PYRAMIDS OF LAKE ERIE: THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE CLEVELAND
MUSEUM OF ART’S EGYPTIAN COLLECTION
A thesis submitted
To Kent State University in partial
Fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Master of Arts
By
Christine M. Pienoski
May 2016
© Copyright
All rights reserved
Except for previously published materials.
Thesis written by
Christine Marie Pienoski
B.A., Walsh University, 2014
M.A., Kent State University, 2016
Approved by
____Dr. Kenneth Bindas___________, Advisor
____Dr. Kenneth Bindas___________, Chair, Department of History
____James L. Blank_______________, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... vii
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
CHAPTERS
I.
THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART’S EGYPTIAN COLLECTION
AND EDUCATION IN THE 1910s ..................................................................................15
Cleveland and the Cleveland Museum of Art ....................................................................17
Collecting Egypt: America, Egypt, and Western Ideologies (Why Collect?) ...................20
Collecting and Displaying Egypt: The Inaugural Exhibition at the CMA.........................25
Aftermath of the Inaugural Exhibition ...............................................................................35
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................38
II.
THE 1950s: PRESERVATION AND THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF
ART’S EGYPTIAN COLLECTION .................................................................................40
American-Egyptian Relations ............................................................................................44
Cleveland History ..............................................................................................................49
CMA Renovation and Egyptian Collection: Preservation is the Focus .............................50
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................58
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
CHAPTERS
III.
Page
TECHNOLOGY AND VISITORS AT THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF
ART’S EGYPT’S DAZZLING SUN EXHIBITION ........................................................60
America and Egypt in the 1990s ........................................................................................63
Cleveland in the 1990s .......................................................................................................65
The Cleveland Museum of Art and Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: A Special Exhibition.............66
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................77
IV.
EPILOGUE: THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART AND EGYPT
IN THE PRESENT DAY...................................................................................................79
Another Renovation and the Permanent Gallery ...............................................................79
A New Travelling Exhibition: Bringing Egypt Back to the CMA ....................................87
FINAL CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................90
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................................95
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.1.
Main Story Plan, Hubbell and Benes Architects, circa 1916. Courtesy of
Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ..................................................................................28
1.2.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c338, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ............................................................32
1.3.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1922. 22c3661, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ............................................................32
1.4.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c270, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...........................................................33
1.5.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c281, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...........................................................33
1.6.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c288, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...........................................................34
2.1.
Gallery Floor, Handbook of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 1966, page vii.
Courtesy of the Cleveland Museum of Art Ingalls Library ...............................................52
2.2.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1956. 29022C, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...........................................................54
2.3.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1956. 29022A, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ............................................................54
2.4.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1950. 24600, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...........................................................55
2.5.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1952. 25548B, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...........................................................56
2.6.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 11, 1963. 34955a, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...........................................................57
v
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
Page
3.1.
Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III, 1992. 35-333n 24, Photograph
Collection, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...............................................................70
3.2.
Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III, 1992. 35-333n 12, Photograph
Collection, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...............................................................71
3.3.
Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III, 1992. Credit G.M. Donley, Photograph
Collection, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...............................................................71
3.4.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 205, 1993. 57941e, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...........................................................75
3.5.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 204, 1993. 57941d, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...........................................................76
3.6.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 204, 1993. 57941c, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...........................................................76
4.1.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 107, March 2015. Photo by author ....................................83
4.2.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 107, March 2015. “Kings and Gods” section
panel text. Photo by author ................................................................................................84
4.3.
Egyptian Collection, Gallery 107, March 2015. Statue of Heqat, the Frog
Goddess (1976.5). Photo by the author .............................................................................85
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis project is the result of the support and encouragement of many people. First, I
would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Kenneth Bindas, for mentoring and guiding me through this
project, for providing critical feedback on drafts, and for encouraging my own confidence in my
work. Without his help, this thesis would not exist. I would also like to thank my committee
members- Dr. Mary Ann Heiss, Dr. Leslie Heaphy, and Dr. Mindy Farmer- for also providing
feedback, encouragement, and resources for research. Our email and in person conversations
reminded me that I was on track, and could finish this project on time. In a special way, I thank
Dr. Shane Strate who, while not on my committee, aided me in developing my thoughts and
crafting my research through a difficult Writing Seminar class. He pushed me to think
differently, approach my research and writing from a new angle, and showed me what graduate
level writing consists of, forcing me to grow as a scholar and a person. I also thank Dr. Timothy
Scarnecchia for ensuring that I was registered for the proper classes, able to graduate on time,
and supporting all of my endeavors.
The History Department secretaries-Carla Weber, Alana “Kay” Dennis, and Heather
Miller- were fantastic. They listened to my struggles, witnessed my breakdowns, directed me to
the appropriate forms to fill out, and generally encouraged me throughout my graduate school
years. I thank them for all of this, and more, from the bottom of my heart. The History Librarian
at the Kent State University Library, Kara Robinson, also helped by answering my research
questions, especially when I had trouble finding sources. I thank her for all of her hard work and
dedication in helping this project come to completion.
vii
The professionals at Kent State University were not the only professionals that aided me
in my quest to write this thesis project. Therefore, I would like to extend a very special thank you
the Archivists at the Cleveland Museum of Art’s Ingalls Library - Leslie Cade and Peter
Buettner. They answered my questions, retrieved archival material for me, and set it aside for
when I was able to do my research. I also thank them for our email conversations regarding my
project, for allowing me access to the archives, and for working with my irregular schedule. In
addition to the Archivists, I thank, also in a special way, the Collections Management
Department, especially Tracy Sisson and Gretchen Shie Miller, for allowing me to not only
intern in the department during the summer of 2015, but also to go up to the archives to conduct
research during my time with them. The head start I achieved on research through this
experience allowed me to outline my project in general terms. Also, the experience I had
working for, and with, them was invaluable to me as a museum professional. Thank you for
everything. Finally, I am indebted to Mr. Jeffrey Strean and Ms. Lori Wienke for allowing me to
interview them, for answering my questions, and for granting me permission to use their words
in my project. Their insights were critical for my final section, and I graciously thank them for
allowing me to cite their words as evidence in my thesis.
Other museum professionals outside of the Cleveland Museum of Art were also
instrumental in aiding me in this endeavor. In particular, I thank Meghan Reed, Registrar at the
Massillon Museum, for suggesting sources and lending me books for research. The staff at
Massillon have been incredible in supporting my professional and scholarly endeavors by
allowing me to work with them at various times and positions throughout the past three years. I
viii
thank them all immensely for their support, and for the opportunities they provided me for
learning more about my future home in the museum world.
My peers, colleagues, and friends in the History Graduate Assistant office have been
there from the first day, providing a body of encouragement, feedback, and mentors through my
graduate school struggles. I thank especially Sarah Zabic, Mallory Neil, Emily Hager Kasecamp,
and Michelle Curran Cornell for being the “moms” of the office, particularly in my first year.
They watched me struggle through the graduate school process, and were always there to lend a
listening ear, critical feedback, helpful advice, confidence and self-esteem boosts, and great
conversations about non-school related topics. I am indebted to them for all of this and more, and
hope that this project makes them proud. I would also like to thank Mike Goodnough, Philip
Shackelford, Alyssa Cady, and Megan Smeznik for their advice, support, and friendship
throughout this undertaking as well.
Graduate school was a struggle, and completing this thesis project was a struggle of great
proportions. I never would have made it through without my friends and officemates, Kayla
Mason and Whitney Stalnaker. They became my best friends as we shared our love for
museums, our thesis problems and triumphs, classes, conversations, and lives with each other. I
do not know how I would have completed this project without them, their feedback, support,
reality checks, pre-class discussions, and outside-the-office-shenanigans. Thank you for
everything, Kayla and Whitney, and good luck in your future careers!
Many friends and relatives outside of the office helped as well. Fr. Jared Orndorf and Fr.
Ed Smith, two close family friends, supported me in my graduate school career. I cannot thank
ix
them enough for all of their help over these past two years, and I thank them for their endless
love and support, for checking up on me, and simply being there for me. It meant more to me
than they will ever know.
I would also like to thank Katelyn Schiefer for being my best friend, and for being there
for me when we are so far apart. She encouraged me, supported me, listened to me, allowed me
to cry, made me laugh, and gave me advice on everything when I needed it throughout graduate
school. Thank you, Kate, for being an amazing person and a true blessing in my life.
Additionally, I thank my fiancé, Dan Francis III, for loving me, putting up with me when
I was stressed out with school, for reminding me that I could get through and finish my thesis
and graduate school, and for calming me down when I was on the verge of a mental breakdown.
Dan encouraged me, reminded me to persevere, listened to my stories and complaints, supported
my research, allowed me to bounce ideas off of him, made me laugh when I wanted to cry, and
helped me stay up late into the night to complete assignments. I honestly do not know where I, or
this project, would be without him, and am eternally grateful for his strong presence and
enduring love in my life.
Finally, I want to thank my family, especially my parents Teri and Tom, and my siblings,
Mike and Beth. They were by my side throughout these past two years, reminding me why I was
in graduate school and to persevere when I felt like giving up. They comforted me when I had
major setbacks, celebrated my victories, listened to my stories, and often reminded me to have
fun with my friends, and to enjoy life. They reminded me that school was not the only thing in
my life, and that, no matter what, I had the skills and abilities to finish strong. I cannot thank
x
them enough for pushing me to apply to graduate school, helping me move into my apartment,
supplying me with food on my return trips from home, allowing me to do laundry at home,
distracting me when I needed a break from work, and leaving me alone to work when I was
focused and stressed. My family has been there for me every step of the way, and to them I offer
the deepest gratitude I can.
xi
INTRODUCTION
A young, middle school girl visited the Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA) as part of a
field trip. When the group first arrived, she and her classmates gathered in the lobby and listened
to their teacher’s instructions about staying together, no running in the museum, and proper voice
levels. They also met their tour guide, a kind, older woman with a smile. Once all of the
preliminary instructions were given, the tour began. The group walked through countless rooms
filled with wondrous things. Some rooms had paintings on the walls. Another had an armored
knight on a horse and weapons of all kinds in glass cases. Others had statues of people
meditating, scrolls of beautiful landscape paintings, and animal heads carved from stone or gold.
All of these treasures captured the girl’s admiration, but it was not until she entered a particular
room that her curiosity, imagination, and thirst for knowledge were truly inspired. The room was
that of ancient Egypt, filled with sarcophagi, relief paintings, small statues in various colors, and
large stone statues of men and women of long ago. Questions filled the girl’s mind. What are
these objects, and how were they used? Where did they come from? What are these symbols, and
what do they mean?
The wonder and curiosity instilled in a child at the museum may carry into their adult
lives, which is how this project came to be. After years of study in both history and museum
studies, this thesis project combines the passion for ancient Egyptian history with the Cleveland
Museum of Art, a prestigious institution with a small, though high quality, Egyptian collection.
These ancient artifacts draw people to the museum because the objects seem to be shrouded in
mystery, exoticism, and even magic. Representations in popular culture add fuel to this fire,
1
generating curiosity and interest in a civilization thousands of years old. “Pyramids of
Lake Erie: The Historical Evolution of the Cleveland Museum of Art’s Egyptian Collection”
uses the CMA’s collection as a case study that illustrates how museums balance the organic
nature of the institution and its connection to the community in which it resides and serves with
the static nature of its ancient collections, examining the dynamic relationship between American
museums and historical trends from the early 20th century to the present day. The CMA’s
acquisition and display of its Egyptian collection exemplifies this modernist struggle to both
understand and convey knowledge about the ancient past.
The American museum as it is understood today began to emerge in the early twentieth
century, though the concept of a museum originated in the ancient world. The ancient Greeks, for
example, erected temples to the Muses, the goddesses that safeguarded the arts, history and
astronomy. The Library of Alexandria in Egypt was another example, as the Library was a
sanctuary for scholars as they researched and recorded history.1 As civilizations evolved and
grew, the research and scholarly centered refuge of the ancients transformed into private
collections by members of the wealthy classes in the nineteenth century, private in that the
families owned the collections, whereas the Greek and Egyptian collections were owned by
governments and religious groups.2 By the next century, these wealthy patrons used their
collections as a means of teaching the lower classes “what it meant to be cultured, civic-minded
Americans.”3 They also used these collections, and the new museums that emerged from them,
as a means of bringing money and wealthy donors into the cities in which the museums called
1
Edward P. Alexander and Mary Alexander, Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and
Functions of Museums (New York: AltaMira Press, 2008), 3-4.
2
Alexander and Alexander, Museums in Motion, 3-5.
3
Marjorie Schwarzer, Riches, Rivals & Radicals: 100 Years of Museums in America, (Washington DC:
American Association of Museums, 2012), 3.
2
home, representing their civic pride.4 Eventually, museums morphed into the institutions
familiar to Americans today.
Because of the long history of the museum concept, as illustrated above, modern scholars
debate the exact definition of what a museum is. However, there is general consensus on the
overall purpose of the museum, or what a museum should be and do. A broad definition
recognizes institutions that acquire, protect, preserve, conserve and display artifacts of various
kinds as museums.5 Based on this definition, institutions such as zoos, aquariums, botanical
gardens, natural history, art, history, historic houses, children’s, and science centers are all
considered museums. Alexander and Alexander’s Museums in Motion is one example of many
that discusses the meaning and purpose of the museum.6 Art museums are the institutions
focused on throughout this argument, and the understanding of the definition of an art museum is
that mentioned above.
4
Steven Conn, Museums and American Intellectual Life, 1876-1926 (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1998), 200-201; Lawrence Levine, Highbrow, Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), 146-154. Levine’s description of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts’
decision to use only original works of art, and therefore to remove reproductions from the galleries, is an example of
the civic pride Bostonians felt.
5
Henrietta Lidchi, “The Poetics and the Politics of Exhibiting Other Cultures,” in Representation: Cultural
Representations and Signifying Practices, ed. Stuart Hall (New York: SAGE Publications, 1997), 155-160.
6
Alexander and Alexander. For more on museum studies, including the definition of museums, museum
discourse, and other aspects of museums see the following: Bettina Messias Carbonell, ed. Museum Studies: An
Anthology of Contexts (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004); Jeffrey K. Smith, The Museum Effect: How Museums,
Libraries, and Cultural Institutions Educate and Civilize Society, (New York: Roman & Littlefield, 2014); Daniel
Sherman and Irit Rogoff, eds, Museum Culture: Histories, Discourses, Spectacles (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1994); Gerard Corsane, ed. Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An Introductory Reader (New
York: Routledge, 2005); Janet Marstine, ed New Museum Theory and Practice: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, 2006); Ivan Karp, et al, eds. Museum Frictions (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006); Simon Knell,
Suzanne MacLeod, and Sheila Watson, eds. Museum Revolutions: How Museums Change and are Changed (New
York: Routledge, 2007); Gail Anderson, ed. Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on
the Paradigm Shift (New York: Roman & Littlefield, 2004); Hugh Genoways, ed. Museum Philosophy for the
Twenty-First Century (New York: AltaMira Press, 2006); Graham Black, Transforming Museums in the TwentyFirst Century (New York: Routledge, 2012); Steven Conn, Do Museums Still Need Objects (Philadelphia:
University of Philadelphia Press, 2010).
3
While the exact definition of a museum is contested, the distinguishing factor of the
museum from other institutions of research is the collection, and there are three common
methods of acquiring these artifacts- donation, purchase, and loan. Donations account for the
majority of museum collections, a tradition going back to the evolution of private collections into
public museums. Purchasing artifacts at public auction or through private collectors is common,
though neither the primary nor the preferred method. For both of these methods, the provenance,
or history, of the objects must be assured and “clean.” Should the provenance be questionable,
the museum could face ethical repercussions. Finally, a museum may use the loan system in
order to temporarily borrow an object from another museum without taking sole ownership of
the item. The museum cares for the loaned artifacts, but does not integrate them into the
permanent collection. These methods allow the museum to ethically acquire artifacts and objects
for their collections.
After acquiring collections, museums display their artifacts in exhibitions and galleries.
Exhibitions are special shows comprised of loaned artifacts, while galleries are the display of
permanent collections. The theories behind displaying, or exhibiting, artifacts have evolved over
time as the museum has developed, for exhibition is one of the central aspects of the museum.
Tony Bennett’s theory of the exhibitionary complex, derived from the spectacle of the Crystal
Palace exhibition, is the most well-known and referenced. In his argument, he defined the
exhibitionary complex as “the transfer of objects and bodies from the enclosed and private
domains…into progressively more open and public arenas.”7 He argued that the exhibitionary
complex and the introduction of new academic disciplines, including history, archaeology, and
anthropology, combined to change the manner in which museums and their exhibitions were
displayed, treated, and examined. The new fields of study also allowed exhibitions to be
7
Tony Bennett, “The Exhibitionary Complex,” New Formations, no. 4 (1988), 74.
4
arranged so as to demonstrate the historical past. These new methods introduced new ideas for
museum exhibition- the period room and the progressive gallery.
Additionally, Bennett analyzed the impact of exhibitions on the people that viewed them,
and the information that the displays imparted. He argued that exhibitions aided in the ideas of
nation building, especially in regards to forming, and sustaining, a national identity among the
viewers of the exhibition. As institutions of the state, the museum sought to bring people into the
process of state formation, allowing citizens to become participants in the state rather than
simply viewers in the museum. 8
Based on the exhibitionary complex and the new importance of visitors, the collections
“formed vehicles for inscribing and broadcasting the messages of power (but of a different type)
throughout society.”9 The idea of power and order that Bennett referred to was Foucault’s
concept of knowledge/power, a notion that Bennett correlated to the purpose of his exhibitionary
complex throughout his argument. In addition, Bennett analyzed Foucault’s theory of
knowledge/power in regards to the evolution of exhibitions, most especially in relation to
ordering objects and people rather than enabling chaos, such as surveilling the people attending.
The concept of order, especially among the working and lower classes, was also discussed in
relation to the transition from a private to that of a public institution, a transition that occurred in
the early twentieth century. 10
While Bennett focused on exhibits creating order, Henrietta Lidchi examined the role of
exhibits in interpreting other cultures. In her chapter “The Poetics and Politics of Exhibiting
Other Cultures,” Lidchi examined case studies of ethnographic museum exhibits in light of the
8
Bennett, “Exhibitionary,” 89-90, 93-99.
9
Ibid., 74.
10
Ibid.,76,78-79, 82-85.
5
poetics and politics involved. She explored the definitions of “museum” and “ethnographic
museum” and the purpose of artifacts. Lidchi argued that museums do not necessarily rely on
collections for stability, but rather that this stability was determined by two characteristics of
artifacts- their physical existence and their inherent meaning. While an object’s physical
existence remained constant, the meaning attributed to that object changed over time. Therefore,
an artifact that held one meaning or interpretation in the past does not necessarily have the same
meaning today.11 Even though this statement is logical, reflecting the evolving characteristics of
civilizations in terms of history, the shifting meaning of an object did not diminish the
importance of the object to the museum collection and the stability of the museum, though
Steven Conn’s Do Museums Still Need Objects? contested this notion. The museum may change
the interpretation of the object, and the artifact may obtain a new meaning due to new historical
evidence or changing societal ideals, but the fact that the artifact is used by the museum to
convey an idea to the public adds to the stability of the museum institution itself.
Lidchi’s central argument involved the poetics and politics of exhibition, as her title
states. She defined poetics of exhibition as “the practice of producing meaning through the
internal ordering and conjugation of the separate but related components of an exhibition.”12 In
other words, she examined the process of creating meaning through connecting and ordering the
various parts of an exhibit. She illustrated this concept with the example of a photograph. The
context of the photograph can be misinterpreted, or misconstrued, by the visitor merely by
changing the placement of the photograph within the exhibit and the location of the information
that described it. Likewise, the methods in which objects were displayed, either in out of reach
glass cases or in reconstructed displays of places and time periods, had a similar effect. Finally,
11
Lidchi, “The Poetics and Politics,” 162-166.
12
Ibid., 168.
6
the text information alongside the artifacts had a role in interpreting the information for the
visitors, interpretations that may not convey the true meaning of the display. 13 These components
worked together to create historical interpretations of people, cultures, rituals, or ideas. The level
of truth conveyed by the exhibition depended on the manner in which these parts were arranged
and combined by the curators to create one version of meaning.
Lidchi’s final focus was the role of the museum in imparting knowledge to others. In
order to understand this role, Lidchi, like Bennett, referred to Foucault’s knowledge/power
theory and used it as the framework for her argument.14 Focusing on specific exhibitions and
museums, Lidchi studied the misinterpretation of artifacts through a typological arrangement,
and the evolution into displays according to culture, time period, and other similar themes. By
using Foucault’s model, Lidchi argued that power was used to collect artifacts so as to transmit
knowledge about cultures to others. While this argument is logical, Lidchi questioned “whether
the ends can ever justify the means”15 in collecting, a poignant remark that is still relevant today.
Both scholars studied the impact of how and why exhibitions are constructed as well as
the consequences of misinformation, misinterpretation, and arrangement styles.16 While these
arguments are valid, and must be taken into consideration, exhibitions and galleries in general do
not transmit information alone. They also impart memory. The artifacts and collections on
display in exhibits and galleries share the stories and memories of those peoples and cultures that
13
Ibid., 169-184.
14
Ibid., 185-199.
15
Ibid., 198.
16
For more on exhibitions design and interpretation, see Polly McKenna-Cress and Janet A. Kamien,
Creating Exhibitions: Collaboration in the Planning, Development, and Design of Innovative Experiences
(Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2013) and Juliette Fritsch, ed. Museum Gallery Interpretation and
Material Culture (New York: Routledge, 2011).
7
the objects embody. These memories also affect the visitor and the visitor’s interpretation of the
exhibit and the museum as a whole.
The study of memory in relation to museum exhibitions is vital in understanding the
relevance of the museum institution, for without memory, the role of museums as educators
would no longer be significant as the museum educates the public. Museum displays were
initially “arranged to benefit the aesthete, the scholar, the collector, and the craftsman, a
knowledgeable audience satisfied with a minimum of interpretation.”17 Because of this mindset,
the museum did not need to be concerned with the impact of exhibitions on its visitors. The
visitors, presumably, already knew and understood the information that the museum was
attempting to impart. After the museum opened its doors and its collections to the masses
however, museum professionals began to research and study the effect exhibitions, and therefore
the collections, had on its visitors. In terms of memory, museums house artifacts of cultural
heritage and have the unique ability and position to share the memories, or stories, of the peoples
and places that these objects represent and contain. However, there is debate on how memory is
viewed and utilized by cultural history researchers and museums as possessors of cultural
heritage.
One such researcher and scholar is Susan Crane. Crane sought to reiterate the importance
and significance of individual memory, arguing that anyone who studied history may become
part of and write history on their own.18 In a museum perspective, each artifact in the collection
embodied its own story and history within a larger context. Each object was created by a person
for a specific purpose. These individual memories, then, should be exhibited and given the same
17
Alexander and Alexander, 9.
18
Susan A. Crane, “Writing the Individual Back into Collective Memory,” The American Historical
Review 102, no. 5 (Dec. 1997): 1372-1385.
8
credence as the larger cultural or societal memories within the larger collection, for without these
individual memories, the larger story would have no cohesion, no purpose, and no memory as a
whole.
Crane also emphasized that every individual participated in, and therefore was part of,
collective memory. Collective memory is the type of memory a museum generally protects in its
collection as collections contain the stories of entire cultures. Crane viewed collective memory in
terms of a broad history that every person is a part of, a combination of individual memories. She
stated that “collective memory is a conceptualization that expresses a sense of the continual
presence of the past.”19 In other words, collective memory is one method that historians may use
to obtain an impression of the past.
Crane employed various examples to denote how collective memory has been interpreted
and used over the past decades in the study of history, including studying the works of
Halbwachs, Pierre Nora, and Josef Yerushalmi. Each of these historians had their own notion of
collective memory and studied the concept in relation to their own stories, such as Yerushalmi
relating collective memory to that of the Jewish tradition. Crane then tied the two types together:
“Perhaps the practice of history, redefined as the active participation in remembering and
forgetting within collective memory by each member, can become characteristic of historical
consciousness, rather than simply reference to the knowledge of history [original emphasis].”20
Simply put, Crane advocated for individual participation in collective memory so that members
of a community may be part of history rather than know the facts. This notion is embodied in the
museum exhibition by inviting visitors to be part of the individual and collective memories of the
collection.
19
Crane, “Writing the Individual,” 1373.
20
Ibid., 1381-1385.
9
Whereas Crane examined the individual within collective memory, Alon Confino
investigated problems with current methods of studying and defining memory in relation to
cultural history. To him, “…the notion of memory, more practiced than theorized, has been used
to denote very different things, which nonetheless share a topical common denominator: the
ways in which people construct a sense of the past.”21 In other words, memory has been used by
various people, both in scholarly research and in everyday life, to refer to a perception of the
past. Confino used this notion as a basis for his argument: that because this concept is so broad,
there are difficulties in using memory as a method of study. While he did admit that “memory is
everywhere,”22 and is therefore unavoidable in the context of history and research, Confino
argued that there must be a more constructive method of how to use memory to distinguish
various aspects of life experiences.
Confino discussed three aspects of collective memory in support of his argument. First,
he detailed the study of “mentalite,” or mentality, in regards to how similar the concept is with
memory and that memory is a form of mentality, using Aby Warburg’s examination of the topic
as his example.23 A discussion of the “politics of memory” followed, in which Confino described
how memory played a significant role in the sphere of politics, society, and power relations.
Finally, Confino explained the relationship between memory and narrative, outlining how
memory was used to create a narrative. He concluded by stating that the history of memory must
be studied in order for memory studies to be useful in research. Confino’s argument for more
21
Alon Confino, “Collective Memory and Cultural History: Problems of Method,” The American
Historical Review 102, no. 5 (Dec. 1997): 1386.
22
Confino, “Collective Memory,”1387-1388.
23
Ibid., 1388-1392.
10
useful research methods will aid museums in their representations of memory through their
collections and exhibitions.
Andermann and Simine viewed memory in yet another perspective. They claim that “in
response to feminist, postmodern and postcolonial critiques,” museums and their collections
were re-interpreted from the aspect of culture. They also explained the new academic
understanding of museology, in which the museum’s role was no longer focused on exhibiting
cultural heritage artifacts, but moving beyond exhibitions and knowledge to “entertainment,
empowerment, experience, ethics, and narrative endeavor.”24 Simply put, museum exhibitions
are meant to do more than merely impart knowledge about a topic. Rather, museums and
exhibitions were intended to interact with visitors, conveying a sense of fun alongside the
transmission of knowledge and creation of memories.
As Andermann and Simine began to divulge, the importance of museum visitors, and the
impact that museums have on visitors, became a relatively new topic of study in the museum
community. They argued that the museum had shifted from an institution of research to an open
forum of memory and community.25 This shift was then observed and demonstrated through the
study of visitors, most notably why they come to museums, what they obtain from museum
experiences, and the overall impact of the museum on the public. The answers to these questions,
however, are not black and white due to the fact that every person has a different experience
within the museum. Visitors attend a museum for various reasons, for example. These “types” of
visitors were designated by the lead authority figure on the topic, John Falk, in his Interactive
Visitor Model and Visitor Experience Model, which are both described in detail in Chapter 3.
24
Jens Andermann and Silke Arnold-de Simine, “Introduction: Memory, Community and the New
Museum,” Theory, Culture & Society 29 no. 1 (2012): 4-5.
25
Andermann and Simine, “Introduction,” 4-5.
11
Simply put, though, Falk’s models combined various aspects of the visitor, such as personal
experiences, expectations, emotions, and the purpose of the museum visit, in order to classify the
visitors, understanding that individuals go to museums for a variety of reasons, and that
museums must take all of these different types of audience members into account when creating
exhibitions in order to create a meaningful experience.26
In addition to the evolution of American museum studies, foreign relations between
America and Egypt, Egyptian history, and the history of the city of Cleveland are interwoven
throughout the argument, providing historical context within which to place the development of
the CMA and its Egyptian collection. Because of this, historiographical discussions of these
areas are not included here. Rather, the history of each topic is presented at the beginning of each
chapter, illustrating the context of the time period examined.
The sources used for this project came from a number of different places and institutions.
Most of the primary sources are located at the Cleveland Museum of Art Archives (CMA
Archives), located on the second floor of the Ingalls Library at the museum. The Archives
preserves documents related to the museum from its beginning to the present day. A professional
relationship began during the summer of 2015 through an internship at the museum with the
archivists, who provided access to the documents for this project. The sources used from the
Archives include letters, receipts, survey information, photographs, and grant applications. In
addition, the Ingalls Library maintains collections of “clipping files,” folders containing
newspaper and magazine clippings about the museum. A few of these folders were utilized as
well. Also, the online history database JSTOR offered access to all copies of the Bulletin of the
Cleveland Museum of Art, the museum’s membership magazine where information regarding
26
John H. Falk, Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience (Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press
Inc., 2009); John Falk and Lynn Dierking, The Museum Experience (Washington DC: Whalesback Books, 1992).
12
visitation, membership, endowment funds, research and acquisitions was published for museum
members. Finally, a combination of microfilmed articles at the Kent State University Library
Main branch and an online database through the Cleveland Public Library provided access to The
Plain Dealer articles from the 1910s to the present day. All of these sources were used to narrate
the story of the CMA and its Egyptian collection. Moreover, these sources provide insight into
the thought processes of the individuals who wrote them, allowing the discovery of biases as
well as the priorities of the museum. The secondary sources are generally scholarly books,
located at various libraries in Ohio, and accessed through OhioLink. They offer historical
context, background, and theories regarding the various threads in this project, placing the CMA
and its collection into the larger understanding of American history and museum studies.
The project is a contribution to the fields of history and museum studies. First, it analyzes
the historical growth of museums by understanding how the modern museum evolved over time.
Second, the relationship between American museums and historical trends becomes evident. In
other words, this project demonstrates that museums are influenced by the historical contexts
around it, affecting how the museum continues to fulfill its mission. Finally, the case study of the
CMA and its Egyptian collection illustrates how museums balance the changing nature of
museums with the static nature of its ancient collections. This project contributes, therefore, a
case study by which American museums can learn of the historical significance of an Egyptian
collection, how that collection played a role in museum history, and why it is no longer a vital
part of the museum, filling a gap in the historiography of museum studies and demonstrating the
relationship between museums, ancient collections, and American and World history.
The chapters in this project relate to this contribution. Chapter one examines the
museum’s founding, the drive to acquire Egyptian relics, and how this was vital in establishing
13
power and legitimacy for the CMA. Chapter two analyzes the CMA at midcentury, as a
renovation project to expand gallery space in the midst of the Cold War shifted the museum’s
focus to preservation, affecting the acquisition and display of the Egyptian artifacts. Chapter
three focuses on the museum’s 75th Anniversary celebration, where an Egyptian travelling
exhibition brought thousands of visitors to the CMA and integrated technology and visitor
studies. Finally, the epilogue discusses the present, 2016 permanent gallery and travelling
exhibition, attempting to understand the seemingly new lack of relevance of the permanent
gallery to the museum yet possible popularity of the travelling exhibit. These chapters integrate
modern Egyptian history, American foreign policy regarding Egypt, Cleveland history, and the
history of the CMA in order to understand this evolution of the collection, placing the Egyptian
collection into historical context, and thereby filling the historiographical gap in museum studies
as well as demonstrating the duality of the relationship between the museum and history.
14
CHAPTER I
THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART’S EGYPTIAN COLLECTION
AND EDUCATION IN THE 1910s
It was late December, 1912. Lucy Olcott Perkins, a respected historian and New York
native, was preparing for a trip to Cairo, Egypt, when she received a letter from Henry W. Kent,
the Secretary of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, asking if she would purchase
ancient Egyptian artifacts “which shall illustrate the art of Egypt”27 for the Cleveland Museum of
Art, on whose behalf Kent was working at the time. Perkins accepted the task, and over the
coming months received instructions and money through Kent detailing what to purchase. Kent
specified his intentions to Perkins by declaring, “I want to make a collection of objects of art
belonging to the Egyptian periods. I want the things bought because they are beautiful, and not
because of their archaeological interest…”28 Over the course of a few months, Perkins purchased
Egyptian artifacts, adhering to Kent’s instructions of quality over quantity. The purchases made
by Perkins later became the foundation of the Cleveland Museum of Art’s Egyptian collection,
which opened on June 6, 1916, regaling the native Cleveland population with the wonders and
exotic nature of Ancient Egypt.
During the early 1900s, the desire for Egyptian artifacts was not limited to the Cleveland
Museum of Art (CMA). In fact, museums in Boston, Philadelphia, and New York already had
27
Kent to Perkins, Dec 30, 1912. Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting, Box 52, Folder
748: Lucy Olcott Perkins: Egyptian Antiquities, 1912-1915 (hereafter cited as Perkins Folder), Cleveland Museum
of Art Archives, Cleveland, Ohio (hereafter cited as CMA Archives).
28
Kent to Perkins, Jan 22, 1913. Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.
15
large collections of Egyptian artifacts.29 The notion of having ancient artifacts in the collection
reflected the need for prestige and legitimacy in the museum world, as well as promoting the
new and transitional museum purpose of educating the public. The CMA, as a fledgling museum,
became part of this tradition, working to incorporate Egyptian artifacts into the permanent
collection while also establishing itself in the transitioning museum world.
In the 1910s, the American museum was transitioning from an elite institution for
research and scholarly endeavors to that of a public forum for educating the masses. The purpose
of the museum, and the role the museum played in the community, changed as a result of this.
By examining the relationship between the establishment of the Cleveland Museum of Art’s
Egyptian collection, the fascination with Ancient Egyptian culture in Western society, and the
significance of an art museum to a community in the early 20th century, this chapter argues that
Egyptian artifacts are a foundational collection to the new American museum by providing them
legitimacy as well as allowing museums to fulfill their purpose of educating the public in art and
history. The Egyptian collection at the Cleveland Museum of Art will be used as a case study to
represent this emerging, transitional trend in American museums in the early 20th century,
providing insight into the historical evolution of museums. The establishment and display of the
Ancient Egyptian collection at the Cleveland Museum of Art in the 1910s demonstrates the
cultural significance of Egyptian art and culture in Western society in relation to the emerging
purpose of the museum as a visitor centered institution. This chapter will also explore how the
intersection of theory, practice, and ideology worked to help scholars understand the intellectual
and historical shifts that prompted the Cleveland Museum of Art to begin collecting Egyptian
29
Whiting to Carter, August 13, 1917. Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting, Box 37,
Folder-445a-e: Howard Carter, 1913-1919 (hereafter cited as Carter Folder), CMA Archives.
16
antiquities for display, as well as how the museum transitioned into the new understanding of its
role.
Cleveland and the Cleveland Museum of Art
In the early 1900s, the city of Cleveland was young and prosperous. It was considered
“one of the world’s preeminent manufacturing centers” 30 due to the city’s large numbers of iron
and steel mills, foundries, and other industrial plants. Immigrants from Eastern Europe
contributed to the city’s population growth and ethnic diversity. The territory of the city grew as
well with the incorporation of smaller districts into the larger city of Cleveland, and the inner
city center of Cleveland was a bustling realm of shops and commercial enterprises.31
Around this same time, city leaders began to shift their focus to culture related projects 32
as a means of civic pride. Wealthy Clevelanders endowed the city with heritage organizations,
such as Adella Prentiss Hughes with the Cleveland Orchestra, Charles S. Brooks for the
Cleveland Play House, and the Cleveland Music School Settlement, founded by Almeda Adams
in 1912.33 The area now known as University Circle was in the process of coming into its own
during this time as well. Jeptha H. Wade II donated the land for University Circle, which housed
the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Cleveland Natural History Museum, as well as other
cultural institutions.34
30
Carol Poh Miller and Robert A. Wheeler, “Cleveland: The Making and Remaking of an American City,
1796-1993,” in Cleveland: A Metropolitan Reader, ed. W. Dennis Keating, et al. (Kent: The Kent State University
Press, 1995), 40.
31
Carol Poh Miller and Robert A. Wheeler, Cleveland: A Concise History, 1796-1990 (Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press, 1990), 101-103; Miller and Wheeler, “Cleveland: The Making,” 40.
32
Miller and Wheeler, Cleveland, 118; Levine, 149-155.
33
Miller and Wheeler, Cleveland, 118; Holly Rarick Witchey and John Vacha, Fine Arts in Cleveland: An
Illustrated History (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994), 62, 75, 78.
34
Ronald R. Weiner, Lake Effects: A History of Urban Policy Making in Cleveland, 1825-1929 (Columbus:
The Ohio State University Press, 2005), 124-125.
17
The Cleveland Museum of Art was a key aspect of this cultural growth. The museum
came about through the collaboration of three wealthy Clevelanders: Hinman Hurlbut, Horace
Kelley, and John Huntington. Hurlbut amassed his wealth first through law, then in banking,
owning four banks by 1863. He also had significant railroad holdings. Kelley, on the other hand,
made his fortune in real estate after inheriting and selling part of Kelley’s Island on Lake Erie.
Finally, Huntington’s wealth came through the oil industry after he received 500 shares of
Standard Oil stock when Standard Oil absorbed his own firm.35 Each of these men established in
their wills that their wealth be dedicated to building an art museum. However, it took almost
twenty years for the legality of the museum to be figured out, as combining the three estates into
one institution was no easy task. The details of how the funds were to be used in each will were
slightly different, making collaboration almost impossible. In addition, by the time the legal
problems were settled, the Hurlbut trust was no longer part of the overall discussion, as “there
were not enough funds remaining after the passage of years to fulfill his wishes,” leaving what
remained for acquiring artifacts.36
Once the legal issues were worked out, a lengthy planning process ensued, and the
location of the museum was established on the land donated by Wade. The museum trustees,
created in 1913 and consisting of many businessmen and philanthropists, such as Charles W.
