FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W154665364> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W154665364 endingPage "12" @default.
• W154665364 startingPage "1" @default.
• W154665364 abstract "The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa opened in 1998 amidst controversy but has been a huge popular success and has become an icon of national identity. The controversy was confined to elite circles and stemmed from criticisms of the contrasting ways in which Maori and Pakeha (European) cultural items were displayed — the former in a reverential manner and the latter as a kind of 'amusement arcade' of supposedly incoherent, temporary and mocking exhibits. Through an analysis of these displays and of the representations surrounding them, this paper argues that the sacred/profane 1 This paper was first presented at the annual conference of the Association of Social Anthropologists of Aotearoa/New Zealand, Palmerston North, 24 August 2001. Ethnologies comparees Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Comparatives en Ethnologie 2 dichotomy promulgated by the Museum may be open to argument but is probably an inescapable feature of the official policy of biculturalism in a postcolonial setting. _____________________________________ Introduction : criticizing Te Papa as a national sport Museums are intensely contested sites these days, especially when they are called on to manage the contradictions between nation-building and the display of indigenous or minority cultures. Even as their modes of representation — and sometimes their very existence — have been called into question, some commentators defend the traditional conception of the museum more fiercely than ever before. The launch of a new museum and its bedding-in process has proven to be a particularly productive moment for the airing of such issues. The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, popularly referred to as « Our Place » 2 , opened to the public in 1998. Te Papa (another of its shorthand names) is situated in the capital, Wellington, like its predecessors, the National Museum and the National Gallery, whose historic collections it combines 3 . This location at the heart of political power is no coincidence. As recently as February 2003, Te Papa was the terminus of a military marchpast of New Zealand servicemen and servicewomen who had taken part in the deployment of peacekeeping forces to East Timor. Its importance as a signifier of national and cultural identity cannot be overstated. The museum’s opening was the culmination of a long process of planning and construction in which the goal of creating an internationally recognized symbol of national identity was explicit from the beginning. It was a project in which politicians took a great interest and to which they committed vast amounts of money (it apparently cost NZ$317 million 4 just to build, leaving aside the hefty operating costs to be derived from government and commercial sponsorship). Te Papa is at the pinnacle of the museum hierarchy in New Zealand, so much so that comparable institutions in other cities, like the Auckland War Memorial Museum, regularly complain at their relative lack of state subsidy. 2 A documentary film on the making of the Museum was simply entitled « Getting to Our Place ». 3 A small selection of official images of Te Papa can be viewed at : http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/communications/images.html 4 1 $ NZ = 0.50 € (approx.) Ethnologies comparees Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Comparatives en Ethnologie 3 Admission to the museum itself and to most of its exhibits is free though special exhibits and some permanent ones do have entry charges. Primed by controversy, the sheer scale of the project, and sustained media coverage, the New Zealand public flocked to Te Papa’s opening and the museum quickly became a favourite attraction, with over a million visitors per year, far exceeding all its targets. Critics unsheathed their swords, however. This introduction presents a selection of their critical comments in order to provide the raw material for an analysis of the themes they contain. One of the first and most damning criticisms came from Theodore Dalrymple, a columnist for Britain’s New Statesman magazine, who likened Te Papa to an « amusement arcade » (1999). New Zealand’s Labour leader and (since 1999) Prime Minister, Helen Clark was said to have concurred with Dalrymple’s assessment, describing the displays as « jumbled and incoherent », according to art critic Hamish Keith (2000). Much of this umbrage stemmed from a feeling that the highpoints of Europe’s contribution to New Zealand culture had been trivialized. One gallery was especially contentious. Entitled Parade, it featured a corrugated iron sculpture of a car, a locally made refrigerator, and other supposed « icons » of Pakeha identity 5 . In the same vein as Dalrymple and Clark, New Zealand historian Kerry Howe contrasted the building itself with what it contained : « Te Papa’s architecture is monumental, serious, formal, which its contents, often frivolously presented, cannot live up to. [...] New Zealand has got itself into a state of uncertainty. Thus Te Papa offers a jumble of images, events and artifacts that don’t connect, have no contextual explanation, and so seem to offer minimal content » (Howe 2001). However, even as Howe asserted the superiority of the new National Museum of Australia over the Museum of New Zealand, an Australian historian, Keith Windschuttle (2001 : 16), critiqued his own national institution in terms that are uncannily reminiscent of Howe’s concerning Te Papa (« lack of coherence » and « history... degenerates into a tasteless blancmange of worthy sentiment », etc.). This similarity points to a shared unease surrounding the role of the museum in nation-building in settler societies, and a hair-trigger readiness to take offence at post-colonial rewriting of colonial history. 5 The term Pakeha refers to the section of the New Zealand population descended from settlers and more recent immigrants from Europe, especially Britain. It is a contested label, proudly adopted by some to indicate solidarity with Maori in a bicultural partnership but rejected by others as an ethnic slur or because it diverts support from a common New Zealand identity, while for many others it is simply a convenient term for the nonMaori majority. The common synonym « European » can be used in some contexts, as in this paper where Pakeha cultural artifacts are positioned within a tradition originating prior to the British colonization of this" @default.
• W154665364 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W154665364 creator A5063148097 @default.
• W154665364 date "2003-01-01" @default.
• W154665364 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W154665364 title "Our Place in New Zealand Culture: How the Museum of New Zealand Constructs Biculturalism" @default.
• W154665364 cites W1982306068 @default.
• W154665364 cites W2056099088 @default.
• W154665364 cites W2325245228 @default.
• W154665364 cites W2953788648 @default.
• W154665364 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W154665364 type Work @default.
• W154665364 sameAs 154665364 @default.
• W154665364 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W154665364 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W154665364 hasAuthorship W154665364A5063148097 @default.
• W154665364 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W154665364 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W154665364 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W154665364 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W154665364 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W154665364 hasConcept C19165224 @default.
• W154665364 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W154665364 hasConcept C2549261 @default.
• W154665364 hasConcept C2781227721 @default.
• W154665364 hasConcept C2781238700 @default.
• W154665364 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W154665364 hasConcept C49876356 @default.
• W154665364 hasConcept C555463525 @default.
• W154665364 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W154665364 hasConceptScore W154665364C107993555 @default.
• W154665364 hasConceptScore W154665364C144024400 @default.
• W154665364 hasConceptScore W154665364C15744967 @default.
• W154665364 hasConceptScore W154665364C166957645 @default.
• W154665364 hasConceptScore W154665364C169760540 @default.
• W154665364 hasConceptScore W154665364C19165224 @default.
• W154665364 hasConceptScore W154665364C205649164 @default.
• W154665364 hasConceptScore W154665364C2549261 @default.
• W154665364 hasConceptScore W154665364C2781227721 @default.
• W154665364 hasConceptScore W154665364C2781238700 @default.
• W154665364 hasConceptScore W154665364C36289849 @default.
• W154665364 hasConceptScore W154665364C49876356 @default.
• W154665364 hasConceptScore W154665364C555463525 @default.
• W154665364 hasConceptScore W154665364C95457728 @default.
• W154665364 hasLocation W1546653641 @default.
• W154665364 hasOpenAccess W154665364 @default.
• W154665364 hasPrimaryLocation W1546653641 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W1966160065 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W1988818018 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W2145852082 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W2288468319 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W2404341140 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W2416279688 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W2810556532 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W2891864774 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W2916102524 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W2942871894 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W2980185338 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W3014289980 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W3034726440 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W3184537953 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W3193746545 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W3196406939 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W561966766 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W577963640 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W622524017 @default.
• W154665364 hasRelatedWork W2971454001 @default.
• W154665364 hasVolume "6" @default.
• W154665364 isParatext "false" @default.
• W154665364 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W154665364 magId "154665364" @default.
• W154665364 workType "article" @default.