In “The Exhibitionary Complex,” Bennett describes the role museums played early in their inception as places though which perception is manipulated and the public, in a sense, controlled through them. Greenblatt presents resonance and wonder which are tools, really, through which the museum is able to influence the audience’s perception of the objects.
Greenblatt’s definition of resonance and wonder are part of the museum effect, how an object, by simply being placed inside the museum, is elevated from being an object of function and décor to being seen as a fine piece of art. Resonance and the cherishing of objects for the cultural history they carry is part of this effect. Wonder also plays into this. Greenblatt’s description of “boutique lighting” can be seen in LACMA’s South Asian and South East Asian galleries where works have been arranged within a dark room with their own, individual spotlights.
The effects of this curating are double sided. While the object focus elevates the works and causes wonder or admiration for the skill and beauty, the cultures of origin are being isolated from the viewer. The dark walls and light create such “awe” that the works begin to feel other worldly. The works are being admired and praised out of our admiration of their aesthetic beauty and we are not given any knowledge or understanding of the culture that produced them.
I would argue that these galleries do not contextualize and justly historicize the works they present as there is little didactic information attached to them. In essence, there is so much wonder created that the viewer is not able to place the work in a cultural context and resonate with them.
I have seen this gallery and must admit I did find the lighting rather annoying. My resonance of the whole gallery is more of the artistic presentation of the objects rather than of the culture I went there to study. Although LACMA is technically an “art” museum, aside from appreciating the pieces as art, there was not else I could gather. To be honest, I actually do not recall anything about the gallery or the pieces other than the lighting. If this were an exhibit on lighting, then I would say LACMA achieved their goal. However it was supposed to be on Southeast Asia and while wonder may have set in during the time I was there, hardly anything resonated with me.
Until we began discussing lighting in class, I had not thought critically about the effect it had on an exhibition. I have not visited the exhibit you mentioned in particular, but I find that this lighting is characteristic of a lot of non-Western exhibitions I have seen around the US, including reputable institutions in DC. I am so used to this that I never go to museums actually expecting to see cultural works in its full context (unless they were to rebuild the shrines and temples that typically house such objects). While they do their best to provide informative blurbs next to the work, I feel that the approach to lighting is disrespectful and othering because it exoticizes and tries to make the culture mysterious. As an international student from Singapore, I am particularly sensitive to this, but at the same time, I get that it is difficult to do justice to another culture if you have never immersed yourself in it and are instead trying to curate it from a distance.
Having been to this section of LACMA as well as historical/religious areas that contain this sort of work in South Asia, I both agree and slightly differ from Bennett’s arguement. On the actual sites that some of this work is taken from where context is given visually, I also think the objects result in wonder. However I feel the wonder is typically not on a single object but the entire space. LACMA’s lighting does create more of a focus on objects over context, but I don’t necessarily think that’s worse than creating a replica environment.
I agree with your points that the museum setting can serve to obstruct an object’s historical relevance through decontextualization. My question, though it’s more for Bennett rather than you, is how can objects be displayed in context? Should all pieces of pottery be put in a giant sandbox so museum goers can dig them out of the dirt themselves for the real archeological experience? Placing an object in any museum (the standard display of a white room with paintings hung on the walls) is decontextualizing, no mater how you light it. What methods can be used to keep the object connected to its history, when it is miles away from the place where it was created and decades past the time it was made for?
I like that you picked a local museum to exemplify Greenblatt’s discussion. Though I personally haven’t gone in to see this exhibit myself (which I should, because it’s in town), this very closely aligns with the concept of presentation using lighting and carefully thought out staging for designer handbags in upscale boutiques. They do it for aesthetic value, and the bags themselves have been made luxury because of the designer name, however, had the same bag been made by someone else, it would not be of the same value. Like you said, with museums and objects, they have been made famous by the curator, but lack cultural context behind the object itself.
I’ve never been to see that exhibit, and from your single photo I can definitely see how organizing the items, and that lighting style puts a big emphasis of the exotic qualities of the artifacts. But, I have the sneaking suspicion that most people seeing that exhibit are thinking the same thing we are (which is “hey, this is weird, and kind of a problem”). And yes, it’s absolutely abusing the wonder affect. Stephanie has a really valid question though – how can objects be displayed in context? I don’t know a lot about South Asian culture, but I also know that a little blurb on a plaque isn’t going to tell me everything I need to know to really appreciate those artifacts for they are, and everything they entail culturally. The resonance of the artifacts, then, can very completely for each viewer. For people that are familiar with the culture this could be a really powerful exhibit, while for others its going to be a problematic room of oddly displayed artifacts that look pretty. Is the solution to not display any of it? To exclude exhibits like this?
I agree that it is difficult to display these works in context given that they are thousands of miles away from their original location. However, this curation is very sensational. These works don’t have much didactic information included. Context can be constructed through the organization of the gallery, placing works from the same century, location, and purpose together. To me memory, this gallery does not do that at all. I have taken a class from the curator where he gave us a tour and the aesthetics of the gallery were central in his curation of the space.