[A. G. Maisey]

Fearn, once we remove any cultural object from its natural surroundings we have interfered with the order of the world as the maker and original owner of that object imagined it to be.

However, we could probably quote numerous examples of the removal of objects from their original cultures, and where the people of those cultures now want those objects returned to place of origin. Perhaps the best known example of this is the Elgin Marbles. But then we are able to ask the question:-

if these objects had not been removed from their original cultures, would they still exist today?

You have stated your prime concern as being that in the case of the museum you visited,a number of objects from varying cultures are not treated with respect, and these objects include some keris.

This is perhaps a valid concern, but personally I have more than a little difficulty with the concept of "respect".

In some cultures, and one that comes readily to mind is the culture of Bali, objects of art are not intended to be preserved. The creation of the object is a tribute to God, and what happens to that object after its creation is of no great moment. Thus, if we consider objects from such cultures, and we measure our attitude towards those objects within the framework of the originating cultures' values, how much respect should we show to the object?

In other cases, once the object has been removed from its original environment, such as would be the case with funerary offerings, what relevance does that object have either within or without its originating culture?

If our concern is to demonstrate respect, then perhaps we should not remove anything from its original environment.

But over time, all dominant cultures have removed objects from the cultures which they dominate.

These objects that have been removed serve the purpose for the dominant culture of demonstrating dominance, educating members of the dominant culture about the culture dominated, and as items of value.

The importance to the dominant culture of these objects can be seen in the great museums of the age of global expansion, when European nations swallowed up great lumps of the globe. During that age the objects brought back from the lands and peoples which had been dominated served a very real purpose for the internal government of the those dominating cultures. The presence of the objects from foriegn cultures helped to demonstrate the power of that dominating culture, country and government, and assisted in maintenance of a regulated society.

This political need has long passed, and what we now have are warehouses full of these memories of the past. These things are almost totally irrelevant to the vast bulk of people in today's societies. They no longer serve any political purpose, they cost more to store and maintain than they can generate in either income or sales, and in fact are just a continuing red figure in the books of account. That debit can be hidden by imaginary values, but when we measure all relevant costs against all relevant gains, we inevitably finish up with a balance figure that is paid for from the public purse.
I believe that we all know that once a dollar return cannot be shown for anything, that thing will gradually be disregarded and eventually disappear.

This is a harsh way of looking at the situation, but it is a sad fact of life that in modern society little grey men with calculators dictate everything.

This is the problem that faces museums:- to maintain relevance to society as it is; if a museum fails to do this, it will disappear.

The point that Fearn has made about Japanese weaponry, and that has been reinforced by Emmanuel's observations, is very valid, and we might well ask why this is so. Yes, the media hype is one thing, but another even more important thing than media hype is dollar value. The dollar value of Japanese weaponry is percieved as being high, and in many cases it is. It is seen as an asset that will probably continue to gain value, thus that value needs to be maintained. Most other weaponry is not viewed in the same light. Factor in the current societal attitudes towards weaponry of all types, and we are faced with expenditure that is very difficult to justify.

This discussion began with a reference to keris, and the fact that they were not being accorded a modicum of respect.

It disturbs me also when I see keris and other items of tosan aji being subjected to neglect. However, this neglect is not exclusive to situations within a western cultural environment. Museums in Indonesia display a similar lack of regard for items in their care, including keris, and the only keris that I have seen in Indonesia that are accorded due "respect" are those very, very few keris that are still regarded as active pusakas.

To return to the SF Asian Art Museum.

Fearn, what you have seen here may sadden you, and I understand that, but unless societal attitudes change, and I seriously doubt that they will, what you have seen will only become worse.