´ The Public Sphere as Wilderness: Le Musee du quai Branly
Anthony Alan Shelton

´ The Musee du quai Branly is a blood-red knife that rips open the pleasing and repressed story of Paris. – Lisa Rochon, ‘‘Thorns in Paris’s Garden’’


´ he public opening of the Musee du quai Branly on June 23, 2006 polarized critics and delighted audiences (Brothers 2006; Wecker 2006). With the launch of the project ten years earlier, the contestation between two essentially polarized views of museums of non-Western objects as scientific or aesthetic spaces, or more implicitly, given their particular history, as neo-colonial or post-colonial projects, was moved from the academy and museum world into the public sphere. Newspapers and magazines including Le Monde, Le Figaro, Figaro Magazine, The International Herald Tribune, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Time Europe, The Wellington Dominion Post, Newsweek, and the London Review of Books ran generally supportive and even enthusiastic reviews at the time of the Mu´ration, The Times, The seum’s opening, while Libe Independent, The New York Times and the Vancouver Globe and Mail took more critical positions. Some reviews were clearly tainted by the political debacles that accompanied the Museum’s gestation and merely reiterated previously stated positions without regard to its planned future development. Others sidestepped the political and interpretive issues entirely. Of the two articles featured in ´ration on June 21, one by Antoine Guiral (2006) Libe ´ described the inauguration ceremony at the Elysee Palace, while the second by Nathalie Bensahel (2006) reported on the Museum’s small staff and the short-term contracts that most of them were given. The International Herald Tribune, focused on the commission awarded Naoki Takizawa for the Museum’s curtains (Menkes 2006). Many reviews

commented positively on the architecture (Albert 2006; Dickey 2006; Glancey 2006; Le Monde 2006a; Ouroussoff 2006; Prat 2006; Rochon 2006). The Times articles on June 17 and 21 raised old rivalries between the Gallic and Anglo American cultural and art worlds, but otherwise added little to the debate. This article is intended generally as a review of reviews, but primarily it aims to give a provisional critical evaluation of the Museum’s espoused mission, its reception, its potential disciplinary and museological implications, and its position in relation to France’s changing geo-cultural politics. I conclude by discussing the potential of the new institution to radically change the general terms of debate between art and cultural institutions and in particular between the disciplines of aesthetics and ethnography.

Architectural Provocation or Jungle Paradise?
The quai Branly, the first new national museum to be established in Paris since the opening of the Centre Pompidou in 1977, staged its weeklong opening, amidst great fanfare, in June 2006. The inauguration speech and reception given by Jacques Chirac, in the presence of Kofi Annan, Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Paul Okalik (the Premier of ´ ´ Nunavut) and Claude Levi-Strauss in the Elysee Palace on June 20, 2006, was followed on the 21 by a review of experts and museum professionals, and on the 22 by a reception for the diplomatic corp and the Parisian elite. Quai Branly opened its doors to the world on June 23, with an extended weekend that alone attracted 30,000 people (Brothers 2006). The public announcement of its impending opening began six months earlier with an advertising campaign on the Paris metro, though curiosity and intrigue had already been sown over the past decade and half by the steady flow of newspaper reports on the controversies, soaring

& 2009 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1379.2009.01017.x

that houses the ticketing office. The political importance of the quai Branly is reflected in its budget and the impressive array of architects commissioned to submit tenders. to the ticketing office (figure 3). studded with 26 boxes that jut out of its north side. The redis´ tribution of the Musee de l’Homme’s European collections. it still attracted large weekend crowds proving. will form a new Musee de l’Europe et de la 1. A third mezzanine area contains interactive databases that provide access . The permanent exhibition gallery is joined to a circular silver louvered building partly nestled under it. designed by Gilles Clement that will grow to surround them.500 persons per day (Brothers 2006). contributed to the long cues in which expectant visitors. a huge exhibition space intended for temporary and traveling exhibitions and the auditorium named in ´ honor of Claude Levi-Strauss (figure 4). a long sinuous structure. it continued to average 4. The contract was finally awarded to Jean Nouvel for a design that has been repeatedly described as ‘‘striking’’ without being ‘‘monumental’’ and supposedly more sympathetic towards its content and purpose than any of the other submis´ sions. conservative. is raised 10 meters off the ground allowing the public to walk underneath. Norman Foster.2 MUSEUM ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 32 NUMBER 1 costs. tailing off to around 600. and although expecting only around 2. is surmounted by a terrace restaurant giving panoramic river views. 220 meters in length. the other two being irregularly shaped mezzanine spaces suspended over the main permanent exhibition hall. particularly Le Monde and Le Figaro. June 2006 (photograph by the author). Facing the sleek buildings of the quai Branly on the opposite bank of the Seine. Harding 2007). Advertisment for the opening of the Museum at the airport Charles de’Gaulle. banners announcing the Museum’s imminent unveiling decorated the Charles de Gaulle airport (figure 1) and the enthusiastic reviews from the French Press. The closure of the MNAAO freed its building in the Porte ´ ´ Doree to provide the home for the proposed Musee National de l’Histoire de l’Immigration.000–2. while the Muse Museum of French Monuments and the National Institute of Monuments have become amalgamated ´ and rebranded the Cite de l’architecture et du patrimoine in the refurbished east wing of the Palais de Chaillot. and the protests and diatribes between its various supporters and detractors. if anything.500 after that. The permanent gallery. desolate. Six months later. By June. Renzo Piano. The Garden Gallery is the largest of three temporary exhibition areas. it too will be refurbished and refocused on human biology. nearly devoid of visitors and empty except for an ironic. A melange of four architectural styles break up any monolithic institutional facade. waited for up to two hours to gain entry. In the course of time. which in the summer of 2006 appeared almost abandoned. all of which ¸ eventually will partly disappear in the lush gar´ dens. but disappointing exhibition on birth for which its designers had misguidedly given its galleries the appearance of dreary mid century hospital wards (cf. During the first day of its operation it attracted 8.000 thereafter. This makes one earlier official estimate of receiving one million visitors in its first year of operation. following perfectly the curve of the Seine and level with the treetops.757 visitors (Wecker 2006). to say the least. the Garden Gallery. Tadao Ando. The effect of re-organizing the collections of the ´ ´ Musee de l’Homme and the former Musee National ´ anie (MNAAO) to create des arts d’Afrique et d’Oce the new museum had a dramatic effect on the whole French museological landscape. backed by extensive television and radio coverage. stands ´ the melancholy corpse of the Musee de l’Homme. The gallery. and pools. to be amalgamated with those of the ´ Musee National des Arts et Traditions (closed in ´ 2005). that anthropology museums need not be dull (Harding 2007). ´ ´ Mediterranee in Marseille due to open in 2011. and Ken Koolhass. in the week that followed. amidst plants. The ´ e de l’Marine will be refurbished. shrubs.

