The prospect of writing a summary report of this year’s MEG conference is, quite frankly, pretty daunting. The range of papers, the complexity of ideas, the combined wealth of knowledge and experience shared both in the lecture hall and so freely over lunch, pages of notes to try and make sense of … So, what follows is a personal, but I hope adequate, overview of some themes, comments and examples that had a particular resonance for me.
It felt so appropriate to discuss the potential, and pitfalls, for ‘Un-Disciplining the Museum’ in Cambridge. Hosted by the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and held in Emmanuel College, we were surrounded by contrasting (conflicting?) epistemologies, and what can often feel like a divide between academic and professional museum practice, at least to those outside of the university/university museums. But MEG has always aimed to push at the core structures of practice, with its combination of curators and academics putting interdisciplinary conversations at the centre of its discussions. What these annual conferences provide is the opportunity for us all to consider new and better ways of working, many of which come with challenges, in a safe and supportive space. The conference was split into six themed sessions of papers, plus a session of short work-in-progress reports. But it struck me that these themes were themselves undisciplined, refusing to stay in their sessions, and spilling over and connecting ideas in a very satisfying way throughout the two days of fascinating papers and lively discussion.
Many papers demonstrated the mistake of thinking that only the west -- or the academy -- or the museum -- have disciplines, and showed the tremendous, and mutual, value of multivocality and centring the many forms of non-Western knowledge into our museum practice. We were also challenged about the very way we think of objects – and, indeed, even the use of that word. Instead, we were asked to consider how we move away from the notion of material culture as museum property towards a reality of at least some being treated as ‘More-than-Objects’ that have their own needs, desires, and rituals. How could/should engagement with collections change if we think of them as alive, containing spirits or representing a living person, and what are the ethical implications of this?
The materiality and physicality of objects and the experiential power they have was frequently reiterated. Larry Bright, Shona Coyle, and Lester Coyle’s enthusiasm for their project with the Robert Neil collection showed there is no substitute for physical interaction with artefacts, and how the learning from close observation and examination of them can be fed back into contemporary making practice and community knowledge. There were also some excellent examples of projects that showed how, by rethinking their practice and taking risks, museums could, in fact, enact greater care in ways that had real significance for Indigenous communities. Being respectful to the traditional ways that communities of origin use, view, or handle objects, and the ritual needs of the objects themselves, shone through project work by Inbal Harding, Alisa Santikam/Imogen Coulson, and Anya Gleizer/Faye Belsey. We can all imagine only too well how difficult conversations around feeding objects and having fire in the gallery must have been to initiate with colleagues at all levels. Their willingness to question and challenge institutional hierarchies and engrained practices was truly inspiring.
Another linking thread between papers was the game-changing potential of digital spaces for both care and knowledge. It is important to continually ask who is using digital platforms, and who is alienated, and some excellent case studies demonstrated the challenges and opportunities of putting new approaches into action. Megan Backhouse observed that good museum documentation practice is challenging and more than simple data-cleaning, but that revisiting documentation is an opportunity to put back people who have been erased. This is particularly vital in cases where violent accession has led to absences and silences in the museum record, such as the Tibetan collections discussed by Chukyi Kyaping. We were shown how museum staff must be open to new terminologies and aware of exclusions caused by transliteration and non-phonetic spellings -- digital platforms may make information more searchable and accessible than ever before, but this doesn’t necessarily make it more democratic. A number of speakers showed that we all bring our own frames of reference into our work, and that this can feel at odds with the perceived institutional need for neutrality or the fear of ‘getting it wrong’. But these can also sometimes help us to understand objects and materials better, and, as Katrina Dring noted, the changes that we make now will make the field of museum documentation better for the future.
The conference opened with an observation that it was worth delving deeper into disciplinary histories to forge new praxes, and it ended with an afternoon of papers on the histories of change and hidden voices, followed by Jago Cooper’s thinking behind the radical revisioning of the Sainsbury Centre. Clare Wintle’s exploration of the professional experiences of ethnography curators in the post-war period exposed the shame most curators invariably have had about aspects of the back-office work of museums at some point in their careers: unseen, unappreciated, often overwhelming, and rarely prioritised by the public, decision-makers, or funders. Anna Freed suggested that changes happening now are not necessarily new, but that many good examples of collaborative working have faded in institutional memories. Curators have generally tried to do their best to practice care, but as papers through the conference showed, our understanding of what this means is rapidly changing, and will undoubtedly continue to do so. As this conference showed, there is no question that museums in the global north must find better ways of doing things. This often means experimental work, but as Nicole Anderson pointed out, the worst mistakes have already been made through violent and colonial collecting. Museums have a responsibility to do whatever they can to repair this damage to individuals and communities in places of origin and the diaspora, and this means being proactive now. Perhaps the difference between curatorial efforts in the past and ours today is the accessible documentation, public discussions and, hopefully, transparency around both the aims and process of museum practice. These place clear markers for future generations of curators to recognise and understand, even if professional practice has transformed again by then. As always, the MEG conference has issued plenty of challenges but, I feel, also given all of us lots of inspiration and practical examples of how to meet them with greater confidence.
It has been impossible here to give anything close to the
credit due to every paper and speaker, but a full set of abstracts is available
at https://maa.cam.ac.uk/whats_on/events.
Check them out and let’s carry on these important conversations.
Catherine Hirst
PhD Researcher (Art History)
University of Sussex