Bingham, John H. Lowman, Samuel Mather, Edwin R. Perkins, and Judge William B. Sanders,37
determined the Articles of Incorporation for the museum. The Articles declared that,
35
The Cleveland Museum of Art Staff. “Cleveland Museum of Art: Founders,” The Cleveland Museum of
Art, under Collection in Focus. http://www.clevelandart.org/research/in-the-library/collection-in-focus/clevelandmuseum-art-founders (accessed Jan 17, 2016).
36
Witchey and Vacha, Fine Arts, 65.
37
Ibid., 66.
18
“…in and by said will of John Huntington it being provided that the funds
bequeathed to said Trustees shall be used ‘for the purposes of establishing and
maintaining in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, a gallery and museum of art for the
promotion and cultivation of art in said city, and also the organization of a free
evening polytechnic school for the promotion of scientific education for the
benefit of deserving persons of said city who are unable to acquire a collegiate
education; the admission thereto to be determined by said trustees.”38
Then, with the construction of the museum underway in 1913, the trustees named
Frederic Allen Whiting as director for the new museum.39 While he had no art or history degrees,
Whiting’s experience working with the textile employees at Lowell, Massachusetts, advocating
for the Society of Arts and Crafts in Boston, and being in charge of an exhibition at the
Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, made him a perfect candidate to promote and fulfill
the belief that the museum’s purpose was to serve the community. Indeed, he began promoting
the museum before the building was erected, in addition to undertaking the task of acquiring
artifacts and building collections.40
During this time, funds donated by wealthy Clevelanders, such as L. C. Hanna, Charles
W. Bingham, Judge William B. Sanders, and John L. Severance, and other sources were used to
purchase works of art for the new museum. The John Huntington estate was the largest
endowment of monetary funds, and therefore was the primary source of purchasing power,
allowing Whiting and the trustees to buy many artifacts on the market. At the same time,
Whiting and the trustees worked with the families of all three founders to incorporate their
private art collections into the museum. Finally, Whiting reached out to artists and dealers for
loaned artworks in order to promote the art of local Clevelanders and fill the galleries. The
38
“Memorandum of Agreement,” Articles of Incorporation, Box 1, Folder 1: CMA Articles of
Incorporation, CMA Archives. Emphasis added.
39
Witchey, 66.
40
Ibid, 66-67. See also Evan H. Turner, ed., Object Lessons: Cleveland Creates an Art Museum
(Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1991), 1-13.
19
museum’s trustees decided to use the museum for not only classical art, but art from all over the
world, supplementing these collections with art that reflected the major industries of Cleveland
itself, such as steel and textiles. The desire for artifacts from all over the world suggests that the
CMA wanted to establish itself in the art world as a fine arts museum, establishing the CMA as a
legitimate museum. The museum officially opened its doors in a private opening on June 6,
1916, and opened to the public the next day under the title of the Cleveland Museum of Art.41
Collecting Egypt: America, Egypt, and Western Ideologies (Why Collect?)
In order to become a prominent art museum, with power, prestige, and legitimacy in the
museum world, the Cleveland Museum of Art set out to build collections of certain world
regions. The most important of these collections was Ancient Egypt, for various reasons. Though
small, the Ancient Egyptian exhibit at the CMA was a foundational collection for the museum’s
mission to display art and artifacts from around the world for the purpose of educating its
visitors. This objective reflects the nature of museums. As Alexander and Alexander explain,
“Most museums collect because of the belief that objects are important and
evocative survivals of human civilization worthy of careful study and with
powerful educational impact. Whether aesthetic, documentary, or scientific,
objects tell much about the universe, nature, the human heritage, and the human
condition. Museums thus carefully study and preserve their holdings so as to
transmit important information to the present generation and posterity.”42
Based on this understanding, the CMA arguably created the Egyptian collection in order to
educate the public about the history of the human race, beginning with one of the most ancient
civilizations known. The educational aspect is also augmented by the fact that the CMA hired
41
Turner, 1-13; The Cleveland Museum of Art, “Subscribers to the Inaugural Exhibition Fund,” in The
Cleveland Museum of Art: Catalogue of the Inaugural Exhibition of the Cleveland Museum of Art, June 6September 20, 1916 (Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1916). In total, twenty-eight Cleveland locals
donated to this fund.
42
Alexander and Alexander, 188. Emphasis added.
20
Emily Gibson as “Assistant in charge of educational work” under the supervision of Director
Whiting in 1915 for the purpose of conducting educational work that focused on the children.
Adult education and instruction in the galleries were expected as well, though they were not the
primary concern for the Director in 1915.43
As part of this educational mission, Whiting began to develop the Egyptian collection
during the early planning and building of the museum, around 1913. Other American museums,
such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston,
began acquiring Egyptian antiquities before CMA through purchases and archaeological
excavations. These museums built collections that “rivaled, even surpassed, those to be found in
Europe.”44 This meant that if CMA wanted to create an Egyptian collection, it would have to
compete with European, as well as other established, prestigious American museums.
In addition to facing competition from already reputable European and American
museums, collecting Egyptian artifacts was a way in which to “branch out” of the traditional
forms of art collections, such as “purely fine arts, decorative arts, and European medieval arts”45
in the early twentieth century. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, art
museums all over the world were in crisis as they attempted to determine what kind of art
museum to be. “[T]he debate involved a struggle over how a museum of fine art should function
in American society, what values it should express, for what purpose and for whom.”46 Museums
43
Whiting to Gibson, March 3, 1915. Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting, Box 40,
Numbered Administrative Correspondence of Frederic A. Whiting, Folder 500: Emily G. Gibson, 1913-1916. CMA
Archives. Details regarding the programs implemented have yet to be located by the author.
44
Whiting to Carter, August 13, 1917. Carter Folder, CMA Archives; Turner, 66.
45
Ibid, 67.
46
Conn, Museum and American, 193.
21
split on this decision, following one of two different paths that reflected the class differences in
the period, the “cultural hierarchy” discussed by Lawrence Levine, a cultural historian focusing
on multiculturalism.47 The question became one of who would be allowed to visit the museum,
and what standards these visitors would be held to when viewing the art.48
The art also impacted how the visitors understood the purpose of the museum in that
museums began to shift towards collecting and presenting only original works of art. “The art
museum provided the context for the objects inside to retain their authority, where authenticity
could be adjudicated, and where the historical testimony of objects could be heard.”49 In other
words, art museums presented original works of art, not forgeries or reproductions, so as to
provide an accurate historical and artistic story for the visitors. In this way, art became a means
by which to educate the public with authentic works, allowing the museum to follow its new
purpose. As for Egyptian antiquities, the emphasis on authentic artworks and artifacts indicated
that the historical Egypt was represented in the museum, offering the visitor a glimpse into the
“true” or “real” ancient Egypt through the museum’s display of artifacts.
Another reason why an Egyptian collection was foundational for an art museum in the
1900s, and going along with the aspect of authenticity, was the idea of Egypt as an exotic,
foreign place. Egypt, along with the Middle East and Africa, was seen as “an essentially exotic,
distant, and antique place” to Westernized Europeans and Americans alike because “Egypt had a
47
Levine, 1-9. According to Conn in Museums and American, on 193, the struggle was between the idea of
the art museum as a temple or refuge, and that of a school. The difference in the path a museum took depended on
the audience the museum targeted. If the museum was for the rich and powerful, then a temple approach was taken.
For the working class, however, the school approach was used.
48
Conn, Museums and American, 192-232.
49
Ibid., 194.
22
greater power of suggestion- mystery and timelessness- than the other countries of the East.” 50
Because of this exoticism and mystery, Egyptian art represented not only an ancient culture, but
also an opposite to the abstract and modern American art produced at the time. Also, Americans
in general were not well educated about Egyptian history due to the fact that America did not
have strong political ties with Egypt before this time. Americans were exposed to the exotic
nature of Egypt through Egyptomania and the writings of “missionaries, travel writers, and
ancient Near East specialists.”51 However, political ties with Egypt were almost non-existent
until after World War I when the interest in Middle Eastern oil began to bring Egypt more into
focus in the American political sphere. In addition, Egypt had economic problems during the
war, which allowed the British to occupy Egypt for the duration of the engagement as well as for
some time after peace. British dominance of the area was emphasized in order to prevent other
foreign nations, namely Germany, from gaining control of the region, tying American interests to
the continued control of the British.52
In addition, Egypt was popular with Americans. In the eighteenth century, Napoleon’s
book Déscription de l’ Égypte was published, revealing the “first archaeological knowledge and
accurate images of the country’s ancient monuments” to Western countries, including America.53
In addition, François Champollion translated the ancient hieroglyphs on the Rosetta Stone, an
enormous breakthrough in trying to understand the ancient civilization. Napoleon’s account and
50
Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993), 112; Claire Wittler Eckels,
“The Egyptian Revival in America,” Archaeology 3 no.3 (Sept 1950), http://www.jstor.org/stable/41662395,
(accessed May 14, 2015), 164.
51
Matthew Jacobs, Imagining the Middle East: The Building of an American Foreign Policy, 1918-1967
(Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011), 26.
52
Jacobs, Imagining, 25-28.
53
Joy M. Giguere, Characteristically American: Memorial Architecture, National Identity, and the
Egyptian Revival (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 2014), 2.
23
Champollion’s discovery led to a revival in scholarly study of ancient Egypt, as well as an
explosion of Egyptian references in popular culture known as “Egyptomania.”54 By the twentieth
century and the birth of the CMA, Egypt was ingrained in American culture, as displayed by
architecture, such as the Washington Monument, advertising, and literature.55 Because of this,
obtaining and displaying a collection of Egyptian artifacts was a logical step in creating a
museum of art, especially for the purpose of educating the public. An Egyptian collection would,
most likely, entice visitors to come to the museum and view real, authentic, Egyptian artifacts.
Simply put, the fascination of Egypt present in American popular culture, such as literature (A
Sun Dial Mystery, The Cairo Garter Murders by Van Wyck Mason for example), music (“Old
King Tut” was a favorite after Carter’s discovery), and superstitions concerning mummies and
curses (most notably the Curse of the Pharaoh and the mysterious deaths of the team members
involved with Carter’s discovery),56 possibly generated enough curiosity to bring visitors to the
museum.
Finally, Egyptology and new discoveries in Egypt kept the ancient history alive in the
media, producing more information about the civilization than previously known. The discovery
of the Tomb of King Tutankhamen, or King Tut, by Howard Carter in 1922 was one of the most
well- known discoveries during the early twentieth century that contributed to this.57 Even
though Carter discovered King Tut after the Cleveland Museum of Art established its collection,
54
Giguere, Characteristically, 2. See also Bob Brier, “Egyptomania!” Archaeology 57 no. 1 (Jan/Feb
2004), http://www.jstor.org/stable/41780856 (accessed April 19, 2015), 19-22 and Frank L Holt, “Egyptomania:
Have We Cursed the Pharaohs?,” Archaeology, 39 no. 2 (March/April 1986), http://www.jstor.org/stable/41731744,
(accessed April 19, 2015), 60-63 for more information about Egyptomania in America.
55
Giguere, 3; Brier, 18-19, 21; Eckels, “The Egyptian Revival in America,” 164-165.
56
Brier; Holt.
57
Brier, 18.
24
it is important to note because the American fascination with Egypt increased with his discovery
as exemplified by the diverse references to King Tut in popular culture.58 New discoveries kept
Egypt in the public realm through the media, particularly in the newspaper. For example, The
New York Times printed various articles relating the latest news and updates about Carter’s
discovery, including a sketch and description of the riches within the tomb, his life story, a
mention of problems with the Egyptian government and opening the sarcophagus, and finishing
clearing out the tomb, a process that took Carter over seven years to complete.59 The nature of
these articles suggests that the new information obtained from these discoveries indulged the
already present fascination with Egypt in America, providing relevance to the Cleveland
Museum of Art’s collection. Additionally, the discovery of King Tut and other tombs provided
new information to the public about ancient Egypt, promoting and maintaining the educational
purpose of the collection as well as its relevance, even after the initial collecting.
Collecting and Displaying Egypt: The Inaugural Exhibition at the CMA
While the CMA had many reasons for collecting Egyptian artifacts, actually obtaining the
objects, and then displaying them, was the practical, dominant concern. The Inaugural Exhibition
needed to be ready to allow the museum to begin educating the Cleveland public about Egyptian
art and history. Before the museum building was completed, Director Frederic Whiting began the
campaign of obtaining and compiling a variety of artifacts into collections for display. One of the
first areas in which he acquired artifacts was Egypt. Henry W. Kent, the Secretary at the
Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and the original candidate for the Director position at
58
Brier; Holt.
59
“New Pictures Show Egypt’s Odd Fancies,” The New York Times March 25, 1923; “Carter, Here, Tells
of King Tut’s Tomb,” The New York Times April 20, 1924; “Clearing of Tut-ankh-Amen Tomb Nears End: Carter
Hopes to Move Sarcophagus by January,” The New York Times October 15, 1930.
25
the Cleveland Museum of Art,60 aided Whiting in his quest to obtain Egyptian artifacts. Kent
became the liaison for the museum’s interests, promoting the collecting of Egyptian artifacts and
handling the details, such as the amount of money to be spent on the endeavor.61
Kent reached out to Lucy Olcott Perkins, a former employee of the Metropolitan Museum
of Art and an art historian,62 to begin collecting the artifacts while she was in Egypt. Kent
allotted her $20,000 to use for buying artifacts that “make a good showing, and perhaps fill a
small room… [that will] be general and representative of an unusual class rather than
specialized.”63 After Perkins agreed to the arrangement, Kent explained in further detail the types
of artifacts he was after for the museum, including “wall decorations (painting), sculpture in
relief and in the round- in stone and bronze; pottery showing glazes, glass and textiles,”64 as well
as how he wanted the artifacts to be viewed and interpreted, declaring,
“I want to make a collection of objects of art belonging to the Egyptian periods. I
want the things bought because they are beautiful, and not because of their
archaeological interest, although the archaeological divisions should be
considered in our purchases. I want the collection to give an idea of the various
forms of Egyptian art. I would be glad to be able to make the result of our
purchases impressive in quantity as well as in quality!”65
In other words, Kent was looking for artifacts that represented all that ancient Egypt had to offer
artistically, desiring only the best of what was available. However, Kent may have wanted
“various forms of Egyptian art” for purposes other than the tactile, practical reason of showing
60
Witchey, 66.
61
Kent to Perkins, Dec 30, 1912; Kent to Perkins, Jan 22, 1913; Kent to Perkins, Feb 24, 1913. Perkins
Folder, CMA Archives.
62
Arielle Kozloff, “Introduction,” in Catalogue of Egyptian Art: The Cleveland Museum of Art, author
Lawrence Berman (Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1999), 3-4.
63
Kozloff, “Introduction,” 3-4.
64
Kent to Perkins, Jan 22, 1913. Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.
65
Ibid.
26
the diversity of Egyptian styles to the public. He may have intended the diversity of artifacts in
order to demonstrate the influences of Egyptian art on modern fashion and artistic designs.
During the early and mid- twentieth centuries, a new art movement, called Art Deco, was
popular in all manner of the arts, from architecture and furniture to clothing and trinkets.
Egyptian influences, known as the Egyptian Revival, were among the various influences in this
movement.66 Kent’s intention may have been to connect the ancient relics of Egypt to the
emerging modern Art Deco style, allowing the public to understand where the designs that
pervaded the arts originated. However, because of the nature of the museum in the beginning of
the twentieth century, and due to the CMA’s desire to be a legitimate museum, the relationship
between Egyptian art and Art Deco becomes a less important, perhaps subtle, reason for
collecting Egyptian artifacts. In other words, the connection to Art Deco was not a priority. With
instructions delivered and intentions mostly clear, Kent sent Perkins a layout of the museum with
the location of the Egyptian room marked for Perkins’s reference in making the purchases (see
Figure 1.1).67
Perkins began collecting right away. She cabled Kent soon after arriving in Egypt for the
money to make purchases, as the dealers she was buying from were not holding anything for
her.68 After a few months, Perkins wrote to Kent about the artifacts she purchased, declaring that
“Each object is therefore…the best obtainable of its kind, purchased with a view of not only
suggesting the quality and the beauty of Egyptian art but also to interest the average citizen in
66
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, “Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History: Egyptian Revival,” The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/erev/hd_erev.htm (accessed January 25, 2016);
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, “Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History: Design, 1925-50,” The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dsgn2/hd_dsgn2.htm (accessed January 25, 2016); Victoria
and Albert Museum, “Art Deco: Global Inspiration,” Victoria and Albert Museum,
http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/art-deco-global-inspiration/ (accessed January 25, 2016).
67
Kent to Perkins, Jan 22, 1913. Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.
68
“Postal Telegraph-Commercial Cables-Cablegram,” Feb 21, 1913. Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.
27
Figure 1.1 Gallery map of museum in 1916. The Egyptian Gallery is Number 15, on the top,
middle left. Courtesy of the CMA Archives.
Egyptian [civilization].” These artifacts include a door lintel, four sarcophagi (coffins for
mummified Egyptians), vases of varying material, granite bowls, flints, seals and beads, weapons
and a walking stick, tools such as a hatchet and an axe, a stele (funerary statue), bronze figures,
ushebti (funerary figures meant to help the deceased in the afterlife), masks, pottery glazed in
blue, glass, necklaces, scarabs, wooden figures, a small wooden boat, mummy textile fragments,
canopic jars (jars for the mummified organs of a mummy), papyrus scroll fragments, and a small
painted relief. She also suggested where the artifacts could be displayed in the designated
Egyptian room.69 Her ideas suggest that she had the purpose of the museum in mind when
making the purchases, as well as the best method to display the artifacts in the room that would
make sense to visitors. For example, she wrote that, “All of this material, although Egyptian,
69
Perkins to Kent, written from the Continental Hotel in Cairo, June 1913. Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.
28
pretty [well] illustrates the type of weapon commonly in use amongst the ancients. You thus
have on either side of the door implements of peace and war-fare of the most common every day
usage.”70 Perkins purchased a variety of smaller artifacts, with the sarcophagi as the only large
purchases, due to the available material on the market and the museum’s gallery space. In the
same letter, Perkins outlines the time periods from which all of the artifacts originate. It is clear
that Perkins bought artifacts to represent as best as possible the whole of Egyptian art over time,
as well as the diversity of artifacts and instruments the Egyptians created for both every day,
practical use and luxury or religious purposes. Perkins’s purchases suggest that the aesthetic and
practical aspects of the artifacts were the primary concern of Kent and the CMA.
Meanwhile, Perkins’s purchases were shipped to Cleveland via the Metropolitan, and
Kent and Whiting discussed how to deal with them, since the building had yet to be completed.
Kent suggested that, while the artifacts could be temporarily stored at the Metropolitan, the safer
course of action would be to send them straight to Cleveland. He also mentioned that, according
to contacts in Egypt, “the objects bought for the Cleveland Museum are very exceptional in
character, many of them having been secured at prices below their values.”71 The artifacts
Perkins collected were of great quality, setting a standard for the rest of the Egyptian collection
as well as all of the museum’s collections. After obtaining the artifacts, ensuring that the artifacts
were not damaged, repairing those that were,72 and moving the artifacts into the new building,
the construction of which “progressed steadily despite delays caused by the unusual conditions
incident to the war,”73 the Egyptian collection was ready to be placed on display.
