“Often, the language used to describe the works in the collection, especially when it tries to ‘relate to young people’ creates more distance or reflects a lack of cultural knowledge and context.
Along the underground pedway in my city there's a display of stained glass windows. It's a beautiful hidden gem and one of my favorite pieces is a 19th century Moorish style piece. The placard describes it using the word ‘bling,’ which is out of character from the rest of the descriptions and reflects all kinds of racial implications. It's a beautiful piece, though. I found a photo online!
While so many of the stained glass windows on display had elaborate designs with extravagant pieces of glass and color, the only one that was described as having ‘bling’ was the Moorish piece. I went back to look at the descriptions to see why it seemed so uncharacteristic.
The words used to describe the ‘North African Moorish inspired designs’ of this one: very ornate, heavily jeweled, ‘much like personal bling today, eccentric compositions comprising heavily of jewels...’ The words used to describe the other stained glass works were: spectacular, magnificent, exuberance, elaborate, wildly innovative, lens-like jewels. Why weren't ostentatious but more traditionally European styles described as having ‘bling’?
It seemed like the curator was attempting to appeal to young people, but the only connection between Muslim North Africans in the Mediterranean and South Europe and the term ‘bling’—a word which came out of modern hip hop culture and African American Vernacular English—seems to be a racial one.
I generally find a disconnect between ancient works and the cultures/communities they come from, especially when people with that heritage didn't have a hand in curating and it appears that there's no relationship with the museum/their works. I love seeing historical art and relics, but their inclusion often reinforces a sort of Orientalist perspective on those cultures that is ‘stuck in time’, especially when no modern works from that community are included.
The strong security presence makes me feel less welcome, and less like I belong. I believe museums are a public good that should be accessible to all. A heavy security presence sends the message that access to museums is an exclusive privilege, not a right of the public. It presupposes that patrons are a liability to the displayed works, rather than community members who benefit from and contribute to the knowledge and cultural value of museums. If museums hired experts to answer questions and share context, instead of security, it would increase the public’s value of and appreciation for the works.
Cost is a barrier! I would love to have multiple museum memberships, but it's just not feasible. My local art museums, big and small, have had some really interesting special exhibits lately! But I have missed exhibits I was excited about because I could not budget in the museum entrance fee.
But I love museums. What I value about museums is the opportunity to see works from across time and space. I learn about different communities and their historical context; artists' vision for the world, creative expression, and their critiques of society; ideally something about the context in which the work was created; etc.
I like being able to interact with the work, though I think it's good to prioritize preservation any time interaction could damage or compromise a piece.
I want local museums to highlight local history, global connection, struggle, and creative speculation for a world that’s possible.”
— Ona Wang, Writer, Educator, Restorative Justice Practitioner
[Photo Description: Ona looks straight into the camera wearing long earrings, a septum ring and a thick, shiny necklace. Text reads: “Often, the language used to describe the works in the collection, especially when it tries to ‘relate to young people’ creates more distance or reflects a lack of cultural knowledge and context.” Ona Wang, Writer, Educator, Restorative Justice Practitioner]
