Wow. I had the same experience when I came back to teach. Let's talk about what you've been up to in recent years. This past March, you were a panelist in our current “Future of Art” alumni panel. During the panel, you discussed the Interpretation Team’s project of rewriting the permanent collection gallery labels at the Nelson Atkins through a harm reduction lens. For those who did not attend the panel, could you share why you decided to do this and perhaps share an example of how you rewrote a particular label and how the community received the new label?
So this project came about in the wake of Black Lives Matter and the protests erupting all over the U.S. after the murder of George Floyd. There was this big cultural moment in the summer of 2020 when many institutions and a lot of people were having conversations about racism and whiteness in a way that hadn't previously been present in the general dialogue. Museums were called out in those conversations for a good reason. We are generally pretty white institutions often founded on a colonialist legacy, so we have a lot to reckon with and account for. It was also the summer of 2020, the height of the pandemic, budgets were slashed, we weren't doing programs or exhibitions, and everyone was trying to figure out, "what exactly is our role and how do we respond?" So my team, the Museum's Interpretation team, came up with this idea to discuss the question, "what do we mean by harm and how can museums do harm?" with our curatorial colleagues. We asked ourselves, "how is it that labels in our institution might misuse language or assume knowledge or write from a certain perspective?" "Are we ignoring people's histories or ignoring their identities?" In many museums, the labels have been on the walls for twenty years, and they are outdated in terms of language and the stories we tell. So we started a project with our curatorial colleagues where we identified, "what are the stories we want to tell? What kinds of subjects come up in Art History that we should address head-on, and what are we missing from our galleries that might make people feel misrepresented?" And then, we went about identifying labels and rewriting from there.
The project is ongoing; it's a work in progress. We have a broad collection: East Asian, South Asian, Native American, European, Modern, Contemporary, African, Photography, et cetera. There is a work in our Native American collection by a Lenape Delaware artist, a native woman, and the label opened with, "this work of art by a Delaware woman was made in Kansas." And then, it goes on to talk about the significance of the work, and we realized that in this label, we mention her being in Kansas but nowhere in the galleries do we talk about the forced removal of indigenous people from their land by the U.S. government, which is how a woman from a Delaware tribe, on the East Coast, comes to be in Kansas. This is a shared history of many native people in the United States. It was almost like we had hinted at that history but then not said anything, and we realized that we were erasing a specific, violent history associated with these artists. Hence, we rewrote that label to talk about forced removal and why this artist would be in Kansas, and then we discussed the object's significance. So that is one example, and it's important to acknowledge that we're not condemning these objects or the museum. It's about making sure people's histories are recognized because often, the stories that we tell in museums are white people's stories, and we don't look at other groups.