70
Ibid.
71
Kent to Whiting, Sept 9, 1913. Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.
72
Tice and Lynch to Whiting, Sept 27, 1913; Kent to Whiting, Jan 2, 1914; Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.
73
The Cleveland Museum of Art, “Introduction.”
29
The Inaugural Exhibition opened on June 6, 1916 to much fanfare and excitement. The
news of the museum opening reached far and wide, including North Dakota74 and Utah.75 The
building itself is a piece of art, with “an Ionic central portico” entirely made of white marble, and
a “color scheme” consisting of “varied tones of gray, ranging from the sandstone which lines
many of the halls to warmer notes in some of the galleries.”76 The opening was promoted by
Cleveland art lovers, who donated many artifacts for the special opening. While the majority of
the Egyptian artifacts were bought by Perkins using the John Huntington fund, other artifacts in
the exhibition included a statuette donated by the Wade family and multiple funerary vessels
donated by the British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Other Cleveland art lovers, such as John
L. Severance and Mrs. Myron T. Herrick, also donated items to the museum, although they were
in other galleries, such as French painters, Chinese art, and Arms and Armor.77 Also, “many of
the objects shown [were] for sale and were secured in the hope that friends might be interested to
acquire them as gifts to the Museum.”78 The museum did this to point out that the trustees and
director not only needed help in acquiring artifacts, but also wanted to bring the Cleveland
74
“Cleveland’s New Million Dollar Art Museum to Be Opened June 7,” The Grand Forks Daily Herald,
May 22, 1916, in Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers database, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov
(accessed September 8, 2015).
75
“Cleveland’s New Million Dollar Art Museum to Be Opened June 7,” The Ogden Standard. May 24,
1916, in Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers database,
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85058396/1916-05-24/ed-1/seq-10/ (accessed Sept 9, 2015).
76
“The Cleveland Museum of Art,” Outlook (1893-1924), June 14, 1916, in American Periodicals Series
Online database, http://search.proquest.com/americanperiodicals/docview (accessed Sept 9, 2015).
77
Cleveland Museum of Art, Catalogue of the Inaugural Exhibition. See 204-225 for details regarding the
Egyptian collection. The other lenders are named in each gallery respective to the items they donated or lent for the
exhibition.
78
Cleveland Museum of Art, “Introduction,” in Catalogue of the Inaugural Exhibition.
30
community into partnership with the museum from its inception, establishing the nature of the
museum as an institution for the people of Cleveland.
The museum opened on June 6 to over 2,000 invited guests, namely museum members,
visiting museum professionals, and collectors. The opening was heralded with a dinner, access to
the galleries, and speeches from the presidents of the Art Institute of Chicago and Milwaukee
Museum. Charles L. Hutchinson from the Art Institute declared that art “‘is not for the powerful
and the rich, but for the ordinary heart and everyday culture, an inspiration in the art of all arts,
the art of living,’” reaffirming the new role of the museum as an institution of education for the
public. The CMA then threw the doors open to the public the following day, on June 7, and was
met with thousands of visitors. 79
The Egyptian gallery mirrored the excitement of the opening and the fascination of
Egyptian culture in America, while promoting education for the public in an orderly manner.
Most of the artifacts displayed were housed in glass cases with steel frames. The majority of
these cases were placed along the outer walls of the room, with one case in the middle (Figure
1.2). Also along the walls were artifacts not under glass, including a bust and an altar piece
(Figure 1.3). The artifacts in the displays included various small figures, a canopic jar, pottery
jars and plates, a small bust of a man, perhaps a pharaoh, and a sarcophagus. Wall carvings
depicting the gods, people, and hieroglyphs, hung on the walls as well, encased in metal and
connected to the ceiling with metal wires (Figure 1.3). The wall carvings were apparently from
the walls of tombs in Egypt. Small cards that explained the artifacts were attached to the walls,
tables, or shelves next to the objects (see Figures 1.2-1.6).
79
“Cleveland New Art Center: It is the Detail of the New Art Museum which Emphasizes It as an AllPotent Factor in the Progress of the City,” The Plain Dealer June 6, 1916; “Art Museum Thrown Open to Big
Crowd: Cleveland’s Magnificent Edifice, Awaited for Years, Dazzles Throng that Views Galleries,” The Plain
Dealer June 7, 1916; “Important Gifts to Art Museum Announced,” The Plain Dealer June 11, 1916.
31
Figure 1.2 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c338, Registrar's Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
Figure 1.3 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1922. 22c3661, Registrar's Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
32
Figure 1.4 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c270, Registrar's Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
Figure 1.5 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c281, Registrar's Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
33
Figure 1.6 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c288, Registrar's Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
The photographs illustrate how the design of the Egyptian gallery ordered the objects and
people rather than enabling chaos, a theoretical construct devised by Foucault, referred to as
knowledge/power. The application of the knowledge/power model here is based on Tony
Bennett’s use of it when he describes his exhibitionary complex.80 The simple layout of the
gallery, with artifacts around the walls and a single case in the middle, defines a designated path
for visitors to walk through, rather than a haphazard layout that might confuse visitors as to
where they are meant to walk. In addition, the display of the artifacts in the cases brings order
from chaos by using symmetry. Each case has the same number of shelves, roughly equal to each
other in size and height, with similar numbers of artifacts on each shelf, arranged so that each
object is visible.
The purpose of the museum was to educate the masses, and the Egyptian gallery at the
Inaugural Exhibition fulfilled this duty. Not only did the exhibit bring new awareness of
80
Bennett, “The Exhibitionary Complex,” 73-102.
34
Egyptian art and culture to Cleveland natives, but the labels next to the artifacts provided
educational material for the visitors to enjoy and learn from. The labels were placed next to the
artifacts they describe, adding to the ordering concept by defining how the visitors should view
and learn from the artifacts. For example, the labels were generally placed either on the left side
of the artifact, or immediately in front of it, underneath it if the artifact was hanging on the wall
(Figure 1.3 is the best example). This suggests a certain order to how the artifacts were to be
viewed: either the label was to be read, then the object was viewed, or vice versa. This method
brought order to the education of the visitors when visiting the Egyptian gallery.
Aftermath of the Inaugural Exhibition
With the Inaugural Exhibition over and the rush to obtain artifacts for the grand opening
behind them, Whiting began to expand on the collection, filling in gaps, for instance, so as to
present the full chronological story for educational purposes. In order to do this, Whiting reached
out to Howard Carter because he “may be in a position to act for us in the matter of purchases in
Egypt, the time for which…is propitious,”81 and because of Carter’s familiarity with Egyptian
antiquities as well as being a friend of Whiting’s colleagues at other museums. Whiting wrote to
Carter, asking for his assistance to “supplement our present collection with additional material
which will round it out so that it will give a fairly adequate idea of Egyptian art.”82
Carter accepted the commission. He began working to purchase artifacts from Egyptian
dealers, promising that everything he collected would have proper provenance (history) and that
all artifacts would be purchased at as reasonable a price as possible.83 After procuring an initial
81
Whiting to Carter, Aug 13, 1917. Carter Folder, CMA Archives.
82
Ibid.
83
Carter to Whiting, Sept 16, 1917. Carter Folder, CMA Archives.
35
$2,500, and later an additional $5,000,84 from CMA, Carter set to work, purchasing many ancient
artifacts for the museum, including a small painted statuette of a god called a shawabty, a bronze
sistrum (a musical instrument, similar in concept to a rattle), a statue of a scribe, a sculpted lion,
six other pieces of sculpture, a piece of a headdress, a seated couple, stele and canopic jars, and
the Book of the Dead papyrus.85 Many of these artifacts are similar in type to those purchased by
Perkins in 1913. However, many of Carter’s acquisitions were based off a list that Mrs. Williams
created, marking which dynasties were missing in the collection and what types of artifacts
would be beneficial to fill in those gaps. Carter followed the list, and based his purchases off it,
differing again from Perkins in that Carter had specific instructions on what to acquire, and with
a much smaller fund to do so, than Perkins had.86 After the conclusion of World War I, the
market for ancient artifacts re-opened, allowing many rare pieces to be bought, and safer
conditions for the antiquities to be sent overseas to Cleveland.87 Carter continued to work for
CMA in acquiring Egyptian antiquities until 1922, when his discovery of King Tut’s tomb
consumed his work.88
Carter’s purchases and work for the Cleveland Museum of Art are also important because
the purpose of the acquisitions was to further education. Whiting explained to Carter that “our
collection must be built up, not for Egyptologists mainly, but for the purpose of giving the people
of Cleveland an understanding of Egyptian art and civilization through the art objects which we
84
Whiting to Carter, Aug 13, 1917; Whiting to Carter, Jan 13, 1919. Carter Folder, CMA Archives.
85
Kozloff, 16-20; “Howard Carter Purchase Account,” Carter Folder, CMA Archives.
86
Williams to Whiting, Feb 7, 1917. Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting, Box 61,
Folder 1106: Caroline Ransom (Mrs. Grant) Williams, 1916-1931 (hereafter cited as Williams Folder), CMA
Archives; Carter Folder, CMA Archives.
87
Carter to Whiting, Jan 25, 1919. Carter Folder, CMA Archives.
88
Turner, 74-76.
36
can gather for this purpose.”89 Whiting additionally requested Carter to obtain artifacts of “good
quality but not of unique value,” for educative purposes outside of the museum in schools and
libraries, spreading knowledge about Egypt through the use of authentic artifacts.90 The intention
of Whiting to continue to expand the Egyptian collection, for the explicit purpose of educating
the public, suggests the Cleveland Museum of Art’s acceptance of, and adherence to, its new role
as educator.
At the same time that Whiting spoke to Carter about obtaining more Egyptian artifacts,
Whiting reached out to Caroline Ransom (Mrs. Grant) Williams. Williams, who had a Ph.D. and
given lectures on Egyptian history, catalogued and inventoried the Egyptian collection for
Whiting, specifying the chronological gaps in the collection that needed filling and listing
recommendations on what Carter should look for when purchasing new artifacts in order to fill in
those gaps.91 Some of these recommendations were for portrait statues, canopic jars, stele, Old
Kingdom period reliefs, and Predynastic pottery. Furthermore, as part of, and an extension to,
their agreement, Whiting asked Williams to give talks to children, high school students, and
adults regarding Egyptian history, using the collection as a means by which to do this. Williams
agreed to the Gallery Talk and the lecture to the high school students, as this was part of her
earlier agreement with Whiting.92 The educational purpose of the talks demonstrates the
continued educational mission of the collection immediately after the conclusion of the Inaugural
Exhibition, stipulating that the Egyptian collection continued to draw visitors to the new
museum.
89
Whiting to Carter, Jan 3, 1918. Carter Folder, CMA Archives.
90
Whiting to Carter, Dec 7, 1917. Carter Folder, CMA Archives.
91
Williams to Whiting, Feb 7, 1917. Williams Folder, CMA Archives.
92
Whiting to Williams, Dec 16, 1916; Williams to Whiting, Dec 21, 1916; Williams to Whiting Feb 7,
1917. Williams Folder, CMA Archives.
37
Conclusion
The Egyptian collection at the Cleveland Museum of Art is a foundational collection
which demonstrates the new museum purpose of educating the public. American museums
developed into institutions that promoted education, though solely through the form of scholarly
research. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, however, this notion began to
change as private collections became organized into public establishments. The Cleveland
Museum of Art was born in the midst of this transition, with the city of Cleveland maturing and
desiring to confirm its status as a major American city.
The Egyptian collection became a foundational aspect of the CMA, providing legitimacy
in the museum world as well as fulfilling its purpose as an educational resource for the citizens
of Cleveland. Egyptian artifacts also provided an opportunity to demonstrate the authenticity of
art museums and their collections by displaying real artifacts with historical value and meaning.
The artifacts drew visitors to the museum in the midst of Egyptomania, or Egypt in popular
culture.
The CMA, in order to obtain these foundational artifacts, initially hired Henry Kent of the
Metropolitan Museum of Art and Lucy Perkins to purchase and maintain the initial collection of
artifacts on the museum’s behalf. With the objects obtained by Perkins, the CMA opened the
collection, and the museum, in June 1916 with an orderly display that educated the public both
about Egyptian art and history as well as the regulatory dynamics of the museum, as analyzed
through Foucault’s knowledge/power model. After the success of the Inaugural Exhibit, the
CMA director, Whiting, continued the quest for more Egyptian artifacts in order to fill in gaps in
the chronology by hiring Carter, and by promoting lectures and talks regarding Egyptian history
for the public of all ages to understand and enjoy.
38
Central to the work of Whiting and the founders of the Cleveland Museum of Art was the
purpose of education, which continues to be the primary purpose of the museum. The Egyptian
artifacts, though one small aspect of the museum overall, is the single most significant collection
at the time of the museum’s founding because of the fascination with Egyptian art and culture as
revealed by the prevalence of Egypt in popular culture. The Egyptian collection draws people to
the museum, enticing their curiosity and stoking their imaginations with artifacts from a culture
so ancient and far removed from the modern day that it is near impossible to comprehend the
ancient civilization as it once was. The Cleveland Museum of Art’s Egyptian collection anchored
the museum to the art museum world, placing Cleveland, and the museum, in a position of power
and prestige. The museum continued to thrive through the subsequent decades, surviving the
Great Depression and the Second World War, only to face an uncertain future with the onset of
the Cold War in the 1950s, as the real possibility of nuclear destruction threatened the safety of
the museum’s collections.
39
CHAPTER II
THE 1950s: PRESERVATION AND THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM
OF ART’S EGYPTIAN COLLECTION
Dr. Sherman E. Lee, Curator of Oriental Art at the Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA),
lived a “double life” in 1958. His one life involved reconnaissance research on the artifacts under
his care, usually done in his fourth floor office or in the basement storage room. In this life, Dr.
Lee existed behind-the-scenes, traveling “hidden” passages between his office and the storage
room to complete his research mission. His other life, however, was less mysterious as he
traversed the corridors and hallways to his other office: Director of the Cleveland Museum of
Art. Dr. Lee took up this position in 1958 after the previous director, William M. Milliken,
retired after thirty-nine years of service to the CMA. Dr. Lee helped the museum through a new
expansion project as Director, but he also facilitated the largest number of sculptural acquisitions
(as compared to other types of art, such as reliefs or pottery) to the museum’s Oriental and
Egyptian collections, comprising approximately 80 percent of the current sculpture in the
Egyptian collection.93
By the mid-twentieth century, the Cleveland Museum of Art was thriving. The museum
completed construction on a new wing in 1958 that provided much needed gallery and storage
93
Allan Arthur, “Sherman Lee’s Double Life: Art Museum’s New Director Stays a Scholar as He Becomes
an Executive,” The Plain Dealer, April 13, 1958; “Annual Report of the Year 1958,” The Bulletin of the Cleveland
Museum of Art, 46, no 6 (June 1959), 115, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25142346 (Accessed Feb 11, 2016); Arielle
Kozloff, “Introduction,” Catalogue of Egyptian Art: Cleveland Museum of Art, author Lawrence Berman
(Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1999), 25,29.
40
41
space for its growing collections, the Egyptian collection included, which had experienced
almost continuous growth from the 1930s through the 1950s. This twenty year period culminated
in the most acquisitions for the collection since its establishment in 1913. Also in 1958, Director
William M. Milliken retired, allowing Dr. Sherman Lee to take the lead for the museum’s future
by living his “double life” as curator and director. While the museum grew in overall wealth
through funds and acquisitions, the city of Cleveland’s fortunes began a slow decline as many of
the city’s residents began migrating out of the city proper, losing almost 39,000 residents to the
suburbs over the course of the decade according to the 1960 census.94
The continued wealth and development of the American museum, particularly of the
Cleveland Museum of Art, in terms of funding, collecting, and visitor attendance occurred during
a time of crisis and uncertainty in America. The Cold War with the Soviet Union was well
underway, striking the fear of Communism and nuclear war into the hearts of Americans.
Museums in particular faced the fear of attack, as the institutions were charged with protecting
the cultural heritage of the world, which caused museums to focus “less [on] uplifting the
citizenry and more about the obligation to protect and preserve art and artifacts.” Many museums
underwent expansion projects during this time, the CMA included, with the practical “concerns
of storage, ventilation and security” in mind in order to protect the precious collections in their
care from a nuclear attack. 95
In addition to the threat of attack from the Soviet Union, the United States’ relations with
Egypt and the Middle East became more complicated as the battle for oil, Israel’s recognition as
94
W. Dennis Keating, et al, eds. Cleveland: A Metropolitan Reader (Kent: Kent State University, 1995),
43.
95
Marjorie Schwarzer, Riches, Rivals & Radicals: 100 Years of Museums in America (Washington DC:
The American Alliance of Museums, 2006), 17.
an independent nation, and the process of decolonization in the Middle East strained affairs.
American relations with Egypt in particular became more difficult due to America’s support for
the newly created Israel, an enemy of the Egyptian state. The Egyptian leader during this time,
Gamal Abd al-Nasser, complicated matters further by throwing the British out of the region and
nationalizing the Suez Canal. He also entangled himself in convoluted and generally covert
diplomatic negotiations with Congress and the CIA in the attempt to gain economic aid,
weapons, and technology for the purpose of modernizing Egypt and attacking his Israeli enemy.
Finally, Nasser sought to create a united Arab Republic throughout the Middle East, adding to
the complex nature of diplomatic relations between the United States, Egypt, and the Arab world
in general.96
Because of the unrest in the Middle East and the tension between America and the Soviet
Union in the 1950s, the museum world focused its attention on another aspect of the museum
mission: preservation. Preservation, otherwise referred to as preventive care, or preventive
conservation, is defined as “the mitigation of deterioration and damage to cultural property
through the formulation and implementation of policies and procedures.” These policies and
procedures include, but are not limited to: proper handling techniques, such as wearing cotton
gloves and carrying artifacts with two hands; maintaining light, temperature, and relative
humidity levels; proper packing and display techniques; and pest management. These policies
and procedures are created and implemented in order to sustain the current condition of artifacts,
allowing the objects to survive for future generations. The policies also take into account the
96
See H.W. Brands, Into the Labyrinth: The United States and the Middle East, 1945-1993 (New York:
McGraw Hill, Inc., 1994); Matthew F. Jacobs, Imagining the Middle East: The Building of an American Foreign
Policy, 1918-1967 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011); Douglas Little, American
Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina
Press, 2002); Melani McAlister, Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests in the Middle East, 1945-2000
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001) for information on U.S. relations with the Middle East and Egypt
during the 1950’s.
42
various types of materials that artworks and historical artifacts are created with. For example, a
17th century oil painting on canvas is more susceptible to deterioration by light, heat, and high
relative humidity than an Egyptian stone sculpture.97
The concept of preservation has existed for almost as long as art has, tracing its
foundation back to the ancient Greeks. The Industrial Revolution in the 19th century brought new
technology to the museum’s disposal, such as artificial lighting and heating and cooling systems
to maintain temperature and relative humidity. These technologies could also increase the
deterioration of artifacts if not properly used and kept within certain limits. Recent analysis
suggests that storage areas for multiple types of collections (cotton dresses, fur coats, stone
sculpture, glass, ceramic pottery, etc.) should maintain a relative humidity of about 50 percent in
order to prevent the growth of mold spores, for example. However, new skills in chemistry
increased the understanding of various materials, allowing preservationists and conservators to
apply new methods and scientific knowledge to their craft of safeguarding artifacts. 98
With preservation as the dominant concern in the 1950s, not just in America, but on an
international level, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) published a guide in 195899 that detailed how museums could protect their holdings
from various types of attack, including nuclear warfare. The Cleveland Museum of Art’s
expansion project reflects many of the guidelines outlined in the publication as the museum
looked to preserve its collections and displays. The Egyptian gallery demonstrated these changes
97
Genevieve Fisher, “Preventive Care,” in Museum Registration Methods 5th Edition, eds. Rebecca A.
Buck and Jean Allman Gilmore (Washington D.C.: The American Alliance of Museums Press, 2010), 287-292. The
other articles and sections of Museum Registration discuss aspects of preservation in more detail, including storage
procedures, which is the focus of museums during the 1950s.
98
Alexander and Alexander, 8-9; Fisher, “Preventive,” 288-289.
99
A. Noblecourt, Protection of Cultural Property In the Event of Armed Conflict (UNESCO: UNESCO,
1958) http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000712/071205eo.pdf (accessed Feb. 13, 2016).
43
as the gallery space shifted from a small, light filled room with multiple windows to a larger,
darker room where there was less danger to the artifacts in the event of an attack. As a result of
the Cold War and nationalist movements in the Middle East due to decolonization, the Cleveland
Museum of Art and its Egyptian collection in 1958 demonstrated the shift to preservation as the
central focus for museum policy through its building renovation project.
American-Egyptian Relations
In the midst of the Cold War with the USSR in the late 1950s, America’s relations with
the Middle East, and Egypt in particular, became more complex due to the rise of nationalism in
the wake of decolonization in the Middle East. After the end of the Second World War, Egypt,
and more specifically the Suez Canal, remained under British occupation, a position that the
British had maintained since 1882 so that the British could “assure their easy access to India.”100
The continued occupation after the war caused violent clashes between the Egyptians and the
British as the Egyptians fought for their independence from the British crown. In addition,
Egyptian monuments and heritage were not under Egyptian control, but rather that of the British
and French. Both European countries were part of the bureaucracy, and the French controlled the
Egyptian Antiquities Service, an organization that worked with and supervised archaeological
excavations and investigations into the ancient sites of Egypt.101
The United States entered the conflict between Egypt, Britain and France for two reasons.
First, America viewed Egypt as vital in settling the Arab-Israeli conflict, a struggle that was
occurring over the proposed plan to create the separate Jewish state of Israel out of Palestine.
The American government believed that by enticing Egypt into accepting the new nation, other
100
Brands, Into the Labyrinth, 45; Little, American Orientalism, 160.
101
Kent R. Weeks, “Archaeology and Egyptology,” in Richard H. Wilkinson, ed. Egyptology Today
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 20.
44
Arab nations would also submit, bringing peace to the Middle East at last. The second reason for
America’s involvement was in direct correlation to the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
America hoped to bring Egypt into an alliance against the spread of Communism and the Soviet
Union, therefore allying the leader of the Middle East’s Arab nations against Communism. The
attention given to Egypt in American foreign relations also focused on the Suez Crisis, the
struggle between Egypt and Britain for control over the Suez Canal.102
The conflict over the Suez Canal, and the continuing relations between Egypt and
America, began in the Egyptian government. In July 1952, a military coup led by the
Revolutionary Free Officers overthrew King Farouk (Faruq), placing Gamal Abdul Nasser in
power. Nasser “hoped to rid Egypt of foreign domination, combat the Jewish presence in
Palestine, provide political stability, reduce rampant poverty, and promote economic
development.”103 The solutions to these various problems, though, were based on a strong sense
of Egyptian nationalism rather than on concrete plans, reflecting the zeal for an independent
Egypt while demonstrating Nasser’s lack of political and civic problem-solving experience. This
nationalist zeal focused on removing the last vestiges of colonialism from Egypt, which meant
ridding the Suez area of the British.104
Nasser wanted aid from the United States in the form of weapons in order to accomplish
this goal of throwing out the British. Congress was reluctant to send military aid, though,
because the weapons sent to Egypt had the potential of being used against Israel, an American
ally and Egyptian enemy. In addition, Nasser needed foreign money and weapons in order to
102
Brands, 43-54; Jacobs, Imagining the Middle East, 120-123.
103
Jacobs, 117.
104
Jacobs, 117-118.
45
obtain new technology for Egypt, technology that could potentially be used against Israel while
aiding Egypt in the process of modernization, a process that Nasser believed was crucial for any
nation to survive and grow after the Second World War.105
These events, including other political maneuvers on the part of Congress, and American
Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, led to the Suez Crisis in 1956. Eisenhower agreed to send
secret military and economic aid to Nasser in Egypt, a tactic that Nasser agreed to as he believed
that he could circumvent any restrictions that Congress would impose on his use of the funds and
weapons. Nasser backed out of the agreement, though, on the grounds that he would be
discredited by his enemies if the deal was found out. A few months later, with his power more
firmly secured, Nasser reached out to America for the deal, only to be rejected. Other
complications, such as continued and increased fighting between Israel and Egypt, and Nasser’s
agreement to obtain Soviet weapons, further strained relations between America and Egypt.106
Simultaneously, the projected building of the Aswan dam was another consideration in
Egyptian and American relations. America wanted to support the project as a show of
humanitarianism to the Middle Eastern countries, and in retaliation to criticisms that America
was only interested in military aid. The dam would also bring hydroelectric power to many
Egyptian homes and businesses while simultaneously providing water to arid land for
cultivation. America withdrew its funding for the project, however, in 1956 due to Nasser’s
dealings with the Soviet Union, his refusal to come to terms on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and
recognition of Communist China. America’s withdrawal of funding resulted in Nasser seizing
control of the Canal from the British and French owned company that controlled it, nationalizing
105
Jacobs, 118; Brands, 54-55.
106
Brands, 54-59.
46
the Suez Canal for Egypt, whose toll revenue alone would pay for the Aswan dam as “threequarters of the oil consumed in Western Europe” was transported through the Canal.107 Britain,
France, and Israel were angered over this maneuver, and having exhausted all manner of
diplomatic courses to remedy the situation, attacked Egypt in October 1956 so that Britain and
France could regain control of the Canal. Previous to the attack, Eisenhower declared that he
rejected fighting, noting the imperialist attitudes that his allies conveyed through the use of force,
and instead sought a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Once the attack in October occurred,
however, Eisenhower pressured the European nations to withdraw by blocking Britain’s access
to money and oil, bringing an end to the Suez War as first Britain, then France, and finally Israel
pulled out of Egypt.108
In the aftermath of the Suez War, the Middle East was no longer under control or
occupation by a Western force, resulting in continued tense relations with the region as many of
the Arab countries began to display nationalist sentiments and tendencies. Many American
government officials, including President Eisenhower, were afraid that Nasser was becoming a
new Hitler in the Middle East due to his belief in this strong Arab nationalism and in his leading
the campaign for a Pan-Arabic nationalization coalition, and therefore developed policies that
“equated Middle Eastern nationalism with the perceived Soviet threat.”109 Nasser’s actions in
1957 and 1958 further convinced American officials of this threat, as Nasser attempted to
overthrow Hussein in 1957, and established a union with Syria, sparked by the United States’
107
Jacobs, 122-123; Little, 28.
108
Jacobs, 123.
109
Ibid., 124.
47
secret plan to implement a coup in Syria, that resulted in the formation of the United Arab
Republic.110
The upheaval in the Middle East and Egypt, combined with the atrocities of the Second
World War, and the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, added to the museum world’s
need to preserve and conserve artifacts. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) was a product of this global need. The organization was created in
1945 “in order to respond to the firm belief of nations, forged by two world wars in less than a
generation, that political and economic agreements are not enough to build a lasting peace. Peace
must be established on the basis of humanity’s moral and intellectual solidarity.”111 Part of this
belief included, and continues to include, the protection of world heritage, or artifacts and sites
that tell the story of humanity. In the 1950s, UNESCO published documents and handbooks that
focused on preservation and conservation, addressing this aspect of the museum’s purpose and
providing guidelines on how museums globally can better protect their buildings and collections
from various types of attack, including nuclear and commando attacks, what to do in the event of
a civil war, and how to prevent and cope with toxic gas, fire, seismic shocks from explosions,
bomb splinters, tank fire, and air bombs. The guidelines detailed the amount and type of concrete
to be used in order for the buildings to withstand these attacks, where to place barricades and of
what material these should be made of, and a provision to establish a safe area for storing
collections, both off site and in museum basements.112
110
Brands, 31-80; Jacobs, 124-125.
111
UNESCO, “Introducing UNESCO,” under About, http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco
(accessed Feb. 13, 2016).
112
Noblecourt.
48
Cleveland History
While the United States and world governing bodies dealt with problems in the Middle
East, Cleveland was facing its own problems, largely economic in nature. Even though
America’s national economy was booming due to the end of World War II, Cleveland was
struggling. “Its central business district and its neighborhoods were deteriorating. Crime was
worsening, and thousands of city residents were leaving for new homes in the suburbs.”113 The
migration to the suburbs characterized the decade, yet hurt the downtown, central city of
Cleveland economically. In addition, there were problems with parking, transportation, the need
for schools and parks, and a need to prevent residential areas from becoming slums. The city
leaders were at a loss of how to solve these problems. In addition, the migration to the suburbs
coincided with the emergence of the shopping mall, draining revenue as well as residents from
the city center.114
However, as the main center of Cleveland declined and struggled financially, other areas
of Cleveland, especially University Circle, thrived. Many of these institutions, including the
Cleveland Museum of Art, underwent expansion projects in the latter half of the decade. In
addition, University Circle as a unit formed an organization, the University Circle Development
Foundation, in 1957 to “reinforce the commitment of cultural institutions to the Circle and to
implement a twenty-year development plan.” A police force, new roads, and parking were part of
this plan.115 The continued dedication to the cultural institutions in the Circle suggest that even
though the city itself was in decline and residents removed themselves from this situation by
113
Miller and Wheeler, Cleveland: A Concise History, 156.
114
Ibid., 158-159.
115
Ibid., 163.
49
migrating to the suburbs, Clevelanders wanted to remain close to the culture and education that
the museums provided. As the baby boomer generation began to grow in population numbers,
the significance of the Circle’s museums increased and remained strong in the community.
CMA Renovation and Egyptian Collection: Preservation is the Focus
The Cleveland Museum of Art grew during the 1940s and 1950s as a result of
Clevelanders wanting to remain closely tied to their cultural institutions. Exhibitions
incorporating the artwork of various Cleveland artists were a regular occurrence, and these
showings were emphasized by the Mayor, “stressing the importance of the artist to the
community, the cooperation of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, [and] the active
participation of many stores, banks, and other corporations….”116 The city’s wealthy and nonwealthy alike donated funds to the museum for the use of purchases and building upkeep through
membership, which generally increased over the decades, large donations in the form of
endowments, and smaller, voluntary donations by residents.117 During these decades, and
because of the number of donations and funds available to them, the CMA staff continued to
collect art and artifacts, increasing the size of all the museum’s holdings.118
Because of this growth, and the need to ensure that all of the collections were properly
stored and protected, the museum underwent an expansion project. In the Annual Report for
1951, Harold T. Clark, president of the CMA, reported,
116
William M. Milliken, “The Annual Exhibition: Foreword,” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art
37 no 5 (May 1950), 75 http://www.jstor.org/stable/25141632 (accessed Feb 7, 2016).
117
Carl Wittke, The First Fifty Years: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1916-1966 (Cleveland: The John
Huntington Art and Polytechnic Trust and the Cleveland Museum of Art, 1966), 137; Bulletins of the Cleveland
Museum of Art. Every Annual Report details membership, visitation, and funds donated to the museum each year.
The trend demonstrated by these numbers shows an increase in each of these areas, with a slight drop in 1957 due to
the closure of the museum in April for the renovation.
118
Turner, 96. See also the Bulletins of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 1948-1956,
https://www.jstor.org/journal/bulleclevmuseart.
50
“It was a busy year, marked by great acquisitions, by important exhibitions, and
by an attendance record far above the average. The funds for a new addition to the
building and to its endowment show a substantial increase. The steady
development of collections and services makes a new addition a vital need. In the
meantime much serious study has been given to the maintenance and
rehabilitation of the structure of the present building, which has had very
intensive use for over thirty-five years.”119
In the same year’s Annual Report, Director Milliken announced that the new total for the
building fund increased to $1,324,704.97 through generous donations by members and nonmembers alike.120 Over the next few years, this total increased and eventually totaled about
$9,000,000 in 1957 for both the new wing addition and updated renovations to the 1916
building.121 New lighting designs and increased space for the galleries, stacks for library
materials, air conditioning and air cleaning systems, and new storage areas for the art were all
part of this endeavor, demonstrating the centrality of preservation in the project.122 The museum
broke ground on May 14, 1955 at noon123 and laid the cornerstone on June 14, 1956.124 The new
wing progressed from there, and the museum continued its mission of education and display
throughout the process, promoting small exhibits in the old Cleveland Institute of Art building
while the museum closed for nine months beginning April 1, 1957 in order to protect the
collections from damage and dust caused by the construction.125 The museum, with its brand new
119
Harold T Clark, “Annual Report Issue for the Year 1951 Letter of Transmission,” The Bulletin of the
CMA 39, no 6 Part II (June 1952) http://www.jstor.org/stable/25141804 (accessed Feb 9, 2016).
120
Ibid, 132.
121
Wittke, Fifty Years, 139.
122
Wittke, 140; William M. Milliken, “Report Issue for the Year 1957,” The Bulletin of the CMA, 45, no 6
(June 1958), 159 http://www.jstor.org/stable/25142278 (accessed Feb 9, 2016).
123
“Break Ground for Art: Officials Will Hold Ceremony at Noon.” The Plain Dealer. May 14, 1955.
124
Paul B. Metzler, “Clark Turns Mason for Museum Rite.” The Plain Dealer, July 15, 1956.
125
William M. Milliken, “Annual Report Issue for the Year 1957,” Bulletin of the CMA, 46, no 6 (June
1958), http://www.jstor.org/stable/25142278 (accessed Feb 9, 2016).
51
wing and updated original building (see Figure 2.1 for the layout), reopened to the public on
March 5, 1958 with a prelude for special guests on March 4.126
Figure 2.1 Map of the Cleveland Museum of Art in 1966 after the renovation project. The
Egyptian Gallery is number 11, next to the Garden Court on the left side of the
original building. From the Museum Handbook, 1966. Courtesy of the CMA
Archives.
The Egyptian collection specifically grew with a number of new acquisitions before the
expansion project was completed with the idea of preservation in mind. Acquisitions from 19481951 consisted of sixteen relief paintings for the Egyptian collection and Coptic embroideries
from Egypt for the Textile Collection.127 The Egyptian collection experienced this growth due to
126
“Museum of Art’s Glories Recounted at Union Club,” The Plain Dealer, March 4, 1958; “Art Museum
Showing New Plant, Treasures,” The Plain Dealer, March 5, 1958.
127
Dorothey G. Shepherd, “Late Coptic Embroideries,” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 37 no.
3 (March 1950), 46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25141619 (accessed Feb 7, 2016); William M. Milliken, “Annual
52
the budding relationship between Director William Milliken and the Mallons family in 1948. The
Mallons were a family of art dealers who focused on obtaining quality pieces of art for their
clients, both in the private sector and for museums. They travelled to Egypt often while
searching for artifacts for their clients, including the Cleveland Museum of Art, focusing
primarily on Egyptian sculpture, as this type of artifact was generally missing from many
museum collections.128 Dr. Sherman Lee, Curator of Oriental and Ancient Art in 1952 and
appointed Director in 1958, continued to purchase and acquire Egyptian artifacts, an endeavor
that temporarily stopped after 1948, most likely due to the 1952 Egyptian Revolution that
overthrew the British imperial occupation. Lee focused on purchasing Egyptian sculptures with
funds given him by a large endowment to the museum in 1958.129
The acquisition and updated display of Egyptian sculpture and artifacts reveals this
notion of preservation and security from an imminent attack, but also a sense of protection from
the elements in the museum. Before the new wing opened, the Egyptian gallery continued to be
displayed similarly to when it was first unveiled during the Inaugural Exhibition in 1916. Many
artifacts were enclosed in glass cases along the walls or in the middle of the room. Stone busts
and sculptures stood proudly on relatively tall pedestals in various places throughout the gallery.
Some changes occurred over time, however. Most of the artifacts were moved away from the
windows, especially those sculptures that were not in protective cases (Figures 2.2 and 2.3). The
arrangement of the artifacts demonstrates a consciousness of a possible attack or a commitment
to the UNESCO protocol to protect and preserve in light of a possible attack.
Report Issue for the Year 1951,” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art (June 1952). 131-166.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25141805?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (accessed Feb 9, 2016).
128
Kozloff, “Introduction,” 22-23.
129
Ibid., 25.
53
Figure 2.2 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1956. 29022C, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
Figure 2.3 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1956. 29022A, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
54
The relief paintings were also protected, as they were embedded in the walls, with one
wall in particular being newly constructed, and all placed under glass (Figures 2.4 and 2.5). The
decision to embed the reliefs in the walls rather than leaving them hang against the walls on
wires again suggests that the CMA understood the consequences of an attack as outlined in the
guidelines of the UNESCO publication Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed
Conflict. One of the consistent measures the document proscribes is the use of reinforced
concrete of varying thicknesses, depending on the type of attack to be expected. For example,
against tank fire, 1.75 meters of reinforced concrete is suggested, 3.5 meters against super-heavy
artillery projectiles, and an underground shelter built with 600 meters of reinforced concrete to
withstand a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb that explodes in the air.130 While reinforced concrete is
expensive to use, the fact that the CMA created another wall in the gallery, most likely of wood
and plaster, suggests that considerations were taken in order to protect the reliefs from an attack.
Figure 2.4 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1950. 24600, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
130
Noblecourt, 87-88.
55
Figure 2.5 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1952. 25548B, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
Similarly, most of the artifacts were placed away from the windows rather than placed
right in front of them. This could be for a number of reasons. First, in the event of an attack, the
shattered glass of the windows would come into contact with the glass of the cases first, then the
art. Also, the material of the artifacts, generally stone, would be more difficult to break compared
to a canvas painting or other, less dense material. Third, natural light is a source of heat and
ultraviolet radiation. The heat and radiation would raise the relative humidity and temperature in
the gallery, affecting the artifacts. While stone is less susceptible to these deteriorating factors, it
is not completely impervious. Placing the artifacts away from the windows reduces the effect of
heat, working in conjunction with the new air conditioning system installed in the CMA during
the renovation. 131 Finally, the gallery’s purpose of education was not overlooked, and the
131
Alexander and Alexander, 220-223; Wittke, 140.
56
arrangement of the display dictated a path the visitors could walk, enabling them to move freely
in the space while exploring the display.
After the renovation, a few significant changes occurred. The gallery for the Egyptian
collection was larger and no longer located near windows. This decreased the amount of natural
light shining on the artifacts, reducing the deterioration rate. Instead, artificial spotlights and
overhead lighting were used to highlight the artifacts, which were still in protective glass cases.
Also, the lack of windows suggests a heightened awareness of the danger to the collection as the
risk of damage was greatly reduced (Figure 2.6). Stone statues still sat on their pedestals, but
they were relatively smaller after the renovation, suggesting that the stone was able to withstand
the occasional touch by visitors as well as a slightly relaxed state of being for the artifacts.
Figure 2.6 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 11, 1963. 34955a, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
57
Conclusion
Next to education, preservation of artifacts was the primary objective for a museum and
its staff. Museums were charged with “pass[ing] on their collections in pristine condition to
succeeding generations.”132 In order to do this, the museum carefully stored and displayed its
artifacts in such a way that deteriorating agents, mostly environmental in nature, slowed down or
stopped altogether. In 1950s America, in the midst of the Cold War, the fear of the Soviet Union
sharpened the museum world’s focus on this aspect of their mission. New techniques and
suggestions were promoted in order to ensure the safety of museum collections, including the
guidelines published by UNESCO. In addition, the upheaval in the Middle East due to the
creation of the new Israeli state and the wars for independence from colonial powers such as
Great Britain directed American attention to that region of the world. The United States sent both
military and humanitarian aid in order to quell the violence, protect American business interests
in the oil industry, and obtain Arab allies in the fight against Soviet encroachment into the
region.133 The chaos that these conflicts in ideology produced provided another incentive to
protect the world’s heritage and historical artifacts from the spoils and destruction of war.
Egypt’s plight in particular promoted the acquisition of artifacts in order to better protect Egypt’s
rich history from destruction.
The Cleveland Museum of Art was part of this initiative. While the city of Cleveland
underwent an economic descent, the cultural institutions in University Circle thrived on the
donations of their members and Cleveland-area residents. New acquisitions to the various
collections were made regularly, including the Egyptian collection. The Egyptian collection
continued to develop at a much slower pace, though, possibly due to a smaller market for
132
Alexander and Alexander, 217.
133
Brands, Jacobs, Little, McAlister.
58
artifacts in the midst of the conflicts occurring in Egypt at the time. In order to accommodate the
growing collections, and properly store and display them for the future, the CMA experienced an
expansion project, adding a new wing to the museum for both storage and gallery space, while
also updating the original 1916 building. As part of this project, and for the same purpose, the
museum incorporated new equipment, notably air conditioning and an air cleaning system, to aid
in the preservation process. The Egyptian gallery benefited from the new focus as well, as it was
protected from possible attacks before the renovation, and better preserved with reduced lighting
after the completion of the new wing.
The Cleveland Museum of Art, a world renowned institution of culture and heritage,
weathered the fear of the 1950s well by demonstrating its dedication to its purpose of
preservation while maintaining its overall mission of educating the public. The CMA continued
to demonstrate these qualities in the ensuing decades, reaching the 1990s and the next chapter of
admiration and excellence for Egyptian antiquities at the Cleveland Museum of Art.
59
CHAPTER III
TECHNOLOGY AND VISITORS AT THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART’S
EGYPT’S DAZZLING SUN EXHIBITION
Larry Sharp, a cab driver in Cleveland, received an invitation to a special viewing of
“Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World” at the Cleveland Museum of Art. A
Cleveland native, Sharp had never been to the art museum before, but decided to see the
exhibition. Free admission, a free meal, and the entire exhibition for him and his fellow cabbies
were the promises the CMA advertised. About two dozen cabbies accepted the museum’s offer
and arrived at the museum on Monday, July 13, 1992 to see the show. The special invitation to
Cleveland’s cab drivers was a marketing attempt by the museum, because “Taxi drivers often
play the role of tour guides to out- of -town visitors.” All of the drivers who commented to The
Plain Dealer reporter expressed how impressed they were with the show. For example, Cabbie
Augustus Ashley said that he would bring his grandchildren to it while Harry Baker proclaimed
that he would be back, saying others should see the show as well.134
The museum’s ploy with the cabbies was one way to spread the word about the last
special exhibition celebrating the Cleveland Museum of Art’s 75th Anniversary. The show,
“Egypt’s Dazzling Sun,” focused on the reign of a single ancient Egyptian Pharaoh, Amenhotep
III, the grandfather of the infamous King Tutankhamen. Amenhotep’s reign was one marked by
peace as the pharaoh preferred to marry the daughters of his neighbors rather than fight them. He
134
John F. Hagan, “Hey, Mac, Seen Amenhotep? Museum Uses Cabbies to Get Out Word of Egyptian
Exhibit,” The Plain Dealer, July 14, 1992.
60
61
was also “one of the world’s greatest swingers” as he “preferred building grand temples and
encouraging art and making love.”135 Because of this, Amenhotep III’s legacy revolves around
temples, statues, and artistic wonders, making him “the most productive of all the kings who
reigned during Egypt’s golden age” in the realm of art.136
Amenhotep’s big debut on the museum stage occurred during an exciting time in history.
The Berlin Wall had fallen three years previously, and the Cold War was officially over. With
the beginning of a new decade, America’s attention was no longer focused on combating
Communism, but on other endeavors. Relations between Egypt and America, for instance, were
cordial, if not friendly, after the signing of the Camp David Peace Accords in 1978 and
recognizing Egypt’s leadership role in the First Gulf War in 1991. The advent of modern
technology in the form of the internet and computers began to take root as well, providing new
forms of education for museums to implement and inspiring them to include technology in their
presentations of artifacts. In addition to technology, museums began to re-focus their attention on
the visitor, whom the museum catered to and “worked for.” New research studies and methods
were in the early stages of development in order to identify the underlying cause of why visitors
attend museums, what visitors expect to experience and learn from their visit, and how museums
could better market themselves to reach a wider, more diverse audience.
One researcher in particular delved into visitor research. John Falk, a professor at Oregon
State University, studied “free-choice learning, museum research, and science education.”137 His
theories regarding the visitor experience are helpful in interpreting the interaction between the
135
William F. Miller, “Star of Exhibit Enjoyed Wine and Women,” The Plain Dealer, July 1, 1992.
136
Arielle Kozloff, “Preface,” in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World (Cleveland:
Cleveland Museum of Art, 1992), xii.
137
John H. Falk, “About the Author,” in Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience (Walnut Creek,
California: Left Coast Press Inc., 2009).
museum and the visitor, providing an analytical model from which to examine the technological
and exhibitionary choices of the CMA in their Amenhotep III exhibition. In 1992, Falk
conceived of the Interactive Visitor Model, a model that studies three different aspects of
people’s behavior- physical, social, and personal- and brings those aspects together into the
museum to assess how and why visitors behave the way they do. For example, the model
attempts to understand why some people watch the films while others skip them, or why certain
individuals read all of the labels whereas others read only those labels for the artifacts that
capture and hold their attention. The “physical context,” as Falk calls it, refers to “the
architecture, the objects on display, [and] the ambiance” of the museum, for visitors remember
their surroundings. The “social context” involves the ages of those attending and working at the
museum as well as the various types of people there, such as volunteers, staff, grandparents or
peers. Finally, the “personal context” encompasses the person’s motivations, experiences,
knowledge of the exhibit contents, and what they intend to get out of the museum experience.138
Falk expanded upon this theory later, studying in-depth the different types of visitors that
attend museums, classifying them into five categories based on various attributes. The
classifications are Explorers, Facilitators, Experience Seekers, Professional/Hobbyists, and
Rechargers. Explorers are usually those who visit a museum because they are curious about the
topic on display or have a general interest in the subject matter. Facilitators do not come for
themselves, but rather bring someone else for their benefit, such as a mother bringing a child so
that the child may learn about a topic from another perspective. The mother, then, would be the
Facilitator. Experience Seekers may be commonly called tourists, for their attitude in visiting the
museum is one of “checking it off the bucket list.” They want to say that they have been there
138
John Falk and Lynn Dierking, The Museum Experience (Washington DC: Whalesback Books, 1992), 1-
7.
62
and see why the museum is famous or iconic. Professional/Hobbyists have expert knowledge on
the content of museum displays and exhibitions and “will judge the content to be accurate.”139
The final group, Rechargers, visit the museum in order to relax, rejuvenate, or simply marvel at
the wonders contained within.140
The Cleveland Museum of Art’s special exhibition “Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep
III and His World” and the museum’s permanent collection gallery demonstrated the
incorporation of technology in order to reach a wider audience and illustrate the history of Egypt
during the reign of Amenhotep III in new methods. Technology, specifically audio tours and
cinematic films, conveyed historical knowledge as well as revealed the popularization of
Egyptian history and motifs in the media. Visitor studies based on Falk’s models influenced the
exhibitions as well. The CMA used technology and visitor research in order to bring in more
visitors, reach a larger audience base, and supplement the artifacts on exhibit.
America and Egypt in the 1990s
As in the past few decades, the relationship between the United States and Egypt
continued to be complex in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Though the relationship was no
longer hostile, it was based primarily on American economic and military aid to Egypt, now an
American ally. In 1978, President Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel
signed the Camp David Peace Accords, forming a peace treaty between the two nations. Because
of this peace treaty, the relationship between the United States and Egypt changed from that of
enemies to allies.141 Three years after this accomplishment, Sadat was assassinated, leaving Vice
139
John H. Falk, Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience (Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press
Inc., 2009), 200.
140
Falk, Identity, 190-206.
141
Tarek Osman, Egypt on the Brink: From Nasser to Mubarak (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010),
89-90.
63
President Hosni Mubarak in charge of Egypt. Mubarak “offered the [people] hope of an Egypt
restored to balance and given the time to nourish its weakened self-confidence.”142 In order to do
this, Mubarak implemented many domestic reforms, including allowing opposition parties to
participate in government, decreasing the restrictions on free speech in the press, freeing
prisoners, and “quietly shevl[ing]” controversial laws enacted by Sadat. However, in the midst of
attempts to help the developing Egypt, various circumstances proved to make growth and
progress difficult. Dropping oil prices in the mid- and late 1980s forced many Egyptians working
abroad to return home unemployed. Also, Egypt received little direct support from foreign
countries, and the revenue Egypt obtained through the Suez Canal greatly diminished as well.
Finally, Mubarak did not have a plan by which to fix the economic problem, and was eventually
forced to follow programs and guidelines outlined by the International Monetary Fund in order to
start fixing Egypt’s economy.143
The advent of the Gulf War in 1991 both damaged and aided the Egyptian economy and
political relations between Egypt and other nations. The war forced over 400,000 Egyptians out
of work in the Gulf region’s oil fields, adding to the already high percent of unemployed.
Revenue from tourists and the Canal also dramatically declined due to the war. Egypt’s debt to
foreign powers was high as well, adding to the economic strain.144 However, Egypt’s role in the
Gulf War proved to benefit the country. Because Egypt was a leader for the Arab nations in
opposition to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the “United States forgave $6.7 billion in military debt”
while increasing economic aid during and after the war in conjunction with other foreign
142
Osman, Egypt on the Brink, 166.
143
Osman, 167.
144
Bruce K. Rutherford, Egypt After Mubarak: Liberalism, Islam, and Democracy in the Arab World
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 136-137.
64
nations.145 The leadership that Egypt displayed in the course of the Gulf War, and the subsequent
aid it received from foreign powers, allowed Egypt to continue to develop as a nation.
Cleveland in the 1990s
Cleveland in the late 1980s and early 1990s was a mixture of decline and prosperity. The
population decreased dramatically during the 1970s at a rate of twenty three percent annually.
The population continued to drop during the 1980s, though at the less dramatic rate of about one
percent annually. Unemployment was high as well, reaching 11.4 percent in the downtown area
in 1987, significantly higher than the suburban rate of 5.4 percent. The loss of Cleveland
industries, especially “steel, automotive products, and machinery,” contributed to the migration
and the high unemployment rates, representing a job loss of 86,100 jobs between 1970 and 1985.
The city also let go many of its employees in order to help balance the city’s budget and repay its
$111 million debt.146 Poverty was a serious problem for the city, too.
“[It] widened its reach to inner-ring suburbs like Lakewood, East Cleveland, and
Cleveland Heights. In 1989, the Council for Economic Opportunities in Greater
Cleveland reported that poverty in Cuyahoga County had increased by 42.5
percent since 1980; that almost one-fifth of all county residents were poor; and
that three-quarters of the county’s poor (or about 215,700 people) lived in the city
of Cleveland.”147
School drop-out rates approached 50 percent in 1987, adding to the overall declining state of the
city.148
Paradoxically, Cleveland also continued to grow and prosper. The skyline changed as
corporations such as “Standard Oil Company (acquired by BP America and renamed in 1987),
145
Rutherford, Egypt After Mubarak, 137-138.
146
Carol Poh Miller and Robert Wheeler, Cleveland: A Concise History, 1796-1990 (Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press, 1990), 182-185.
147
Miller and Wheeler, Cleveland, 188.
148
Miller and Wheeler, 189.
65
Ohio Bell, and Eaton Corporation all built new office towers.”149 Other projects ensued as well,
including the transformation of historic buildings in the Warehouse District into “offices, loft
apartments, and new shops and restaurants,” and the restoration of Playhouse Square, providing
entertainment through the arts and bringing approximately $15 million to Cleveland’s economy
each year.150 Even though the city was rebuilding itself economically and physically, Cleveland
faced a new decade of transition with the American shift “to the new technology-based service
economy,” a shift that Clevelanders were forced to confront.151
The Cleveland Museum of Art and Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: A Special Exhibition
The Cleveland Museum of Art at the beginning of the 1990s was, like the city itself,
having financial problems. While the museum continued to grow in membership, artifacts, and
gallery space, the largest fund that supported the museum since the 1950s, the Hanna fund, was
no longer sufficient in maintaining the museum’s needs. The continued growth, and therefore
maintenance, of the CMA forced the Board of Trustees to begin a fund-raising department in the
1980s in order to “[seek] income producing programs,” including corporate sponsorship of
special exhibitions.152 Through these fund-raising avenues, the CMA was able to continue
prospering, and prepare for the road ahead.
With funding for the museum secured, the CMA began looking forward to, and making
preparations for, a large celebration in honor of the museum’s 75th Anniversary. As part of this
149
Ibid., 185.
150
Ibid., 186.
151
Ibid., 190. See also Barney Warf and Brian Holly, “The Rise and Fall and Rise of Cleveland,” Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science 551 (May 1997), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1047948
(accessed Feb. 13, 2016), 208-221.
152
Evan H. Turner, ed. Object Lessons: Cleveland Creates an Art Museum (Cleveland: The Cleveland
Museum of Art, 1991), 196, 198.
66
celebration, the museum prepared three special exhibitions that incorporated artworks from other
institutions, private collectors, and the CMA’s permanent collections into large displays over the
course of a year. The first, “The Triumph of Japanese Style: 16th Century Art in Japan,” focused
on Japanese art at “the moment when Japanese cultural identity blossomed into full flower after
centuries of soaking up ideas from outside the island nation.”153 The second, “Picasso and
Things: The Still Lives of Picasso,” displayed the painter’s still life works of inanimate objects
rather than people.154 The final special exhibition was Egyptian in focus and nature: “Egypt’s
Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World.”
Amenhotep III, the third king in Dynasty 18, came to the throne of Egypt in 1391 BC
during the New Kingdom era, or Egypt’s Golden Age. He originally grew up near modern day
Memphis, with the Giza pyramids across the river, influencing his childhood. Supposedly, it was
this fact of growing up near the Pyramids of Giza that inspired Amenhotep III to build large
monuments of himself throughout Egypt. The pharaoh not only erected monuments to himself,
but he built temples to the gods in various locations, including Thebes, Luxor, Karnak, and
Saqqara. Because he associated himself with the sun god Amun-Ra, Amenhotep constructed
colossal statues of himself to stand at the entrances of temples, reminding the people of the
greatness of their king. In addition to construction projects, Amenhotep III treated his officials
with greater regard than past kings, giving one of these officials a mortuary temple next to
153
Steven Litt, “Nature Ascendant in Artistic Stunner,” The Plain Dealer, October 20, 1991.
154
Steven Litt, “Preview Picasso Art Museum Frames a Still-Life Happening,” The Plain Dealer, February
23, 1992.
67
Amenhotep’s as a reward for his work. His family is also well represented in art, as statues
almost always depict his wife, Queen Tiy, by his side.155
The story behind the conception through the completion of this particular king’s
exhibition involves a lot of time, effort, and coordination between various parties on an
international scale. The idea began in 1977 in Egypt with the meeting of two scholars: Betsy M.
Bryan, Alexander Badawy assistant professor of Egyptian art and archeology at The Johns
Hopkins University, and Arielle Kozloff, Curator of Ancient Art at the Cleveland Museum of
Art. Both were in Egypt doing research, Bryan focusing on monuments erected by Thuthmosis
IV and roles of women in Dynasty 18, while Kozloff studied and photographed styles of painters
in Theban tombs during the same dynasty. Both women wished to create an exhibition about
Amenhotep III’s art and, with the help of the new CMA director, Evan Turner, the women were
able to bring this dream into fruition.156 Inevitably, the special exhibition came into its own in
July 1992 after eight years of research and preparation. The exhibition was displayed first in
Cleveland and then traveled to two other locations, the Kimbell Museum in Fort Worth and the
National Museum in Paris. The exhibition “included 143 masterworks from minute to
monumental, some newly discovered, lent by collections in 27 cities in 11 countries” for the
purpose of presenting “Amenhotep III as ancient Egypt’s greatest builder and art patron.”157
“Egypt’s Dazzling Sun” faced multiple struggles throughout the process of obtaining and
installing the artifacts. First, the Egyptian government, the body in charge of international loans
155
Arielle Kozloff, “Introduction,” in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World, authors Arielle
Kozloff, Betsy M. Bryan, and Lawrence M. Berman (Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art in cooperation with
Indiana University Press, 1992), 1-8.
156
Arielle Kozloff, Betsy M. Bryan, and Lawrence M. Berman, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and
His World (Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art in cooperation with Indiana University Press, 1992), xii.
157
Arielle Kozloff, “Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World, July 1- September 27, Special
Exhibition Gallery,” found in “1992 Annual Report,” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 80, no. 6 (July
1993): 244. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25161418 (accessed Feb. 22, 2016).
68
of Egyptian antiquities, refused to loan a 9-foot alabaster statue of Amenhotep with the crocodile
god Sobek due to protestations from the Egyptian public. Supposedly, the Egyptians were
concerned about the safety of the statue travelling overseas, declaring the artifact as “too
important a treasure to allow out of Egypt.” The statue was supposed to be “a centerpiece of the
exhibit,” though Director Turner was happy to withdraw the request for the sculpture when the
protests were raised.158 This corresponded with the “anti-Western feeling” in Egypt as the
Egyptians did not take the museum’s project seriously until the Curator, Arielle Kozloff,
presented the government with copies of seminar papers, demonstrating that the exhibition was
not simply “another blockbuster,” but rather a scholarly driven exhibit of importance to the
history and art worlds.159 Another struggle for the museum was in moving and placing the
artifacts, specifically the larger statues that weighed thousands of pounds. Systems of ramps,
pulleys, and forklifts were used to move the priceless artifacts carefully and safely into their
positions for the exhibit. One of the artifacts, the “Monumental Royal Lion,” was originally
intended to be placed near the entrance to the exhibit. However, because another statue, the
“Ram of Amen Protecting the King,” had yet to arrive and was larger and heavier than the lion,
the lion was placed further back in the exhibit while the ram was placed near the front.160
Despite these struggles, the exhibition was a success. The head and body of a figurine
that was separated for thousands of years were reunited and put together before the opening. The
realization that the two pieces matched was the result of extensive measurements and research by
158
Steven Litt, “Egypt Won’t Lend Statue to Cleveland Museum,” The Plain Dealer, February 29, 1992.
159
Helen Cullinan, “Pharaoh of the Arts Museum Pulls Political, Cultural Strings to Assemble Amenhotep
Exhibit,” The Plain Dealer, June 28, 1992.
160
Karen Sandstrom, “Uncrating the Ages Museum of Art Sets Up Amenhotep III, His World,” The Plain
Dealer, June 4, 1992.
69
the exhibition’s curators, who were overjoyed at the union of the pieces in the museum.161
Additionally, “Egypt’s Dazzling Sun” was “like stepping into an ancient Egyptian time warp,
whisking the visitor to the court of the Dazzling Sun Pharaoh” due to the effects of “creative
lighting, the huge statues and dramatic cobalt blue setting- the pharaoh’s favorite color”
according to one critic (see Figures 3.1-3.3 for views of the exhibition).162 Visitors totaled
186,000 for Amenhotep’s exhibition, and the combination of the three exhibitions for the
Anniversary celebration brought approximately $33 million into Cleveland’s economy, a great
success by museum standards and a record number of visitors.163
Figure 3.1 Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III, 1992. 35-333n 24, Photograph Collection,
Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
161
Helen Cullinan, “Amenhotep Gets His Head Together,” The Plain Dealer, June 30, 1992.
162
William F. Miller, “Star of Exhibit Enjoyed Wine and Women,” The Plain Dealer, July 1, 1992.
163
Steven Litt, “Art Shows Aided City Economy, Museum’s Study Says,” The Plain Dealer, December 5,
1992.
70
Figure 3.2 Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III, 1992. 35-333n 12, Photograph Collection,
Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
Figure 3.3 Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III, 1992. Credit G.M. Donley, Photograph
Collection, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives
71
The show’s success was due to a number of factors. First, it was “the first major
international exhibition to draw together from many parts of the world the monuments of a single
pharaoh.” Artifacts for the exhibition came from all over the world, including the Louvre in
Paris, The British Museum, The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, The Egyptian
Museum in Cairo, and museums in Vienna, Florence, and Russia. Many American museums also
loaned artifacts for the exhibition, including the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and the Toledo
Museum of Art. Second, the exhibition took eight years to prepare for due to the amount of
research involved for such a large display, successfully culminating in the July exhibition.
Finally, the show promoted art from a single pharaoh in ancient Egyptian history that is not as
well- known as others, like King Tut and Ramses II, because much of Amenhotep’s art was
either defaced or destroyed by his successors, even though he was “the most productive of all the
kings” with his “rich artistic output.”164
In addition to the various artifacts on display, the museum supplemented the main
exhibition with other displays and programs that place Egypt and Amenhotep III into historical
context. “19th Century Views of Egypt” and “Photomurals: Temples of Amenhotep III” acted as
complementary exhibitions on display to coincide with Amenhotep’s show. “19th Century
Views” was a collection of lithographs by Louise Haghe that showed visitors what Egypt looked
like in the 19th century, providing visuals of Egypt through an artistic lens. “Photomurals” was
similar in that it placed the various temples of Amenhotep into historical and architectural
164
Kozloff, et al. Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, viii, xii.
72
context. Additionally, a scholarly symposium provided a comparative study between Amenhotep
and other notable, famous leaders in history, such as Catharine the Great and Hadrian.165
The Cleveland Museum of Art decided to implement technology for informational guides
and educational purposes in order to reach a wider audience. Audio tours were developed for the
visitors to use as they walked through the exhibition, though they were not required and were
offered to the visitor as an additional option. The audio guide provided more in-depth, detailed
information about various artifacts, possibly of a historical nature. The tours were designed to
accompany the information present on the labels next to the artifacts. According to a
questionnaire provided at the end of the exhibition, audio tours were the second most used source
of information, with 49.9 percent of those surveyed saying they utilized this technology. The
wall labels were the most used at 71.4 percent.166
Popular films, cartoons, and other audio visual programs were also used during the
exhibition. The twentieth century movies related Egyptian culture or history in fictionalized
accounts and non-fiction, documentary style productions. The films shown were in a variety of
formats: black and white or color, silent movies and talkies, full length, live action movies and
short cartoons, made in Egypt and staged elsewhere, with non-Egyptian or Egyptian directors.
Many of the themes in the movies and cartoons involved mummies, curses and tombs, the story
of Cleopatra, and Biblical references to the story of the Ten Commandments. The films were
used to “testify to the allure that ancient Egypt has exerted on the imaginations of filmgoers for
165
Exhibition Compendium: Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, Amenhotep III and his World, July 1, 1992 September 27, 1992. Box 78, Folders: Programs-PI-Credit Lines-William Talbot’s Office (hereafter cited as
Amenhotep Collection), CMA Archives.
166
“Visitor Survey- Statistical Comparison for Three Surveys,” Box 78, Folder: Amenhotep III SurveyWilliam Talbot’s Office (hereafter cited as Amenhotep Survey). CMA Archives. The survey covered the three 75th
Anniversary exhibitions: “The Triumph of Japanese Style: 16 th Century Art in Japan,” “Picasso and Things,” and
“Amenhotep III.” The numbers provided in the text are from the Amenhotep exhibition only.
73
many years in various countries.”167 In other words, the films were a testament to the continuing
presence and influence of Egyptomania in popular culture. Short films directly connected to the
exhibition, such as “Offerings Fit for King and God-The Cleveland Nome god Relief,” were also
created and used to further explain, visually, features of particular artifacts and to place these
artifacts into their historical context.168
The audio guides and films were developed in order to bring a larger variety of visitors to
the museum, as well as enhance the experience of the exhibition for every type of visitor. As
described earlier, research into the visitor experience at museums began to develop at this time,
and continues to develop today. Falk’s classifications of Explorer, Facilitator, Professional/
Hobbyist, Experience Seekers, and Rechargers can all be applied to the multiple technological
and educational materials implemented as part of the exhibition. The symposium lectures, for
example, most likely attracted Professionals as they were scholarly in nature. The audio tours
possibly enticed the Professionals as well, though Experience Seekers, Facilitators, and
Explorers could have used the audio tours for their own purposes, too, such as curiosity or
educating others in the group. Films would be a huge hit for all of these types of visitors, though
the knowledge they obtained from watching the films would have been different. Also, the films
may have been more popular with Facilitators and Explorers, as these could have been marketed
towards children and teenagers rather than adults. Statistical data gathered through surveys after
the exhibition allude to these classifications. When asked about educational background, 28.9
percent of participants said that they had post-graduate degrees.169 These participants would most
167
“Mood Movies Set the Stage for Amenhotep,” The Plain Dealer, July 1, 1992; “Educational Programs
for Amenhotep III, From NEH Submission 12/1990,” Amenhotep Collection, CMA Archives.
168
“Educational Programs,” Amenhotep Collection, CMA Archives.
169
Records of the Egyptian and Near Easter Art Department, A2001-033, Box 4, Visitor Surveys Folder,
CMA Archives.
74
likely be Professionals/Hobbyists because they had specific training in their post-graduate
programs.
While Amenhotep III received the most attention during his brief exhibition, the
Cleveland Museum of Art’s permanent collection gallery remained open to the public, allowing
visitors to enjoy more Egyptian artifacts that were not necessarily from the reign of Amenhotep
III. The display of the permanent collection was not on the same grand scale in regards to the
size of the artifacts, but the number of objects on display countered this deficiency. Most of the
items were reliefs, small statues and figurines, and sarcophagi in glass cases with other stone
statues on pillars along the walls. The reliefs were upright in cases, at about eye level with the
average person, for easy viewing. The lighting was such that certain artifacts were highlighted
and the artifacts were easily viewed, yet the light did not damage the displayed items (Figures
3.4-3.6).
Figure 3.4 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 205, 1993. 57941e, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
75
Figure 3.5 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 204, 1993. 57941d, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
Figure 3.6 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 204, 1993. 57941c, Registrar’s Gallery Views
Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
76
Falk’s Interactive Visitor Model, based on three contexts within the visitor experience,
can be used to analyze this display. The arrangement of the room allowed visitors to move freely
within a directed path and provided objects that each of Falk’s classifications would be
encouraged to see. In the “personal context,” Professionals/Hobbyists would be drawn to the
exhibit for the scholarly value, much as they were drawn to the Amenhotep exhibit. Explorers
would come to satisfy their curiosity while Facilitators could connect Amenhotep’s art to the
permanent gallery, comparing and contrasting artistic qualities for the purpose of education.
Rechargers would continue to be awe-inspired by the objects, and Experience Seekers would
have been able to “check off the bucket list” seeing the famous, high quality permanent
collection of the CMA. These visitors would have been able to move freely in the “physical
context” of the gallery as the displays were far enough apart to allow movement of bodies while
close enough together to encourage interaction with other museum visitors and staff in the
“social context.”170
Conclusion
The Cleveland Museum of Art’s 75th Anniversary special exhibition “Egypt’s Dazzling
Sun: Amenhotep III and His World” incorporated technology and visitor research studies into its
exhibition design in order to bring in more visitors and reach a wider audience. Movies and
audio tours provided more detailed information to audiences regarding the artifacts in the
exhibition as well as ancient Egyptian history and culture. The use of popular cinematic films
from a variety of decades, directors, and themes allowed audiences to glimpse Egyptian culture
while viewing a popularized version of Egypt as part of Egyptomania. The audio tours provided
170
John H. Falk, Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience (Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press
Inc., 2009); John Falk and Lynn Dierking, The Museum Experience (Washington DC: Whalesback Books, 1992).
77
more information to those that desired it while also offering another method of viewing the
exhibition to visitors who had hearing or sight problems.
The exhibition opened at an opportune time in world and museum history. The end of the
Cold War, progress towards peace in the Middle East, and friendly relations between Egypt and
the United States all contributed to the experiences at the museum. The advent of the computer
and the internet also made the opening of the new decade an exciting time. Museums worked to
incorporate these new technologies into their exhibitions and practices while further researching
their visitors, as American museums re-focused their attention on providing meaningful
experiences for those coming through their doors. Research into the visitor experience, especially
the theoretical models developed by John Falk, were helpful devices in learning why visitors go
to museums and how the museum can offer more variety in their programs and exhibitions for
the multiplicity of attendees.
The incorporation of technology and use of visitor studies is still important today, though
on a different scale. The CMA’s Gallery One is an example of an experiment in bringing
technology into the galleries and museum setting. While there is much debate among museum
professionals as to the benefits and drawbacks of such practices, especially regarding ethics and
ethical behavior towards visitors and the collection, technology will continue to be part of the
museum experience and affect the visitors that use it. The incorporation into Amenhotep’s
exhibit was rather small compared to today’s practices and multitude of forums through which to
use technology, but the continued presence of Egyptian artifacts in American museums, and in
the Cleveland Museum of Art particularly, remain as testaments to a different, wondrous, and
awe-inspiring past that endures for centuries, regardless of the lack of attention the collection
actually draws.
78
CHAPTER IV
EPILOGUE: THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART AND EGYPT
IN THE PRESENT DAY
In 2016, the Cleveland Museum of Art continues to serve the Cleveland public by
collecting, displaying and preserving works of art for the purpose of educating the public and
providing visitors with a meaningful, memorable experience. The museum’s current, 2016
mission statement reflects this service:
The mission of the Cleveland Museum of Art is to fulfill its dual roles as one of
the world’s most distinguished comprehensive art museums and one of
northeastern Ohio’s principal civic and cultural institutions. The museum,
established in 1913 “for the benefit of all the people forever,” seeks to bring the
pleasure and meaning of art to the broadest possible audience in accordance with
the highest aesthetic, intellectual, and professional standards. Toward this end the
museum augments, preserves, exhibits, and fosters understanding of the
outstanding collections of world art it holds in trust for the public and presents
complementary exhibitions and programs. The Cleveland Museum of Art
embraces its leadership role in collecting, scholarship, education, and community
service.171
Another Renovation and the Permanent Gallery
After the turn of the century, the CMA appropriated funds for another renovation project,
reshaping the museum building so that it “transforms outdated museum spaces and prepares the
institution to meet the needs of the public for the next 100 years.”172 The renovation included
171
The Cleveland Museum of Art staff, “Mission Statement,” The Cleveland Museum of Art,
http://www.clevelandart.org/about/history-and-mission/mission-statement (accessed March 26, 2015).
172
The Cleveland Museum of Art staff, “Renovation and Expansion Project: Overview,” The Cleveland
Museum of Art, http://www.clevelandart.org/join-and-give/support-the-transformation/renovation-and-expansionproject/overview (accessed April 10, 2015).
79
construction of a new atrium, a 32,000 square foot skylight that connects the original 1916
building to the Education Wing built in 1973, making the atrium “one of the largest public rooms
in Cleveland.”173 The 1916 galleries underwent an extensive change as well, transforming “dark,
tired spaces” into “airy and inviting [spaces], with 11-foot-3-inch ceilings that feel higher than
they actually are.” New galleries in expanded wings were constructed, adding “nearly 100,000
square feet of gallery space to the museum.”174 These newly reconditioned spaces also allow the
various art galleries to be organized in a chronological manner, taking the visitor on “a smooth,
seductive ride through the centuries.”175 In order to ensure that the changes would satisfy the
users of the museum, the staff reached out to the public for feedback on what they wished to see
from the new design. During these forums, as the meetings were coined, the project architect
Rafael Viñoly noticed that “[The museum] is a resource for the people, part of the life of the
city.”176 The museum and the renovation project reflect the will and desire to serve the people of
Cleveland and the world, displaying art for the enjoyment of everyone.
Unfortunately, in the midst of these physical changes to the CMA building, the
importance of the Egyptian collection and gallery has decreased since the Amenhotep III special
exhibition. The collection is, as Director of Facilities Jeffrey Strean says, “a really finite
collection and it’s not an area that is experiencing a lot of growth in terms of the market. There
173
Steven Litt, “Cleveland Museum of Art’s atrium skylight rises at last,” October 31, 2010; Steven Litt,
“Museum of Art Oks More Building $205 Million Raised for Construction,” June 17, 2008. The Plain Dealer.
174
Steven Litt, “Museum’s President a Builder of Consensus,” The Plain Dealer, January 20, 2002.
175
Steven Litt, “An epic adventure through time: New 1916 galleries at Cleveland Museum of Art opens
Saturday,” The Plain Dealer, June 20, 2010.
176
Rafael Viñoly, quoted in Gregory M. Donley, “Civic Architecture,” Cleveland Museum of Art Members
Magazine, (May 2002), 8.
80
aren’t as many opportunities out there as there are in some other areas [to collect].”177 While
many factors may contribute to the lack of a market, such as repatriation laws based on the 1970
UNESCO edict and the 2011 revolutions in Egypt, the Egyptian collection remains a low priority
for the museum.
In addition to the collection not growing and the lack of a market in Egyptian antiquities,
the Mr. Strean and the Assistant Director of Interpretation, Lori Wienke, each described how the
new Egyptian gallery is supposed to be more accessible to the public visitor (Figure 4.1). The
exhibit employs various methods to pass on information about its artifacts to the public and
create connections between the ancient past and the modern present. The first, and most
important, method is through the overall design of the exhibit. “[I]t’s not a chronological
arrangement of works, it’s thematic, so…Kings and gods…public and private life…[and the]
whole back area is really about the afterlife…”178 By presenting Egyptian art through familiar
themes rather than a chronological approach, the display allows the public to identify with
various aspects of Egyptian life, using the artifacts as the means to do this. “Also, chronological
arrangements can be sort of dry, and this sort of gave the opportunity to delve more deeply into
these really significant themes that are appropriate for this collection in a way that was,
hopefully, more engaging for visitors.”179 The themes of pre-dynastic, kings and gods, public and
private life, and the afterlife are designed so as to take the visitor through various aspects of
Egyptian life and history. These themes not only provide “people a glimpse into what life was
like at that time in Egypt, [but]…it allows them, hopefully, to sort of see how they had the same
177
Jeffrey Strean, interviewed by author, Cleveland, OH, March 23, 2015.
178
Lori Wienke, interviewed by author, Cleveland, OH, March 31, 2015.
179
Wienke, interview, March 2015.
81
sort of reverence.”180 In other words, the themes are arranged in an attempt to better connect the
ancient lives of the Egyptians to the modern life of the visitor by demonstrating that there are, in
fact, similarities between the cultures, regardless of time and location. For example, as Ms.
Wienke discussed, the section on the Afterlife is able to show how much the Egyptians revered
and prepared for the afterlife, how strong their beliefs in a life after death were in their culture. 181
This can be related today to the Abrahamic faith systems and their beliefs in a life after death, as
well as some of the rituals and ceremonies that accompany these belief systems.
These themes were determined by the previous curator of the Egyptian collection based
on the artifacts in the CMA’s holdings. According to Mr. Strean, “[the curator] just wanted to
resurrect the old installation ideas in a different space, so it wasn’t a big stretch”182 when it came
time to re-install the exhibit after the completion of the museum’s building renovation. This
would suggest that, even though the Egyptian art is a “really finite collection and it’s not an area
that is experiencing a lot of growth,”183 the collection covers enough history to be displayed and
interpreted in these categories, a method which seems to work to the best advantage for the
collection, the curator, and the visitors. However, this lack of growth and the fact that the
collection does not represent a full chronological picture of Ancient Egypt suggests that the
collection is not a priority for the art museum’s staff. Rather, it is something that is available to
180
Ibid. See also Bob Brier, “Egyptomania!” Archaeology 57 no. 1 (Jan/Feb 2004), 16-22,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41780856 (accessed April 19, 2015) for information about the Egyptian quest for
immortality as a possible reason why Americans, and Western cultures in general, are fascinated by ancient
Egyptian culture.
181
Wienke, interview, March 2015.
182
Strean, interview.
183
Ibid.
82
the public should the visitor wish to view it. The exhibit is no longer a means to bring people in,
though, as it once was in 1916.
Figure 4.1 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 107, March 2015. Photo by the author.
Arranging the exhibit thematically is not the only change that represents this lack of
motivation. The object labels and wall panels throughout the gallery demonstrate this as well
(Figures 4.2 and 4.3). The labels and panels were intended to work in tandem with the themes in
order to provide more historical background information for the visitor. While the object labels
provide basic information on the artifacts displayed, the wall panels explain the overarching
themes of the exhibit so that the visitor is able to understand how the exhibit was designed by the
curator. 184
184
Strean, interview; Wienke, interview, March 2015. To clarify, the object labels are the labels next to the
artifacts that provide the name/title of the artifact, when it was made, by whom and where (all if known), some basic
information about the materials and technique used to create it, the accession number of the artifact in the CMA’s
catalogue, as well as some historical context, though the context is not included on every artifact. The wall panels
83
Figure 4.2 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 107, March 2015. "Kings and Gods" section panel text.
Photo by the author.
Unfortunately, while these labels are intended to help the visitor understand the exhibit,
most visitors tend to overlook or ignore them. According to Mr. Strean,
“I don’t think at this point people are getting the themes. They’re only expressed
in the panels which we now know people aren’t reading. So I think it’s time, and
there hasn’t been a curator to say we got to get back in there and do this. So that’s
been the impact of not having a curator of that area, is that we really need to get
back in there now that we’ve been distracted by installing the rest of the
collection. Now that it’s in, I think it’s probably time to go back and make some
of those ideas clearer. It doesn’t seem to be critical to people if they don’t get
them. They just want to go in there and look, which is not a bad thing either. But
if we think it’s important enough to put it together that way, then we probably
ought to make it a little bit clearer.”185
provide an overview of the particular theme that is displayed and a broad historical context for the artifacts within
that theme. One of the wall panels provides an introduction to the entire exhibit. These formats are consistent in all
of the exhibits in the CMA.
185
Strean, interview. Mr. Strean explained in his interview that the CMA currently has no curator of
Egyptian antiquities. The previous curator took a position at a museum in Boston, and with the renovation of the
museum over, Mr. Strean is able to view these problems and address them.
84
The museum staff recognizes that there is a problem with aspects of the design of the exhibit,
namely that the public does not understand the themes that the Egyptian exhibit is organized
around. While that information is provided for the visitors, the manner in which, and possibly
location where, that knowledge is presented is not effective for displaying historical content
related to the artifacts. Therefore, as Mr. Strean acknowledges, it is time to change the labels
again to make the central themes more apparent.
Figure 4.3 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 107, March 2015. Statue of Heqat, the Frog Goddess
(1976.5). The label under the statue is an example of a "bare bones" label, consisting
only of basic information. Photo by the author.
At the same time, though, this statement reflects the nature of the museum visitor and the
lack of interest in the Egyptian gallery. The fact that visitors are not stopping to read the
information provided on the labels and panels, but rather walk through the exhibit to simply view
85
the artifacts, demonstrates the lack of interest by the populace to learn about Egypt, especially in
spite of the presence of Egyptomania and the news coverage regarding the revolutions in modern
Egypt only three years ago. Also, because the gallery was displayed the same way after the
recent renovation as it was before suggests that the gallery is not a top priority for the museum
staff, but rather that they are content to keep the gallery the same. Finally, even though there is
recognition of the fact that the visitors are not reading the wall texts provided, there appears to be
no real motivation to go into the gallery to change anything, especially to bring out the themes.
Nina Simon’s concept of the “participatory museum” provides another argument for why
the Egyptian collection is no longer relevant to visitors. The participatory museum argues for a
change in museum methodology, promoting the participation of the visitor within the museum
galleries. She classifies this notion as “multidirectional,” allowing the museum to offer an
experience that the visitor is able to voluntarily provide feedback on, which the institution can
then utilize to improve its exhibitions for the next visitors. This feedback can be given in
multiple ways, for example through a voting system upon exiting the museum.186 This new
concept can be applied to the current Egyptian gallery at the CMA. There is currently no method
of providing immediate feedback on the gallery’s display. Simply put, there is no manner by
which visitors are able to participate in the gallery, but are rather confined to the traditional
museum method of text labels and glass cases, facing static artifacts that do not allow an
opportunity for interaction with the visitor. While this method is not wrong, it is an older concept
that visitors in a technology driven world, and at this stage in museum evolution, seem to not
prefer. In addition, the gallery is in the back of the 1916 building. Visitors must enter the lobby,
cross the atrium, enter the 1916 building, walk all the way to the back, and turn left in order to
186
Nina Simon, The Participatory Museum (Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0, 2010), 1-13.
86
find the gallery. It is, therefore, not front and center, and not promoting easy access to the gallery
to offer Egypt as the significant collection it once was.
A New Travelling Exhibition: Bringing Egypt Back to the CMA
Despite this ambivalence towards the Cleveland Museum of Art’s permanent gallery, a
new Egyptian travelling exhibition will be on display and open to the public on March 13, 2016.
The exhibition, entitled
“Pharaoh: King of Ancient Egypt, introduces viewers to the men (and women)
who ruled Egypt over three millennia. Opening on March 13, the exhibition
presents a varied selection of 145 objects—including monumental reliefs, stone
sculpture, faience ornaments, splendid jewelry, and historic papyri—from the vast
holdings of the British Museum, along with a number of masterworks from
Cleveland’s own collection.”187
The exhibition looks into the “public and private lives of pharaohs” within the objects’ historical
contexts.188 Even though the permanent collection is no longer a center of attention for the
museum staff, this special exhibition demonstrates the continued interest by the public for
Egyptian exhibitions.
Additionally, the special exhibition incorporates aspects of museum studies that were
developed in the past and continue to be developed now. For example, “Pharaoh” will utilize
audio tours for in-depth information about twenty-three of the artifacts on display. With the
progression of technology, the format used for the audio tours, called Acoustiguide wands, will
include small images of the artifacts in conjunction with the auditory information. The use of the
187
Aude Semat, “Art and Power in Ancient Egypt,” The Cleveland Magazine (March/April 2016),
http://www.clevelandart.org/magazine/marchapril-2016/art-and-power-ancient-egypt (accessed Feb. 29, 2016).
188
Lori Wienke, follow up interview via email with the author, February 29, 2016.
87
audio tours is included in the ticket price for the exhibition and will be distributed to interested
visitors at the entrance of the exhibit.189
The educational purpose of the museum has continued into the present day as well.
Artifact labels will accompany the objects, providing textual information for visitors should they
choose to read it. Other educational materials for teachers and families are available in order to
offer an educational experience designed for younger children with their classmates on field trips
and with their families. Finally, as the above information implicitly states, the display and design
of the exhibition and its supplementary educational material focuses on the visitor experience,
attempting to reach a broader audience, possibly based on Falk’s research regarding the Visitor
Experience Model to create meaningful memories of the visit. 190
All in all, the Egyptian collection at the Cleveland Museum of Art is not as relevant to the
museum’s mission nor as important to the staff as it was in the museum’s past. The collection
has not grown in terms of acquisitions since the early 1990s due to a non-existent market. Also,
even though the museum underwent a recent renovation that doubled the gallery space for the
Egyptian collection, the static re-installment of the previous arrangement of the display in themes
that visitors do not understand nor realize, the textual information that is not read by the visitors,
and the location of the gallery in the rear of the first floor 1916 building, all combine to make the
Egyptian gallery and collection an uninteresting stop for visitors to the CMA. The upcoming
“Pharaoh: King of Ancient Egypt” travelling exhibition may be an attempt to re-generate interest
in the legacy and history of Ancient Egypt through the lens of artistic aesthetes, but the general
attitude towards the permanent collection suggests that this is unlikely. As the Cleveland
189
Wienke, interview, Feb. 2016.
190
Ibid.; John H. Falk, Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience (Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast
Press Inc., 2009), 190-206.
88
Museum of Art moves forward into the future, though, perhaps the current attitudes towards
ancient Egypt will change.
89
FINAL CONCLUSION
The Cleveland Museum of Art’s Egyptian collection evolved over time into the world
renowned, yet small, collection that it is today due to various circumstances in history,
demonstrating the relationship between the museum and the historical contexts in which it finds
itself. Many historical aspects affected the museum staff’s decisions, priorities, and displays,
revealing how the CMA was influenced by the world around it. The Egyptian collection in
particular was effected by the history and circumstances in Egypt, as well as the state of relations
between the American and Egyptian governments. This project, based on multiple themes,
establishes these interconnected affiliations to prove that museums are organic, ever changing
institutions based on the evolving nature of global historical contexts through the case study of
the CMA’s Egyptian collection.
One of the central themes to this argument is the relationship between the American and
Egyptian governments. In 1916, the two governments were not working closely together as the
First World War diverted most of the United States’ attention from the Middle East to Western
Europe. After the Second World War, though, Egypt became more of a priority. The Middle East
and Africa became regions of upheaval and chaos as the nations in these areas fought for
independence from their colonial overlords. Egypt struggled for freedom from Great Britain, for
example. The creation of the new Israeli state in 1948 added to the anti-Western sentiment in the
Arab world and also contributed to the nationalist movements in the region. These circumstances
directed American attention to the Arab world, and specifically to Egypt, during the 1950s,
sending both military and humanitarian aid in order to quell the violence, protect American
90
business interests in the oil industry, and obtain Arab allies in the fight against Soviet
encroachment into the Middle East. Later, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the relationship
shifted from one of hostility and enemies to cordial allies. Egypt signed the Camp David Accords
in 1978, ending the country’s conflict with Israel, America’s ally. This allowed America and
Egypt to be on friendly terms at the conclusion of the Cold War in 1989 and the beginning of the
First Gulf War in 1991. Because Egypt was an Arab leader in the Gulf War, the United States
forgave much of Egypt’s debt, promoting the continuation of good relations. This intention was
soured, however, with America’s involvement in Iran and Iraq in the early 1990s, and continued
into the present day due to Egypt’s actions during the 2011 revolution. Currently, the relationship
between the two countries is somewhat strained.
As the ties between Egypt and America have changed over time, so too, has the concept
and policies of the American museum. In the early 1910s, American museums began a transition
from private collections to public institutions that focused on educating visitors from all walks of
life, though educated visitors remained the primary audience. With the onset of the Cold War in
the aftermath of World War II, and the threat of a nuclear (or any type of) attack on the United
States from the Soviet Union, this focus on education shifted to preservation. Museums in
general are charged with “pass[ing] on their collections in pristine condition to succeeding
generations.” This aspect of museum missions became the new priority, protecting collections
from the real possibility of destruction. In order to do this, museums began to pay more attention
to storage and display conditions, such as light, heat, and humidity, as well as the location of
storage facilities. UNESCO published guidelines for museums globally to follow and implement
in 1958 as a means of facilitating this change and ensuring that collections were protected. The
timing of the publication was perfect in that museums were also undergoing expansion and
91
renovation projects, at which time they were able to incorporate these guidelines into their
buildings. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1989, museums
shifted their focus yet again to two emerging aspects: technology and the visitor. Museums
worked to bring technology into their exhibitions in order to provide more information to the
visitor, as well as reach a wider audience base. Research into the types of people that visit
museums developed, such as John Falk’s theoretical models, into new techniques for display and
exhibitions, for the American museum wished to remain relevant to the population by providing
meaningful and memorable experiences for their visitors. All of these techniques are relevant
today, though the incorporation of technology began an ethical debate regarding the benefits and
drawbacks of such practices, and the new concept of a participatory museum challenges the older
methods of display by promoting visitor feedback, relegating some of the power of the institution
to those who utilize it.
The Cleveland Museum of Art represents the shifts in American museology in addition to
the growth and development of the city of Cleveland. The CMA was born in the midst of the
First World War and the transition of museums from private to public, education driven
institutions, opening in 1916 to Clevelanders. It promoted education by collecting and displaying
artifacts from multiple regions of the world and various time periods, using labels to convey
information about the artifacts to the visitors. The museum reflected the wealth of Cleveland at
the same time, bringing power, prestige, and legitimacy to the sixth largest American city.
During the 1950s, the continually growing museum underwent an expansion program, adding a
new wing to the building. With the priority shifted to preservation, the CMA used the expansion
project to add air conditioning and air cleaning systems in order to better preserve its holdings
from environmental pollutants. Later on, in the early 1990s, the museum celebrated its legacy
92
and wealth. The 75th Anniversary festivities included three travelling exhibitions, bringing
record numbers of visitors to the institution while also utilizing technology to reach more people.
Surveys were offered as a chance for visitors to present feedback on the exhibitions, reflecting
the need to create memorable experiences and determine the success of the exhibitions. The
Cleveland Museum of Art underwent another renovation in recent years, bringing the museum
into the modern, twenty-first century with a new atrium and new, larger gallery spaces. The
museum is still a center of education, prestige, and experimentation with the development of
Gallery One, a space combining technology and art.
Finally, the Egyptian collection and gallery illustrates the combination of these themes. It
began as a foundational collection for the CMA, forming in 1913 through the efforts of Lucy
Perkins, Henry Kent, and the CMA Director Frederic Whiting. The collection provided
legitimacy for the CMA in 1916, highlighting the educational purpose of the museum by
displaying art from one of the oldest, most recognized civilizations in world history. Egypt’s
integration into the museum’s holdings also reflected the continuing presence of the ancient
region in popular culture, a concept referred to as Egyptomania. The Egyptian artifacts also
provided an opportunity to validate the authenticity of art museums and their collections by
displaying real artifacts with historical value and meaning. Over the decades, new acquisitions
were made for the collection, though the Cold War and the nationalization movement in Egypt
during the 1950s affected this trend by placing the purchase of new artifacts on hold from 19481952. Also, preservation became of greater concern during this decade, as the collection’s gallery
display changed in order to foster this new priority. The change occurred during the CMA’s
renovation, completed in 1958. The display moved from a gallery filled with natural light to a
darker, larger room with fewer opportunities for the destruction of the artifacts. With the start of
93
the 75th Anniversary celebrations a few decades later, the Egyptian collection took on new status
as a travelling exhibition, “Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World,” came to the
CMA, rekindling the fascination of Egypt in visitors. Technology was utilized in combination
with the artifacts to reach more audiences, notably in the forms of movies and audio tours. The
visitor experience was also a concern for the exhibit, and the museum used surveys to collect
data from visitors about their experience in the exhibition, the majority of which was positive. In
recent decades, though, the Egyptian collection is no longer considered a draw for the museum.
There is no curator for the art, visitors do not understand the layout of the gallery, and there is no
urgency in fixing the problems that the staff are aware of. However, another travelling exhibition
focusing on the Pharaohs of Egypt, may yet again rekindle the influence and draw of the
mystical, exotic land of the Nile, bringing visitors to the Cleveland Museum of Art for a
memorable experience.
All in all, the Cleveland Museum of Art’s Egyptian collection and gallery brings history
and art to the public, influenced by events occurring in the world and in the evolution of museum
studies. The future will continue to see the incorporation of technology into the galleries and new
methods of drawing visitors to the museum, both of which will further ethical debates about, and
research into, the visitor experience. The Egyptian collection, unfortunately, may not grow and
may not be the foundational aspect of the museum as it once was. However, the fascination with
Egypt and Egyptian history is still strong today, as evidenced by the new film “Gods of Egypt,”
continuing the presence of Egypt in popular culture. Therefore, the collection at the Cleveland
Museum of Art will remain, strong and proud as the Pyramids in Giza, along the shore of Lake
Erie, standing as a reminder of the ancient past, of the mysterious, exotic land of the Nile, and as
testament to the longevity of the human race.
94
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
American Periodicals Series Online.
http://search.proquest.com/americanperiodicals/advanced?accountid=11835.
Articles from The New York Times, 1922-1930.
Articles from The Plain Dealer, 1913-2015.
The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 1950-1993. In JSTOR
https://www.jstor.org/journal/bulleclevmuseart.
Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov.
The Cleveland Museum of Art staff. “Mission Statement.” The Cleveland Museum of Art.
http://www.clevelandart.org/about/history-and-mission/mission-statement (accessed
March 26, 2015).
The Cleveland Museum of Art staff. “Renovation and Expansion Project: Overview.” The
Cleveland Museum of Art. http://www.clevelandart.org/join-and-give/support-thetransformation/renovation-and-expansion-project/overview (accessed April 10, 2015).
“Educational Programs for Amenhotep III, From NEH Submission 12/1990.” Box 78, Folder:
Amenhotep III-Programs-PI-Credit Lines-William Talbot’s Office (cited as Amenhotep
Collection). The Cleveland Museum of Art Ingalls Library Archive, Cleveland, OH.
Exhibition Compendium: Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, Amenhotep III and his World, July 1, 1992 –
September 27, 1992. Box 78, Folders: Programs-PI-Credit Lines-William Talbot’s
Office, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.
95
Interview with Jeffrey Strean, Director of Facilities, March 23, 2015.
Interview with Lori Wienke, Assistant Director of Interpretation, March 31, 2015 and February
29, 2016 via email.
“Memorandum of Agreement.” Articles of Incorporation. Box 1, Folder 1: CMA Articles of
Incorporation. The Cleveland Museum of Art Ingalls Library Archive, Cleveland, OH.
Noblecourt, A. Protection of Cultural Property In the Event of Armed Conflict. UNESCO:
UNESCO, 1958. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000712/071205eo.pdf (accessed
Feb. 13, 2016).
Photographs of the Egyptian Gallery and “Egypt’s Dazzling Sun.” The Cleveland Museum of
Art Archives, Cleveland, OH.
Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting: Howard Carter Correspondence. Box
37, Folder 445a-e: Howard Carter, 1913-1919.
Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting: Emily G. Gibson Correspondence.
Box 40, Folder 500: Emily G. Gibson, 1913-1916.
Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting: Lucy Olcott Perkins Correspondence.
Box 52, Folder 748: Lucy Olcott Perkins: Egyptian Antiquities, 1912-1915.
Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting: Mrs. Caroline Grant Williams
Correspondence. Box 61, Folder 1106: Caroline Ransom (Mrs. Grant) Williams, 19161931.
Viñoly, Rafael. In Gregory M. Donley, “Civic Architecture,” 8-9. Cleveland Museum of Art
Members Magazine (May 2002).
96
“Visitor Survey- Statistical Comparison for Three Surveys.” Box 78, Folder: Amenhotep III
Survey- William Talbot’s Office (cited as Survey Collection). The Cleveland Museum of
Art Ingalls Library Archive, Cleveland, OH.
Secondary Sources
Alexander, Edward P. and Mary Alexander. Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History
and Functions of Museums. New York: AltaMira Press, 2008.
Andermann Jens, and Silke Arnold-de Simine. “Introduction: Memory, Community and the New
Museum.” Theory, Culture & Society 29 no. 1 (2012): 3-13.
Anderson, Gail, ed. Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the
Paradigm Shift. New York: AltaMira Press, 2004.
Bennett, Tony. “Civic Seeing: Museums and the Organization of Vision.” In Critical
Trajectories: Culture, