Art Museums

So in Mumbo Jumbo, the Mu’tafikah are a group who raid Western art museums, specifically those that showcase “cultural” or world art, to liberate these artworks and return them to their home cultures. As such, the actual art museum, and the guards employed there, are reframed as an army forcibly holding what are essentially stolen items from a marginalized culture. “The army devoted to guarding [this art] is larger than those of most countries. Justifiably so, for if these treasures got into the “wrong hands” (the countries from which they were stolen) there would be renewed enthusiasms for the Ikons of the aesthetically victimized civilizations.”

We are shown an art museum in a very particular light. The art has been “appropriated” by a dominant and oppressive culture, carted away from its homeland. It is carefully categorized and put up behind glass and guarded, so that people from the Atonist culture can walk by and admire and congratulate themselves on their multiculturalism. And often, this “art” was not used for an artistic purpose in its original context, but had practical use or deep religious or spiritual meaning. But by calling it “art,” adding a little placard and a guard and a tour guide, that context has been flattened and ignored – cheapening and devaluing the culture it came from.

This is a really different way of looking at an art museum. And for someone who really likes art museums, it’s very uncomfortable to think about. It raises a lot of questions, all of which have been floating in the back of my mind for a few days now. What is a museum? What legitimizes it? What is art, and what is culture, and how can those ideas even be translated at all? Where do you draw the line between an art exhibit meant to educate and enlighten about a foreign culture, and one meant to flatten, patronize, and cheapen that culture for the benefit of the patrons? Is there a line at all? The Mu’tafikah don’t seem to think so. And really, it all boils down to “Is it politically correct to even … go to art detention centers – I mean, museums?” And that’s where I’ve been stuck.

This summer, my mom and I are planning a road trip to Chicago to see a Frida Kahlo exhibit – which, for the record, was something I was very excited about – and now, I’m stuck questioning the morality of that decision. Because if you asked me what benefit I hoped to derive from going to this exhibit, I probably would have said something like “I can learn more about Mexican culture and politics – for example, Frida Kahlo’s focus on being a woman in Mexico and her involvement in the Communist party both heavily influenced her artwork – and it will be cool to try and see her art through that lens.” One of the reasons I wanted to see this particular exhibit was because it was from a culture and context very different from my own and I wanted to learn more. But all of that now sounds eerily similar to the viewpoint that the Mu’tafikah rail against – the privileged white woman who can stroll through an art museum, examine the pretty art, congratulate herself on her multiculturalism, and then stroll back out into her own life. How egoistic is it for me to assume that art by a Mexican woman, relating deeply to her own cultural and political context, should be transported all the way to Chicago so I can learn something?

I don’t know. I don’t think it’s a perfect comparison – in that this exhibit is not stolen (or appropriated) by the dominant culture. It is on loan from a Mexican museum – for the express purpose of helping people in Chicago to learn about Frida Kahlo and her relationship to Mexican art and culture – so I feel like I shouldn’t feel guilty about wanting to see it. It doesn’t feel like a “detention center” to me (but what if that’s just because I’m the one from the Atonist culture and I just can’t see it oh my god).

I don’t know. This book has really messed up my perception of museums in general and it bothers me.