Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper contrasts and compares two salient Holocaust commemorations via an exploration of the debates that accompanied their planing; their journalistic coverage; and through their interpretation of the Holocaust story. The paper maintains that despite important similarities, the two museums reflect opposing perceptions of the Holocaust: while the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum represents the Holocaust as an American story that bears American and universal lessons, the Museum of Jewish Heritage - a Living Memorial to the Holocaust presents the Holocaust as a Jewish story that bears Jewish lessons.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: During their research on museum attendance, Bourdieu and Darbel (1966) established that the more educated people were, the more they visited museums. This correlation has since been corroborated a number of times and has never been called into question (Ambrose and Paine, 1993; Edson and Dean, 1994). As pointed out by Donnat (1999, 2003, 2004), the result of cultural democratization appears limited after decades of public cultural action. In order to better understand the motivations of art museum visitors, we analysed the social representation of art museums for attenders, non-attenders and art museum managers. We held eight discussion groups: one with managers from an art museum, two with individuals who hadn’t visited a museum during the last three years, two with individuals who had visited an art museum in the last year and three with individuals who had joined the Friends of The Museum in a specific institution. The interview scheme for the discussion groups included questions on the museum's mission, representation and rate of attendance as well as on advertising, press relations, obstacles to museum visits, accessibility and the democratization of culture. We found that the distinction that once existed between visitors and non-visitors now also exists inside the walls of museums, from now on a bit more accessible. We hence suggest that we may be witnessing a displacement and redefinition of the forms of exclusion. Important implications for communication and marketing practice and theory are discussed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In this paper I present a case study of an anthropological collection at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. This collection is comprised of Native American cultural objects and human remains and it is the product of mid- to late-nineteenth century government science. This assemblage was amassed through the combined efforts of the Bureau of Ethnology, Army surgeons posted in ‘Indian Country,’ the Army Medical Museum, and government geographical and geological expeditions as well as railroad and boundary surveys. The objects and human remains in this collection were taken from scores of Native tribes from all parts of the United States. A great many of these objects and human remains are now being reclaimed through the repatriation efforts of Native American tribes.
Repatriation is the federally legislated process in which museums and Native American groups enter into consultation in order to negotiate and determine the rightful ownership of culturally sensitive objects such as funerary and sacred items, as well as human remains. Consequently, what is considered to be scientifically and ethically appropriate for collection has dramatically changed.
Situating repatriation within the broader historical framework of nineteenth century collecting demands recognition of cultural, racial, and national identity formations. These colonial formations, I argue, continue to shape both today’s repatriation debates as well as disciplinary identities within museum anthropology -- all of which resonate within the formation of larger national identities. The historical circumstances of this collection, when juxtaposed with the contemporary repatriation movement, offer valuable insights into postcolonial American identities. I maintain that the repatriation movement provides the opportunity to reexamine the ways in which old, racialized concepts of science and progress still linger. For example, the issue of repatriation is often characterized as a binary debate: The Native versus the Museum. This oversimplified depiction not only does an injustice to invested individuals and the political complexities of the issue, but it is inaccurate. When easy lines are drawn between museums and natives, a slippery slope is created that easily leads to similarly dangerous binaries such as scientific interests versus indigenous ones. Allegiances are not so easily separated here. But by situating indigenous interests outside of science, old racist stereotypes re-emerge of natives as existing outside of scientific progress.
This analysis not only enables helpful insights into the politics of repatriation within American museums, but it also examines contemporary negotiations (and reformulations) of national identities as they are informed by ideas of science and the relevance of scientific inquiry.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper discusses two different types of crime that occur in art museums and galleries: the theft of art objects and the vandalism of works of art. With respect to theft, this paper explores the extent to which stealing may affect our memory of a given piece of art (regardless of whether the object is ultimately recovered), as well as our experience of the museum (especially if efforts are subsequently undertaken to improve security, such as with the Munch Museum following the theft of the Scream). With respect to vandalism, this paper considers whether and how these acts (such as when Russian performance artist Alexander Brener sprayed a green dollar sign over Kazimir Malevich's painting, Suprematisme 1920-1927, or when French artist Rindy Sam kissed one panel of Cy Twombly’s triptych Phaedrus leaving a red lipstick smudge that she claimed was an “artistic act”) subsequently affect the value we place on the assaulted items as cultural icons and the meaning of the paintings as art objects. This paper argues that how we regard such events should be determined not by their criminality, but by the intent and the effect of the acts on the meaning and memory of the works. [199]

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: How would Hannah Arendt address the issue of plurality in the political? While Arendt suggested that identity based on race or “whatness” is pre-political and unsuitable for the polis, she recommended “enlarged thinking” and “care for the world” for healthy politics. Political action, she suggested, was the ultimate indicator of one’s identity. The kinds of relationships that she deemed political, were those based on philia, or friendship, rather than those based on eros, or love, passion, or compassion. Identity politics would be maneuvered into the pre-political realms of the social or private according to Arendt’s distinctions, in part because they are based on categories of “whatness” and because they frequently employ arguments based on compassion. In addition, they deal with issues that Arendt may have deemed “administrative” rather than political like water and land rights. Would Arendt actually suggest that such identity politics are based on eros? There are several instances in which Arendt suggested that an identity based on race has been made political through persecution and that the state must be held accountable in the space of appearances for injustices committed. But does she mean retribution? Would such redistributive justice be based on racial identity? This paper describes how we might better understand identity politics, the pre-political, and relationships of eros and philia in Arendt’s terms via the 1989 U.S. Congressional Act prescribing the construction of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian and associated issues of identity politics addressed therein.