Lara: Friday, July 6th + July 7th + July 8th (Barnes Visit and Friday and Saturday data gathering)

Thursday was my first visit to the Barnes and I was absolutely enthralled by the setting, curation of the pieces, and the art itself.  I felt that the Barnes exuded an unusual intimacy that is not replicable in other art museums, let alone most anthropological institutions. The notion of the ensemble and the complete neglect of labels really struck me as novel techniques, and in a sense was also freeing from the constraints that context can sometimes impose on enjoying the aesthetic qualities of the objects. However, the lack of any and all labels still perturbs me. As an archaeologist/anthropologist who really gives credence to the information that context provides, the absence of accessible grounding to the work I observed was unsettling. While, I appreciated the intentions of that specific absence, I don't think label-less displays should be a practice that is widely accepted. I do understand that for the Barnes the removal of context provides the freedom to assess form and figure without hinderance, but I think for the purpose of the Penn Museum, it is not an example that can be followed.

Nor do I think it is a practice that should be followed, especially considering visitor desires to comprehend the histories of objects. The more and more I reflect on visitor insights, as I did on Saturday through inputting visitor responses, the more I am convinced that the future of anthropological displays lies with the overt exhibition of object provenance. An object cannot be fully understood by its aesthetic value, especially since aesthetic notions are inherently subjective and non-generalizable. The telling of the human story of an object, on the other-hand i.e. its significance, movement, and displacement, can be as if not far more valuable than the understanding of its shape and form. That is not to say that shape and form should be excluded from understanding the objects held in the Penn Museum collection (especially since respondents have also commented on their attraction to objects in terms of their physical form and craftsmanship), but that to truly utilize objects in a way that honors their current presence in the institution, historical context must be paramount.

Friday and Saturday proved to be productive sessions for archival and respondent data gathering. While I was unable to stay for the full session on Friday, which was heavily oriented towards archival research, my shift on Saturday entailed a productive span of data entry, which now includes 60+ responses logged on a preliminary spreadsheet. The work isn't always exciting, but I know it is necessary, and I believe the information garnered from the evaluation of these responses will be useful for the near and long-term conceptual design of the project. In the coming week, I am excited to finish data entry and hope to begin analyzing the hard-fought responses we have gathered.