Objects occupy micro and macro level 'frames'

I’d like to use this week’s response to formulate some thoughts from the exhibit.

What has remained with me since visiting the exhibit was the presentation of objects. Particularly, objects such as bowls, jewelry and the like which are exhibited in glass cases which either stand on the floor, or are mounted to the walls. I think of this as a particular ‘museum mode of object presentation,’ as this is not in any way unique to this exhibit, but rather a common mode of presenting objects in a manner which is both easily visibly, yet still protected from the curiously prying hands of children and inquisitive persons, wanting to feel the object. (Full disclosure: I never feel I’m really able to see something without touching it, and having that particular sensory understanding of the thing. I may come back to this.) This image has, I believe, stayed with me following our excursion, as it is the first time I have observed museum objects with the scholarly gaze enabled by our readings and discussions in this seminar. So, this image of an object (or objects, depending on the creative designers mode of presentation) encased in glass brings forth, for me, the notion of the frame. In my previous response I commented that: This week we return to the presentation of objects which are viewed within a specific frame. This is to say, to me, museums are similar to the picture frame we have previously discussed as determining the “gaze” of individuals and communities. Museums portray objects to convey a particular mode of seeing the objects, and this is executed within a specific (albeit fluid) structure of power dichotomies. If museums, are then considered a macro level frame, glass cases can thus be conceptualized as a micro level, or microcosm, of framing objects. This is to say, objects are framed twice-fold: Once in their immediate presentation in a glass case, with curator notes and specifically-designed colours and lighting to best present the object within the overall design visualization of the exhibit; second, as part of a greater, yet spatio-temporally diverse collection of objects. Not only are objects presented in and of themselves, they are presented as constituting part of a seemingly natural ‘whole,’ i.e. collection.

Again, along the lines of framing discourse, what a previous scholar has argued in our readings, that which is interesting is what is outside the frame. In light of this, I’d to pose just one question for this week. (With a rambling preamble.)

While we have discussed how the exhibit portrays a specific type(s) of “Indian” culture, and the problems therein, including the lack of adequate historical background, what I find interesting is then what is outside the micro/macrocosm of the exhibit/museum. How can (or should?) we (who is we?) theorize objects which were not exhibited. Is there any merit in theorizing what is beyond the frame, if we have already dismissed that which is being framed as part of a hegemonic statist definition of multicultural celebration, reifying power dichotomies of the global South and North, and minimizing the intersections of colonialism, transnational ties and capitalist notions of wealth?