4. Exterior of the permanent exhibition gallery.000 plants (figures 2 and 5). June 2006 (photograph by author). a cinema and research hub is housed in a more conventional building. The total built area amounts to 29. and the conservation laboratories. described the visitor experience as ‘‘a walk in the woods. bookstore. while the administration wing overlooking the Seine is cushioned behind a hydroponic wall designed by Patrick Blanc covered with over 15. For Marie-Douce Albert. The area dedicated to temporary exhibitions is roughly equal to 6. a lecture theater named after Jacques Kerchache.000 volumes from the Musee de l’Homme. The library of ´ 300.000 square meters and is indicative of the potentially different foci the Museum is able to choose. Exterior of the administration and research buildings.´ LE MUSEE DU QUAI BRANLY 3 to collection-based information. intended to serve as a home to these differ- 3. Jonathan Glancey. .450 square meters with 7. The fourth building with its asymmetric walls flanking the ´ Rue de l’Universite. in Le Figaro. June 2006 (photograph by author). writing for The Guardian. Garden gallery with the bookshop and boutique and conservation department in the distance. the Museum represented a collection of architectural styles and constitutes more a ‘‘territory’’ than a single built structure. June 2006 (photograph by author). 2.500 square meters given to gardens. ent forms of arts rather than an example of western architecture’’ (Glancey 2006:12). through a flow of buildings set back from the Rue de ´ l’Universite that nevertheless form a whole’’ (2006:13) and endorsed Jean Nouvel’s vision for the complex as ‘‘a building nestled in the landscape and awaiting discovery. houses a boutique.

Nouvel. the underground collection storage areas that are claimed to be susceptible to flooding due to their proximity to the Seine (Dupaigne 2006:189). The complex has been referred to as a collective work involving 25 collaborators working with Nouvel. Lacayo and Graff 2006. sprinkled with French modernist landmarks. in the pre-Columbian area. protected by rust colored brises-soleil. The ‘‘building’’ he goes on to say: ‘‘Creates a Kaleidoscopic montage of urban impressions’’ (Ouroussoff 2006). this brown molded leather structure conjured for me the Dogon’s Bandiagara Mountains. Although described as a ‘‘tactile area. conservators. ´ Branly. the building’s public spaces achieve a high degree of functionality. pale blues. sand-like orange. while the glazing on the south side of the exhibition hall. has plant motifs that echo the garden surrounding it and the vegetation growing off its walls.4 MUSEUM ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 32 NUMBER 1 5. that has been taken over and transformed into a wondrous collage’’ (Ouroussoff 2006). including landscape architects. and echoed perhaps ´ the most famed of the former Musee de l’Homme’s collecting expeditions (Africa is the strongest area represented in the collection with approximately 90.’’ ‘‘a sketch of the impulses of urbanity. Lisa Rochon concurred referring to it as ‘‘a rare architectural provocation. Rochon 2006). told Richard Lacayo and James Graff: ‘‘This is the first time I’ve been able to work like this. herisses de brise-soleil ou ´ ˆ sobrement vitrees pour laissser transparaıtre ´ ´ des peintures realisees par des artistes aborigines. the building uses subtle colorings. disregarding dispersions on the hydroponic wall. curators and Aboriginal and African artists (Le Monde 2006a). en effet.’’ that funnels visitors from one area of the hall to another (Clifford 2007:10. Apart from embedded texts in brail the ‘‘serpent’’ also discreetly houses film monitors and. earthen ochre and brown and aubergine. the other is protected with blind-like structures.’’ a twisting low walled structure that marks out a path. Critics (Clifford 2007:12. museologists.’’ and ‘‘a factory in the Garden of Eden’’ (2006:R3). Some Museum staff remarked that Nouvel designed the building to fulfill an established curatorial program but emphasized subsequent consultation with them was minimum.] [Albert 2006] A 12-meter high glass wall along the embankment shielding the Museum from the sound of traffic and doubling as a billboard announcing its varied programs completes the illusion of an exclusionary reserve. Hydroponic wall on the administration building. and it has been formidable to create harmony between the nature of the place and the objects’’ (in Lacayo and Graff 2006). Kimmelman 2006. though how much autonomy any of these had is questionable. The facade of one of the annexes is covered with greenery. Whatever the case. ‘‘la ` riviere. ‘‘evokes an abandoned city.’’ specially adapted for handicapped visitors. June 2006 (photograph by author). around a collection. ´ Stephane Martin. Externally and internally. rusts. For most reviewers the most unsettling part of the permanent gallery was the ‘‘serpent. while the last is plainly glassed in so as to let Australian Aboriginal paintings show through. which supposedly causes excessive humidity in the offices behind it. and the controversy over disabled access (Roger 2006). est un ensemble d’edifices tres ˆ divers. sidestepping the issue. Sally Price reported the strong-arm tactics used to ensure the Aboriginal artists complied with the architectural vision of the project and some employees complained of coercion (2007:147). Harding 2007. a series of decidedly low tech but effective viewing scopes that open out on Mayan archaeological sites. The effect that this achieves for the architectural critic of the New York Times. Price 2007:146) have rightly noted that this strange structure separates contextual information from . while others have said he worked closely with its President. Les facades des annexes sont tatot ¸ ´ ´ ` tapissees de verdure.000 objects) (de Roux 2006a). [Branly is indeed composed of a diverse set of buildings.

an aesthetic embarrassment that ‘‘simply elevates a clunky failure of taste into an error of judgment’’ (2007:32). the museologist responsible for the ´ installation (Musee du quai Branly 2006:8). allow the objects to pop out in remarkable singularity (figure 6). Molly Moore. which despite being described as a ‘‘reference collection’’ were chosen by aesthetic qualities. Although closed to the public. the life force lurking in the lava’’ (Menkes 2006). ´ Veronique Prat (2006) described them as containing exceptional pieces or objects related by a common theme. the overall look of the permanent exhibition hall is of a dark dramatic space that despite high levels of reflection. The texture of the cloth was intended to represent the surface of water while the curtain in the auditorium.500 instruments divided by type. it has outward facing video screens illustrating different types of instruments accompanied by sound clips. For Jeremy Harding the serpent is kitsch. was commissioned to design the Museum’s curtains. Beginning of oceanic displays. June 2006 (photograph by author). The glass cases. The cylinder holds five floors of racks containing 9. Nouvel’s ‘‘obsession of death and forgetting’’ (Bremner 2006) is therefore tempered by Takizawa’s inclusion of themes of life and rebirth. Christopher Dickey interprets the cubes as resembling ‘‘darkened huts from the inside’’ . completing the cycle of creation. The quai Branly has no corridors or hallways and deliberately breaks away from traditional codes governing the way internal spaces are supposed to work. which were intended to be an extension of the architecture. the creative director of Issey Miyake. Rochon found ‘‘the museum offered an aesthetic experience that is by turns exhilarating and jarring. maintaining an unbreechable aesthetic halo around the artifacts themselves.´ LE MUSEE DU QUAI BRANLY 5 the exhibits. volcanic lava. whose structure has been 6. he recalled. Lit by a combination of internal fiber optic and LED lights together with external spots. that first curves around a glass cylinder that projects from the basement to the top floor and serves as a visible storage area for the musical instrument collection. Pathos and disjointed narratives are its chief preoccupations’’ (2006:R3). The box-like projections off one side of the permanent exhibition hall were envisaged as ‘‘sanctuaries’’ for artifacts either made of or containing human remains or endowed with extraordinary spiritual powers according to Germain Viatte. Naoki Takizawa. The ground plan of the Museum. superficial and confusing (2007:12). minimized to fade into the gallery. but at worst. and the printed copper foil on the surface. advised visitors to ‘‘toss out all preconceptions’’ (Moore 2006) of what museums are supposed to be like. reminded him of the silhouette of a pregnant woman bringing life and water to bear on his creation. The permanent exhibition hall is entered via a twisting ramp way alternating between areas of light and dark.500 objects. Nouvel designed the Museum’s display cases and interpretive platforms. These frameless cases house the majority of the gallery’s 3. James Clifford worries that if the virtual tools for contextualizing the exhibits are ignored or go unused the whole spectacle could become like a ‘‘magical theme park’’ that at best might be thought exciting. As in his other buildings. are either unusually high or placed side by side at eye level to allow better viewing of smaller objects. ‘‘The brown color of the auditorium curtain represents the red soil of the earth. Interior. in The Washington Post. Notwithstanding the architect’s intention.

