Exhibiting Indigenous Australian Collections in the UK
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Exhibiting Indigenous Australian collections in the UK Rachael Murphy Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD. University of East Anglia. Sainsbury Research Unit, February 2017 Text and bibliography: 69332 words. This copy of the thesis has been supplied on the condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that use of any information derived therefrom must be in accordance with current UK Copyright Law. In addition, any quotation or extract must include full attribution. 1 Abstract This thesis asks: what are the uses and meanings of Indigenous Australian collections in the UK today? This question is approached through a comprehensive analysis of one exhibition, Indigenous Australia: enduring civilisation, which took place at the British Museum (BM), London, from 23 April to 2 August, 2015. Each chapter considers a different stage of the exhibition’s development and reception. It begins in Chapter 2. Genealogy with a study of how the exhibition emerged from the longer history of collecting and displaying Indigenous Australian material at the BM. It then interrogates the aims and experiences of the people who made Indigenous Australia in Chapter 3. Production. Chapter 4. Text analyses the finished display and, Chapter 5. Consumption, evaluates how the exhibition was received by its audiences. Each chapter considers not only how the exhibition was experienced by the people involved, but also how their aims and understandings relate to broader debates about the role of colonial era collections in contemporary Western societies. 2 Acknowledgements Thank you to the AHRC for funding this project, and to the Sainsbury Research Unit for Arts of Africa, Oceania and the Americas and University of East Anglia for additional travel and conference funds. Thank you to Karen Jacobs for providing unending guidance and support through the process and to Steven Hooper for ever valuable advice and backing. Other staff in the SRU have gone out of their way to help in any way possible, in particular Laura Armstrong, Jeremy Bartholomew, Lynne Crossland and Pat Hewitt, whose help has been invaluable. Lyn Marsh in the PGR office also provided continued support of many kinds. Many thanks to Gaye Sculthope and Lissant Bolton for all of their support. Judy Watson provided insightful conversations and advice. Thank you to the many other professionals (in various fields) who were generous at various points in this project, in sharing time and knowledge, engaging in discussion, and providing other assistance, particularly: Jilda Andrews, Polly Bence, Ben Burt, John Carty, Joe Gumbula, Jim Hamell, Rachel Hand, Anita Herle, Jill Hasell, Jonathan Jones, Susan Lowish, Howard Morphy, Francis Morphy, Abe Muriata, Maria Nugent, Alik Tipoti, Shayne Williams. Bea Leal provided support and debate over early morning coffees and displayed extreme willingness to comment on drafts. Christine Murphy read drafts and helped in other innumerable ways. Kristi Bain provided excellent critical debate on the topics and general moral support. Brian Murphy gave general good advice and helped with images. Thank you to the many people who helped with ideas, discussions, proof-reading, images, moral support, good company and occasional accommodation: Polly Ashford, Vicky Bailey, Elizabeth Bergaron, Linda Burton, Luke Burton, Corrine Carle, Megan Carle, Steve Carle, Sabs Casuco, Sarah Clark, Elizabeth Galvin, Pippa Gardner, Joe Gibson, Felicity Gibson, Colin Goldblatt, Chas Harper, Helen Hansen-Hjul, Emma Hart, Bill Hill, Andy Hind, Avril and David Kingham, Cass Lovejoy, John Mack, the misfits walking companions, Alice Milton, John Mitchell, Lucie Molkova, Anthony Murphy, Joseph Murphy, Hannah Murphy, Tara Murphy and various other Murphys, Moira and Wally, Tiffany O’Neil, Emma Pinder, Christina Riggs, David Whittle, Ruth Sneath, James Sneath, Catherine Spurden, Charlotte Torbitt, Mark Webber, and Gertie and Oscar, who will never know how much they helped. Finally thank you to Shelia Burton for her quiet support and example. 3 Volume 1: Contents List of Illustrations 5 Preface 6 Chapter One: Introduction 8 Background 9 Museums, ideologies and imperialism 13 Critical approach 21 Chapter Two: Genealogy 28 Expeditions and artificial curiosities 28 Developing a coherent collection (the Franks years) 32 Education and aesthetics 37 The Museum of Mankind 41 A history of the world (the MacGregor years) 46 Chapter Three: Production 53 Participants 54 The research phase 56 Developing an outline 64 Community consultation 66 Public relations 81 Chapter Four: Text 90 Interpretive approach 92 Key themes 101 Contemporary artwork 107 Chapter Five: Consumption 123 Methodology 126 Results 131 Chapter Six: Conclusion 166 Bibliography 170 Appendix One: List of key exhibitions relating