Most, if not all museums are based and built on the Eurocentric, colonial model. These foundational models created the exoticized Other as objects are displayed out of context and disrespected as they are displayed for their aesthetics. In “Museums and the Savage Sublime,” anthropologist Arjun Appadurai presents the modern misunderstanding of museums and institutions in relation to the Savage Sublime.
Appadurai states that natural history, art, and ethnological museums have different understandings of the Other. For instance, ethnological museums replicate the culture and environment of the Savage Sublime, whereas fine art museums have a “distaste” or disconnect for ethnographic and ethnological culture. The author expands on this by expressing that “The other misunderstanding that has plagued modern museums is the notion that they are also sites of research and teaching, similar to universities and colleges” (Appadurai 2020, 46). Although there is truth in this statement, science and other natural history museums employ curators to conduct research and engage in programs to educate their visitors. Furthermore, Appadurai addresses an important issue concerning whether museums should even be “classrooms.” I believe museums can “entertain and educate at the same time” as this environment allows educational growth and in-depth perspectives. Educational experiences can be achieved by highlighting and understanding who the visitors are. Who are museums ultimatelycatering to? Who is their target audience and why do they need to adhere to this specific demographic?
Following this notion and taking the audience into consideration, Appadurai then questions whether museums have the capacity to foster critical thinking and “new knowledge.” Contrary to Appadurai’s perspective, institutions have the ability to cultivate critical thinking, but this stems from the museum staff and their work. Therefore, it is crucial that institutions have diverse staff working collectively to create informative and engaging work. Appadurai highlights how museums can be constricted to the interests of their board of directors, museum staff, and donors as these positions are all critical to the institution’s image and narrative. Institutions need to deconstruct their mission statement and determine who is in control of the narrative. Additionally, it is necessary to implement a checks and balances system to ensure that the board of directors, museum staff, and donors all align with the institution’s morals and values.
Moreover, Appadurai goes on to state that museums are like churches in the manner they are portrayed as “sacred” spaces. Museums become “a place of icons, silence, transcendental experiences, a church for those whom a Christian god has failed or become unavailable” (Appadurai 2020, 47). Museums are often considered neutral, secular spaces that can house sacred objects and spaces, however, these institutions avoid religious materials as they may cause controversy or division, especially in the U.S. where it is better to “play safe and maintain public trust.” (Reeve 2012, 137). He explains that museums are places of silence and iconography. I agree with his statement, however, museums are considered “special libraries” with a prestigious image. Museums are not similar to libraries as resources and archival materials are limited. Institutions are secular places that create relaxing and meditative environments, however, space should be made for loud discussions and open engagement among visitors. Who decides that museums are quiet spaces? Why is this prestige “sacred” image created? How does it model colonialism? This article needs to further expand on connecting the museum’s research, education, and engagement to the staff, board, and visitors. Overall, Appadurai’s work highlights the misunderstandings of museums, their educational goals, and their prestige image as sacred institutions.