it is rebuffed as a condescending. assimilationist ogre acting in bad faith. over-aestheticised spectacle. This is the opposite effect of the white cube of the art gallery and detracts from its desired impact through being too dark. but demarcated by different colored vinyl floors. like Kimmelman to dismiss the exhibition as a decontextualized. dismissed it as a new formulation of a colonial museum. having too much glare. Even when these had been nearly remedied by the following day. lighting had not been adjusted and a few areas and cases were devoid of objects.’’ it is accused of exoticism or thought to be in the grip of a cultural hallucination brought on by the return of jungle fever.’’ an ‘‘epitaph for a botched President’’ (2006). but brow-slapping wrongheaded’’ (2006). red and black and murky. [Musee du quai Branly 2006:8–11] If there is any failure. the objects in it chosen and arranged with hardly any discernible logic. the former head of the Musee de l’Homme’s Laboratoire d’Ethnologie. it needed to solely focus on historical cultures or ensure a dynamic coverage of their present and future (Amato 2006:60). it lies not with the architecture or technical display of the art. The presentation as a whole is crossed by transversal sequences highlighting cultural relationships and influences present in worlds more interdependent upon one another than ´ might be imagined. it’s hard to say how the new museum scores until some of the grotto effects are taken away. incoherent and full of unresolved doubts’’ (2006)F to Chirac’s own character. objects are meaningfully placed but are also intended to encourage visitors to feel the thrill of deciding their own journey through the hall. most reviewers suspended judgment on the success of the building’s interiors. vitrines still awaited cleaning. On the contrary. Interpretation: Gauguin and the Two Rousseaus Meet Aristotle Michael Kimmelman. Objects were grouped by type. The silly leather partitions should ´ go and the Tarzan decor should be washed off the windows’’ (2007:33). as spectacle. and by making it difficult to see where the case glass ends and the glazed walls begin. which he further clarified by comparing the buildingF‘‘eccentric. floor finishes were still being laid. commented: ‘‘As for exoticism. This is difficult to assess and has made most non-academic critics focus on the architecture and the rhetoric around the new Museum. and a desire to deepen their knowledge. devised as a spooky jungle. The main exhibition gallery is divided into four continental areas each flowing into one another. The overall darkness surrounding the brilliantly lit jewel-like cases conjures fantasy images of the ‘‘Dark Continent’’ that reference discredited notions of primitive . Overall. Clifford provides what is probably the most succinct summary when he writes ‘‘[in the] quai Branly. Tom Dyckhoff described it as a ‘‘blot. when Benoit de l’Estoile argued that to prevent the Museum from becoming analogous to former colonial exhibitions. when it grits its teeth and prepares to celebrate ‘‘difference. according to the Museum’s functionaries. Bernard Dupaigne ´ (2006:212).6 MUSEUM ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 32 NUMBER 1 (2006). As Harding observed however: When the Republic extends the courtesy of ‘‘identity’’ to other cultures. There are undeniable disquieting effects in the quai Branly’s presentation. while others mused about whether it is still defensible for the West to continue to hold the art they ‘‘took’’ from their subjected dominions. ‘‘Its very existence is an assault on aboriginal peoples around the world’’ according to Rochon (2006:R3). Concerns like this had already been voiced in 2001. is unequivocal: ‘‘If the Marx Brothers designed a museum for dark people. Marina Bradbury reiterated the critics charge of it being ‘‘patronising and racist’’ (2006). ‘illusion’ and the ‘work of art’ coexist uneasily with the realism of ethnography and history’’ (2007:5). but with the interpretation of the collections. therefore. one of the quai Branly’s strongest critics. writing in the New York Times. the place is briefly thrilling. Harding. they might have come up with the permanent-collections galleries. parts of the permanent gallery lacked text panels and labels and most of the monitors were still not working making it easy for critics. probably unavoidable. Their wonderings are punctuated by thematic sequences in which objects illustrating a given subject throw further light upon the cultures that produced them. During the press call on the 21 of June. however. According to Viatte: The itinerary has been designed to instill a sense of wonder in the visitors. [2007:32] Such impassioned attacks were.

The winding pathways. The famous Fon anthropo´ ´ morphic figures from King Glele’s Royal Palace (Republic of Benin) look out from a darkened angular recess. These contradictions are never resolved and appear to proclaim a new hagiography superseding the latent surrealization ´ of ‘‘primitive art’’ championed by Andre Breton. the darkness defines an absence radiant with older prejudices and presuppositions about these objects that is quite at odds with the institution’s commitment toward vanquishing any hierarchy between the world’s artistic traditions and aesthetic sensibilities. or Lucien Levy-Bruhl’s ideas on primitive mentality being a response to intimidating and fearful environments. meant to encourage visitors to experience their sojourn as a kind of expedition. do little but add to this impression.’’ ‘‘primordial. the sheer amount of temporary exhibition space indicates the institution’s commitment to greater and more in-depth coverage of world cultures. primordial origins and pre-Enlightenment worlds. Mummies. formerly acclaimed as ‘‘fetishes. and other artists who had become romantically attached to the galleries ´ of the Musee de l’Homme. On the positive side. to compare the grounds to a ‘‘sacred grove. Congo minkisi figures. rambling. For Harding the overall effect of the gallery is to evoke ‘‘a fantasy of pre-contact worlds adrift in benign and fertile obscurity’’ (2007:32) before noting. Interior.’’ are displayed on a barely lit series of surrounding pedestals. . and even its suggested post colonial designate. and the Douanier Rousseau’s Parisian junglescapes seem to collide with Aristotelian theories on the determinacy of nature ´ on character. like sacred objects in a series of clearings’’ (2007:32). what Jean-Loup Amselle referred to as conjuring ‘‘delicious fright’’ (2005).’’ a phrase repeatedly used by its ar- chitect that resonates with James Frazer’s The Golden Bough (1890).’’ or ‘‘tribal’’ arts. For Kimmelman the main gallery is ‘‘an enormous. . June 2006 (photograph by author). a ´ former curator of the Musee d’Arte Moderne and 7. the lush gardens with which Clement has surrounded the Museum and the etched botanical illustrations on its glazed walls reference Jean Jacques Rousseau’s visions of original nature. Max Ernst. In another cube. while elsewhere an impressive group of Vanuatu mummies stand facing the onlooker who is pressed close to the vitrine by surrounding isle cases (figure 7). ‘‘arts premiers’’ (a term proposed by Pierre Gaudibert. writing in Le Croix in 2000 (in Dupaigne 2006:98). ´ Moreover. Vanuatu.´ LE MUSEE DU QUAI BRANLY 7 mentality. crepuscular cavern that tries to evoke a journey into the jungle downriver . While highlighting the objects. . ‘‘. vitrines are beautifully illuminated. an historian and civil rights proponent who likewise accused the jungle theme as perpetuating traditional stereotypes of non-Western people living in a state of savagery (Bremner 2006). Enlightenment philosophy. The same issue was raised by Gilles Manceron. Wolfgang Paalen. Paul Gauguin’s Tahiti. The jungle motif ` when it was first proposed. prompted Genevieve Welcomme. . Even the pillars supporting the raised section of the permanent gallery are intended to evoke trees prompting Dickey to suggest the jungle motif to be overdone and bordering on condescension. its disavowal of terms like ‘‘primitive.’’ (2006). . Kimmelman referred to the Museum as ‘‘a heart of darkness in the city of light’’ (2006). In contrary fashion it has been described as a giant hammock hanging above a garden (Le Monde 2006a).

Many reviewers reiterate that the Museum has been called Chirac’s greatest legacy for Paris (Bradbury 2006. an appellation that supposedly avoids connotations of the primitive (Amato 2006:61). nor even as inspirations for new philosophical views of the world as with the Orientalists and the Surrealists (the relationship was only picked up by Dickey).’’ native. Bremner 2006. exterminated by harsh and instable conquerors: people humiliated and scorned. nor as muses as they were for writers like Henry Roussel or Antonin Artaud. ` auxquels on allait jusqu’a denier qu’ils eussent une histoire. fragilises. Peuples ´ ´ ´ brutalises. of this unreasonable pretension of the West to hold within itself the destiny of ‘‘Humanity. disaffected population of Parisian immigrants will warmly embrace the Museum.8 MUSEUM ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 32 NUMBER 1 preferred by Chirac and Kerchache) points to the possibility of a new kind of engagement. no doubt. de cette pretention derai` sonnable de l’Occident a porter. Glancey 2006. Max Ernst.’’ Our approach is centered around the rejection of the false evolutionism that claims that some peoples remain in an anterior stage of human evolution and that their socalled ‘‘primitive’’ cultures are merely worth serving as objects of study for the anthropologist. enfeebled. In addition. but as original and unique creative expressions in their own right.] [Le Monde 2006b] Furthermore. of whom it was even denied that they had a history: people often still marginalized. No longer will they be seen as tools used by painters like Pablo Picasso. The arts hold top billing. [Bure 2006:68] For Martin. ideals that were also intended to subtly criticize United States political belief in the supremacy of its own culture (Bremner 2006). It is this coexistence between scientists and the public that will make Branly such a unique place. empowered by the fracture between ethnography and aesthetics and conservation and research that will fulfill both a popular public function as well as provide a research and teaching institution for national and foreign investigators. ‘‘We . threatened by the inexorable advance of modernity. but so do music. le ´ destin de l’humanite. the museum is also a campus for students. Dominique Michelet. que leurs cultures dites ‘‘primitives’’ ne vaudraient que comme objets ´ d’etude por l’ethnologue ou. the importance of dialogue between cultures and the country’s openness to the wider world. In his inauguration speech he observed: Au Coeur de notre demarche. at best. [At the heart of our approach is the rejection of ethnocentrism. or Joan Miro. Wilfredo Lam. dance and civilization. Peuples ´ ´ qui veulent neanmoins voir leur dignite res´ tauree et reconnue. au fil des ages. Peuples humilies et meprises. it is a new kind of institution. people who nonetheless want recognition and a restoration of their dignity. The Museum’s collections will be liberated from their interdependence on other French national narratives. extermines par des conquerants av´ ´ ´ ides et brutaux. or. il y a le refus de ´ ´ l’ethnocentrisme. While the term has been heavily criticized as a new foil for ‘‘primitive’’ art. His inauguration speech emphasized French recognition of cultural plurality. an aspiration also supported by ´ Jean-Yves Marin.’’ distinguishes it as derived from ‘‘autochtone. Chirac repeatedly claimed there is no hierarchy between the arts just as there is none between peoples and voiced his desire that the young. In a conversation with Charles Bremner. l’histoire a trop souvent fait violence. In Chirac’s eyes at least the quai Branly is a postcolonial museum. Il y a le rejet de ce faux ´ evolutionnisme qui pretend que certains peo´ ´ ´ ples seraient comme figes a un stade anterieur ´ de l’evolution humaine. For Chirac the quai Branly is intended to dispel ignorance and arrogance and promote a more open and respectful public view of the cultures and arts it represents. as an inspiration for the Western artist. and researchers who can study the collections in exceptional conditions. Georges Braque. the Museum is a form of homage rendered by France: ˆ [D]es peuples auxquels. menaces par ´ ´ l’avancee inexorable de la modernite. Martin stated. en lui seul. Stephane Martin. Harding 2007) and may soon bear his name. concurs: Quai Branly is less a museum than a cultural complex. Director of the Musee Normandie in Caen (Le Monde 2006b). ‘‘arts des premieres nations. director of research at CNRS. sources de’inspiration pour l’artiste occidental. has argued that the concept be` hind it.] [Chirac 2006] ´ The Museum’s President. Peuples aujourd’hui encore sou´ ´ ´ vent marginalises. [Peoples who have been brutalized. au mieux.

and Two Auditoriums Amselle (2005) noted that the quai Branly project seemed to have been trapped from its inception. science and commerce. These have pitted anthropologists against politicians and aesthetes in a battle that was seen as a struggle between popularism and elitism. there is huge potential. Neither the Museum as it stands today. with the exception of a number of Aboriginal acrylics. The success of the Museum in the end will depend on whether the rhetoric informs the practices that the new infrastructure can so evidently support (cf. expressed his hope that the Museum will also include contemporary art. Ignored by Francois Mitterand (in 1984 he wrote ¸ him advocating the inclusion of arts premiers in the Louvre). All that means that the notion of cultural purity on which many former ethnological museums rested makes no sense today’’ (Brothers 2006). 2006c. Marin 2006). re-designated the Musee de la ´ France d’Outre-Mer at the Porte Doree. he asks.´ LE MUSEE DU QUAI BRANLY 9 want to be a portal. Furthermore. writing in 1998 about the acrimonious split between ‘‘aesthetic’’ and ‘‘scientific’’ camps of curators. we dress African and do our hair in Antillais [Caribbean] style. Jacques Friedmann. our tattoos are Polynesian. because the ministries of education and culture and communication both fund the Museum. Kerchache played a crucial role in shaping the aesthetic and what for him was a radical anti-ethnographic agenda. the idea of recognizing the universal aesthetic supposedly common to all ar- . Put another way. as the MNAAO and placed it under the administration of ´ the Musees de France. was focused on the civilization of the Taino was quickly endorsed and supported by Chirac and constituted the first of three bold projects that would bring the two men increasingly close together. The driving force and fundamental idea behind the quai Branly was first aired by the much vilified art collector. The idea of curating a 1994 quincentenary exhibition in Paris that instead of celebrating Columbus’ discovery of America. This seems part of a more general rethinking of what constitutes the essence of Francophone culture. colonialism and post-colonialism and provincialism and universalism. far from obliterating the memory of the defunct Laboratoire d’Et´ hnologie of the Musee de l’Homme. dealer and adventurer. an interface between Western and non-European societies’’ (Bremner 2006). ‘‘Glacial Responses:’’ Two World-Views. to build on its enviable reputation while encouraging new lines of research. a chance meeting with Chirac in 1990 led to a close friendship based on their shared passions for non-Western art. then ´ Minister of Culture. How. it promises to be an important thread running through future temporary exhibitions. characterized their relationship as one of ‘‘reciprocal contempt’’ (Price 2007:107). Kerchache. While his refusal to acknowledges the existence of any essential hierarchy between the world’s art was opportune. an important area in which to trace the workings of interculturalism (de Roux 2006d). will it demarcate and legitimate the borderline between art and non-art? Are the arts of the rest of the world less primal than those represented in the quai Branly? Does it not reproduce the old dichotomy between Western and non-Western art museums? And what are the implications of excluding European and Islamic art? Ambiguity around the Museum has inevitably been provoked by the often-unrestrained cultural politics that date to the inception of the ideas underlying it in 1990 (cf. his acerbic personality and his vehement opposition to anthropology and ignorance of the substantial contribution genera´ tions of curators at the Musee de l’Homme had made to the understanding of comparative aesthetics was vastly detrimental to the whole project. Two Museums. Moving away from purist and essentialist categories France may be embracing a more intercultural perspective that allows it to point to some of the positive effects of its colonial post. ´ As early as 1962 when Andre Malraux. contemporary art was largely missing from the current reference collection. the Museum’s Honorary President. as Clifford astutely notes. scholarship and emotion. The archaeologist Michel Colardelle. it remains to be seen whether the inherent contradictions between the different agendas represented within the quai Branly will bring into being a very different kind of institution than Chirac and Kerchache ever intended (2007:22). According to Martin: ‘‘We eat Thai. Though. Le Monde 2006c). de Roux 2006b. as Dupaigne (2006:198) claims to be the objective of the new museum. or its future potential can be gauged without first understanding the painful period of its gestation.

he tauntingly challenged them that if they were to arrange an exhibit of the Venus de Milo. among others. including Maurice Godelier. Felix Feneon and the art dealer Paul Guillaume (Price 2007:35). Initially. after becoming President. Oceania and the Arctic in the Louvre by 2002 and to enlarge. As Price (2007:30) reiterated. the one playing a flute and the other dressed as a shepherdess holding goat cheese. and Philippe Laburthe-Tolra. to examine the future of arts premiers in Paris. polemically proclaiming ‘‘we too are the ´ Musee du Louvre. the exhibition not surprisingly was arranged solely on aesthetic criteria that emphasized the individual creativity of their makers over the works’ social or functional context. This was not the first time that non-Western art had breeched the walls of the Louvre. as early as 1830 included ethnographic works that were not removed until the 1870s when they were re-housed in the newly constructed Palais du Trocadero. Organized by Kerchache and the architect. This gulf between most anthropologists and Gaullist cultural politics began to widen in 1995 when Chirac voiced his view that ethnology and art were two quite separate things and the following year when he established a commission. the poet. the former Director of ´ ´ the Musee de Arte Moderne. it would undoubtedly be contextualized by positioning the sculpture between two mannequins. Jean-Michel Willmotte. based on Western individualism. along with Kerchache as his advisor. Calls for replacing such collections in the Louvre were never entirely silenced and were made by. but also helped win support for a future museum based on Kerchache’s aesthetic viewpoint. The well-orchestrated public criticism of Kerchache led some independent observers to believe he was being unfairly vilified (Corby 2000:4). under Friedmann. The commission reported that the distinction between ethnographic and art museums was no longer intellectually justifiable and recommended that the ethnographic collections of the ´ Musee de l’Homme and MNAAO should be brought together. 1999 article by Prat in Le Figaro Magazine (quoted in Dupaigne 2006:104). the ´ Musee Dauphin.’’ succeeded not only in attracting three million visitors between 2000 and 2006. including two extraordinary Inuit masks acquired in 1999 from the Breton collection. These appointments exacerbated the rift between the supporters of the new Museum and anthropologists including Louis Dumont. the Museum’s forerunner. Tin Tin (Price 2007:15– 17). Daniel de Coppet. For Kerchache the fulfillment of such a view could only be realized once the Louvre had extended its coverage to the art of the whole of humanity. between 1998 and 2000. Using items taken from the collections ´ of the Musee de l’Homme and the MNAAO. Kerchache and Willmotte’s strategy further alarmed anthropologists and ethnographic curators alike who predictably accused them of decontextualizing objects and reappropriating them within European narrative traditions. and the Musees de Ville de Marseilles. he saw this as only the first step in a wider presentation of arts pre´ miers to be housed in a reformed Musee de ´ l’Homme. America. Germain Viatte. were appointed to direct the establishment of the new institution in 1997. and his questionable escapades and adventurous past led to others identifying him as a French Indiana Jones. along with members of the Ethnology section of the CNRS. who supported . The Louvre exhibition was accused of attempt- ing to incorporate non-Western art and culture within a French hegemonic cultural politic. the intention had been to establish a new department of Africa. Claude Levi-Strauss had put a similar position forward in the 1940s (Corby 2000:6). joined at the end of 1998 by Martin as President.10 MUSEUM ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 32 NUMBER 1 tistic creativity had become an important pillar of Gaullist cultural politics. renovate and transform the space occu´ pied by the Musee de l’Homme in the Palais de Chaillot by removing the naval museum to the building occupied formerly by the MNAAO at the ´ Porte Doree. Chirac readily adopted the first part of Kerchache’s crusade. the anarchist. 117 ‘‘master works’’ of non-Western art were placed on ‘‘permanent’’ exhibition in the Louvre’s Pavillon de Sessions. Later. which he easily imposed over the objections of the Louvre’s director. ´ ´ ´ Guillaume Apollonaire. A prominent advertising campaign using images that illustrated various nonWestern art pieces. In October of 1996 Chirac announced the creation of a new Museum of Civilizations and Arts Premiers. repeating his view of the inability of anthropologists to recognize the formal aesthetic qualities of art. In an October 9. Kerchache had anticipated his critics. Although now criticized by many anthropologists. or more benignly. Pierre Rosenberg and his curators.

derived from two fundamentally different institutions. While Godelier’s vision that visitors to the quai Branly should be able to ‘‘pass from the joy of seeing to the joy of knowing’’ (in Price 2007:50) may have been at least partly fulfilled. Chirac announced that the new home for the ´ future Musee des Arts et des Civilisations. ´ Director of the Musee de l’Homme’s Laboratoire d’Anthropologie biologique. remains to be ascertained. were transferred to quai Branly. added his own voice against the plans for a museum of arts premiers ´ and in 1999 was supported by Andre Langaney. Claude Levi-Strauss. or outdated understandings of anthropology and art. exchange. His suggestion that exhibitions be based on great universal themes that tied humanity togetherFsexuality. The director of the MNAAO. while refusing to purchase this important Asian popular culture collection).000 signatures. Paradoxically. This fundamental antagonism is not only represented in the origin of its collections.500 new works. despite Kerchache’s ´ death the same year. 2006c. in 1997 Maurice Godelier was appointed scientific advisor with a mandate to develop a research and teaching agenda and advise on more anthropological type presentations. and by 2002 were organized to prevent the removal of the Museum’s collections. and craft and technologyFhowever. his championship of it being a post-colonial museum can be seen by the lack of history in the permanent gallery to have been firmly rejected. gods. the escalation in cost from 167 m in 1998 to 235 m in 2006 (Prat 2006). In February 1998. religion. Jean-Paul Martin. Symptomatic of the conflict was that few ´ former employees of the Musee de l’Homme. he withdrew from the project. the loss of the Pimpaneau Collection (Chirac authorized the expenditure of $28. the production of riches. defeated plans to re-locate it. With the Museum seeming to abandon its promised research and teaching functions and the retrenchment of the aesthetic camp. There were other well publicized debacles that ´ the Musee du quai Branly had created for itself (de Roux 2006b. it is indisputable that its permanent exhibition galleries . the one an art museum and the other ethnographic. While the holdings of the MNAAO were relocated at its closure in 2003.’’ which by 1997 had attracted 10. before advocating more geographically based and thematic exhibition strategies in the quai Branly itself. In an attempt to placate anthropological furor and to better represent the Ministry of Education ´ that had been responsible for the Musee de l’Homme’s collections.7 million acquiring around 8. would be built at 29-55 quai Branly. its extravagant acquisitions. were ultimately unacceptable to Viatte and Kerchache and.´ LE MUSEE DU QUAI BRANLY 11 ´ the approach of the Musee de l’Homme. because it has been so public. so bitter and so protracted the conflict between ethnographic and aesthetic interpretation may be one of the Museums enduring legacies. spirits and ancestors. who decried the lack of intellectual credibility around the project. with unexpected reductions in the research and teaching budget. the body. in 2002. the acquisition of looted or illegally exported artifacts. Whether such antagonism masked more fundamental conflicts growing out of ‘‘power plays and interpersonal rivalries’’ as Viatte claimed (Price 2007:56). Regardless of the intellectual accomplishments ´ of the staff of the Musee de l’Homme. and rumors of corruption. The same year the ´ Musee de Marine organized its own defense committee and with the support of the Ministry of Defense. unlike those of the MNAAO. heterosexual and homosexual rituals. Price 2007:67–80). the life cycle. but was commemorated in the quai Branly’s very fabric by naming its two auditoriums after the aesthete Kerchache and the chief anthropologist to support ´ the project. death. The Labo´ ratoire d’Ethnologie of the Musee de l’Homme established a Committee of Defense that by using the Internet organized a public petition against ‘‘the destruction of the museum. the representation of power. ways of understanding the environment and human impact on it. not until the next year were they ´ finally amalgamated with those of the Musee de l’Homme. Kerchache and their emissaries against their ethnographic detractors and the dehistoricization of the permanent gallery will mark the development of the institution for years to come. He began by successfully contextualizing the arts premiers that Kerchache had installed in the Louvre. but the antagonisms between Chirac. when the Easter Island figure collected by Pierre Loti that had graced its foyer was finally carried away. Staff withdrew their reluctant collaboration completely from the Project. the desperation of the Musee de l’Homme’s staff was exacerbated and in November 2001 they went on strike.

treating anthropology as a comparative study of ideas.12 MUSEUM ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 32 NUMBER 1 were old and out of date. and incapable of engaging most of their visitors. The second exhibition revolved around the French anthropologist Georges Condominas. June 2006 (photograph by author). centered on the Museum’s collection of Bambara `res Africaines. and photographs. Ciwara: Chime hnographic. curated by Jean-Paul Colleyn. Temporary exhibition on the body. . Using multimedia presentations. The third exhibition. and African masks. Temporary exhibition on the body. concerned with using ethnographic examples from the West and elsewhere to raise questions about concepts of the body (figures 8 and 9). historical and stylistic perspectives. the exhibition took a fertile approach resonant of ´e the Anne Sociologique a century ago. by integrating visual seductiveness. photographs.000 (Price 2007:85). a kind of empirical philosophy that seeks to dislodge cultural prejudices by juxtaposing them with alternative held beliefs.’’ These three exhibitions went behind the old and immensely futile contrasts between anthropological contextualization and aesthetic approaches to recognize both as valid methodologies. Qu’est-ce ´ qu’un corps?. were acclaimed as having fulfilled the Museum’s ‘‘double vision. and after Emile Biasini failed to get Mitterand to honor his 1992 promise of two hundred million francs to renovate it. Conditions were worse still in the stores where meager budgets had prevented the adequate conservation and care of the collection. The Political Culture of Aesthetic Universalism The first temporary exhibitions at the quai Branly indicated a different approach than that in the permanent gallery. the Museum stumbled from crisis to crisis (de Roux 2006c). The institution had been racked by internal conflicts at least since the 1970s. combined etciwara. and biographical exhibition that included Condominus’s notebooks. this was an historical. and ambitious interpretive texts. For the most part badly lit and crammed into outdated metallic cases arranged in serried lines. aesthetic presen- 8. Curated by Christine Hemmet. but methodologies that are themselves implicated within modernist discourses and themselves reconstitutive of any idealized originating context. Emmanuel de Roux’s (2006e) review described it as a conceptual exhibition. The exhibition. Godelier’s ethnographic exhibition criteria were as predictable and well established as those of Kerchache. that followed a different approach from the mainstream but that was eminently anthropological. publications. June 2006 (photograph by author). was remarkably interrogative. Viatte sees the quai Branly as ‘‘an ever changing forum for 9. author of the acclaimed monograph Nous avons ´ ˆt mange la fore (1957) and a critic of the American Government’s use of ethnographic research during the Vietnam War. All three were reviewed by de Roux (2006f) and.000 to 175. ethnographic. collections appeared unused. tation. Between 1985 and 1995 attendance fell from 350. an installation. uncared for. but the interstices between the epistemologies on which they are predicated and between these and other narratives are redolent with promise. curated by Stephane Breton.

The exhibition also included thematic presentations. represents the kind of depoliticized Kantian rationalism that has become only too transparent as ruling ideology. and traders. and collections need to be presented ‘‘inscribed within different traditions and practices. to an impressive assemblage of Albert Eckhout’s paintings of native Brazilians (1640s). and a presentation of the documents and collections made by diplomats. and a selection of anatomical heads modeled on diverse ethnic groups. The exhibition was notable for its size and comprehensiveness and the deconstructive gaze it placed on past European concepts of the ‘‘Other. the one in the center of Paris. free of national. Later exhibitions on the Benin artist Romuaid Azoulay and the London based Nigerian artist Yinka Shonibare as well as another on the photographic collections of the 19th ´ ´ century explorer Desire Charnay seem to fulfill this wider mandate (de Roux 2006d). It is still possible that the danger of further social ruptures may encourage more radical re-institutionalizations of public narratives by the state itself. soldiers. The debates they host remain stuck between similar agencies and publics. historical. regrettable that it did not continue its disquisition into the present. the other on its ´ periphery in the Porte Doree. it is ‘‘equally important to highlight their social. To paraphrase Clifford. There are many more important debates than that between scientific ethnology and aesthetics that have too often been ignored. To cut colonial history from art (or anthropology) and institutionalize them separately.400 paintings. D’un regard l’autre. Here at last was an historical show that. The show continued with drawings made on Cook’s voyages. beginning with European depictions of anthropomorphic creatures and wild men. for example. 2001b:227). on the modeling of 17th century maps. cosmopolitan patrimonies’’ (1997:122). the Museum opened its first large scale exhibition. Martin and Viatte acknowledge that the quai Branly may at the very least change the terms of the public gaze away from looking at an object as standing for a society or race humiliated by western colonial science to rep- .’’ It was. comprising of over 1. local and community histories need to be inscribed into gallery interpretations. drawings. and Pacific cultures from the 15th to the mid–20th century.´ LE MUSEE DU QUAI BRANLY 13 discussion’’ that will encourage debate through its theatre and cinema. advanced to de Bry’s prints of Native American savagery (c. but which with race riots exploding across France in 2005 and debates about tougher new immigration policies. such as in the recent opening of the Islamic Gallery within the Louvre. photographs. American. colonial pasts and current struggles’’ (1997:122). they need to subvert the art culture dichotomy. Both aesthetics and ethnography gain their legitimacy from the same epistemological program and represent different but no less problematic recontextualisations of cultures geographically and/or historically removed from their sites of origin. however. 1590). and weapons. Despite the widely felt misgivings among academic commentators on the permanent exhibitions. Martin agrees that in addition to recognizing the formal qualities of non-Western art. which were intended to illustrate supposed differences in brain size. they have shied away from redressing the fracture that divides them from the communities and nations they claim to represent. blind to the diminishing possibilities for reconciliation and consensus building between different segments of their population. about changing European perceptions of African. and the impact of non-Western art on 20th century European artists. sculpture. The exhibition finished with a trophy display of miscellaneous weapons. as well as through teaching and research to enrich ‘‘the links that should be developed between the various networks that animate modern-day intellectual and artistic life’’ ´ (Musee du quai Branly 2006:11). There are no native voices or colonial histories in the quai Branly. need be given greater prominence. sociological and ´ sometimes even psychoanalytic diversity’’ (Musee du quai Branly 2006:5). In September 2006. Moreover. on the human body. exhibits need to reflect ‘‘excluded experiences. The efficacy and constitution of the quai Branly’s public sphere appear initially to differ little to that of most majoritarian museums of the 19th and 20th centuries. In the main such museums have failed to question the fundamental categories on which they are based or contribute to the development of a new dialogue between the world’s cultures and aesthetic sensibilities (Shelton 2001a:145. quai Branly’s temporary exhibition program already shows a new critical slant that has been notably absent from other ethnographic museums in Europe and North America.

However. If ´ the Musee du quai Branly is part of this cultural and political re-alignment of the French state. and our perception of the world. It has instituted joint archaeological. a very unique institution that might yet challenge some of our most dearly held museological presuppositions. cultural. could either come to be regarded as merely heralding the last painful gasps of the old museum model. as their temporary exhibition program seems to imply. which directly leads to questions of the gaze and their relation to indigenous forms of knowledge. Linguistic and phenomenological studies of the language and experience of connoisseurship has hardly been examined. visual culture. the purposes of museums in urban areas. . it is not surprising why so few contemporary indigenous artists have been critical of it. a museum with the resources of the quai Branly can do better than reiterate welltrodden ground. it is conceivable that the Musee du quai Branly. the efficacy of objects. Provisional visitor statistics seem to indicate only about a third of visitors are tourists. Saudi Arabia. whether museums are secular. While the opening of the Louvre to the public in 1793 represented the emergence of the museum as part of a new bourgeois public sphere that was to become characteristic of capitalist soci´ eties. Her support appears to be reiterated by many of the Museum’s immigrant visitors who. the differences between modern. many bordering on adjacent disciplines. it is not alone. The coexistence of radical and contradictory agendas underlying the foundation and operation of the quai Branly. Amselle (2005) has drawn attention to the growing cultural and artistic engagement between France and her former African colonies that are producing an increasingly integrated intercontinental cultural landscape. If the quai Branly sees itself as part of this new project of cultural (and political) renewal. thereby amalgamating their French citizenship with their exotic cultural inheritance. or multipurpose spaces. or become representative of a new direction for refocusing such institutions. There is ample room to explore the nature of the epistemologies underlying Kantian and Hegelian aesthetics. Amselle (2005:52) referred to this as ‘‘Francafriche’’ and ¸ identified writers. international cooperation. Price (2005:138–139) reported similar processes in Guyana where painters. increasing visitor numbers from 5 to 7. the preservation and collection of intangible cultural property. Panels discussed the implications of the ethnographic/aesthetic dichotomy on exhibitions.14 MUSEUM ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 32 NUMBER 1 resenting an expression of aesthetic genius (in Amato 2006:55). to compare them with those of other societies. Jordan. As part of its opening ceremonies the quai Branly invited Bruno Latour to organize a series of eight roundtable discussions between distinguished scholars of non-Western art. we are told. ritual. and performers are encouraged with state and European Union subsidies to develop their talents and interpret their work through western discourses that favor symbolic exegeses. This change of terms appears to be at the heart of a wider reorientation of French cultural politics.5 million in five years and shedding some of its elite pretensions (Melikian 2006). Syria. issues over ownership. carvers. that interdisciplinary discussion can reinvigorate. with 60% of the remainder made up of habitual museum goers and the remaining 40% comprising ‘‘a new museum-going public’’ attracted by the links the Museum provides between them and their cultures of origin (Brothers 2006). the Louvre has taken an increasingly globalized path. and museology to debate the central problems that affect contemporary museums. have overwhelmingly expressed their appreciation at seeing their cultural heritage exhibited in such a prominent Parisian location. and intellectual interactions may produce. contemporary and traditional art. and Sudan. museological and exhibition projects with Iran. Anthropology is rich with avenues prematurely closed to research. Maori artist Fiona Pardington referred to museums as ‘‘Western receptacles at their worst’’ and admitted to being impressed by the Museum’s engagement on critical issues (Venter 2006:8). Such discussions need to include indigenous peoples along with this international intellectual elite. and the meaning of the concept of authenticity. There is the little developed branch of philosophical anthropology that through the work of Ernst Cassirer and Susanne Langer again returns us to questions of the nature of aesthetics. Since the appointment of Henri Loyrette as its director. choreographers and festival organizers who see the future vitality of French culture being dependent on renewal from the periphery. a kind of comparative epistemological and aesthetic exercise. at the beginning of the 21st century. with their complex political. Turkmenistan.

