The Religious Plot in Museums or the Lack Thereof: The Case of Islamic Art Display
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study offers a fascinating set of epistemological, philosophical, and ethical questions about the role of Islam--as a religion--in the curatorial and museological practices of Islamic art objects today. The debates of secularity and sacrality, and the ways in which these play out in exhibitionary spaces or galleries, are important ones. I do think the author is a bit quick to dismiss though the hermeneutical counter/effects of decontextualization. If something, such as a beautifully tiled, Central Asian mihrab, is removed from the qibla wall of the mosque in which it originally was embedded, and placed instead in the space of a western art museum, that new space will inevitably impart an alternative resonance and meaning in how the object is read, particularly to museum-goers who are non-believers or unfamiliar with the religious symbolic value of a mihrab itself, as the sacred niche indicating to congregants the direction of Mecca. Though I agree with the author that the mihrab is not suddenly somehow devoid of its original "aura of spirituality" just because it resides in a supposedly secular space.
Well argued and eloquently written. Accept with minor grammatical revisions.
Author Response
I thank this reviewer for his very positive report. His/her remark: "If something, such as a beautifully tiled, Central Asian mihrab, is removed from the qibla wall of the mosque in which it originally was embedded, and placed instead in the space of a western art museum, that new space will inevitably impart an alternative resonance and meaning in how the object is read", is perfectly justified. I will heed it in a last revision of my article.
Reviewer 2 Report
This article offered a clear argument and was very persuasive. The author seems to be quite familiar with current trends and ideas in Islamic museology, particularly in Arabian Gulf nations, and in addressing the Eurocentric and Western views on the curation and classification of "Islamic art" today. The author has also addressed several key points in current scholarship and presented a compelling analysis of why some should be reconsidered.
However, a few minor corrections should be applied before publication. These include switching the wording of certain phrases, e.g., "worldly influential" to "influential worldly", to distinguish proper nouns and nouns, e.g., "Non-Muslims" to "non-Muslims", note correct abbreviations, e.g., "(Met)" to "(MET)". These are other points including word repetition and missing spaces.
The changes should be reviewed and applied uniformly throughout the text before publication. Again, they are minor and do not detract from the article's overall excellent content and argument.
Although I am not entirely familiar with the style guide of this journal, I noticed that spelling is in American English rather than UK English and quotations are in the UK or European style...so there seems to be a conflict in styles unless this is the accepted journal style.
Author Response
I am most grateful to the reviewer for his/her appreciation of my article. I agree with his/her remarks about the corrections to be made in order to improve my English expression. As a non-native English speaker, it is difficult for me to avoid mistakes. Therefore I thank the reviewer for pointing this out. I will re-read the text very carefully and correct these mistakes.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a well-researched and cited study of the way patterns used in the field of Islamic art to organise information in the museum setting developed from a particular style of art historical research which privileges certain narratives and, seemingly counterintuitively, often excludes mention of religious narrative in relation to presentation of Islamic art and artefacts. The article builds on previous research by the author but the special issue’s focus on religious narrative and compositional models has allowed her to develop her argument and present her ideas in a novel and convincing manner. The author is in a position of authority when it comes to considering narrative in relation to artifacts and the article is an important contribution to the author’s field both in relation to art historical research and museum curatorship but, beyond this, is of interest to others as it addresses directly the often overlooked position and power of the artefact to ‘speak’ or convey narrative and considers ways that ‘rhetorical’ patterns may enhance or dilute this quality of the artefact.
The paper is well structured beginning clearly by identifying the context and problem which will be addressed, the suppression of the religious narrative in the display of Islamic art and artefacts, in relation to current debate. To develop her argument, the author expounds a number of contexts drawing out key strands and conclusions. While this may seem intricate, it is necessary in order to develop understanding of the key contexts which join together to impact this situation. This background allows the reader to quickly follow the author’s train of thought so that the contemporary manifestation of this situation can be fully considered, and potential alternatives discussed.
The author firstly engages in discussion of the intellectual context of Islamic museology. This is outlined very well in the context of this paper, identifying and characterising the main historical ‘antagonistic’ strands of scholarship in relation to the focus on religious narrative and considering how they have interacted and shaped scholarship. She turns to consider socio-political elements which shape curatorship and relates these to three ‘objectives’ observed in contemporary curation particularly focusing on the renewed discussion of decolonizing. She argues that, in the context of Islamic art history and museology, this discussion (which she refers to as ‘a neo-postcolonial discourse’) focuses on arguments already well-rehearsed and of little value or relevance in the contemporary context. Instead of developing discourse in the contemporary context the focus is on ‘rehashing ideas from the seventies’. She also introduces the concept of ‘secular soteriology’ (which will shape the rest of the discussion) contrasting secularity with her recognition of ‘principled neutrality’. This is a well cited and considered discussion, drawing on a wide range of relevant examples, which suits the context of the paper. She concludes the review with a call for new analysis which would leave behind outdated arguments and focus on potentialities for the museum’s ‘open semantic space’ as an enabler of religious narrative which may enrich and deepen, rather than suppress, discussion.
Beginning this analysis, she revisits the key question of whether the sacred has a place in the museum and, in contrast to previous scholars cited, suggests that the museum has the capacity to further understanding and discussion and provide insight through experience because of its ‘neutral ontology’. Using Duncan’s notion of ‘secular rituals’ of spectatorship as a foil, she considers this through discussion of viewer’s experiences of sacred art in different spaces showing that it is possible for the faithful to engage spiritually with artifacts in the museum’s context. Although continuing with Duncan’s notion of ‘secular ritual’, here it may be helpful to concede that while there is a possibility for the viewer to engage with these artefacts, this experience, even in the best of settings, may be similar to, but is perhaps not strictly a ‘re-enactment’ of ‘spiritual ritual’. (This is explained somewhat in the first conclusion drawn on p. 5, but perhaps the use of ‘re-enact’ and ‘ritual’ in the last line on p. 4 might be reconsidered in describing the experience.)
Reflecting on this evidence she suggests three key points. First, that secularity and sacrality reside not only potentially in the space and/or the object, but in the viewer’s mind which means that space is only one aspect contributing to experience. Second, and crucially as this is often overlooked, that religious artefacts and artworks have powerful agency which she observes means that there is a place for re-introduction of religious plot because the object’s decontextualisation in the museum does not automatically secularise the object. (In relation to this she may be familiar with the work of David Freedberg, The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response, which although dated is worth citing for those who are not familiar with these ideas. Another potential source for citation here is Cornelia Tsakiridou, Icons in Time, Persons in Eternity. Tsakiridou introduces the concepts of enargeia and autarky in relation to images focusing on pure aesthetics in relation to their agency. Thus, she argues, whatever their context and whoever the viewer this power is retained. These are only suggestions as citation is not required here but these texts provide further reading for those who are interested.) Finally, she suggests that these decontextualised objects in the museum’s environment can be appreciated anew due to the opportunity for staging and re-staging in a ‘double process of de- and re-semanitization’ of the museums ‘blank space’ with the only requirement being an approach of neutrality.
This observation leads to a critique of current curatorship and its capacity to develop, enrich and add subtlety and clarity to religious discourse. Considering this potential in relation to the experience of actual exhibitions, she discusses some cases drawing on reviews, publications which record the experiences of viewers, and illustrating with well-chosen photographs. Reviewing these examples, she concludes that the organisation of material in these exhibitions, what could be called their rhetorical patterns, ‘stimulates the experience of the sacred’. This is because, through the curated expression of religious narrative, the museum is not seeking to mimick the original sacred settings of these objects but placing them in a way that reveals their capacity to convey narrative, to act as players in the drama, to ‘speak’. However, the curation is crucial.
She turns her attention to consider further the way that Islamic art and artefacts are displayed currently in relation to the findings discussed above. Here she is suggesting that it is time to shift focus from the neo-postcolonial discourse described earlier and instead turn toward consideration of organising material with thought for both the nature of art and artefacts and the attention to the continuous evolution of contexts of viewing. She calls for ‘unrestrained critique of the curation itself’ which could perhaps better respond to contemporary and evolving issues. (The argument in this section (bottom of 12, top of 13) is important but perhaps some of the wording could be revisited here to make these points with greater clarity.)
She identifies a key obstacle to this refocus: the continued hegemony of the historical archaeological rationale over other accounts in the context of both Islamic art history and as adopted in the curation of Islamic art. She notes three outcomes of this situation: continued inability to address religious narratives; overemphasised didacticism; and poor settings for the experience of objects (‘iIll-managed phenomenology of scenographies’). All of this relates to narrative and organisational patterns in these spaces and her ‘re-problematising’ here develops from the original problem identified at the beginning of the study.
