Elaine Lin

The theme of the 2015 CIMAM conference ‘How Global Can Museum Be?’ opened up a forum for debate that unraveled issues around museum ethics, representation of cultural/national heritage, and the serving of an increasingly globalized audience through a tightly-knit 3-day programmed led by a group of leading art and museum professionals.

While the conference strived to tackle the elephant in the room—the ever-present impact of globalization in the world today—the discussion interestingly reflected a shared concern of what is left un-devoured by the elephant. As Frances Morres (Tate, London) remarked at the end of the panel discussion on day 2, the talks focused largely on the vernacular, albeit ‘the age of market and globalization’. Case studies presented by Jack Persekian (The Palestinian Museum, Palestine), Mika Kuraya (The National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo), and Eugene Tan (National Gallery Singapore, Singapore), for example, all demonstrated persistent efforts in their museums to both reconstruct and de-stabilize the histories, identities, and even conceptual frameworks that define specific countries and regions through varying modes of collection building and exhibition making. Their intent to unite disparate communities and commemorate national memories through reinventions of regional art histories echoes the words of Peggy Levitt (Wellesley College and Harvard University, Boston) that museums are all ‘windows into their nations’.

As outward facing as museums are positioned, the topic of globalization has paradoxically reminded and urged us to stay introspective and self-reflexive. This is especially important in the case of Hong Kong, where the history of museum practice is still relatively young, and the struggle with identity against the city’s complicated past still endures in the everyday lives of its citizens. The renovation of Hong Kong Museum of Art (2015-18) and the opening of M+ in 2019 as a museum of visual culture have promised a permanent exhibit/collection dedicated to local masters and emerging artists. How will the two museums’ collection strategies complement each other? How will the intricate histories of Hong Kong be collected and represented to cultivate a global public? With reference to the case of The Palestinian Museum, can the institutions become discursive platforms that encourage multiple voices and narratives, regardless of market trend or funding structure?

It is important for us as cultural organizations to stay cognizant, self-critical, and curious of these questions. At Asia Art Archive, we are also making attempts, placing the highly questioned cultural concept of ‘Asia’ at the center of our concern, to coincide with propositions by scholars such as Takeuchi Toshimi and Chen Kuan-Hsing who advocated ‘Asia as Method’—a response to the problematic identification of regional ‘independence’ and knowledge production originated from capitalist globalization [1]. Through acquisitions and archival projects, we hope to retain voices of the vernacular and the under-represented (e.g. independent art spaces; events originating from ‘second-tier’ cities). Presentations by Hammed Nasar (Asia Art Archive, Hong Kong) and Mariana Botey (University of California, San Diego) expanded on this commitment—in a globalized world, the community must construct and constantly re-fabricate modernity’s and cultural specificities in order to anchor a more nuanced cultural exchange.

My sincerest gratitude to the Getty Foundation and CIMAM’s Travel Grant Committee for their generous support that made this trip to Tokyo possible. My appreciation to hosts Fumio san, Mami, and their team at Mori Art Museum for their great hospitality and enthusiasm. The incredible experience has inspired new ideas and propositions for its participants, enabled conversations and debates to travel far beyond the conference, and fostered collaborative opportunities among the CIMAM participants for the future.

___________________________________________

[1] Kuan-Hsing Chen (2010) ‘Chapter 5: Asia as Method: Overcoming the Present Conditions of Knowledge Production’ in Asia as Method: Towards Deimperialization, Duke University Press, Durham.