maharaja response

This post is in response to the Maharaja exhibit. Unfortunately it wasn’t so much the objects and their opulence that interested me, but rather the Q&A session preceding our seeing the exhibit. I don’t recall the positions of the two individuals who led the discussion, but their discussion of the struggles and debates that arose around the creation and execution of the exhibit closely followed issues the exhibits in the readings faced. Most notably, it was mentioned that the AGO wanted to involve the community in the presentation and formulation of the exhibit, right from the initial stages. This follows with what the Museum for African Art attempted to do in their specific exhibitions. The AGO (specifically the guy in our Q&A session) was particularly adamant in explaining that these community relations wouldn’t just be used and then forgotten, but rather that South Asian community collaborated with would continue to play an important role in the AGO…I think the woman mentioned that a number of individuals had become volunteers and permanent staff members.

I think that contemporary museums really do try to come to terms with the colonialist, hegemonic, power structures and associations their institutions reflect. The woman speaker noted how her work on the language pertaining to the exhibit was really important, as is the language we use generally when describing the South Asian community. It has become pretty clear from the readings and Q&A session that museums understand the political and sometimes highly controversial trajectories of their objects. While steps can be made to actively involve the people an institution such as a museum represents (e.g. community volunteers), these actions won’t amount to much change unless the entire power dynamics within the larger institution are also changed. It seems like a really obvious observation, but if it is then how come we have still not seen such institutional change take place? Relating to the Maharaja exhibit, why is an exhibit about the South Asian community still curated by someone not of South Asian descent? The obvious answer is that clearly this grand institutional change wouldn’t be in the best interests of those who, currently, control the power dynamics and “the better end of the stick”. Still the question remains however, that if museums and other such institutions deeply care about presenting objects in their truest, most authentic form, what is it that holds them back from that realization in the ultimate step of letting the community they present “run the show”? Sorry this commentary it’s not focusing on the objects, per se, but rather the power dynamics behind the presentation of objects.