Assignment 4

Explore Fred Wilson ‘Mining the Museum’ and it’s possible interpretations in terms of difference. (no word count specified)

Introduction

The artist Fred Wilson was born in New York in 1954 and describes himself as of “African, Native American, European and Amerindian” descent. In the early 1990’s, The Contemporary Museum of Baltimore and Maryland Historical Society invited Wilson to create a museum installation in which he was given free reign of their collection and any archived objects with the opportunity to display them in any way he chose. The installation ran from 4th April 1992 to February 28th 1993 and mimicked the usual technique for museum displays – labels, wall texts, lighting, audio material yet his installation created a different experience for the viewer.

The title of his exhibition ‘Mining the Museum’ can be interpreted in different ways and suggests a deliberate play on words. It could mean Wilson ‘mined’ the museum, perhaps with controversy, ‘mined’ the museum for hidden artefacts or literally made the museum his own (mine). There are many different theories about ‘difference’ from philosophers throughout history. It is possible to interpret ‘Mining the Museum’ in terms of difference by looking at how Wilson managed to create a synthesis of black and white history, indicated differences in power through selected objects and enabled a consciousness shift in the viewer by rejecting traditional museum categorisation.

Synthesis of black and white history

The traditional exhibitions of the Maryland Historical Society museum focused on a mainly white past that excluded a whole history of African and Native Americans. Wilson retrieved forgotten and archived artefacts from these neglected people’s history and placed them in his installation. He was able to bring light to a ‘history and cultural presence that had been buried beneath layers of neglect and deliberate exclusion.‘ (Halle:170)

In ‘Metalwork 1793-1880’ (Fig 1.) Wilson placed two different types of metal-ware together in a display case. By surrounding slave shackles with silverware from wealthy white families of the 19th Century we are confronted with two different and opposing experiences of local history (Fig 1.). One history representing the white population – its wealth, exuberant luxury and superiority. The other representing the black, inferior and enslaved population forcibly taken from Africa and shackled in American life.

According to the Hegelian dialectic, the opposing and contradictory thesis (white, visible history) and antithesis (black, hidden history) were reconciled in ‘Metalwork 1793-1880’ to create a synthesis that gave Maryland’s history a higher level of truth. The two objects juxtaposed created tension for the viewer by illuminating the two experiences of Maryland history side by side.

In ‘Pedestals, Globe and Busts’, Wilson placed a gold and silver Globe bearing the word truth – an old trophy given to advertising clubs in the early 20th Century, between two sets of pedestals. On the left of the Globe were three empty pedestals labelled ‘Frederick Douglas’, ‘Harriet Tubman’ and ‘Benjamin Banneker’. All three were major African-American historical figures who at one time lived in Maryland. On the right of the globe were three pedestals that contained the busts of Henry Clay, Napoleon Bonaparte and Andrew Jackson. The three busts were of white political or military figures, none of which had any connection to the local history of Maryland. In this unity of historical people, the absence of the busts of significant local black historical figures indicates an invisible history running parallel to a visible white male history that was in a position to record its own version of history. The ‘Truth Trophy’ invites the viewer to see the truth about how history is recorded and portrayed by the institutions concerned. The weakness of recording an accurate history comparable to the weakness of advertising. (Halle:1993 )

Differences in power

Wilson’s installation can be seen to have emphasised the differences in power experienced by the people of the past. In terms of Master and Slave dialectic, Maryland’s history would have experienced opposing forces of superior and inferior people. The white population (master) were the privileged, decision makers with all of the power, wealth and control. The black Africans (slaves), and also the indigenous population were dependant, kept in ignorance and poverty with no power or influence.

The contrasting sizes and careful placement of objects by Wilson would have signified this power inequality to the viewer. In ‘Modes of Transport 1770-1910’ (Fig 4. ) the room was dominated by a large ornately decorated Sedan chair that was used to carry the powerful Governer Eden of Maryland during the 18th Century. (Fig.5)

Behind the Sedan chair and of a significantly smaller scale was a model of the Baltimore clipper that was converted to a slave ship after 1812. The visual impact of this very small model of a ship used to carry thousands of slaves and the large single seated chair suggested the power inequalities of the two groups. In ‘Metalwork 1793-1880’ (Fig 2.) the slave shackles themselves were placed in the cabinet in a way that suggests oppression. The objects could almost symbolize the bodies of the past – the black shackles crumpled on the ground with the ornate bright silverware encircling and dominating over the top of them.

Aristotle and Institutional categorisation

Prior to ‘Mining the Museum’ Wilson had created installations that drew attention to curatorial practices and the affect that these had on the viewers interpretation and understanding of history. In ‘Mining the Museum’, Wilson focused on the museum as a formal space and its perceived neutrality when displaying objects from the past. He was able to challenge the traditions of ordering and presenting objects from history. The installation explored not what objects mean but how meaning is created when they are placed within the museum.

Museums and other institutions categorise objects and things on their identity. This traditional way of organising different objects or things goes back to Aristotle and his ideas on ‘specific’ difference. Objects are categorised according to negation and their opposition to one another, for example can fly/can’t fly or silver/not silver. Aristotle claimed that there were divisions within being that divided things into categories, genres, and species etc. We are then able to fit objects into this system of categorisation. Museums tend to categorise their items and display them according to this principle.

