Art and/or Ethnographica?: The Reception of Benin Works from 1897–1935

Abstract

Today’s museum visitors often assume that African art objects were collected by ethnographic museums because early collectors were blinded by racial prejudice and could not see these works as art. However, in some cases African works were accepted as “art” from the beginning of their collection history, even when collected by ethnographic museums. Benin court art provides a useful test case for the reception of African art because this corpus conforms to many of the nineteenth century’s standards for art: mimetic naturalism, the use of “high art” materials like cast bronze1 and ivory, and a courtly provenance dating back to the sixteenth century (Fig. 1). Bronze plaques, figural sculptures, carved ivory, and other pieces from Benin were universally praised for their superior workmanship from the first European visits to the Kingdom in the fifteenth century until their sale at auction in 1897.2 Acknowledged by many buyers and dealers as highly accomplished works of incredible aesthetic merit, and referred to as “art” by many observers, the Benin pieces were exclusively purchased by ethnographic museums until the 1930s, when American art collections began buying them from French dealers (Paudrat 2007:238). This article explores why ethnographic museums dominated the early collection of Benin art, and how a German ethnographer, Felix von Luschan, paved the way for the reception of Benin objects as “art” in the United States. Defining an “ethnographic object” versus an “art object” is a task that has concerned scholars for decades.3 For the purpose of this article, however, art is defined as an object that speaks to the viewer due to its expressive achievement and aesthetic appeal. In contrast, an ethnographic object forms a locus for speech; it is an object that documents the conversation among producers, users, and scholars about its intended use and surrounding cultural beliefs. These theoretical categories may of course overlap; some objects carry the unique aesthetic value assigned to art and yet also function as evidence of cultural practices. However, art objects stand apart as works that can be appreciated for their visual interest whether or not contextual information is available. For example, within this discussion, the Curator of the Berlin Ethnographic Museum, Felix von Luschan, refers to the beauty and high craftsmanship of Benin bronze plaques and carved ivories, showing that they are clearly considered art objects, while his discussion of fishing nets and knives from Micronesia collected in the same period refer to their cultural significance alone, and not their aesthetic address to the viewer.4