文化治理與族群多樣性：以龐麗碼頭博物館為例

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學國際與社會科學學院歐洲文化與觀光研究所碩士論文 Graduate Institute of European Cultures and Tourism College of International Studies and Social Sciences. National Taiwan Normal University Master Thesis. 文化治理與族群多樣性：以龐麗碼頭博物館為例 Cultural Governmentality and Ethnic Diversity: A Case Study of Musée du Quai Branly. 陳于穠 Yu-Nung CHEN 指導教授：賴嘉玲博士 Dr. Chia-Ling LAI 中華民國一○五年六月 June 2016.

(2) 謝誌一個美麗的機緣讓我展開了三年的學術之旅。一眨眼旅程就要結束了。回想起過程中各種酸甜苦辣，百感交集，實要真心感謝這一路上不吝給予指教與勉勵的人。謝謝指導教授賴嘉玲老師在學術寫作上的指引與鞭策，開拓我的思路也磨練批判性的思考。謝謝陳泓易老師和吳介祥老師兩位口試委員提供睿智的建言，使研究更加豐厚。謝謝國際展負責人 Chih-Cha, Chung 與研究與教學部門主任 Frédéric Keck 百忙中撥冗提供本研究寶貴的資訊。另外，感謝 Taril Mesli 老師的協助和關心，並引介我參與法國學術會議，獲益匪淺。在歐文所的這段求學時光，謝謝劉以德老師、陳學毅老師、Dinu 老師多元學識專長的澆灌，不只開闊眼界、豐富文化涵養，也激發學習潛能。很高興遇見同樣懷有相同理念、才智雙全的十一位夥伴。因為有大家相互砥礪與扶持，讓這段學習歷程始終充滿歡笑和精進的動力。我萬分感謝家人的支持和包容，伴我度過那些疲乏、無助的日子；又或是出其不意地給予靈感，讓我如獲至寶；再是成全一趟歐洲行，讓我能夠完成學術考察與觀光遊歷。. i.

(3) 摘要自二十世紀中，美學始成為探究人類學文物的新取徑，著重族群多樣性和美學的普世價值。2006 年六月於巴黎成立的龐麗碼頭博物館（又譯：凱布朗利博物館、布朗利河岸博物館）是一間國家級的民族學博物館，致力於收藏和展示來自亞洲、非洲、美洲和大洋洲的藝術品。整合法國境內早期人類博物館和國立非洲和大洋洲藝術博物館，並重新置放於極具現代感的建築空間內，龐麗碼頭博物館冀望提供一個可彼此對話的空間，並以美學重新審視人類多樣性與平等性。本研究旨在探討當連繫上他者展覽實踐，博物館作為一種治理技術，在文化治理和族群多樣性所扮演的角色。借用 Tony Bennett 之「治理性」為理論架構，輔以文件分析、田野調查和質性訪談，並以龐麗碼頭博物館為研究對象。本研究的目的有三：其一，將文化治理放置在法國多元民族社會的脈絡中，分析博物館如何透過展覽政治達成文化多樣性與族群平等；其二，審視博物館為達成文化多樣性所採用的美學化手法如何於展覽品、建築空間及城市景觀中再現與其達成的效果為何；其三，分析在全球化時代下移民與觀光如何建構參觀主體。本研究以文化治理的框架探究龐麗碼頭博物館，深入剖析他者美學之再現，思索在全球化時代中展覽實踐與人權議題連結的意涵，並試圖由族群文化和全球流動性擴展分析範疇。關鍵字：美學、文化治理性、族群多樣性、民族學博物館、龐麗碼頭博物館. ii.

(4) Abstract Aesthetics has become an approach to anthropological objects with the concern of cultural diversity and aesthetic universalism since the mid 20th century. Opened in Paris in the year of 2006 as a new type of ethnographic museum, the Musée du Quai Branly centralizes objects from the Musée de l’Homme and the Musée national des Arts d’Afrique et d’Oceanie in a modern architecture, exhibiting non-European cultures from Africa, Asia, America, and Oceania. With an aesthetic perspective and consideration for the diversity of humanity, the museum is determined to provide a space for the dialogue between different cultures to take place. The current thesis aims at probing into the role museum plays in relation to cultural governance and ethnic diversity when associated with the exhibiting practice of the Other. This thesis, drawing upon Tony Bennett’s theory “governmentality,” achieves the goal with the support of documents analysis, field investigation, and semi-structured interviews, and targets at the Musée du Quai Branly. The research first of all analyzes the politics of museum as an operational technique toward cultural diversity and ethnic equality within the context of multiethnic society in France. Second, my research concern is also given to the representation of the Other, in which multiethnic cultures are exhibited through an aesthetic perspective on collections, architectural space, and urban landscapes. Third, museum’s visitors are considerably important to the construction of the visiting subject shaped by migration and tourism in the age of globalization. Through the case study of Musée du Quai Branly, the thesis attempts to further enlarge the scope of governmental concepts by the integration of ethnicity and mobility to reconsider the implication of drawing the relation of exhibitionary practices with human issues in the age of globalization. Keywords: aesthetics, cultural governmentality, ethnic diversity, ethnography museum, Musée du Quai Branly. iii.

(5) Table of Contents. 謝誌 ... ..............................................................................................................................i 摘要 ... .............................................................................................................................ii Abstract............................................................................................................................ iii List of Figures.................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables..... .............................................................................................................. ix CHAPTER 1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 1. I. Research Background ......................................................................................... 1 II. Problematiques ................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 2. Literature Review ..................................................................................11. I. Museum and Governance ..................................................................................11 II. Representation of the Other .............................................................................. 17 III. Formation of the Visiting Subject in the Age of Globalization ........................ 29 CHAPTER 3. Methodology......................................................................................... 34. I. Research Object ................................................................................................ 34 II. Research Methods ............................................................................................ 43 CHAPTER 4. Cultural Governance and Ethnic Diversity........................................... 51. I. France as a Country of Ethnic Hybridity.......................................................... 51 II. Cultural Legacies of Politics ............................................................................ 56 III. Musée du Quai Branly: Aesthetics and Ethnic Dialogue ................................. 66 iv.

(6) CHAPTER 5. Musée du Quai Branly: Representation and the Formation of the. Visiting Subject ...................................................................................................... 83 I. Exhibition ......................................................................................................... 83 II. Architecture and Garden ................................................................................ 102 III. City and Tourism ............................................................................................ 132 CHAPTER 6. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 144. I. Concluding Remarks and Implications .......................................................... 145 II. Research Limitations and Suggestions ........................................................... 162 References.......... .......................................................................................................... 167 Chinese Literature................................................................................................. 167 English/French Literature ..................................................................................... 167 Appendix................ ...................................................................................................... 175 A. Interview Guide .............................................................................................. 175 B. Interview Transcript ....................................................................................... 177 C. Statistics.......................................................................................................... 193 D. List of Temporary Exhibitions From June 2006 to June 2015 ....................... 198. v.

(7) List of Figures Figure 2.1. The art-culture system (Clifford, 1988) ....................................................... 23 Figure 3.1. Interview with Mr. Keck, director of the Department of Research and Education ................................................................................................................ 48 Figure 5.1. Vanuatuan funerary effigies ......................................................................... 88 Figure 5.2. Papua New Guinean mask ........................................................................... 88 Figure 5.3. Bedouin camel litter, Asia ............................................................................ 90 Figure 5.4. Plate attached to the camel litter .................................................................. 90 Figure 5.5. Contemporary aboriginal painting, Australia ............................................... 91 Figure 5.6. Plate attached to the contemporary aboriginal painting ............................... 91 Figure 5.7. A secret society’s figure ............................................................................... 92 Figure 5.8. Plate attached to the secret society’s figure.................................................. 92 Figure 5.9. Australian weapons ...................................................................................... 93 Figure 5.10. Plate attached to the Australian weapons ................................................... 93 Figure 5.11. Voodoo........................................................................................................ 94 Figure 5.12. Plate attached to the Voodoo ...................................................................... 94 Figure 5.13. Plate attached to The River......................................................................... 96 Figure 5.14. The River by Charles Sandison .................................................................. 96 Figure 5.15. Introductory plate of African collections ................................................... 97 Figure 5.16. Visitors were watching video ..................................................................... 99 Figure 5.17. Tattoo works ............................................................................................... 99 Figure 5.18. A tattoo designed by a 16-year-old girl .................................................... 101 Figure 5.19. Visitors with tattoos.................................................................................. 101 vi.

(8) Figure 5.20. Model and plan of the MQB .................................................................... 104 Figure 5.21. The Museum building .............................................................................. 104 Figure 5.22. The Branly building ................................................................................. 104 Figure 5.23. The University building ........................................................................... 104 Figure 5.24. Paintings on the ceilings of the University building ................................ 105 Figure 5.25. Painting on the pillar of the University building...................................... 105 Figure 5.26. Glass wall at the Debilly Entrance ........................................................... 107 Figure 5.27. Windows covered by imaginary plants .................................................... 109 Figure 5.28. Blinds installed on the south side of the Museum building ..................... 109 Figure 5.29. Lobby ........................................................................................................ 111 Figure 5.30. Papua New Guinea sculptures, Oceania....................................................112 Figure 5.31. Australian jewelries ...................................................................................112 Figure 5.32. African masks ............................................................................................113 Figure 5.33. European style paintings; in Asian area ....................................................113 Figure 5.34. Main gallery; a view from the third floor..................................................114 Figure 5.35. Showcase; in African area .........................................................................114 Figure 5.36. One of the boxes exhibiting African artifacts ...........................................114 Figure 5.37. Dogon masks exhibited in a box ...............................................................114 Figure 5.38. Convergent areas .......................................................................................114 Figure 5.39. American area ...........................................................................................114 Figure 5.40. Plan of the main gallery ............................................................................117 Figure 5.41. The River ...................................................................................................118 Figure 5.42. Funerary posts from Eastern Africa ..........................................................119 Figure 5.43. Indonesian domestic altar..........................................................................119 Figure 5.44. Vietnamese bronze drum, Asia ..................................................................119 vii.

(9) Figure 5.45. American objects in showcase ..................................................................119 Figure 5.46. Vanuatuan drums, Oceania ....................................................................... 120 Figure 5.47. Jewelries of Akan culture, America ......................................................... 120 Figure 5.48. Asian mask ............................................................................................... 121 Figure 5.49. Sculptures from Solomon Islands, Oceania ............................................. 121 Figure 5.50. A box in African area ............................................................................... 122 Figure 5.51. Nepali Buddha; in Asian area................................................................... 122 Figure 5.52. A view of the garden ................................................................................ 125 Figure 5.53. A pathway in the garden leads to the museum ......................................... 126 Figure 5.54. Design on the glade .................................................................................. 127 Figure 5.55. Le Théâtre de verdure .............................................................................. 129 Figure 5.56. La roseraie ................................................................................................ 129 Figure 5.57. La terrasse des Roses-Lianes ................................................................... 129 Figure 5.58. Le jardin de la Cistude ............................................................................. 129 Figure 5.59. La clairière du Candi ................................................................................ 129 Figure 5.60. Concert held in the amphitheatre in 2015 ................................................ 129 Figure 5.61. Map of arrondissements in Paris .............................................................. 134 Figure 5.62. View of the Eiffel Tower from the garden ............................................... 139 Figure 5.63. Family with children ................................................................................ 141 Figure 5.64. School children in safety vest .................................................................. 141 Figure 5.65. Black visitor in the distance ..................................................................... 141. viii.

(10) List of Tables Table 3-1. Official publications of the MQB .................................................................. 44 Table 3-2. Non-official news .......................................................................................... 44 Table 3-3. Information of the interviewees: museum personnel .................................... 48 Table 3-4. Information of the interviewees: museum visitors ........................................ 49 Table 5-1. Selections....................................................................................................... 86. ix.

(11) CHAPTER 1. I.. Introduction. Research Background. Situated by the Seine, the Musée du Quai Branly (Quai Branly Museum, MQB) was opened in Paris in 2006. On June 20, Jacques Chirac (2006), President of the France Republic, inaugurated the museum: It is a great joy for me to inaugurate the Quai Branly Museum today with you from all over the world. I sincerely thank you for having responded to my invitation. I believe that it is an event of great significance of culture, politics and moral. This new institution dedicated to other cultures will provide an incomparable aesthetic experience along with a vital lesson in humanity of our times. While the world never saw mingled nations before in the history, it was necessary to imagine an original place that does justice to the infinite diversity of cultures, a place that shows a different view of the genius of the people and civilizations of Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americas (Chirac, 2006). 1. The uniqueness of the MQB lies in its devotion to presenting the aesthetic dimension of African, Asian, Oceanian, and American civilizations. The museum provides not only. 1. Original text : « C’est pour moi une grande joie et une grande émotion que d’inaugurer aujourd’hui, avec vous, venus du monde entier, le musée du quai Branly. Je vous remercie très cordialement d’avoir répondu à mon invitation car c’est, je le crois, un évènement d’une grande portée culturelle, politique et morale. Cette nouvelle institution dédiée aux cultures autres sera, pour ceux qui la visiteront, une incomparable expérience esthétique en même temps qu’une leçon d’humanité indispensable à notre temps. Alors que le monde voit se mêler les nations, comme jamais dans l’histoire, il était nécessaire d’imaginer un lieu original qui rende justice à l’infinie diversité des cultures, un lieu qui manifeste un autre regard sur le génie des peuples et des civilisations d’Afrique, d’Asie, d’Océanie et des Amériques. » 1.

(12) an extraordinary visiting experience but also a consideration to the diversity of humanity. The relations between the West and the non-West have always been unequal. Historically, the dichotomy was made fairly absolute in the nineteenth century by the expansion of the European empires, which established colonies all over the world. The European powers exerted immense influence upon the local politics, society, language as well as many other aspects. Colonial and imperial rule was further legitimized by anthropological theories. In the nineteenth century, the old colonial powers of Europe began to establish ethnographic museums in succession over the world: the Museum Aan de Stroom in Antwerp (established in 1864), the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in Wellington (established in 1865), the Musée du Trocadéro in Paris (established in 1878), and the Museen Dahlem in Berlin (established in 1886). However, these objects are perceived to be telling narratives of colonization and implying their inferiority in civilization in front of the displays due to the characteristics of museum, serving as a powerful public institution and political instrument (Sauvage, 2007). The significance of the MQB in the 21st century is that it endeavors to break the old relations and reach out to the non-West through the appreciation of man’s works by aesthetic merit. The museum aims at corresponding to Republican values, intending to. 2.