To address this, she must return to the key category governing Islamic museology, which has preoccupied neo-postcolonial discourse, What is Islamic? She explains that the contestation of this term has ‘yielded to a separation of religion and culture in both Islamic museology and art history as they are practised in the west’ and she has included very good examples here. Concurrently, she recognises that this debate, which focuses on terminology, is not played out in the Muslim world and yet the ‘orthodoxy of the Western secularist mainstream prevails’. (While I would also observe that this is the case, I would suggest that it might be useful here to cite some examples of ‘sponsors and curators who serenely label material ‘Islamic’ as this would strengthen her argument here. Also I might suggest different wording for the last sentence in the second to last paragraph on p. 13, perhaps something like, ‘If, like the Perennialists in the past, the present Muslim and non-Muslim scholars and curators seeking to valorize spirituality in the epistemology of Islamic material culture barely dent the hegemony of the Western secularist mainstream, etc.’ or something like this, or not. However, the addition of the comma following ‘past’ is a must.)
Her observations that the work of Muslim scholars is easily discounted on the basis of methodological diversions or accusations of ‘essentialism’ is the best argument for an opening out of narrative, and the observation of a counter current is welcome. The recognition that the question of Islamic art vs art of the Islamic world is a faux problem will hopefully encourage this counter current and remove obstacles to the development of narrative. She suggests a further shift of focus towards an aim to understand how Islamic operates in a pluralistic artworld and a closer consideration of possible ways to tell the story of being Islamic through the objects in the visual space of the museum. Here, a brief history of Islamic collections develops the understanding of early patterns of organisation of material (helpfully referred to as ‘traditional display’) to reveal how this focus has failed to take full advantage of both museum space and the agency of the object. In this display model, which echoes scholarship, she recognises an ‘introversion or even an aversion to religion’ which results in reduction of religious narrative to ‘an understated evocation.’ She provides compelling evidence here with a wide range of examples, often somewhat surprising in willingness to disregard or ‘unwrite’ the religious narrative. She suggests these examples, which provide ample evidence of the ignorance, deliberate or otherwise, of the religious narrative, are indicative of museums’ religious introversion and the fulfilment of the ‘secular soteriological’ agenda.
She then observes the ways that the organisation and display of art and artefacts forwards this rhetoric, noting how museums present ‘overreaching cultural historical narratives’ in displays which are presentations of ‘compiled data collection’ modelled on ‘cherished art historical publications’ and their narratives. In a nod to the scholars who create them, these complicated, overcrowded, overexplained, ‘encyclopedic’ displays, which blend genres and standardise objects, further ‘mainstream academic pleasure instead of participatory reception’. She proposes simplification alongside acknowledgement of ‘skilful space and object phenomenology’ which takes account of the full communicative potential of the objects. Helpfully, examples of this type of display are provided with focus particularly on the strategic placement of thoughtful and thought-provoking explanation instead of over-explanation. She describes a ‘poetic installation’ that fulfils ‘the double semantic-aesthetic mission’ and instates the religious plot. In finally considering Islam as a Theme Among Other Themes, she states that any exhibit of Islamic material culture should, at a minimum, be placed within a ‘meaningful Muslim perspective’ and notes that ‘traditional displays’ ‘generally fall short of providing a genuine Islamic framework.’ She contrasts this with examples from ‘Muslim-led’ museums where exhibitions are centred on this concluding that future curation should take its cue from these. Here again examples with photos from recently renewed displays at major museums and ‘Muslim-led’ museums are provided and discussed in detail for contrast.
This is a well-crafted and original piece of research explicating a number of contexts and drawing out strands and conclusions which are then brought together to inform critique of the dominant pattern and narrative used in the display of Islamic art and artefacts in museums today. Further, it considers the potential for rethinking narratives that would allow both a more thorough and subtle understanding of the Islamic art and artefacts displayed. This consideration of religious narrative in relation to the display of Islamic art opens up discussion of the potentialities of the museum as the setting for the plot in relation to the viewers’ rich experience of these artefacts as the locus of narrative and can be extrapolated to relate to other works of sacred and religious art. The author recognises the potential depth and subtlety of plot, a plot which is often suppressed, but which has the capacity to be more inclusive and appeal to both insider and outsider, religious and secular viewer. This is made possible by a more neutral, open and attentive, and less derivative approach to curation, which would crucially, as the author states, reattribute ‘the main power of communication to the works themselves’.
Author Response
I am most grateful to this reviewer for his/her very detailed report, showing a very sensible understanding of the ideas that I endeavour to argue in my article. I'll heed with very much care the few suggestions he/she makes to improve the text and will add the references he/she aptly suggests.
