so so so good (too good?)

Watching the documentation of Couple in a Cage, I was once again struck by what a fantastic intersection this performance is between art and so-called natural history. I’m amazed Coco Fusco and Paula Heredia were able to pull off something so strikingly subversive, and for better or worse, don’t think a similar concept would be accepted by institutional venues today.

However, I also wonder if the sheer potency of Couple in a Cage as a critical act perhaps undermines some of its applicability to more subtle forms of creepiness in natural history museums. Of course, many viewers made the connection to colonization and the practice of dehumanizing nonwestern peoples through display. However my concern is that the connections extend only to more socially visible forms like fetishization that take place in media outlets (i.e. the very emotional woman’s concern about what the uncritical picture taking says about America and the Native American man’s lament that he could just as easily see his grand children in the cage). By putting image-culture at the forefront of the critique, I think Couple in a Cage fails to implicate contemporary natural history museums in doing the same thing today. By hosting Couple in a Cage, these institutions imply that they were forward thinking and radical enough not to perpetuate similar structures in the rest of their museum. However, I would venture a guess that these same spaces have displayed the bones of an indigenous person or have a diorama featuring mannequin people in “traditional garb” squatting on the floor over a cooking pot. These conventions are just as problematic but much less attention grabbing and perhaps overlooked in the hubbub of performance art.

One thought on “so so so good (too good?)”

  1. Rica, I love the line “subtle forms of creepiness” as this feels like a very apt way to describe all museums, not just natural history ones. Your post made me think of a line from the Kirshenblatt-Gimblett: “From an ethnographic perspective, culture shock,
    while an expected part of fieldwork, appeals to the prurient interest of general audiences if it is not mitigated by empathetic understanding. This is the challenge posed
    by the brief intercultural encounters that museums, festivals, and tourism afford, even when produced by professional students of culture” (214). (How) can we produce change in “brief intercultural encounters” ? Is the briefness part of the problem?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *