Exploring ideas and engaging in conversation

Author: Madeline G. Smith (Page 3 of 4)

Mother Love: Feminization of Water Moon Guanyin at the Boston MFA

“Guanyin, Bodhisattva of Compassion,” on display at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, is a sculpture made of painted and gilded paulownia wood, produced in about 1200 AD during the Jin dynasty in China [1]. 1200 AD was a complex period in which the southern rulers were Southern Song emperors, and the north of China was seen as Jin. This sculpture of Guanyin may reflect the possibility that Buddhism and Bodhisattva were worshiped by more and more people at this tense time due to wars and social instability, and Guanyin sculptures naturally became numerous. However, since Buddhism or Bodhisattva was introduced to China during the 1st century BC from India, the birthplace of Buddhism, Bodhisattva was widely worshiped. Many Buddhist temples had statues and sculptures of the Bodhisattva and Buddha to receive prayers and offerings, especially during the Song and Jin periods [2]. This sculpture of Bodhisattva manufactured in the Jin/Southern Song period embodies feminine characters, revealing the feminization of Guanyin in Chinese history.

“Guanyin, Bodhisattva of Compassion” has soft feminine features and clothing. The appearance of this Guanyin is stunning as people walk in front of it. Taken as a whole, the bodhisattva seems like a gentle and benevolent female figure with downcast eyes, their smiling face peaceful and benign. The wooden sculpture is lighter than some stone sculptures, better suited to be placed high in the interior of Buddhist temples for people to revere and worship. Isolated in the privacy of a temple room in its original context, people could directly communicate with Guanyin. For eight hundred years, Guanyin gazed down from above, compassionate, forgiving, and sympathetic to all living beings. The bodhisattva wears a high bun hairstyle and a crown with an Amitabha Buddha, with a recess in the forehead that may hold a semi-precious stone or jewel [3]. Serene and graceful, they are elegantly dressed in several gorgeous necklaces on the upper body, draped with green flowing silk cape conveying a sense of ease, in a skirt painted red and decorated with green cloth at the waist. Nevertheless, their sexuality is barely recognizable with no obvious sexual characteristics when the chest is exposed, perhaps meaning that they could be male, female, or even nonbinary. 

As stated by the object label, the sitting position indicates this sculpture should be the central figure of a larger “Water-Moon Guanyin” [4] Although the water and moon are not displayed physically, the gesture might suggest that they sit on a lotus seat in the water. With the right leg bent and the left leg hung, the Bodhisattva sits in a relaxed manner, gazing at the reflection of the moon in the water, which reminds the viewers of the Buddhist teaching that all phenomena are illusory [5]. The elements water and moon are counted as female symbols in scholarly analysis, which accords with my recognition of traditional Chinese culture as well [6].

The special feature of this sculpture of Bodhisattva is that the Guanyin seems to own both a feminine face and a masculine or nonsexual body, which could be regarded as a transition of Bodhisattva from originally a male to a female figure in the spread of Buddhism and the process of Sinicization in China. The reasons for this feminization of Bodhisattva were complicated, according to Yu Chun-fang’s book of Kuanyin. As compassion was considered a maternal virtue in Chinese tradition, it appeared to be quite reasonable that a “Bodhisattva of Compassion” could be female [7]. 

“Guanyin, Bodhisattva of Compassion” in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts is astonishingly beautiful and remarkably calming, with distinct feminine characteristics and decorative elements of water and moon, despite a genderless torso. This displays the transformation process of feminizing the Bodhisattva when integrating it into Chinese culture.


[1] Object Label, Guanyin, Bodhisattva of Compassion (Museum of Fine Arts: Boston). 

[2] Ibid. 

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid. 

[5] Ibid. 

[6] Yu, Chun-fang. Kuanyin: The Chinese Transformation of Avalokitesvara (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 418.

[7] Yu, Kuanyin, 414.

 

Museum Job Roundup 10/30/23

Welcome to the weekly roundup! We do our best to collect the latest job openings and welcome submissions from the community. For more opportunities, we recommend the following databases:

INTERNSHIPS

NORTHEAST

MIDATLANTIC/SOUTHEAST

  • The James Museum of Western & Wildlife Art (St. Petersburg, FL): Registrar

 MIDWEST

WEST COAST/SOUTHWEST

Going Batty –  A Review of Bats! At the Peabody Essex Museum

Those making their annual pilgrimage to the Witch City this year should make time in between the ghost tours and psychics to visit the Peabody Essex Museum (PEM), located in the heart of Salem, Massachusetts. Though Boston-area residents are often familiar with PEM’s excellent exhibits and programming, visitors might be drawn to spookier attractions. However, one of PEM’s fall exhibits focuses on one of our favorite flying Halloween friends. Bats! provides a family friendly exploration of the often unjustly maligned and misunderstood creatures.

The exhibition was organized and produced by ExplorationWorks! and Build 4 Impact Inc. with assistance from The Dotty Brown Art & Nature Center.  Bats! takes an interdisciplinary approach which explores bats in art, science, technology, and cultures across the world. Exhibition curator and Sarah Fraser Robbins Director of the Art & Nature Center, Janey Winchell, states in an interview with PEM that most people know relatively little about bats, but that regardless of their opinion on or experiences with bats, “[…] once people are in the exhibition, they will discover things that relate to them in their own lives.” As a long-time nature nerd and bat lover, I had to see the exhibit for myself and the Peabody Essex didn’t disappoint! 

The exhibit is laid out in a non-linear fashion which helped avoid overcrowding in areas of the exhibit space and allowed visitors to explore at their own pace. The exhibit space is broken up by a series of temporary gallery walls, which created unique spaces within the exhibit while still allowing for wheelchair accessibility. Like many other visitors, I entered the exhibit and moved through it mainly clockwise. Ecological and biological facts on bats alternate with art and objects. I enjoyed that the exhibit text included abundant pictures of bats to illustrate concepts while visually pleasing.

Interactives are abundant in this exhibit and hit the rare mark of being engaging for all age levels. Some interactives are simple, such as flip boards for true and false bat facts and “bats around the world.” The bats around the world interactive is interesting and engaging but the text was small and difficult to read. The focal point of the exhibit is a live bat interactive featuring Egyptian Fruit Bats. The bats can be viewed from outside or by crawling in and looking up from inside a plastic bubble. Visitors of all ages enthusiastically crawled through the interactive. Grown adults without children were excited by the prospect of looking up from the tunnel at the bats. However, incorporating living beings into an exhibit always raises issues and questions. The bats weren’t very active and were all huddled together in the corner of the enclosure. True or not, this gave the impression that the bats are not pleased with their current situation. It also made it difficult for visitors to spot them. PEM seems to have anticipated some concern from visitors, including a label, “Frequently Asked Questions About the Bat Colony.” The label clarifies how the bats are cared for and where they came from…to an extent. The label states that the bats are from “Indiana Wild, a conservation and education organization.” I think it would be beneficial to clarify how that organization came to have the bats, whether they were seized from animal trafficking or born in captivity, and why it is not possible to release them. As a visitor, these were questions I had as I grappled with the ethics of displaying live animals. However, the impact of this interactive display cannot be overstated. Visitors connected with bats on a level that would be difficult to achieve otherwise. 

Another popular, but less controversial interactive is a table game which represents the threats to bats’ survival. Two partners must tilt a table to shift a ball through a maze, avoiding holes that represent challenges facing bats. This is a novel interactive unlike any I’ve seen in previous exhibits. The game is well designed, both fun and informative. I learned more than a few things about the threats facing Flying Foxes. For example, I had no idea that farmers internationally poisoned fruit to control predation of their crops! Other interactives include comparing human, bat, and bird bones on a magnetic board and making folded paper bats. The exhibit balances textual elements with interactives nicely, resulting in a dynamic exhibit appealing to visitors of all ages and experience.

The textual elements of the exhibit are just as engaging as the spectacular interactives. One section of the exhibit covered perceptions of bats across space and time, covering Africa, Asia, and the Americas. I overheard one visitor remark on the perception of bats in China, “Bats are considered lucky! I didn’t know that!” Other visitors enjoyed the section on bats in pop-culture, flipping through a series of posters featuring bats in movies and television. My personal favorite as a fan of folklore and history was the section on how European stigma and superstition surrounding bats formed. Spooky 17th century woodcuts of witches and demons with bat wings certainly felt appropriate for the season! “Which Came First the Bat or the Vampire?” explored the enduring connection between bats and European vampire lore. The labels explained complex concepts from culture, religion, and folklore at an accessible level which kept clear of judgment.

If the goal of Bats! is to challenge the stigma around the animal, it’s certainly a success. Two PEM interns acting as docents for the exhibit, Charlotte and Martha, stated that the exhibit has seen up to 1,000 visitors a day, with the lowest attendance still being 200. Charlotte, a student at Endicott College stated, “I generally hear positive feedback […] bats tend to be stigmatized and people’s perceptions of bats have changed positively.” Martha added that people can leave feedback on the exhibit in a notebook near the exit. Flipping through the notebook, I saw glowing reviews of the exhibit, exclamations of love for bats, and even fun bat cartoons! One visitor remarked, “10/10 recommend. respectfully want to boop the bats nose.” I can think of no greater endorsement than a nose boop! The exhibition, Bats!, attempts a multicultural and interdisciplinary exploration of bats in a relatively small package and it succeeds.


Bats! Curator Interview, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbJXURbdsec.
 
Peabody Essex Museum. “Bats!” Accessed October 22, 2023. https://www.pem.org/exhibitions/bats.
 
Peabody Essex Museum. “Meet Winged Creatures of the Night in PEM’s Fall Exhibition, Bats!,” July 31, 2023. https://www.pem.org/press-news/meet-winged-creatures-of-the-night-in-pems-fall-exhibition-bats.
 
Rubino, Tony. Love Hate Bat, 2019. Acrylic on canvas. Photograph by Madeline Smith. 
 

Article by: Madeline Smith

MA Candidate, History and Museum Studies

Tufts University ’24

 

 

Weekly Job Roundup 10/08/2023

Welcome to the weekly roundup! We do our best to collect the latest job openings and welcome submissions from the community. For more opportunities, we recommend the following databases:

INTERNSHIPS

NORTHEAST

MIDATLANTIC/SOUTHEAST

 MIDWEST

WEST COAST/SOUTHWEST

We Need to Talk About NAGPRA…But What Is It?

 Museums are currently facing a reckoning for past collecting practices, with many nations demanding repatriation of illegally or unethically obtained items. It comes as no surprise that Indigenous Nations have been among those demanding the return of their cultural heritage and ancestors. Public scrutiny combined with new regulations in the coming weeks has resulted in greater interest in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, also known as NAGPRA. The legal language and fraught subject matter of NAGPRA makes the act complex and difficult to understand; but, we’re here to give you a crash course in what the law is and why all museum professionals need to understand it.

NAGPRA is a federal law passed on November 16th, 1990 that can be understood as human rights legislation related to the Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. Until 1978, government policy prevented Indigenous people in the United States from exercising their first amendment right to freedom of religion. Anishinaabe historian and NAGPRA practitioner, Eric Hemingway, has stated that, “Many Native people across the country saw the need to have their ancestors returned as part of their ceremonies, part of their religion, part of their belief system […] and also to reclaim many of the sacred items that have been taken or alienated from their communities.”[1] Under NAGPRA Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian Organizations, or lineal descendants of the ancestor “whose remains, funerary objects, or sacred objects” are in the custody of a museum can make a claim for repatriation.  

In the simplest terms, NAGPRA requires museums and federal agencies to repatriate Native American human remains and belongings in their collections and to consult with Tribes when similar remains or belongings are discovered on federally owned land.[2] However, the law and its implementation are far more complex than this definition would suggest. NAGPRA covers five types of items in museum collections: human remains, associated funerary objects, unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.[3] I should note that the terms ‘belongings’ or ‘items’ are preferred terminology, but ‘objects’ is the legal terminology used in both the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the accompanying regulations. When referring to legalities and official categories, I will use ‘object’ but will otherwise use the more respectful terminology. 

The definitions and categories of items are crucial to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Native ancestors, officially termed human remains in NAGPRA, are defined as the “physical remains of the body of a person of Native American ancestry.”[4] The category of human remains does not include parts naturally shed or potentially ‘freely given’, such as human hair.[5] This means that collections like the hair samples held by Harvard University, are not technically subject to NAGPRA. However, like Harvard, institutions can choose to repatriate Native belongings even if they are not legally obligated to do so. 

Funerary objects and the distinctions between associated and unassociated funerary objects are a little more complex. According to the NAGPRA regulations, funerary objects are “objects that were made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains.”[6] This category might include belongings placed with an ancestor, such as beads or pottery, as well as burial containers like urns. Associated funerary objects are “funerary objects for which the human remains with which they were placed intentionally are also in the possession or control of a museum or Federal agency.”[7] Unassociated funerary objects are “funerary objects for which the human remains with which they were placed intentionally are not in the possession or control of a museum or Federal agency.”[8] Essentially, Native belongings are associated funerary objects when a museum holds the objects and the remains with which they were found. Native belongings are unassociated funerary objects when a museum holds the objects and does NOT have the remains with which they were found. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, ancestors were frequently separated from their belongings under a variety of circumstances. Grave robbers known as “pothunters” often only sought items highly desirable to white collectors, such as pottery and jewelry.[9] Other grave robbers stole the remains of ancestors to build osteological collections to support inaccurate race sciences, like phrenology.[10] In other cases, archaeologists would divide the items from an archaeological site among several museums, separating ancestors from their burial items. As a result, museums may have belongings from a burial in their collection while the ancestor remained interred, or an ancestor might be in their care, while belongings from the burial are in the care of another museum. A common misconception is that the remains and funerary objects must be held by the same museum in order for those funerary objects to be considered associated. However, the remains associated with the objects can be held by any museum or institution. In some of the most unfortunate cases there are simply no records to determine whether an item is an associated funerary object, and is deemed unassociated.  

The third category, sacred objects, are belongings needed for the practice of Native American religions with present-day adherents.[11] In other words, the religion must be currently practiced by Native American people. This can present a significant hurdle to tribes working to revive religious practices lost over centuries of oppression. Finally, objects of cultural patrimony are defined as items that are central to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian Organization’s culture, traditions, or history to the point of being collective cultural property. This means that they cannot be owned or sold by an individual.[12] One of the best-known examples of cultural patrimony are the Wampum Belts belonging to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Several of these belts were repatriated in 1989 under the National Museum of the American Indian Act (NMAIA), a law similar to NAGPRA which governs the Smithsonian Institution.[13] 

But who must comply with NAGPRA? In short, museums and federal agencies. But it’s how NAGPRA defines museums that’s tricky. The statute states that “Museum means any institution or State or local government agency (including any institution of higher learning) that has possession of, or control over, human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony and receives Federal funds.”[14] What this has meant in practice is that only museums & institutions which have accepted federal, or state funding must comply. For example, a small museum that has relied solely on its endowment and donations is not required under the current statute to comply with NAGPRA. 

In the more than thirty years since NAGPRA became law, progress has been incremental and many museums remain non-compliant. As of April 2023, 104,539 Native Ancestors have yet to be made available for repatriation.[15] However, this statistic only includes museums which have publicly reported their holdings in compliance with the law. Countless small museums across the country may not even be aware they are non-compliant. Though the task may seem daunting, it is one that museum professionals must undertake. We must step forward into a new era of collaboration with Native Nations and communities. It is an ethical imperative that we work to make museums safe and welcoming spaces which accurately and thoughtfully represent the cultures with whose belongings we have been entrusted. If you would like to learn more about NAGPRA, or are a museum professional working on compliance, we encourage you to explore the following resources:

The ProPublic Repatriation Project

The ProPublica Repatriation Project Database 

The NAGPRA Community of Practice

The National Park Service

The National NAGPRA Program Training Resources

 


Notes

[1] NAGPRA 101, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRteJ8IJiVY.

[2] Sangita Chari and Jaime M.N. Lavallee, “Introduction,” in Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 2013), 8.

[3] NAGPRA, 25 USC § 3001(3), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[4] NAGPRA, 25 USC § 3001(3), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[5] NAGPRA, 25 USC § 3001(3), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[6] 43 CFR § 10.2 (d)(2), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[7] 43 CFR § 10.2 (d)(2), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[8] 43 CFR § 10.2 (d)(2), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[9] Devon A. Mihesuah, “American Indians, Anthropologists, Pothunters, and Repatriation: Ethical, Religious, and Political Differences,” in Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains, ed. Devon A. Mihesuah (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), 123–68.

[10] Devon A. Mihesuah, “American Indians, Anthropologists, Pothunters, and Repatriation: Ethical, Religious, and Political Differences.” 

[11] 43 CFR § 10.2 (d)(2), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[12] 43 CFR § 10.2 (d)(2), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[13] National Museum of the American Indian. “Repatriation.” Accessed October 2, 2023. https://americanindian.si.edu/explore/repatriation.; Fenton, William N. “Return of Eleven Wampum Belts to the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy on Grand River, Canada.” Ethnohistory 36, no. 4 (1989): 392–410. https://doi.org/10.2307/482654.

[14] 43 CFR § 10.2 (d)(2), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[15] Suozzo, Ash Ngu, Andrea. “Does Your Local Museum or University Still Have Native American Remains?” ProPublica, January 11, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/repatriation-nagpra-database/.

 

Article by: Madeline Smith

MA Candidate, History and Museum Studies

Tufts University ’24

« Older posts Newer posts »