(13) serve as a gate to claim France’s openness to the other world (Dias, 2008b). Mr. Chirac continued to express his prospect of the museum on the inauguration speech: By showing that there exists other ways of acting and thinking of other relationships between individuals, other connections in the world, the Musée du Quai Branly celebrates the luxuriant, fascinating and magnificent variety of the works of the man. It proclaims that no people, no nation, no civilization neither exhausts nor summarizes human genius. Each culture enriches its share of beauty and truth, and it is only in their ever-changing expressions as if glimpsed the universal that brings us together (Chirac, 2006). 2. Times have changed and so has the society. The MQB strives to promote cultural diversity and equal humanity yet globalization is influential: it is both a help and an obstacle. On the one hand, globalization unites people and presents diversity; on the other hand, it is a form of standardization which could mount the tension of identity. Mr. Chirac said: This diversity is a treasure that we must preserve now more than ever. Taking advantage of globalization, humanity foresees, on the one hand, the possibility of unity, secular utopian dream today become the promise of our destiny. But at the same time, standardization gains ground, with the global development of the law of the market. But who does not see globalization that would also be a standardization of identity would only exacerbate tensions, at the risk of igniting deadly fires? (Chirac, 2006) 3. 2. Original text : « En montrant qu’il existe d’autres manières d’agir et de penser, d’autres relations entres les être, d’autres rapports au monde, le museé du quai Branly célèbre la luxuriante, fascinante et magnifique variété des oeuvres de l’homme. Il proclame qu’aucun peuple, aucune nation, aucune civilisation n’épuise ni ne résume le génie humain. Chaque culture l’enrichit de sa part de beauté et de vérité, et c’est seulement dans leurs expressions toujours renouvelées que s’ entrevoit l’universel qui nous rassemble.». 3. Original text : « Cette diversité est un trésor que nous devons plus que jamais préserver. A la faveur de 3.

(14) As a new museum of the Other, the MQB proposes an alternative way to think about the relations between the two through holding exhibitions. Beyond the traditional perspectives on exhibiting the non-West, the new concept developed by the MQB establishes a direct link between the equivalence of cultures and the equality of humanity. The universalism of aesthetics is thought to be a proper medium to lower political tension and to cross cultural barriers between nations. The MQB has given rise to heated debates and research. The significance of the MQB is that it invokes a breakthrough of evolutionist representation that has long been adopted by the anthropology (Désevaux, 2002). The exhibition is not only about knowledge and aesthetics but also about cultural interaction and cultural recognition through the emphasis of the relations between exhibits and architecture (曹之鵬，2001). Naumann (2006) gave a complete introduction to the MQB and conducted a newspaper interview with the director of the museum Stéphane Martin. Their books Le goût des autres: De l'exposition coloniale aux Arts premiers and Paris Primitive: Jacques Chirac’s Museum on the Quai Branly respectively written by Benoît de l’Estoile (2007) and Sally Price (2007) have located the MQB in the context of the transition of French. la mondialisation, l’humanité entrevoit, d’un côté, la possibilité de son unité, rêve séculaire des utopistes, devenu aujourd’hui la promesse de notre destin. Mais, dans le même temps, la standarisation gagne du terrain, avec le développement planétaire de la loi du marché. Pourtant, qui ne voit qu’une mondialisation qui serait aussi une uniformisation, de ferait qu’exacerber les tensions identitaires, au risque d’allumer des incendies meurtriers? » 4.

(15) ethnography museums and colonial exhibitions, providing rich and thorough discussion over the representation of the Other. Among other recent studies, consideration have largely been given to the downplayed historical context of the objects, the political signification, and the museum’s vague exhibition orientation (Alivizatou, 2008; Amato, 2006; Dias, 2008; Lebovics, 2007; Sauvage, 2007; Thomas, 2008). The distinction between art historian and anthropological disciplines, the aesthetic universalism, and the representation of the Otherness have also been the subjects of much controversy (Amato, 2006; Jolly, 2011; Lebovics, 2006; Levitz, 2006; A. Martin, 2011; Shelton, 2009; Strand, 2013). Another key discussion is about the promotion of cultural diversity in a globalized world and the equal dignity of cultures resulting from the denial of cultural hierarchy (Dias, 2008a, 2008b). Researchers also show interest to the museum’s architecture design, which is thought to be an unfortunate spectacle (Lebovics, 2006, 2007) and reveal the sophisticated relation between culture and nature (Ruiz-Gomez, 2006). The research motivation of the present study is based on my personal interest in art and the awareness of ethnic issues in the society. These two factors happen to meet at the MQB: it sees the Other from the aesthetic perspective. Regarding the historic events and clashes happening at the moment, issue about race or ethnicity has always been a difficult topic to deal with from abroad to home. Since art is related to aesthetic 5.

(16) experience and brings pleasure to sight and mind, could it be able to bridge the hierarchal gap between different ethnic groups? What made me decide to search for this topic was my actual visiting experience. After the two-week summer course in Freie Universität in Berlin in 2014, I seized the chance to visit the MQB for the very first time. I was amazed by the mysterious atmosphere and natural scene that surround the museum. The museum architecture not only blended well with but also stood out in the luxurious residential houses nearby. I was also impressed by the beautiful artworks and the unique spatial design inside. The MQB gave me a marvelous experience that I had never had in other art museums or historical museums. Based upon the historical development of ethnography museum and the critics about colonialism or imperialism as well as about the art/anthropology relation, the thesis aims to approach to the issue by adopting Tony Bennett’s theory of “governmentality” to reconsider MQB’s role as a political technique in dealing with ethnic diversity under globalization. In his book The Birth of the Museum, Bennett (1995) proposes three dimensions in regard to museum’s function and meaning: first, it is considered that the nature of the museum is a social space in which civilized forms of behavior could be learnt; second, it is considered that the nature of the museum is a space of representation; third, it is considered that the museum is a space of observation and regulation where visitor’s body would constantly under surveillance and be transformed 6.

(17) in accordance with the norms of public conduct. The thesis will further elaborate these three dimensions in Chapter 2. These dimensions are adopted as a framework to examine the MQB from three aspects accordingly. However, viewed in modern times, the theory has become deficient. While there are growing numbers of researchers considering the postcolonial implication and the representation of anthropological exhibitions of the MQB, little attention has been given to ethnic groups and international tourists who may provide a larger scope of thinking for cultural governance in this hybrid and mobile society. Therefore, it could be a breakthrough to see the MQB in the relations between internal governance of objects in the museum and external governance of diverse population in France and the world.. II.. Problematiques. The innovation of the MQB kindles my interest in the issue from the aforementioned aspects. First, the MQB is an essential presidential project. The emphasis on cultural diversity and the consideration for the equality of world’s cultures suggest that there is no evolutionary hierarchy between Europeans and non-Europeans. 4However, museums,. 4. It is in need to point out that the term “non-European” here continues the concept of colonialism. 7.

(18) national museums in particular, function as a technique of national operation, carrying strong political connotations and exhibiting power relations. Therefore, could hierarchy between ethnic groups really be demolished in this new museum? Would the MQB reinforce another kind of power through this innovative exhibition? If the MQB is thought to be a turning point of regarding ethnic diversity, could those non-Europeans be perceived and treated positively by the French or the Western world outside the museum? Second, the MQB is established to be an innovative ethnographic museum, expecting to achieve cultural equality by adopting aesthetic merit. Nevertheless, each culture has different points of view toward “art,” which may not coincide with or may even contradict Western standards. Then how should one appreciate this kind of art? Compared the MQB with the so called classic art museum, such as the Musée du Louvre or the Musée d’Orsay, would visitors hold the same perspective toward different kinds of “art”? If we consider the matter from another angle, how much do Europeans come to know about the Other through the artistic way? Without being put in the historical context, will non-European civilizations become simply “aestheticized commodities”?. Therefore, American collections in the MQB are of American indigenous rather than White American or African American. 8.

(19) In addition to the aestheticized objects, the design of the newly-built museum also goes smoothly with the idea of exhibition and the motto of the MQB. Regarding the architectural design, including flourishing garden, curving pavement, dim light, and colorful façade, these elements entirely fill the museum with a sense of mystery. And such “natural” design somewhat corresponds with what the West usually think about the rest in the old times. As a new type of ethnography museum, what effect does the MQB’s architectural design draw on the audience and on those cultures? Is it possible that the museum space rebuilds an aesthetic and sanitized historical scene, reframing the stereotype or imagination of the Other? Last but not least, the museum’s audience is also taken into concern. The MQB seeks to show non-Europeans great respects, yet will they come to visit? And do international tourists come since the museum has been included into the network of tourism? What difference in reflection would it make between European French, non-European French, and international visitors? Besides, how are visitors’ movement and experience formed in the museum in the light of unique spatial layout and atmosphere? In general, what kind of visitors does the museum expect in the age of globalization, and how much will they be transformed after the visit? Drawing on Bennett’s notion of governmentality, the thesis aims to probe into the role museum plays in relation to cultural governance and ethnic diversity and equality. 9.

(20) To fill the gaps in the previous research, the present thesis is designed to address the following research questions:. 1. How is the cultural governance put into practice in the MQB regarding the multiethnic society in France? What is the significance of the MQB in France in the 21st century?. 2. How are anthropological objects and space represented so as to correspond with the aim of the MQB? What effect does the representation achieve?. 3. What kind of visitors does the MQB expect? How does globalization influence the formation of the visiting subject?. 10.

(21) CHAPTER 2. Literature Review. In order to respond to the aforementioned research questions, the thesis focuses on reviewing the literature surrounding the main concepts used in the research in this chapter. Firstly, the thesis brings attention to the governmentalization of culture and especially explores the role museum plays in social regulation facilitated by the practices of exhibitionary complex. Next, consideration is given to the representation of the Other. Critical issues on the representation contain the notion of imperialism, post-colonialism and the convergence of art and anthropology and they are further associated with the museum’s space dominated by the exhibitionary disciplines. Finally, the literature sheds light on the formation of the visiting subject in relation to the technologies of vision and the mobility motivated by globalization.. I.. Museum and Governance. Culture and the governance of the social Culture is composed of “a set of language-like operations”, and “it works through the mechanisms of language and representation to shape social relations by organizing the frameworks of meaning which govern the conduct of social agents (Bennett, 2007b: 75).. 11.

(22) Culture and the social have developed a tricky relation when it comes to “cultural turn.” There is a tendency to empower culture to influence upon the social in multiple aspects, suggests Bennett, “to accord an increasingly formative role to culture by imbuing it with the capacity to actively shape and organize—to constitute from within—a whole range of economic, social, and political relationships and practices” (Bennett, 2007b: 73). In terms of governing, on the one hand, “culture was fashioned as a vehicle for the exercise of new forms of power,” and on the other hand, it serves as an object of government that is “in need of both transformation and regulation” (Bennett, 1995: 19). The capacity to transform the inner lives of the population and to alter their forms of life and behavior is especially attributed to high culture, which indicates the distinction of governing from the earlier conceptions of government (Bennett, 1995). Moreover, argues Buckingham, such capacity of culture to cause an inner transformation results from “a different problematic government” that intends to “work at a distance, achieving its objectives by inscribing these within the self-activating and self-regulating capacities by cultural means” (Bennett, 1995: 20). In this respect, high culture is regarded as a resource to manage the social behavior by bestowing the capacities of self-monitoring and self-regulation upon individuals (ibid.). High culture composes therefore part of an apparatus of power, recall to Foucault’s definition, “a form of power. 12.

(23) which deployed a range of legal and symbolic resources in order to exact obedience from the population” (Bennett, 1995: 22). Such high culture practices have changed over the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries into new modalities that Foucault claims as “disciplinary or governmental power” (Bennett, 1995: 22). Disciplinary or governmental power features of various objectives, and intends to manipulate behavior in particular direction. In the nineteenth century, high cultural practices were enlisted for solving diverse social situations, such as drunkenness, riot, or for civilizing people’s morals and manners (Bennett, 1995). Take the life of male working classes for example. Cole (1884) urges the necessity for government to keep them away from public-house, and proposes that museums would be an efficient solution for moral reformation. Through the influence of art, the workingman could be turned into a self-regulating agent and commits to leading a way of life of self-restraint (quoted from Bennett, 2000). The idea that art can function as a means of acting on the social, however, is mainly targeted at contemporary art and art museum, which have constituted a new form of cultural administration preferred by liberal forms of government. A widely held belief that artistic and cultural resources deployed by government could have effects on the ways of life, and that the practices exist in public and private cultural institutions and in policy agendas as well. As time progressing, the targeted subjects of art expand from 13.

(24) classed individual to community (Bennett, 2000). Concerning from another perspective, the museum, compared with laboratory, is viewed as a space for monitoring “civic experiments,” targeting at the population who might be an issue in the society, such as workingman, children, and migrants (Bennett, 2005).. Museum as a governmental instrument In the mid-nineteenth century, the museum was re-conceptualized as cultural resource, being organized as a governmental instrument that the whole population was got involved. The new notion suggests a space of civilization where working class would learn to regulate their conducts and behaviors by emulation. Attached to the exemplary didacticism, the public museum arranges a regulated mix of classes which allows the subordinate classes to learn or to imitate the superior classes (Bennett, 1995). However, the museum is also characterized as a space of exclusiveness in the bourgeois public sphere, in which social elites play an important role in distinguishing elites from the popular classes. Moreover, people are expected to be well-behaved, following certain decorum. For example, one is forbidden to eat and drink, to touch exhibits, or to talk loudly. His dress is also taken into concern. While the museum is open to the public freely yet such regulation constructs an informal discriminations and exclusions (Bennett, 1995). Furthermore, the location of the museum to some extent is exclusive as 14.

(25) well. In the nineteenth century, either ethnography museum or art museum was established in the capital cities or major provincial towns indicating its importance (王嵩山，2003; Forgan, 2005).. Exhibition politics of the museum By following Foucault’s theory of regulation technique operated in the prison and clinic, Bennett (1995) proposes the notion “exhibition complex” that further explores a wider scope of institutions in relation to governance and power/knowledge relations. In addition to art museum, attention is also paid to “history and natural science museums, dioramas and panoramas, national and international exhibitions, arcades and department stores which served as linked sites for the development and circulation of new disciplines (history, biology, art history, and anthropology) and their discursive formations (the pasts, evolution, aesthetics, and man) as well as for the development of new technologies of vision” (Bennett, 1995: 59). Contrast to the transformation of Foucault’s (1977) carceral system, in which the display of objects and bodies previously being revealed to the public are then withdrawn from it, Bennett (1995) suggests that objects and bodies installed in the institutions, which comprise the exhibitionary complex, are transferred, however, from the private domain to the public arenas, and become forceful media for distributing power in the 15.

(26) contemporary society. Moreover, it is considered that the society is rendered as a spectacle in which the state is increasingly involved. Museums, galleries, or exhibitions then function as “a set of educative and civilizing agencies” which are essential to the formation of the state (Bennett, 1995: 66). Furthermore, the exhibitionary complex offers a context for the permanent display of power/knowledge. What is embodied in the exhibitionary complex is the rhetoric of power; that is, “a power made manifest not in its ability to inflict pain but by its ability to organize and co-ordinate an order of things and to produce a place for the people in relation to that order” (Bennett, 1995: 67). Therefore, this power, organized by many rhetorics of imperialism, distinguishes the subjects from the objects and distinguishes the body from other. The power creates a “rhetorical effect” through the representation of otherness (ibid.). In the context of imperial displays, represented subjects usually occupy the lowest levels of manufacturing civilization in the rhetoric of progress. The purpose of deploying progressive taxonomy for the classification of goods and manufacturing processes is to conceal the racist teleological concept of the relations between races and nations. The metropolitan powers intend to locate its preferred audiences in the constructed order of things and to display a utopian organization of society through the exhibitions (Bennett, 1995).. 16.

(27) To simply put, culture has been empowered to govern the social and brings about an inner transformation of population. High culture is particularly qualified to solve multiple social behaviors without the imposition of direct governing power on the populace who can, however, learn to self-regulate. Regarded as a governmental instrument, the museum takes on this vital role and provides a space of civilization that the popular classes can learn to be well-behaved. The exhibitionary complex that embodies the power/knowledge relations further realizes the operation of cultural governance in museums, galleries, and exhibitions. It visualizes power and presents an idealized form of the state through the organization of an order for its audience to follow.. II.. Representation of the Other. Imperialism, post-colonialism and the Other The strong association between the earth and femininity can be traced back to the fifteenth century when European male travelers desire to explore the unknown world, such as Africa, Americas, and Asia. Serving as porno-tropics for the European imagination, these continents were lands full of eroticized gaze and forbidden sexual desire. Triggered by the ancient travel during the Renaissance, mercantile imperialism and trades brought the world into the trade routes of Portugal, Spain, Britain, and France. 17.

(28) Under the mercantile imperium, not only commerce but also knowledge was emboldened by dreams of dominating (McClintock, 1995). As regards to imperialism, McClintock (1995) proposes two notions: panoptical time and anachronistic space. Panoptical time refers to “the image of global history consumed—at a glance—in a single spectacle from a point of privileged invisibility” (McClintock, 1995: 37). For the scientific study in the eighteenth century, evolutionary progress was viewed as a measurable spectacle, exemplified by the emergence of the evolutionary family Tree of Man. In images of panoptical time, history tends to be static and fixed, that is, historical change disappears. Within the trope of anachronistic space, the agency of women, the colonized, and the industrial working class are disavowed and shown prehistoric, atavistic and irrational. In the colonial version, the anachronistic space presents that “geographical difference across space is figured as a historical difference across time” (McClintock, 1995: 40). In the museological exhibiting practice, the space of representation is shaped by the relations between an array of new disciplines, including history, art history, archaeology, geology, biology, and anthropology. Influenced by the context of imperialism in the late nineteenth century, anthropology was employed within the exhibitionary complex and proposed a linkage of the histories of Western nations and civilizations and which of the other people but the connection was separated so as to provide an “interrupted continuity” 18.

(29) (Bennett, 1995: 77). The primitive people were represented as still-living existed in the earlier stage of human development, and in the twilight zone of nature and culture (Bennett, 1995). Governmental theory says little about ethnic groups hence the review includes Post-colonial theory within the discussion on representation of museum space. The theory flourished in the 1970s in response to the cultural legacies of colonialism and imperialism. But Postcolonial theory is not a unified set of knowledge; it probes into several related issues and practices such as feminism or socialism (Tucker & Akama, 2010; Young, 2003). The theory developed as a disturbance in the world’s order, as a challenge to power and privilege, and as a refusal to the superiority of western cultures (Young, 2003). Thus, to some extent, the term “post-colonialism” is pejorative because it invokes once again the oppositionality (Tucker & Akama, 2010) or binary oppositions between. colonizer/colonized, civilization/savagery, white/black, Culture/Nature.. McClintock (1992: 85) argues that the postcolonial theory is “shifted from the binary axis of power to the binary axis of time.” She continues that “the word ‘post’ reduces the cultures of peoples beyond colonialism to prepositional time” (1992: 86). Said (1978) is accounted the first advocator of postcolonial theory, conceptualizing the construction of the Orient and the Oriental Other. In his Orientalism, Said (1978: 1) depicts the Orient as which that is “not only adjacent to Europe; it is also the place of 19.

(30) Europe’s greatest and richest and oldest colonies, the source of its civilizations and languages, its cultural contestant, and one of its deepest and most recurring images of the Other.” The Orient plays as a contrastive role, defining the identity of Europe in a superior position: the Orient was portrayed, on the one hand, as irrational, uncivilized, and static; on the other hand, as alluring, and full of mystery, fairy tales, and exotic beauty (Said, 1978). Those features projected on the Other are associated with the notion of stereotype, claims Bhabha, which is “an ambivalent mode of knowledge and power” (Bhabha, 1994: 66). This is also maintained by Hall, Evans, and Nixon (2013: 248), “stereotyping tends to occur where there are gross inequalities of power.” Considering the stereotypical image of the Orient Other described by Said (1978), “Orientalism” is constructed as a discourse dominated by the West. The dichotomy between the West and the non-West is associated with the notion of evolution that proposes biological differences between races. However, according to Claude Lévi-Strauss, a French anthropologist and ethnologist, he argues that it is not biological differences but cultural differences that explain social diversity, and what further distinct cultural differences are different ways of using resources. In terms of civilization, Lévi-Strauss suggests that civilization does not refer to a particular civilized society; there is “coalition” at work, intervening in cultural differences. He compares cultural diversity with a card game that is grounded on consensus of all 20.

(31) players. So when speaking of “western civilization,” it will have to take “world civilization” into consideration. It is a relative social progress (Keck, 2005: 153-156). The discussion of Orientalism is closely connected with Foucault’s argument of power/knowledge that “power produces knowledge; that power and knowledge directly imply one another that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations” (Foucault, 1977: 27-28).. The convergence of history of art and anthropology The anthropology and/or ethnography museums are commonly-seen modes of exhibition in relation to ethnic recognition. There is slight difference between the two: the former concerns about the construction of cultural theories while the latter emphasizes the representation of specific cultural notion (王嵩山， 2003). To be more specific, anthropology studies the sciences of man or mankind in a broader sense whereas ethnology focuses on the science about races and people, their relationship to one another, and their characteristics. In other words, anthropology refers to a discipline and theoretical framework while ethnography is a research technique involving fieldwork and ethnographic text (Lidchi, 1997).. 21.

(32) The crisis of representation has been particularly targeted at anthropology (Marcus & Fisher, 1986; quoted from Basu & Macdonald, 2007). What anthropology has struggled with are its methodological and textual practices, responding to the difficulty of how to represent otherness (Basu & Macdonald, 2007). Question of representation is inherent in the dichotomy between self and other, involving exoticizing and assimilating strategies, with the former insists on difference and the latter eliminates such difference (Pieterse, 1997). Viewed from postmodern perspective, it is generally concerned that the representation of cultures is a political act. It suggests a particular choice set in particular relationships of power and holding significant political implications (Nanda and Warms, 2011). Amselle, Mellott, and Dam (2003) contend that the aesthetic primitivism is in fact the product of a repression of history and politics. It is the de-contextualization of artifacts that qualifies them as works of art. Therefore, it is affirmed that “any aesthetics is a political aesthetics, and even more so when it ignores the conditions of enunciation of its own norms and values” (Amselle et al., 2003: 982). The art-culture system proposed by postmodern anthropologist James Clifford (1988) may provide a clue for such issue of representation (See Figure 2.1.). Four zones are divides by horizontal and vertical axes in a diagram: (1) the zone of authentic masterpieces, (2) the zone of authentic artifacts, (3) the zone of inauthentic masterpieces, 22.

(33) and (4) the zone of inauthentic artifacts. The system distinguishes one object from another in terms of their value yet objects can sometimes be located between two zones. The system also permits objects to move toward positive value. A frequent traffic that occurs between zone 1 and 2, for example, is demonstrated by the shift from ethnographic “culture” to fine “art.”. Figure 2.1. The art-culture system (Clifford, 1988). The distinction between ethnographic culture and art further leads to the discussion of “primitive art,” a term firstly coined and appropriated in the early twentieth century when Western artists depicted the features of African and Oceanic in their art works yet without giving any effort to understand sources and purposes of this kind of art (Baudez,. 23.

(34) 2002; Nanda and Warms, 2011). A central question to “primitive art” is that using Western concepts to study other’s cultures. Difficulty in viewing primitive art arises from the essence of art because traditional tribal art is thought to be produced not from an aesthetic perspective as fine art in the Western context (Blocker, 1991). It is claimed that the difficulty resides in the cross-cultural study, “either we use terms of our own language, in which case our description are opt to be unfair and misleading in their implications, or else we do not use terms of our own language, in which case it is difficult to see how we can make ourselves understood to the group to whom we are writing” (Blocker, 1991: 89). Blocker contends that “cross-cultural descriptions always involve the ‘politics’ of commendatory or derogatory comparisons” (1991: 95).. Museum as a space of representation The disciplinary knowledge deployed by the exhibitionary complex allows the space of representation to construct a temporally organized order of things and people. The order organizes the implied public into a unity, obliterating divisions between the body politics that construct “we” and the primitive otherness of conquered peoples (Bennett, 1995). “We” and “Other” coming together in a space of representation correspond to the notion of contact zone, which is a term that James Clifford (1997) borrows from Mary Louis Pratt. Contact zone, defines Pratt, is “the space of colonial encounters, the space in 24.

(35) which peoples geographically and historically separated come into contact with each other and establish ongoing relations, usually involving conditions of coercion, radical inequality, and intractable conflict” (Clifford, 1997: 192). Considering museums as contact zones, Clifford suggests that “their organizing structure as a collection becomes an ongoing historical, political, moral relationship—a power-charged set of exchange, of push and pull” (ibid.). Involving “reciprocities,” museums do not passively preserve objects or exercise one-way message delivering but establish an ongoing relation with objects. The review next moves to the principles of spatial setting, which are closely tied up with the exhibitionary disciplines. The early exhibition in the cabinet of curiosities is viewed as a storehouse of knowledge—knowledge of rarity, exclusivity, and intelligibility—which is accessible only to those with the time, inclination, and cultural training. Pomian (1990) argues that the regime of representation which the governing principles of curiosity bring about is a specific form of desire for the knowledge of a totality (quoted from Bennett, 1995). As focus shifts to the natural history display, the principles of curiosity faces its initial challenge. There comes a need for sparsity when displaying specimens in order not to distract visitors’ attention. The new representational principle of sparsity reflects that the displayed objects are of same classes whereas objects governed by the principles 25.

(36) of curiosity are valued for their uniqueness and are irreplaceable (Bennett, 1995). The modern art museum, however, is still governed by the principles of wonder, claims Stephen Greenblatt (1991), which seeks to stop the visitors’ tracks by conveying a sense of the uniqueness of the work of art. In other word, what modern art museum displays is the singularity of the masterpiece (quoted from Bennett, 1995). The conception of displaying the singularity of the masterpiece is also observed by Duncan (1995) in the aesthetic museum. The design is intended to isolate objects so as to intensify the aesthetic gaze and to suppress other irrelevant meanings that objects might bear. As a result, the amount of empty wall space between works are increased, works are brought nearer to eye level, and lit individually. It is suggested that “the more ‘aesthetic’ the installations—the fewer the objects and the emptier the surrounding wall—the more sacralized the museum space” (Duncan, 1995: 17). Architecture plays a pivotal role in exhibiting similarly. Following Foucault’s idea of architecture, Bennett (1995) proposes three principles that had been firstly applied to the Crystal Palace and later influenced the succeeding development of exhibitionary complex: the use of new materials, the clearance of exhibits to the sides and centers of display area, and the provision of elevated vantage points. The techniques of architectural design allow the public to play as both the subject and object of a controlling looking, as argues Bentham, the museum embodies the purpose of 26.

(37) panopticism, “the democratic aspiration of a society rendered transparent to its own controlling gaze” (Bennett, 1995: 101). The elaboration of gaze and subject/object relations will be discussed in next section thoroughly. Due to the current discussion of experience economy and cultural and creative industries, it is important to consider the changing that buildings take in aesthetic design, forms, and themes under the experience economy and tourist consumption in modern times (Urry & Larsen, 2011). Architecture serves not only to be appreciated but also to be able to build a relevant experience with its users. Following the notion of experience economy, raised by Pine and Gillmore (1999), experience is unforgettable and unique. No two people will experience exactly the same because any kind of experience is the result of the interaction between an individual’s mental status and the event. In the experiential perspective of architecture, as Klingmann puts, “the relative success of design is measured in the sensation a person derives from it—in the growth it offers and the resulting pleasure it evokes” (Klingmann, 2007: 45). Associating experience with architecture, Klingmann argues that it is the way that “architecture engages its public on the level of the senses, how it comes to life for people and forges deep and meaningful connections” (Klingmann, 2007: 51). In terms of the representation of exhibition, it comprises a pair of concept, politics of exhibiting and poetics of exhibiting, proposed by Lidchi (1997). The politics of 27.

(38) exhibiting emphasizes “the role of exhibitions/museums in the production of social knowledge,” that is, “artifacts have to be made to be collected, and collected to be exhibited” (Lidchi, 1997: 185). To realize the politics of exhibiting, it requires the poetics of exhibiting, which is “the practice of producing meaning through the internal ordering and conjugation of the separate but related components of an exhibition” (Lidchi, 1997: 168). Components of an exhibition are possible to include different types of texts, such as panels, labels, and photographic captions. In general, the exhibitionary complex constructs an organized order of things and people. Politics is involved in the representation of particular discipline in particular spatial setting. Anthropology, influenced immensely by the imperialism, specifically evokes the issue of representation in relation to primitive Other, who are shown in still in the earliest stage of a progressive line of human development and stereotyped by western power and knowledge. Nonetheless, the emergence of the notion of “primitive art” in the twentieth century locates the Other’s objects in a dilemma: to view them as cultural artifacts or as works of art. In these respects, that how spatial setting accord with exhibitionary discipline becomes tricky. The scientific museum adopts the principles of sparsity while the aesthetic museum adopts the principles of wonder, emphasizing the singularity of the works of art. That which principle of the spatial setting the exhibition of (primitive) Other should follow is consequently questionable. Moreover, the museum 28.

(39) architecture embodies a kind of politics of representation in its style, used material, and spatial design that allows audience to switch their roles as both subject and object under the controlling gaze. In addition, the museum architecture serves not only as a storehouse of collection or governmental tool but also as a connection with people’s experience and senses.. III.. Formation of the Visiting Subject in the Age of Globalization. Forming a spectacle under the gaze By virtue of the development of the technology of vision associated with the expositions and fairs, the gaze that was turned upon the whole world and previously subordinated to the white bourgeois male was afterwards made available to the public. The change is based on two principles: first, to establish dominance over the city, and second, to represent the whole world as assemblages of commodities, subject to the controlling vision of the spectator. Built for the 1889 Paris Exposition, the Eiffel Tower is the representative of the principles that reverses the constant relation between “seeing” and “being seen” (Bennett, 1995). Suggested by Bennett, “a sight itself, it becomes the site. 29.

(40) for a sight” (1995: 84); likewise, the individual is allowed to circulate between the object and subject. Enlarging on Foucault’s notion, Bennett argues that the exhibitionary complex forms a technology of vision along with the principles of the panorama, “served not to atomize and disperse the crowd but to regulate it, and to do so by rendering it visible to itself, by making the crowd itself the ultimate spectacle” (Bennett, 1995: 68). To make the crowd a spectacle, it requires the technologies of vision embodied in the architectural form that turns them into a “voluntarily self-regulating citizenry” (Bennett, 1995: 63). Giebelhausen (2006) argues that the architecture of the museum responds to a need for crowd control through the arrangement of the space. The multi-leveled and galleried spaces provide multiple vantage points from which crowd could be kept under surveillance, in which department store shoppers and museum visitors are confined in the control of exchanging gazes with others. In Bennett’s words, “interiorizing its gaze as a principle of self-surveillance and, hence, self-regulation” (1995: 63). Instead of witnessing a symbolic display of power, populace is thus transformed into active bearers and practitioners who have the capacity for self-improvement. Compared with traditional governing power, the institutions and practices of high culture enlisted for governmental purposes are of economy. The aim of the “governmentalization of culture” is for creating long lasting effects by using culture as a 30.

(41) resource to expose its influence to the population who would continually and progressively modify their thoughts and behaviors (Bennett, 1995). The framework of governmentality presumes that audience of the museum is citizen. Nevertheless, to discuss citizenship in the era of globalization is in need of taking the notion of global mobilities into concern (Urry, 2000). In terms of museums audience under globalization, mobile spectator is adopted to consider the emergence of International Traveling Exhibitions (ITEs) in the museum field (Lai, 2004). Lai (2004) contends that in the globalized world featuring of mobility, the museum field is changed by the proliferation of international traveling exhibition and opens up new quest for global cultural citizenship. It is argued that ITEs move collections around the world as well as audiences, that is to say, ITEs make the division between domestic audience and mobile visitors mingle. As a result, the museum is not only a governing tool targeted at domestic citizen but also a place for constructing multiphase citizenship in the field of tourism.. Museum as a tourist site Urry and Larsen (2011) claim that “places emerge as ‘tourist places’ when they are inscribed in the circle of anticipation, performance and remembrance” (2011: 119). Under the influence of tourism in the age of globalization, any kind of places have to 31.

(42) transform themselves as objects of tourist gaze. In other words, places resemble “not only as centers of production or symbol of power, but as sites of pleasure” (Urry & Larsen, 2011: 124). In the case of museums, they are important for not only acting as destinations for tourism but also serving as nodes in a network of attractions. In addition to the famous collections, blockbuster exhibitions become events on a calendar. To view from another perspective, museums need visitors and tourism can provide a swarm of tourists to museums, as well as revenue (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998). Moreover, tourism also plays an important role to arts. Fine art museums, especially those that are located in the big city, are attractive to tourists such as the Louvre in Paris and the National Gallery in London. In the eye of tourism agencies, they tend to see art as an appealing approach to promote cultural tourism (Smith, 2014). Aesthetic pleasure results from the arbitrary nature of admiration for artifacts—taste. Taste requires regular and prolonged cultural practices through family or school upbringing thus the determination of what is worthy or unworthy of admiration suggests “the interiorization of the cultural arbitrary” (Bourdieu and Dabel, 1991: 109). The cultural arbitrary is similarly imposed by authorities to designate and make sacred particular artifacts or places as worthy of visit. Certain education and accumulation of cultural capital are required to approach to culture and art, leading to the distinction of 32.

(43) class (Bourdieu and Dabel, 1991). Bourdieu’s taste refers to high art especially. Thus, to associate taste with primitive art, it would open up a new page for the discussion of politic of aesthetic and cultural reproduction. To sum up, illustrated by the exhibitionary complex, the crowd is rendered as a spectacle. The formation of the visiting subject, sustained by the architectural design, is related to the exchange of gazes with others, resulting in achieving the goal of self-surveillance and self-regulation. The governmentalization of culture mainly targets at domestic citizen but this seems to be inadequate to describe cultural hybridity and the emergence of mobile visitors in the age of globalization. Regarding the changes of times, the thesis proposes that immigrants, whose origin is closely tied with old colonial power in particular, and tourists should be taken into account of cultural governance for exploring the features of visiting subject in details. What is also neglected by the governmentality is the differentiated taste of an individual which is influential on the perception of art. The thesis suggests that on the basis of the governmentalization of culture, museums are facing various and complicated social phenomena in the 21st century.. 33.

(44) CHAPTER 3. Methodology. The current thesis employs a qualitative case study approach to gain an in-depth and holistic understanding of cultural governmentality in the age of globalization. In keeping with a tradition in qualitative research, I aim for thick descriptions of the individual case, which also attempting to identify some general trends and significant patterns. To achieve this goal, the research involved documents, field investigation, and semi-structured interviews. I will explain these methods in the second section. In this chapter, I begin with the introduction of the research object, the Musée du Quai Branly, from the origin of the establishment, the collection and exhibition to the architectural design, and spatial layout. By introducing some key aspects of the MQB, I want to provide basic information for the following analysis and discussions.. I.. Research Object. Musée du Quai Branly Situated on the left bank of the Seine, close to the Eiffel Tower, the MQB is located in 7th administrative district in Paris. Following the tradition founded by President Francois Mitterrand, who was associated with the Grands Travaux, the MQB was intended to be a. 34.

(45) cultural legacy of Jacques Chirac’s presidency. It is perceived that President Chirac also wanted to have monuments bear his name. The idea of creating a new museum entirely dedicated to non-European cultures went back in 1995 when the committee, assigned by President Chirac, did research on the issue of locating primitive art in French museum. The report came up with conclusions that it was of necessity to build a new museum with new perspective and new idea; the museum should be supervised by the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Culture, and superior educational institutions; and it was advised to integrate the collections of the Musée de l’Homme and the Musée national des Arts d’Afrique et d’Oceanie into the new museum. It was also decided to firstly exhibit those artworks in the Pavillion des Sessions of the Louvre in April, 2000. In 1998, a preparatory committee of the MQB was established, and launched into the preparatory works of the Louvre and of the MQB (曹之鵬， 2001). The name of the MQB indicates its orientation and categorization of collection. Before ultimately fixed to the one that is well-known at present, the MQB was primarily named Musée des Arts Primiers (Museum of First Arts) yet it was soon discarded for its evolutionary expression carrying hierarchical connotations. The second name was the Musée de l’Homme, des Arts et des Civilisations (Museum of Man, Art and Civilizations), which was also problematic. To point out the terms “art” and 35.

(46) “civilization,” it seemed to extract the former from the latter. The decision, Musée du Quai Branly, was finally made in the light of museum’s geographical location (it was built under the Branly quay). The name is thought to be neutral and can thus be open to any possibility. Besides, it corresponds to other museums’ mode of naming in France such as the Louvre, the Orsay, and the Centre Pompidou, whose names evoke the historical building or their founders rather than collections (L’Estoile, 2007; A. Martin, 2011; S. Martin, 2011). The innovation of the MQB resides in its full dedication to cultures and civilizations from other continents that had been disregarded. The exhibition symbolizes the European reflections upon their guilt rooted in the colonial period and upon the long-term superiority of the West over the non-West. Regarding the development of ethnography museums, the MQB locates itself as a multiphase center including multiple information, education, research, and entertainment. To achieve the mission, the MQB is in quest for cross-national cooperation so as to communicate directly with those countries whose culture are on display (曾之鵬，2001). It holds several conferences, speeches, and performances to reach to contemporary issues. Moreover, it leaves large rooms for temporary exhibitions in addition to the permanent exhibition. The MQB, hence, is expected to be as what the director of the museum. 36.

(47) Stéphane Martin calls, “là où dialoguent les cultures” (S. Martin, 2011), “there where cultures dialogue.” Considering the MQB as a tourist site, it received 1.4 million visitors and ranked 37th of the top 100 art museum in 2014 5. According to this attendance survey for 2014 complied by Art Newspaper, the MQB came after the Louvre, the Musée d’Orsay, the Centre Pompidou, and the Grand Palais.. Collections and exhibitions The MQB has inherited approximately 300,000 objects in total from the Musée de l’Homme and the Musée national des Arts d’Afrique et d’Océanie, and has 3,500 objects on permanent exhibition, including masks, statues, weapons, textile fabric, costumes, ornaments, paintings, ritual utensils, and musical instruments. Its collections, more or less, includes every country in Africa, Asia, America, and Oceania. However, compared the MQB with the Louvre and the Musée national des arts asiatiques Guimet (Guimet Museum of Asian Art) in Paris, there is distinction between these museums in terms of collection genres and periods. For the geographical location of cultures and civilizations, the MQB excludes Egyptian collections, which are exhibited in the Louvre, and focuses. 5. Visitor Figures 2014: The grand totals: exhibition and museum attendance numbers worldwide, The Art Newspaper, International Edition. April, 2015. http://www.museus.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/TheArtNewspaper_Ranking2014.pdf 37.

(48) on rural arts, nomadic art and sub-Saharan Africa civilizations. The MQB also excludes several countries in Asia, such as North and South Korea, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. As for Asian art, the MQB contains collections that territorially come from Yemen to Japan but essentially concerns about popular arts and the minorities in recent time in order to complement the Louvre’s and Guimet’s collections (MQB official web). Exhibitions are put into display according to their geographical location and categories, kept within glass cases or exposed to the light. The whole permanent gallery on the second floor is divided into four parts without partition, distinguished one area from another by the colors on the floor. The exhibits are categorized first of all according to their geographical location, and further to the usage or social meaning of a specific culture. Funerary or ritual is a commonly seen subject of classification. Musical instruments are the only exhibits presented together in a glass columnar cylinder without geographical separation. Although the research concentrates mostly on the permanent exhibition, it is also necessary to show regard to the temporary exhibition for it contributes to the concern of representation of the Other as well. The MQB leaves ample spaces, 6,000 square meters, for temporary exhibitions, on both ground floor galerie jardin and three suspended spaces on the third floor. There are about 7 exhibitions in average for every year, with 38.

(49) most of them lasting for 3 months approximately, and some last for even longer. During my visit to the MQB in the summer of 2014, there were three temporary exhibitions displaying at the same time: Tiki Pop: L’Amérique rêve son paradis polynésien (Jun.– Sep. 2014), Tatoueurs, Tatoués: L’exposition qui fait couleur...beaucoup d’encre(s) ! (May 2014– Oct. 2015) and Propaganda: Les femmes dans la revolution, Vietnam 1954-1980 (Jun.– Sep. 2014). The theme of temporary exhibitions sees non-European art and culture from a larger scope, including African tribal art, Chinese cuisine, American jazz music, or even tattoo culture from all over the world. In addition to temporary exhibitions, there is another type of exhibition called installations, which is held three times a year in the central mezzanine, l’Atelier Martine Aublet. Functioning as experimentation, this space is dedicated to the museum’s latest acquisition or invited exhibitions, curated by a personality or an artist. The MQB also holds biennale of photography Photoquai and International Traveling Exhibitions. Since 2006, two ITEs have been held: Masks: Beauty of the Spirit was held in Bahrain (2008), Beijing (Jun.–Aug. 2013), and Tokyo (Apr.–Jun. 2015); Congo River: Arts of Central Africa was held in Singapore (Dec. 2010–Apr. 2011), Shanghai (Apr.–July 2013) and Seoul (Oct. 2013–Jan. 2014). 6. 6. Retrieved from https://www.teien-art-museum.ne.jp/en/press/PR.2015.4.02.En.pdf 39.