Sadness in the SF Asian Art Museum

David · 4th August 2009, 01:34 AM

I am not so sure that major museums receive all that much of there money from the good graces of politicians votes or tax levies, at least not in the USA. Sure, there is some government support, but a good deal of museum money comes from rich supporters, membership, grants, admission prices, etc. Here's a little something on the Met. I don't think that it's collections are competing with roads, child care and tree conservation.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art ("The Met") is the non-profit organization that is responsible for the operation of one of the world's largest and most comprehensive art museums, visited by approximately five million people each year. Located in Central Park, the Met's two-million-square-foot main building is owned by the city of New York, while the collections are held for the benefit of the public by the corporation's trustees. In addition, the city pays for the museum's heat, light, and power, as well as funding a portion of the costs of maintenance and security. The corporation is responsible for its share of maintenance and security, plus the costs of acquisitions, conservation, special exhibitions, scholarly publications, and educational programs. The Met also receives an annual grant for basic operating expenses from the New York State Council on the Arts. Moreover, it receives funding through gifts and grants, endowment support, paid admissions, the selling of memberships, as well as ancillary income derived from merchandising, parking garage fees, auditorium admissions, and the museum's restaurants. Aside from its Central Park location, the Met owns and operates a branch museum, The Cloisters, located in northern Manhattan, one of the sites of the museum's Department of Medieval Art. Supplementing the Met's gift shop income are 13 satellite retail operations in the United States (with sales from the shop at Rockefeller Center ranking second to the museum itself) and 11 licensed shops around the world. Aside from the usual souvenirs of tee-shirts and postcards, Met merchandise includes expensive reproductions of the artwork found in the museum.

A. G. Maisey · 4th August 2009, 03:04 AM

Yes David, in respect of this particular museum, and perhaps other public museums in the USA, you are correct.

Here is a link to the the Met's balance sheet,. It is a very superficial balance sheet and we do not have access to how it was compiled, but even so, we can see that the bulk of funding is not coming from any government base.

http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsRep...e&npoId=390161

However, wherever that funding is coming from there is one thing that is still true, and that is that any museum will only function in accordance with the wishes of the community in which it exists.

In a community that funds its museums from public money, those funds are inextricably linked to public perception of political endeavour.

Perhaps the Met and other museums in the USA do not have this same political agenda with which to comply, but they must still satisfy public demands. If they do not, it is inevitable that they become irrelevant to the community and they gradually spiral down into non-existance.

Here with the Met we can see my second reason for non display and non maintenance of weaponry taking a dominant role in the decisions made by the museum's administrators:- current societal attitudes.

Those attitudes dictate the way in which any organisation will function, be it an organisation formed to collect garbage, or an organisation formed to conserve heritage.

Ultimately society itself makes the decisions on what is important to society at any given time in its existence. As a body, society can make its wishes felt in many ways, and those wishes are reflected in the nature of a society's organisations.

With the Met, it may not be as simple as an insufficiency of funds linked directly to taxation, but the money trail will be there somewhere, even if it is not immediately obvious, and that money trail will be linked to the attitudes, standards and desires of the community that permits the Met to exist.

David · 4th August 2009, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

With the Met, it may not be as simple as an insufficiency of funds linked directly to taxation, but the money trail will be there somewhere, even if it is not immediately obvious, and that money trail will be linked to the attitudes, standards and desires of the community that permits the Met to exist.

You are no doubt correct in this, though it still must be pointed out that attitudes and political correctness aside, the Met has a seriously nice and large arms and armor section. Strangely enough, they don't seem to have any keris.

http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_ar...1=4&dd2=0&vw=1

A. G. Maisey · 4th August 2009, 04:51 AM

Yes indeed, seriously nice stuff.

Which might indicate that the community that supports the Met is OK with things that kill, provided that those things are also art of a form and standard that is in compliance with that community's ideas of art.

fearn · 4th August 2009, 06:59 PM

Hi Alan,

I think there's a slippery slope when one talks about weapons that are also art, and it's one that plays into the hands of people who focus on ridding the world of weapons as a cure for violence.

The museums of the world have many objects that are, by the standards of their makers, mishandled. Let's ignore the literal skeletons in the closet and focus instead on the SF Asian Art Museum.

Many of the oldest pieces obviously came from tombs, and much of the Southeast Asian religious art was obviously torn from temples and temple walls, some time in the last 50-100 years.

What saddens me about all of this is the lack of respect. It's really as sad to see a deities' statue quietly corroding away in a corner as it is to see an unplayed drum rotting to silence, or an unstained, rusting keris, depending on where your sympathies lie.

In the particular case of the Asian Art Museum, they appear to be taking good care of their Japanese weapons and largely ignoring their keris. To me, this says that the curators can be educated, and that if someone is willing to take the time to work with them, the curators might be willing to care for their keris collection better.

As for other museums, it depends on the staff and funding, as you've rightfully noted. Many museums don't seem to know or particularly care about weapons. That is sad, but it isn't universal.

Best,

F

Emanuel · 4th August 2009, 08:04 PM

Hello,

I'll chime in on the education aspect of museum curating. My experience here in Toronto has been that pre-industrial revolution weapons are essentially disregarded in academia. I have a specialist degree in fine art history and not one of the many courses available even remotely touched on the art of weapons. Yes these were tools for killing, but we consistently see accross most cultures around the world that weaponry has been the recipient of most of a culture's creative and technological knowledge and ability. If this were taught in our schools, the appreciation for these objects would persist and establishments would recognize public interest.

Re: the samurai exhibits...people (read families with kids and teenagers) flock to them due to the media hype surrounding nihonto. What with anime portraying blind "samurai" and effeminate boys with ~10 ft swords cutting through concrete walls...

The Royal Ontario Museum here in Toronto has recently invested a lot of money to essentially rebuild half the museum to the design of a +/- famous architect and thereby attract tourists. The exhibits are reduced to only the most costly/valuable pieces, sacrificing variety. The museum itself looks unfinished, with dry-wall screwed into the temporary frames. The ROM is now in crazy debt due to construction costs going over budget/projections. Some of the weapons I've seen have active rust. Few people bother looking at them closely.

So much for preserving culture

Emanuel

A. G. Maisey · 5th August 2009, 12:12 AM

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.

4th August 2009, 01:34 AM	#1
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	I am not so sure that major museums receive all that much of there money from the good graces of politicians votes or tax levies, at least not in the USA. Sure, there is some government support, but a good deal of museum money comes from rich supporters, membership, grants, admission prices, etc. Here's a little something on the Met. I don't think that it's collections are competing with roads, child care and tree conservation. The Metropolitan Museum of Art ("The Met") is the non-profit organization that is responsible for the operation of one of the world's largest and most comprehensive art museums, visited by approximately five million people each year. Located in Central Park, the Met's two-million-square-foot main building is owned by the city of New York, while the collections are held for the benefit of the public by the corporation's trustees. In addition, the city pays for the museum's heat, light, and power, as well as funding a portion of the costs of maintenance and security. The corporation is responsible for its share of maintenance and security, plus the costs of acquisitions, conservation, special exhibitions, scholarly publications, and educational programs. The Met also receives an annual grant for basic operating expenses from the New York State Council on the Arts. Moreover, it receives funding through gifts and grants, endowment support, paid admissions, the selling of memberships, as well as ancillary income derived from merchandising, parking garage fees, auditorium admissions, and the museum's restaurants. Aside from its Central Park location, the Met owns and operates a branch museum, The Cloisters, located in northern Manhattan, one of the sites of the museum's Department of Medieval Art. Supplementing the Met's gift shop income are 13 satellite retail operations in the United States (with sales from the shop at Rockefeller Center ranking second to the museum itself) and 11 licensed shops around the world. Aside from the usual souvenirs of tee-shirts and postcards, Met merchandise includes expensive reproductions of the artwork found in the museum.

4th August 2009, 03:04 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	Yes David, in respect of this particular museum, and perhaps other public museums in the USA, you are correct. Here is a link to the the Met's balance sheet,. It is a very superficial balance sheet and we do not have access to how it was compiled, but even so, we can see that the bulk of funding is not coming from any government base. http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsRep...e&npoId=390161 However, wherever that funding is coming from there is one thing that is still true, and that is that any museum will only function in accordance with the wishes of the community in which it exists. In a community that funds its museums from public money, those funds are inextricably linked to public perception of political endeavour. Perhaps the Met and other museums in the USA do not have this same political agenda with which to comply, but they must still satisfy public demands. If they do not, it is inevitable that they become irrelevant to the community and they gradually spiral down into non-existance. Here with the Met we can see my second reason for non display and non maintenance of weaponry taking a dominant role in the decisions made by the museum's administrators:- current societal attitudes. Those attitudes dictate the way in which any organisation will function, be it an organisation formed to collect garbage, or an organisation formed to conserve heritage. Ultimately society itself makes the decisions on what is important to society at any given time in its existence. As a body, society can make its wishes felt in many ways, and those wishes are reflected in the nature of a society's organisations. With the Met, it may not be as simple as an insufficiency of funds linked directly to taxation, but the money trail will be there somewhere, even if it is not immediately obvious, and that money trail will be linked to the attitudes, standards and desires of the community that permits the Met to exist.

4th August 2009, 04:51 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	Yes indeed, seriously nice stuff. Which might indicate that the community that supports the Met is OK with things that kill, provided that those things are also art of a form and standard that is in compliance with that community's ideas of art.

4th August 2009, 06:59 PM	#5
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Alan, I think there's a slippery slope when one talks about weapons that are also art, and it's one that plays into the hands of people who focus on ridding the world of weapons as a cure for violence. The museums of the world have many objects that are, by the standards of their makers, mishandled. Let's ignore the literal skeletons in the closet and focus instead on the SF Asian Art Museum. Many of the oldest pieces obviously came from tombs, and much of the Southeast Asian religious art was obviously torn from temples and temple walls, some time in the last 50-100 years. What saddens me about all of this is the lack of respect. It's really as sad to see a deities' statue quietly corroding away in a corner as it is to see an unplayed drum rotting to silence, or an unstained, rusting keris, depending on where your sympathies lie. In the particular case of the Asian Art Museum, they appear to be taking good care of their Japanese weapons and largely ignoring their keris. To me, this says that the curators can be educated, and that if someone is willing to take the time to work with them, the curators might be willing to care for their keris collection better. As for other museums, it depends on the staff and funding, as you've rightfully noted. Many museums don't seem to know or particularly care about weapons. That is sad, but it isn't universal. Best, F

4th August 2009, 08:04 PM	#6
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Hello, I'll chime in on the education aspect of museum curating. My experience here in Toronto has been that pre-industrial revolution weapons are essentially disregarded in academia. I have a specialist degree in fine art history and not one of the many courses available even remotely touched on the art of weapons. Yes these were tools for killing, but we consistently see accross most cultures around the world that weaponry has been the recipient of most of a culture's creative and technological knowledge and ability. If this were taught in our schools, the appreciation for these objects would persist and establishments would recognize public interest. Re: the samurai exhibits...people (read families with kids and teenagers) flock to them due to the media hype surrounding nihonto. What with anime portraying blind "samurai" and effeminate boys with ~10 ft swords cutting through concrete walls... The Royal Ontario Museum here in Toronto has recently invested a lot of money to essentially rebuild half the museum to the design of a +/- famous architect and thereby attract tourists. The exhibits are reduced to only the most costly/valuable pieces, sacrificing variety. The museum itself looks unfinished, with dry-wall screwed into the temporary frames. The ROM is now in crazy debt due to construction costs going over budget/projections. Some of the weapons I've seen have active rust. Few people bother looking at them closely. So much for preserving culture Emanuel

5th August 2009, 12:12 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	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.