"To say" and "to do": why objects in museums are not self explanatory

If we focus on everyday-life items, archaeological museums have many issues in common with ethnographic museums. This is why I am reading a book written by a great Italian anthropologist, Alberto Mario Cirese, who I was lucky enough to have as a teacher some years ago.

The classification, interpretation and display of objects in ethnographic museums was one of its main research interests and I found papers and books such as Oggetti Segni Musei (Objects Signs Museums) still incredibly relevant to the present scholarly debate.

Cirese complains about the practice of exhibiting everyday-life items on walls or in glass cabinets with little or no information about their use. Curators are biased because they already know how the objects were employed, so they assume this information is easily accessible to the audience and it is somehow embedded in the objects themselves. 

Not only experience tells us that this is not true, but, according to Cirese, logic suggests it as well.

Aesthetic objects, as statues or paintings, have a strong communicative value. They are objects meant “to say”, to make themselves comprehensible (through logic or emotion) to the viewers. This is why they tend to work quite well in museums or even in churches or streets.

But everyday-life objects such as looms, pots, tools, machinery they are not meant “to say” something but “to do” something, to work instead of communicate. Thus they lack the visual information necessary to be understood at first glance. Nonetheless, when they are exhibited in ethnographic (or archaeological) museums they are supposed “to say about how they work” as they have suddenly became self explanatory only because they have been moved to a museum context.

Obviously, there are many intermediate positions between this opposition (my language skills make it very difficult to render in English such an effective terminology as the one used by Cirese who opposed «segnico» to «fabrile»). For example, as Cirese reminds, there are objects that have both a practical and a communicative function such as ex voto. 

Ethnographic Museum in Formentera
from formenteraweb

However, in an archeological context where so many information about use are lost, even these kind of objects need to be contextualised to be understood (figurative votive offers to ancient divinities might be not as understandable as the ones closer to the scholar’s own cultural background). It also worths to mention what Leroy Gourhan called «aesthetic functionality*»: the attempt of good craftsmen to achieve best practice combining pleasantness and functionality, use and decoration.

Cirese claims that the only way to make objects understandable to an a non expert audience (ie an audience that has no idea about the original use of the objects themselves) is to recreate, as much as possible, their context of use. In case of tools, he believes it would be mandatory to show the object IN USE, to communicate its very relevance. 

The task is not easy, especially with those objects whose context is not fixed (a house, a shop) but intangible (or «volatile» as Cirese would have preferred to say) such as rites, games, celebrations.

According to Cirese, a realistic reconstruction (with mannequins, for example) wouldn’t have been effective because the attempt to reproduce reality is doom to fail and it is bound to be disappointing if not ridiculous. On the contrary, a synthetic representation that is explicitly not realistic but identifies and isolates only those characteristics of reality that are relevant to the exhibition purposes, could successfully deliver contextual information.

It really saddens me that Professor Cirese is no longer with us and I would be really happy to ask him if, in his opinion, non-realistic 3D digital visualisation could serve this purpose and even suggest new opportunities. 

I genuinely think so.

 (*my translation from Italian)

From Pompeii to the Trobriands

The baker Terentius Neo and his Wife
From wikipedia commons

As soon as it was available on the British Museums website, I have downloaded and read the press release about the exhibition to find out something more about the concepts underlying it.

According to what I have read, key features appear to be domestic spaces and ordinary lives of the people in Pompeii and Herculaneum.

Apparently, this exhibition is going exactly in the direction I hoped for my project: material culture or, in other words, that fascinating intersection between archaeology and anthropology.

What is material culture about?

It is a bit like Digital Humanities, nobody exactly knows. I like to think that material culture is the study of what we leave behind us when we (as single persons or societies) pass away. I am aware that cultures are not only material and a lot of our heritage is not-physical or, better, non tangible. I am also aware that, as Malinowski remarks, a material object is meaningless without its immaterial context. But this is exactly the point. 
In his famous Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922:105), Malinowski says:

"A canoe is an item of material culture, and as such it can be described, photographed and even bodily transported into a museum. But [...] the ethnographic reality of the canoe would not be brought much nearer to a student at home, even by placing a perfect specimen right before him.

The canoe is made for a certain use, and with a definite purpose; it is a means to an end [...]. In the study of the economic purposes for which a canoe is made, of the various uses to which it is submitted, we find the first approach to a deeper ethnographic treatment. Further sociological data, referring to its ownership, accounts of who sails in it, and how it is done; information regarding the ceremonies and customs of its construction, a sort of typical life history of a native craft all that brings us nearer still to the understanding of what his canoe truly means to the native. 

Even this, however, does not touch the most vital reality of a native canoe. For a craft, whether of bark or wood, iron or steel, lives in the life of its sailors, and it is more to a sailor than a mere bit of shaped matter. To the native, not less than to the white seaman, a craft is surrounded by an atmosphere of romance, built up of tradition and of personal experience. It is an object of cult and admiration, a living thing, possessing its own individuality."

Trobriand Islands. A traditional canoe.
From Art Pacific

How many things of a dead person or culture can we understand looking at its objects?

I have worked once on the book collection of a famous Italian director. After that experience, I felt, irrationally, that I knew him deeply. It was one of the most vivid experience about how powerful objects can be.

In an archaeological context, how many things can we understand looking at an ancient artefact? Why the maker chose a specific material or a particular shape, why one section looks more consumed than the others, why it was stored in a certain place and where was it found?

What I have learnt is that we often don’t have univocal answers to all these questions. Nevertheless, artefacts (big or small, monumental or ordinary, precious or cheap) are kind of “instruction books” (to quote Rapoport not literally) to understand past cultures. Or at least try to.

The British Museum seems to explore this kind of approach quite successfully. I was reading today, on their blog, the “life-story” of the Amara pot.

Going back to Malinowski, how much do we lose when we look at the object separated from its context? I think this is one of the better potential applications of 3D visualisation, digital and virtual technologies. I believe that all the audiences would understand a lot more about, for example, the portrait of Terentius Neo and his wife (or the Amara Pot) if they could not only see the object exhibited in the museum but also, somehow, access a visualisation of it put in its context: that “domestic space” lived by “ordinary people” that is supposed to be one of the strongest concept of the whole exhibition.