stone really belongs and should belong to is told. It extends the readings point that patrons of museums should be cognizant that what they are seeing in a museum is affected by location, history, politics, curators, and a countless number of other factors. This also brings up the point of pillaging, with various museum objects only existing because of the pillaging that took place from one group over another groups objects. To this day the possession of the jewel by the Crown is controversial, but then it brings up the other question of who it really belongs to. The stone has shifted from region to region across South Asia that it is hard to determine who really holds claim and who has the right to give it context.
Although the Koh-i-Noor supports the argument as to why Boon feels melancholy about museums, the object nor the article doesn’t seem to provide me with any type of solution. It seems to me that it is nearly impossible for a museum to somehow express a point of view when it displays something. I think it is something that should definitely be acknowledged in the hopes of continuos improvements in objectivity.
Its almost like museums should come with a disclaimer before you enter that states that what is being shown is a construction that reflects a specific set of values and ideologies, which are supported by a specific political-economy.
I actually think you’ve hit the nail on the head, Noor. I don’t think Boon thinks there is a solution to the problem of the museum — not only within the museum, but even in attempting to write about the museum. (Which is why his article is so weird!) So you’ve actually done a very discerning job reading the article.
I think this really encapsulates the idea that history is a series of histories — that what one group may view as an event of triumph, another could understand as a tragedy. I appreciate how you mention that we cannot provide a proper solution yet, although we can do our best to acknowledge objects as the center of a multitude of views.
I think this really encapsulates the idea that history is a series of histories — that what one group may view as an event of triumph, another could understand as a tragedy. I appreciate how you mention that we cannot provide a proper solution yet, although we can do our best to acknowledge objects as the center of a multitude of views.
I really enjoyed your example – it fits the idea of pillage really well. I also like cehllyjin’s comment that history is a series of histories, and the fact that different museums will construct a different history of the diamond depending on what they want to portray. Because after all, history itself is a construction isn’t it? There is always a differentiation between the past as it actually was, and the past as we conceive it. Then, depending on the political connotation of the object (the diamond is a particularly politically charged item) depends on how obscure the past about the object is presented to the public. This seems to play right into the tension of labeling – how much information do we give, and what kind of information do we give to still make the item intriguing and engaging to viewers?