In ‘Mining the Museum’, the placing of different objects together by Wilson disrupted this traditional categorisation within the museum. It gave us a post-structuralist view of objects and the history they represent. Wilson allowed ” …the power of objects to speak when the ‘laws’ governing museum practices [were] expanded and the artificial boundaries museums build [were] removed.” (Ginsberg)

Heightening awareness through difference (Deleuze)

Wilson’s exhibition allowed viewers to interpret a new and truer version of history by exhibiting items from the black and native american people that were previously not on display. He also created the potential to heighten the viewer’s awareness of history by disrupting the traditional categorisation of historical objects based on identity. The French philosopher Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995) rejected Aristotle and Hegel’s theories of difference – both based on specific differences and opposition. Deleuze believed that ‘to be’ is the same for all things and that being is in a constant state of motion. Generalising is a basic action of thought yet it does not take into account ‘newness’ or the ability of things to evolve and change. Wilson’s installation resisted categorisation based on negation and created room for newness- of perspective and concepts in the form of affirmation.

Wilson created tension in his installation by juxtaposing different objects to create new concepts. The viewer was no longer passive but active in interpreting objects placed in an unconventional manner.

In ‘Modes of transport (1770-1910) Wilson placed a klu klux Klan head inside a 19th Century white baby’s pram. What did these two unrelated objects mean to the viewer? The concept signified here suggested that racism was inherited and passed from parent to child. This simple placement of two different objects together allowed the viewer to question where racism originates from and created the potential for a new perspective to evolve. Wilson has effectively, encouraged the shackled people in Plato’s cave to turn around and question the shadows displayed before them.

Conclusion

It is possible to interpret ‘Mining the Museum’ in terms of difference in several ways. Firstly, the installation was able to tell the history of Maryland that wasn’t bias towards the ‘white’ culture. Placement or non-placement (Installation of Pedestals, Truth Globe and Busts) of items together created a synthesis of white, superior visible history and black, inferior invisible history. The viewers were given a more honest representation of their history. Secondly, the installation was able to indicate differences in power between African and the indigenous Americans and the white population through the positioning and sizing of the artefacts. Lastly, Wilson was able to heighten awareness of his viewers by rejecting the traditional classification of objects and allowing a more Deleuzian approach to his installation.

Reflections

I am extremely pleased that I selected ‘Mining the Museum’ for this Assignment as it was a very powerful installation. It seems especially relevant at the moment in light of the Black Lives Matter Movement and the murder of George Lloyd. I find it fascinating and deeply satisfying that people are removing and demanding the removal of statues of individuals with a history related to the slave trade, the exploitation of other nations or even for holding racist views. I personally am shocked that these statues exist and feel quite ignorant that I was unaware of them. Again, these physical protests bring to light the question of who records and documents our history? Why were these people immortalised in a statue and whose version of history is on display? Yet, as Wilson implies in Modes of Transport, were the views of these individuals (such as Robert Baden-Powell )inherited and something that was ‘bred’ into them? Would we have had the same views towards others if we had been socialised and conditioned in the same way?

It was extremely challenging to bring philosophical theories of difference into Wilson’s installation as I found the theories extremely complex.

List of Illustrations

Fig 1. Artist Fred Wilson (b.1954) At http://www.archivesandcreativepractice.com/fred-wilson (Accessed 04/062020)

Fig 2. Wilson, F. (1992) installation “Metalwork 1793-1880.” [Historical objects form the Maryland Historical Society] ‘Mining the Museum exhibition’ At https://beautifultrouble.org/case/mining-the-museum/ (Accessed 10/06/2020)

Fig 3. Wilson, F. (1992) Installation of Pedestals, Truth Globe and Busts [Historical objects form the Maryland Historical Society] ‘Mining the Museum exhibition’ At https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figura-4-Fred-Wilson-Vista-da-Instalacao-Mining-the-Museum-Garimpando-o-Museu-The_fig4_335084044 (Accessed 14/06/2020)

Fig 4. Wilson, F. (1992) Modes of Transport 1770-1910) [Historical objects form the Maryland Historical Society] ‘Mining the Museum exhibition’ At http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/books/nathan/martha-buskirk-creative-enterprise-6-4-12_detail.asp?picnum=2 (Accessed 13/06/2020)

Fig 5. Sir Robert Eden, 1st Baronet, of Maryland (1741-1784) At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Robert_Eden,_1st_Baronet,_of_Maryland Accessed (14/06/2020)

Fig 6. Wilson, F. (1992) Modes of Transport (1770-1910) [Historical objects form the Maryland Historical Society] ‘Mining the Museum exhibition’ At https://www.on-curating.org/issue-45-reader/non-things-or-why-nostalgia-for-the-thing-is-always-reactionary.html#.Xu3olERKjcc (Accessed 20/06/2020)

Bibliography

Corrin, L. Mining the museum. An Installation confronting history in Anderson, G. (2004) Reinventing the Museum Altamira Press: Oxford p.248-256 At 2ahUKEwiM__mUhpHqAhUnUhUIHYvdBugQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ (Accessed 10/06/2020)

Descombes, V. (1980) Modern French Philosophy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Garfield, D. (1993) Making the museum mine:An interview with Fred Wilson Museum News At https://msu.edu/course/ha/452/wilsoninterview.htm (Accessed 20/06/2020)

Ginsberg, E. Case study : Mining the museum At Beautiful Trouble https://beautifultrouble.org/case/mining-the-museum/ (Accessed 20/06/2020)

Sadler, Dr. G.B (2013) Marist College Lectures – G.W.F. Hegel Phenomenology of spirit You tube lecture At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fi7g5Ncy5U (Accessed 20/06/2020)

Halle, H. (1993) Mining the Museum ‘Grand Street Journal’ No.44 pp151-172 At https://www.jstor.org/stable/25007622?seq=1 (Accessed 20/06/2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Robert_Eden,_1st_Baronet,_of_Maryland

http://www.archivesandcreativepractice.com/fred-wilson

https://www.mdhs.org/digitalimage/installation-view-mining-museum

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/deleuze/

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/fred-wilson-15855

Williams, J. (2003) Gilles Deleuze’s “Difference and Repetition”. A critical introduction and guide. Edinburgh University Press