to Indigenous Australia Appendix Two: List of objects in Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation 4 List of Illustrations (for Figures see Volume 2) Illustration 1. Narrative structure of Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation (23 April – 2 August 2015). British Museum, London. Table by author. Illustration 2. Sketch plan, illustrating the layout of sections in Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation (23 April – 2 August 2015). British Museum, London. Illustration by author. Illustration 3. Average no. of visits per day to selected Room 35 exhibitions. British Museum, London. Chart by author. (Data from Morris Hargreaves McIntyre 2015: 3). Illustration 4. Top 10 topics on the British Museum Twitter account 22 January 2015 – 03 August 2015. Table by author. Illustration 5. Tweets from the BM account, ranked according to popularity (based on number of retweets) 22 January 2015 – 03 August 2015. Table by author. Illustration 6. Age of onsite audience members for Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation (23 April – 2 August 2015). British Museum, London. Chart from: (Morris Hargreaves McIntyre 2015: 7). Illustration 7. Origin of onsite audience members for Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation (23 April – 2 August 2015). British Museum, London. Chart from: (Morris Hargreaves McIntyre 2015: 5). Illustration 8. Onsite audience satisfaction report for Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation (23 April – 2 August 2015). British Museum, London. Chart from: (Morris Hargreaves McIntyre 2015: 23). Illustration 9. Sentiment of tweets sent in relation to Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation (23 April – 2 August 2015). British Museum, London. Chart by author. Illustration 10. Sentiment of feedback cards and emails received by the British Museum in relation to Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation (23 April – 2 August 2015). British Museum, London. Chart by author. Illustration 11. Sentiment of feedback cards and emails, excluding feedback related to British Museum access and facilities, received by the British Museum in relation to Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation (23 April – 2 August 2015). British Museum, London. Chart by author. Illustration 12. Onsite audience satisfaction in detail (part 1). Table from: (Morris Hargreaves McIntyre 2015: 21). Illustration 13. Onsite audience satisfaction in detail (part 2). Table from: (Morris Hargreaves McIntyre 2015: 22). Illustration 14. Main topic of feedback cards and emails received by the British Museum in relation to Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation (23 April – 3 August 2015). British Museum, London. Chart by author. Illustration 15. Main topic of tweets received by the British Museum in relation to Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation (23 April – 3 August 2015). British Museum, London. Chart by author. Illustration 16. Breakdown of feedback on text, narrative and interpretation for Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation (23 April – 3 August 2015). British Museum, London. Chart by author. Illustration 17. Breakdown of tweets on text, narrative and interpretation for Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation (23 April – 3 August 2015). British Museum, London. Chart by author. 5 Preface I only know my law in my country, I can’t trespass on somebody else’s land because they have their own totems as well as their own language and culture. This is the way Aboriginal people interpret their land through art. Joe Neparrŋa Gumbula (Gumbula 2010: 9) Interpreting the material of another culture is, as Joe Gumbula asserted, fraught with difficulties. As a Yolngu researcher and Elder from North East Arnhem Land, Australia he could not interpret the paintings (and therefore the law) of another country, not only because he did not have the ownership or intellectual rights to that law, but also because he did not have the ‘language and culture’ to do so. Gumbula recognised that one cultural system is not adequate to understand the art-work of a different system. Furthermore, interpreting someone else’s cultural forms is a kind of ‘trespass[ing]’ or appropriation, which is an implicit evocation of colonial acts of invasion. For these reasons the issue of how to translate or contextualise Indigenous Australian objects in exhibitions for a non-Indigenous audience is the subject of much debate. By extension, a piece of research on an exhibition of Indigenous Australian material, the premise of this thesis, is also problematic. Yet forms of translation across cultures are necessary and have always been so. Interpretation promotes understanding and collaboration between a wide range of peoples. This was something that Gumbula was aware of. One of the most compelling features