the last place on earth you probably want to be

So in the last couple of days, kottke.org has unearthed two lists that have been a lot of fun to go through: 1001 Books and 1001 Movies that presumably you must read or see before you die. Of course lists such as these are always bittersweet. I’ve read 45 books on the list but have also read hundreds more that didn’t make the list. In recognizing my frustration, I began to realize that these lists are a great exercise in understanding museum practices.

It might sound far off, but hear me out.

A thousand and one might seem like a large sum, but relative to all of the published books and produced movies around the world, it’s a tiny number. Who decided which books and movies made the list? Why were seemingly-important titles excluded? Do we allow this list to carry any sort of authority to dictate which books and movies must be read and seen? Museums need to be addressed in the same way. Out of a huge collection of objects and artifacts, only a selection are being put on display. This process of reduction inevitably tells a much different story than if all of the objects were on display.

Lists are fun, I get that. So are museums. So why don’t we visit museums with the same grain of salt we use when approaching these lists? Why don’t we acknowledge the value of their exhibitions while also understanding that they simply cannot communicate a total and accurate history? When we visit an anthropological exhibition, just because we have no personal experience to corroborate the museum’s telling of a history, we don’t doubt the authenticity or historical accuracy of the exhibition. In fact, the further away we are from being able to relate to the anthropological categories on display, the less likely we are to question its accuracy.

For example, I am half-Ukrainian. Having some knowledge of my background enables me recognize what is being omitted at an exhibition of Ukrainian history. People with no knowledge of Ukrainian history cannot do the same thing.

And so, as with books and movies, it’s critical to understand that the subjectivity of selection not only exists, but indeed dictates the function of a museum space.

Cultural privilege and bias are also important factors to keep in mind. When you look at these two lists, you’ll notice three things:

1. All of the titles have been published/distributed in the West.

2. All of the titles are available in English, whether it was the original language or available with translations/subtitles.

3. In most cases, particularly the movie list, foreign-language titles have been translated to English (to name a few: And Your Mother Too, Talk To Her, An Andalusian Dog. But it’s inconsistent: Amores Perros is listed in its original Spanish title, La Jetée in its original French).

From these common factors, what can we deduce? In deciding on the best of books and art, we disregard the literature and film that is not made available to us. Of course it’s impossible to make a “Best Of” list of things we haven’t seen, but the titles of the lists are what are then misleading. The lists should be qualified by indicating their Western bias.

Museums have the same problem. How do you accurately tell the story of something that happened 2,000 years ago when you obviously weren’t there to witness it firsthand? And how has the history of that story changed over time? What political, social and environmental nuances were present that are impossible to convey in a contemporary framework?

Anyway, as for the book list… Douglas Coupland was robbed.

_________