Debates on tight rope walking

I would like to focus this commentary on a few specific points brought up during our discussion with our hosts at the AGO. As we've been getting better acquainted with the idea of objects on display over the past few weeks, these exhibits are meant to be authentic representations of the cultures that these objects represent... The issue of authenticity was brought up, as it becomes difficult to know exactly how much the museum is willing to represent...and what they chose to omit. With that said, after care, deliberation and scores of opinions, the museum is representing only in parts, the whole culture on display. The importance of authenticity to me was very telling of this tight rope walk public spaces must continue doing... As they are appealing to a public (or public(s)) they have to reach out to such a wide audience, does that not take away from the authenticity then? I mean to say, that if they are (as we were told) trying to convey something to a wide range of people, and essentially "dumbing" down the exhibit, what does that say to the understanding of what this stuff is, in the eyes of someone from that culture?

Second point I wanted to mention was this heavy emphasis on ART... I thought it was so crucial to remind oneself that we were not in just any museum, this is an ART museum. These objects are meant to be artistic, perhaps not in their intended purpose, but we (as an audience) are suppose to see the artistic "value" of these things... this struck me as kind of odd. I completely understand the importance of looking at the creative, and artistic worth of these pieces of history, but they are just that...piece of history. I feel like I'm contracting myself when I say this because, is not all art, but maybe a part of history, a representation of time and place, and perhaps of people? But this Maharajah exhibit, to me, was a direct link to a people, a culture, time and place of India. It was so much more that just "art" at its core definition. I know Cat is going to bring this up, but when I was sternly corrected by a Sikh man for mistaking the king's thrown for a child's seat... just the way he looked put me into this frame of thought: "this stuff is not JUST art, it may not even be art, it may be a compendium of artifacts... this stuff really means something to India (Indians), good or bad, each object is significant far beyond art... it's living culture"
And this is where I started to think that although we tend to speak of objects as static, perhaps they are more full of life than I had thought before.

We've looked at object history, object value, and a whole host meaningful attributes that objects have... but this exhibit really spoke to me about living history being so far removed from what I read in text day in and day out... this stuff is literally what those texts are talking about... they (objects) embody history and culture simultaneously (and I am just scratching the surface)

I don't really have any two specific questions, but when we engage this stuff in discussion on Wenesday, I am sure we will all have something to ask ourselves about these things we're studying.