The Museum Effect Analysis

Svetlana Alpers’ article begins with a personal anecdote about visiting the Museum of Comparative Zoology in Cambridge as a child. While there, she saw an extremely large crab preserved and set on display without context; the crab was “an object of interest” rather than a creature that had once lived. Alpers states that this is relevant because the display of that crab is typical of European museums in that they only display things that can be considered visually interesting and only items that look interesting, whether manmade or natural, make it into their exhibitions. This practice heavily influenced art historical canon because these interesting items were the ones that went on to inspire artists viewing those exhibitions in their own time

and creating work with links back to those looks—Alpers calls museums school for artists and craftsmen.
A preserved crab, when removed from its context and devoid of it’s original livliness, is just a dead crab but, when that crab is placed in a museum experiences what Alpers describes as The Museum Effect (TME).

The Museum Effect turns things of lesser value or artistic appeal to the source culture than was originally intended and gives them a perhaps inflated level of importance as art in our estimation. It is described in the article as a way of seeing, or lens through which something is viewed (ex: art historically, culturally, socially, etc.). Alpers describes TME as such because nearly all items in museums were meant to be seen or used in some other manner and thus much of the original context has been removed and cannot be recreated. The inflation of importance of objects derived from the lack of contextual information and the museum’s tendency to present all things aesthetically are the driving forces causing TME. Alpers suggests that by acknowledging that TME exists, the museum community and visitors can help negate its harmful

effects.
The Museum Effect is often problematic for museums because it categorizes artifacts of non-Western peoples in a manner inconsistent with or wholly irrelevant to the source culture and arranges them with art historical orders like chronology, style, or theme, none of which give cultural context for those items. An important example of this can be found in the way that “primitive” art is viewed. “Primitive” art is assessed on its level of aesthetic interest when being considered for collections and exhibition and is often completely divorced from its cultural context and given a new identity within our culture as art. This is an idea that is highly contentious because issues of cultural appropriation and accurate representation are at the forefront of human rights discussions and museums are often seen as some of the premiere education centers where culture, art, and history are concerned. And while TME has negative elements, Alpers believes that it can be used to better museums as a whole.
The argument for harnessing TME rather than eradicating it comes from the ideas that sometimes our traditional forms of order, such as chronology, do have the ability to convey cultural context.

An example of this can be found in the National Gallery in London, where the paintings of fourteenth through sixteenth century Italian masters were on display side by side. It was possible to gain some idea of what was considered beautiful and important by looking at the evolution and use of style, medium, and subjects over time. In some instances, it is possible to create context through presentation alone and Alpers argues that this is one of the benefits of TME; it allows the viewer to see and create the context for themselves rather than having it told to them, as in the traditional museum model. One way that museums have begun approaching this idea is to put all of the background and cultural information in different spaces than the exhibition material itself so as not to influence the viewer’s intake of the

material.
Alpes closes by saying that the problematic elements of TME are certainly there but can be made less so with diligence, and that the free-range education that the changes in exhibitions leave room for is so positive that the embracing of TME is crucial. Another poignant section of the article points out the museum’s odd ability to name and recognize cultures as valid and Alpers’ discomfort with the entire practice. Throughout the article, the author makes known that there are problematic elements to be dealt with but creates a practical solution to the problem rather than attempting to eradicate a concept and practice so deeply engrained into museum culture. Alpers’ approach is an important contribution to museum culture, though her writing is unclear at times and one may have to read the section several times in order to get her point to the reader. But overall, she rightly and sensitively argues that museums should not have the ability to designate cultures as valid because they function as educators, not creators of history, art, and culture; museums may ensure their continued role as informed and expressive educators through evolving techniques and ideological shifts within the culture of the institutions.