[On the recent appointment of curators at the Brooklyn Museum]
“The outrage over the Brooklyn Museum’s appointment only makes sense in the context of claims to cultural ownership and protests over cultural appropriation; that is, who can legitimately claim the heritage embodied in the museum’s African art objects?
Deeply felt and meaningful as these issues might be to people of colour and marginalized groups, they must not be conflated with the question of who could or should curate, teach and study African art.”
“To argue, as many have, that a person of colour, by dint of her ancestry, would naturally grasp the intricate histories, and complex aesthetics of historical African art is to misunderstand the work of the curator or scholar.
It is to ignore or belittle the rigorous professional training, research and scholarship expected of museum curators – work that comes from acquired knowledge and experience.
Work that anyone, black or white,that is so driven, capable and duly trained could aspire to.”
“The Brooklyn Museum has defended Windmuller-Luna as qualified for the job and they are right to do so.
The controversy points to a much more fundamental problem. Like the art industry, art history has not done enough to diversify its student and faculty demography.”
“Few students of colour earn the doctoral degrees now expected by most museums for entry-level curatorial positions. More sobering still, far fewer people of colour study the historical African art that still forms the core of museums’ African collections.
If we wish to diversify curatorial positions in African art, graduate programmes must overcome old bad habits of overlooking non-white applicants; and young people of colour must be recruited and given the support to pursue this field of study.”
CHIKA OKEKE- AGULU
Very intelligently argued. Appropriation is not really the issue here. Scholarship and opportunity are! Thank you for that.