Totem and Taboo
An Art-worthy news story in today's headlines is the centennial commemoration, decreed by the Pope, of the return of Vatican Museum cultural artifacts to Canadian native tribes. CBC.ca is leading the pack in reporting updates, which it began reporting years ago, as the numerous hyperlinks within the article are an indication. Since this is a meta-level overview of the subject, precise citations will be omitted =if the blog is to be posted before this time next year.
The irony is that precision citation, accounting, attribution, and provenance, are at the heart of the controversy. In 1925, an exhibition was organized by Pope Pius XI, who invited Catholic missionaries to ship Indigenous cultural objects from far-flung missions. At the time, research into the meaning of cultural totems removed from native contexts, and exhibited in museums, was more scientific than controversial (as it is today).
Cultural objects are typically not intrinsically valuable—unlike plundered Aztec gold--rather, as samples of the humble economic and limited material productive capacity of the native peoples represented. Moccasins, beaded mittens, a kayak constructed of animal hide used in hunting whales. Many more examples are not shown, or listed -and that is for good reason. Living tribal representatives are struggling to replace the objects without fully understanding their original meaning. The curators are guided by intuition, not taxonomy.
Without a clear and unambiguous paper trail of conveyance, it's hard to decide what belongs to what tribe. The objects are not signed by the creators--unlike Western art--and no paper trail remains. To avoid embarrassing publicity, therefore, it has been agreed to seal repatriation records. This is always an unpopular course of action because the public, and that Tribune of public interest--the Press--wants to know everything. “What are they hiding?” -you may ask. It mainly affects the Catholic Church in this pow-wow, because it is acknowledged as the arbiter of redemption in matters of guilt. The Holy See cites the 8th Commandment as its motive for returning the tribal objects.
What this commentary is getting at is an evaluation--an appreciation--for tribal objects, as distinct from enjoyment as objects of Art. These are formal criteria. A museum may exhibit a totem object because it is beautiful, moving, aesthetic, and similar criteria. It misses the point of the object. Beauty is one of many evaluations. The new, surplus value added to totem objects as art, gallops roughshod over the intended significance of it as a totem object. It was not created for pleasing display. It was made for another purpose yet to be discovered by us. The syntax of the object's display contradicts its semantics.
The most shocking aspect of the matter is its relation to the importance the Roman Catholic Church places on religious relics. To put the argument in profane terms--which may concern anyone--it is like attending the display of an urn containing the ashes of an ancestor, displayed in a museum because of the beauty of the urn. Without insinuation, I submit that the improper display of a holy relic would be swiftly condemned and remediated by church authority. Call it a hypothetical; for argument sake.
A news story is a construct of reality. The fine resolution of a news story of the day--even with links to background stories--is only capable of so much granularity of detail. The subject of objects of material culture, such as those considered in the lead story is, by its very nature, susceptible to misinterpretation. Reading the meaning of cultural objects is not like parsing a verbal statement -much less printed literature. Everything about a cultural object is a percept, a point of view, subject to dispute. Add another level of interpretation, which is the visual documentation, the pictures.
A background story used as reference includes a two minute video of one of the delegates from an indigenous Canadian tribe speaking to an interviewer in Rome. Among the range of topics he is able to touch upon in this brief interview, is his opinion about one, specific item in the collection of objects: a peace pipe. The speaker declares that the ceremonial pipe should not be displayed. Indeed, the pipe is not depicted in the news reports. It is a good instance of the type of honor attributed to cultural objects of sacred value. Full restoration of respect for cultural objects of indigenous importance is part of restoring appreciation for the importance of material culture.
The best spin that can be put upon the entire matter is that it is both a teaching moment and a learning moment. We all gain a better knowledge of Art and it's important as a result. If I may add to the discussion, it is to remind everyone of the ultimate meaning of objects such as a peace pipe. A “peace pipe” is not a utilitarian object. Presumably, it is symbolic of the cessation of hostilities perhaps between tribes, an agreement leading to actual peace. Consider the analogy in Western culture of an important treaty being framed and displayed, as an example of elegant calligraphy, a minor art. In this context the matter of surplus value, such as price, is irrelevant.
Far from stifling expression, the repatriation of cultural objects appropriated innocently in past ages is now "the" cultural event of our time. The law of unintended consequences is in play, because despite the present misunderstandings, reconciliation of ownership of cultural property leads to better understanding between the Nations. Optimistically, it could be pointed out that ownership by the Vatican in Rome contributes to the historical provenance of the objects--many of which are undocumented--justifying the fuss being made about the whole matter.