Books: Museums Matter: In praise of the Encyclopedic Museum James Cuno
David Fleming is sceptical about this defence of the encyclopedic museum
James Cuno, CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust, seems to have something of a bee in his bonnet. This book is the latest in a series that includes Whose Culture? and Who Owns Antiquity?, the subject matter of which is pretty much the same.
Cuno writes in defence of the “encyclopedic” museum, and his central premise is that the encyclopedic museum is a good thing.
Indeed, these types of institutions are a very excellent thing, and all those people who argue that encyclopedic museums ought to hang their heads in shame for holding onto collections that by right should be returned to their countries of origin should, well, go hang.
The concept of the encyclopedic, or “universal”, museum has been around for a long time, certainly since the 16th and 17th centuries, and it provided a reference point for much museum collecting subsequently, especially in the 19th century.
It came to renewed prominence in 2003 with the Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums by the Bizot Group –the directors of a self-selected group of big European and US museums, including Cuno.
This declaration was presented by the directors as the views of the “international museum community”. Actually, this is far from the truth, and there has been intense debate about the concept ever since.
The Bizot Group meeting in October 2002 had been convened to discuss the growing issue of requests for the repatriation of items being made to some European and American museums.
While many claims for repatriation come from outside the western world, often from places that were exploited by European imperial powers, the meeting and declaration seems to have been preoccupied with the movement to repatriate or reunite the Parthenon Marbles in Athens.
This is demonstrated by the use of the example within the declaration of “the sculpture of classical Greece” as to why the artefacts of “ancient civilisations” should be “widely available to an international public in major museums”.
Cuno rejects the unkind notion that encyclopedic museums work in the service of a western-centric view of the world. He claims that the encyclopedic museum is absolutely not an instrument of state but is an argument against a state-derived cultural identity, that acknowledges the “truth of culture: that it has never known political boundaries but has always been dynamic and hybrid, formed through contact and exchange with diverse peoples”.
I’m not sure that I know anyone who doesn’t live in a dictatorship who really thinks of museums as an instrument of state, though Cuno seems convinced that this is a prevailing academic critique, and he rejects this.
He modestly neglects to acknowledge that in his museum, Cuno himself is responsible for what the public sees, rather than the public.
Instead, he argues that visitors to museums, not the museums themselves, are the authors of their experiences with collections.
Cuno cites the encyclopedic museum, as a “liberal” institution, encouraging “a shared sense of being human, of having in every meaningful way a common history, with a common future not only at stake but increasingly, in an age of resurgent nationalism and sectarian violence, at risk”.
He explores what he calls the “promise” of the encyclopedic museum by considering its origins in the British Museum as an Enlightenment institution (which Cuno denies being a creation of colonial enterprise made possible by a western dominance of the world) through to its current form in the “postcolonial” era.
Cuno’s thesis rests on his belief that the encyclopedic museum is a “cosmopolitan” institution that gathers examples of the world’s diverse cultures under a single roof. This enables the consideration of the relationships between them, and allows the encyclopedic museum to dissipate ignorance and superstition and promote tolerance.
This is a seductive point of view: the encyclopedic museum as bringer of international peace. My 10-year old daughter Ruby would sign up to that vision, because she loves museums and she believes in world peace (she loves babies and puppies too).
If only little things such as national, ethnic and cultural self-determination, and geography, and noisy, democratically elected foreign politicians, didn’t get in the way of this utopian vision.
Those bloody Greeks and Egyptians, always trying to claim back the contents of our encyclopedic museums just because their here today, gone tomorrow governments think they rightly belong to them. This is an interesting, chatty and provocative little book, full of opinion and cultural insight.
It may not be very convincing, but it’s well worth a read, if only to marvel at Cuno’s blend of passion, self-righteousness, disdain and paranoia: attributes no museum director should be without.
David Fleming is the director of National Museums Liverpool
Cuno writes in defence of the “encyclopedic” museum, and his central premise is that the encyclopedic museum is a good thing.
Indeed, these types of institutions are a very excellent thing, and all those people who argue that encyclopedic museums ought to hang their heads in shame for holding onto collections that by right should be returned to their countries of origin should, well, go hang.
The concept of the encyclopedic, or “universal”, museum has been around for a long time, certainly since the 16th and 17th centuries, and it provided a reference point for much museum collecting subsequently, especially in the 19th century.
It came to renewed prominence in 2003 with the Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums by the Bizot Group –the directors of a self-selected group of big European and US museums, including Cuno.
This declaration was presented by the directors as the views of the “international museum community”. Actually, this is far from the truth, and there has been intense debate about the concept ever since.
The Bizot Group meeting in October 2002 had been convened to discuss the growing issue of requests for the repatriation of items being made to some European and American museums.
While many claims for repatriation come from outside the western world, often from places that were exploited by European imperial powers, the meeting and declaration seems to have been preoccupied with the movement to repatriate or reunite the Parthenon Marbles in Athens.
This is demonstrated by the use of the example within the declaration of “the sculpture of classical Greece” as to why the artefacts of “ancient civilisations” should be “widely available to an international public in major museums”.
Cuno rejects the unkind notion that encyclopedic museums work in the service of a western-centric view of the world. He claims that the encyclopedic museum is absolutely not an instrument of state but is an argument against a state-derived cultural identity, that acknowledges the “truth of culture: that it has never known political boundaries but has always been dynamic and hybrid, formed through contact and exchange with diverse peoples”.
I’m not sure that I know anyone who doesn’t live in a dictatorship who really thinks of museums as an instrument of state, though Cuno seems convinced that this is a prevailing academic critique, and he rejects this.
He modestly neglects to acknowledge that in his museum, Cuno himself is responsible for what the public sees, rather than the public.
Instead, he argues that visitors to museums, not the museums themselves, are the authors of their experiences with collections.
Cuno cites the encyclopedic museum, as a “liberal” institution, encouraging “a shared sense of being human, of having in every meaningful way a common history, with a common future not only at stake but increasingly, in an age of resurgent nationalism and sectarian violence, at risk”.
He explores what he calls the “promise” of the encyclopedic museum by considering its origins in the British Museum as an Enlightenment institution (which Cuno denies being a creation of colonial enterprise made possible by a western dominance of the world) through to its current form in the “postcolonial” era.
Cuno’s thesis rests on his belief that the encyclopedic museum is a “cosmopolitan” institution that gathers examples of the world’s diverse cultures under a single roof. This enables the consideration of the relationships between them, and allows the encyclopedic museum to dissipate ignorance and superstition and promote tolerance.
This is a seductive point of view: the encyclopedic museum as bringer of international peace. My 10-year old daughter Ruby would sign up to that vision, because she loves museums and she believes in world peace (she loves babies and puppies too).
If only little things such as national, ethnic and cultural self-determination, and geography, and noisy, democratically elected foreign politicians, didn’t get in the way of this utopian vision.
Those bloody Greeks and Egyptians, always trying to claim back the contents of our encyclopedic museums just because their here today, gone tomorrow governments think they rightly belong to them. This is an interesting, chatty and provocative little book, full of opinion and cultural insight.
It may not be very convincing, but it’s well worth a read, if only to marvel at Cuno’s blend of passion, self-righteousness, disdain and paranoia: attributes no museum director should be without.
David Fleming is the director of National Museums Liverpool