We were discussing colonialism, cultural patriarchy, and the african diaspora in my critical theory class when the “Witnesses” exhibit was brought up as part of a later research paper. Discussion ensued and I was surprised to hear how many people saw the exhibit as colonial and exploitative, a PC nightmare to their PC eyes. But good thing they did because this surprise fired me up and had me go OFF!
The “Witnesses” exhibit is not politically incorrect, ok? Here’s why:
Established in 1999 to supplement the surrealist works housed at The Menil Collection, Witnesses to a Surrealist Vision is an exhibition that presents the artifacts and objects that influenced, and were held dear by, the surrealists showcased within the museum. In a manner more archeological than transparently postcolonial the exhibit aims and succeeds in presenting a collection of artifacts that help to inform the viewer about the aesthetic and conceptual inclinations the surrealists concerned themselves with as well as the cultural climate of the society they were a part of.
As a companion to the surrealist exhibition, the collection serves to expose the common surrealist fascination with art free from the restrictions put in place by the academic, societal, and psychological barriers that represented blockades to their aspirations of depicting worlds and works that surpassed preconceived expectations of reality and acceptable subject material. Drawings by mental institute patients, carvings from tribal groups, and travel illustration all served to inform them of the ways in which artistic expression could be set free from the chains of the framed and the common.
Man Ray, "Noire et Blanche", 1926
It comes as no surprise that this dynamic between established western artists and their intake of work deemed and labeled as outsider art, nonwestern art, and low art may raise doubts regarding the responsible curatorialship to which contemporary exhibitions are subjected to in an age where political correctness tries it hardest to reign supreme. It’s easy to label this exhibit as exploitative and fetishist in nature due to the one sided benefactorship in which the surrealists coveted artifacts from colonized areas as tools to enhance their work. The postcolonial fantasy of transculturation, described by Krista Thompson as “a process in which both parts of the equation are modified… from which a new reality emerges, transformed and complex” [Thompson] fails to fully coalesce as “a new phenomenon, original and independent” comes to life but only on one side of the equation in the form of the surrealist movement. In this scenario, the surrealists reap the fruits of a cultural transfusion nurtured through works made by “outsiders”.
Deemed exploitative through our contemporary filter, surrealists surely saw this borrowing of art and ideas as part of a “cosmopolitan aesthetic experience” [Appiah] in a time period in which the process of proto-globalization had led many, especially in Europe, to feel a sense of global citizenship, a citizenship that often entitled everyone to adopt and look beyond their own cultures to foster and transform their own.
Whatever the intentions of the surrealists may have been, it must be made clear that the Witnesses exhibit is more an exercise in modern archeology than it is an example of postcolonial inquiry. One must keep this in mind when trying to define whether its presentation is responsible or not. Common agreement states that a curator has the obligation “to ensure that artists are not ripped off or treated unfairly… and that their work is presented as well as it can be.” [Raqs] The aim of the curator, it is clear, was to showcase the way in which these objects were revered and appreciated by the surrealists because this is the form most suitable to represent this narrative through assembly and arrangement. The close arrangement that would be considered crowded in other exhibits is effective here because it enhances and amplifies the objecthood and intimacy of each object. If the arrangement of the objects is too similar to that of a hall of curiosities, it is because it is done on purpose to allude to this phenomenon of curated exoticism. This arrangement is done with purpose and with the priorities of archeological curatorialship in mind. This exemplifies how the curator must make decisions that make sense for the work at hand, and if the point of the curated narrative is to showcase the way in which the surrealists fetishized what they referred to as “outsider art” then the Witnesses exhibition can be considered successful. This attention to the relationship between art objects and their presentation is evident when a curator presents monolithic color field paintings in large open spaces to fit the heroic narratives that these paintings demand through their history and the impulses and aesthetics of their creators. The curators at the Menil do not present their American modernist paintings and the objects of the surrealists in a different way because one is less important than the other but rather because each collection calls for a different way of being presented to the viewer due to the context and aesthetics of the movement to which the artworks belong.
Etching depicting a hall of curiosities, a landmark feature of seventeenth century science, archeology, and the development of the modern museum.
The idea of the Witnesses objects as being underappreciated or presented in an inferior manner is further disproved by the fact that this exhibit was deemed worthy of permanent and ongoing stay within the walls of the museum, a flattering declaration for any work since only a small percent of the work in a museum is visible at any time and only those deemed most important or relevant are left as permanent exhibits.
Considered a supplement to the surrealist exhibit, Witnesses proves itself to be more than that. It is a time capsule that captures the shift towards a more global culture and the immunity of this culture to man-made borders. It is also a spotlight on the objectifying effects that exoticism, orientalism, and fetishism can have upon our perspective of other cultures. Its two way dynamic between western artists and “the others” is shocking because it is binary. For this reason, it serves as an example of the beginning of our modern globalization, one that has evolved beyond the binary back-and-forth and into the multitude of webs that is our contemporary internationalism.
CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONALISM:
MGL MTZ 