Guiral. July 4.´ LE MUSEE DU QUAI BRANLY 15 Acknowledgments I would like to thank Sarah Carr-Locke for assisting in editing the final draft of this paper and Solen Roth for her expert translations of French texts into English. Emmanuel ´ ` ´ 2006a 300. January 4 29(1):32–33. Paris: Mille et une nuits.uk/. http://www. cultural attache at the French Consulate in Vancouver and the French Embassy in Ottawa for kindly funding my trip to attend the remarkable opening of the Musee du quai Branly.fr/. http://www. James George 1890 The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. 2008. Jonathan 2006 How Does Your Gallery Grow? The Guardian. accessed December 10.lemonde. Marina 2006 Chirac’s Museum of Exotic Art Panned for Being ‘‘Racist. 2006b Premiers regards sur le quai Branly. Liberation. 2008. Glancey.uk/. 165m and a Row About Art: That’s Amelie’s Real New Paris.uk/. Christopher 2006 Sex.co. Frazer.lefigaro. June 21. Le Monde. Electronic document. ´ 2006c Quai Branly Batailles pour un musee.’’ The Independent. Corby. Bernard ´ 2006 Le scandale des arts premiers: La veritable histo´ ire du Musee du quai Branly. . MA: Harvard University Press. Death and God: An Intriguing New Museum in Paris Helps Explain Picasso’s LifeChanging Fascination with Primal Art. Air France Magazine.iht. October 120(Spring): 3–23. Nathalie ´ ´ 2006 Le salariat employe avec parcimonie. Race and Class 47(4):46–65.lemonde. Paris: Mercure de France. http:// www. Electronic document. accessed December 10. 2008. Le Monde.co. Clifford. Electronic document. President du ´ Musee. President de la ´ ´ ` Republique. http://www. http://www. Paris: Flammarion. http://www. June: 68 Chirac. June 20. Tom 2006 Epitaph for a Botched President. Dickey.uk/. 2008. Electronic document. accessed December 10. Electronic document. Electronic document. Newsweek. James 1997 Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century.fr/. accessed December 10. June 21. http://www. Le Monde. accessed December 10. Marie-Douce 2006 Jean Nouvel: Accueillir les objets. De.guardian. http:// www. accessed December 10.timesonline. 2008. Charles ´ 2006 10 Years. Electronic document. http://www. 2008. Liberation. August 18. Jacques ´ 2006 Allocution de M. 2008. Condominas. Electronic document. June 27. Brothers. Dyckhoff. 3. Electronic document. Le Figaro. The Times. Bure. accessed December 8.fr/. Cambridge. http://www. June 17. Manchester. http:// www.fr/fr/actualites/actualites-parrubriques/archives-des-actualites/m-jacques-chiracpresident-de-la-republique-a-inaugure-le-musee-duquai-branly/allocution-de-m-jacques-chirac-presidentde-la-republique/index. http://www. 2006d ‘‘C’est un paysage. accessed December 10. June 20. Birth. June 21. Electronic document. Jacques Chirac.lemonde. Antoine ´ 2006 Chirac comme chez lui Quai-Branly. 2008. accessed December 10. Electronic document. Amato. accessed December 10. London Review of Books. 2007 Quai Branly in Process. Sarah 2006 Quai Branly Museum: Representing France After Empire. June 16. pas un catalogue des cul´ ´ tures’’: Entretien Stephane Martin.com/articles/2006/08/17/opin ion/branly. I am also grateful to Hadrien Laroche. Electronic document. Le Monde. http://www. 2008. June 26. Electronic document. accessed December 10. ´ ´ ´ 2006e Stephane Breton l’heretique du quai Branly. Gilles ` ´ 2006 A la recontre de Stephane Martin. accessed December 11. Bensahel. 2008. le 20 juin 2006.liberation. accessed December 10.fr/. June 2. 2008. Anthropology Today 16(4):3–6. June 21. a Museum Hits Close to the Heart. Electronic document. Le Monde.php.fr/.fr/. 2006f La double mission du quai Branly. de Roux. The Times. Georges ´ ˆ ´ ˆ 1957 Nous avons mange la foret de la Pierre-Genie Goo ˆ (Hii saa brii mau-yaang Goo): Chronique de Sar Luk. 2008. London: Macmillan.html. a l’occasion de l’inauguration du Musee du quai Branly.co. Jean-Loup 2005 L’art de la friche: Essai sur l’art africain contemporain.liberation. Bradbury. 2008.000 objets en reserve. Harding.co. 110. References Cited Albert.fr/. July 3:86.quaibranly. Bremner. Caroline 2006 For Some.500 pieces exposees.fr/. June 21. Le Monde. London.lemonde.independent. Jeremy 2007 At Quai Branly: Jeremy Harding on Jacques Chirac’s Museum. village mnong gar (tribu proto-indochinoise des HautsPlateaux du Viet-Nam central).timesonline. Raymond 2000 Arts Premiers in the Louvre.lemonde. Electronic document. http://www. 2008. accessed December 10. International Herald Tribune. Dupaigne.fr/. 2008.lemonde. http://www. accessed December 10. Amselle.

display. and with Jeremy Coote. Time Europe 167(26.com. Electronic document. The New York Times. accessed December 10. Paris: Musee du quai Branly. Electronic document. 2008. The Dominion Post. Pp. Electronic document.lemonde.com/. 2008. accessed December 10.fr/. accessed December 10. Le Monde. The essay concludes by discussing whether the function and organization of the museum as a public space significantly differs from earlier projects undertaken on the eve of the 21st ´ century. Le Monde. Anthony 2001a Unsettling the Meaning: Critical Museology. July 2. Electronic document. 2001b Museums in an Age of Cultural Hybridity. Nick 2006 There for All to See. Shelton. International Herald Tribune.fr/lefigaromagazine/index. accessed December 10.washingtonpost. Ouroussoff. 2007 Paris Primitive: Jacque Chirac’s Museum on the Quai Branly. The first part of the essay is approached through the analysis of a selection of newspaper reviews. Moore. and a comparison between these and institutionally sanctioned views of the Museum as expressed by some of its principal functionaries and instigators. http://www. Le Monde. 2008. Rochon. June 26). The Washington Post. International Herald Tribune. He is the author of numerous essays and the editor of Collectors: Expressions of Self and Other (Horniman Museum and Gardens. Electronic document. http:// www. Sally 2005 Art and the Civilizing Mission. June 21. http://www. Anthony Alan Shelton is the Director of the Museum of Anthropology and a Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia.fr/. http:// www.lemonde. ´ Musee du quai Branly ´ 2006 Masterpieces from the Musee du quai Branly Col´ lections. Electronic document. New Zealand. 2008. but the Very Fact of the Collections Inside Pose a Dilemma. Electronic document. ´ Prat. Le Monde ´ 2006a Musee du quai Branly. accessed December 10. Menkes. 2008. June 18.fr/.fr/. [Keywords: Musee du quai Branly. Folk: Journal of the Danish Ethnographic Society 43: 221–249. The Globe and Mail. Patrick ´ 2006 Quai Branly: les rates d’un musee ‘‘exemplaire’’ pour les handicaps. September 9:9. Molly 2006 In Paris. 2008. accessed December 10.iht. Vancouver. accessed December 10.nytimes. http://www. Electronic document. Roger. 2008. Figaro Magazine. Wecker. Jean-Yves ´ 2006 Un musee postcolonial. Electronic document. September 16:8.fr/. June 21.lemonde.com/time/maga zine/europe/. Price.com.time. Suzy 2006 Merging Textiles and Architecture.nytimes. It’s the Summer of Museums.fr/. 2008. accessed December 10.com/. June 10. http:// www. Michael 2006 A Heart of Darkness in the City of Light. Electronic document. Anthropology. accessed December 10. representation] . Le Monde. In Academic Anthropology and the Museum: Back to the Future. Mary Bouquet.16 MUSEUM ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 32 NUMBER 1 Kimmelman. accessed December 10. Marin.lefigaro. Le Monde. 2008. July 13: R3. Wellington. Lacayo. 2008. Electronic document. June 21. http://www. Lisa 2006 Thorns in Paris’s Garden: A Master of Emotionally Charged Space has Created a Spectacular and Controversial Complex.lemonde. Souren 2006 The Vision Behind the Louvre’s Metamorphosis: Director Takes Globalist Path. Collectors: Individuals and Institutions (Horniman Museum and Gardens. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://www. Jean Nouvel Creates His Own Rules. Melikian. its reception and its potential disciplinary. accessed December 10. June 19. ed. Abstract ´ This article has the dual purpose of first describing the Musee du quai Branly and secondly critically evaluating its espoused intentions. Nicolai 2006 For a New Paris Museum. Veronique ´ ` 2006 Quai Branly: Le musee du XXIe siecle. Richard and James Graff 2006 Nouvel Vogue. June 20. June 27. Venter. political and museological implications. http://www.php. http:// www. ´ 2006b Jacques Chirac rend homage aux peoples humiles ´ ´ et mepristes. June 25. Anthropology and Humanism 30(2):133–140. http:// www. http://www. Electronic document. 2006c Un bel outil. June 25.lemonde. 1995). museum exhibition. The New York Times. 2001). 2001). 2008. Le Monde. New York: Berghahn Books. 2008. 142–161.lemonde. Art and Aesthetics (Oxford University Press. accessed December 10. Nicholas ` ` 2006 Succes pour l’ouverture du Musee du quai Branly. Art and Anthropological Discourse.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful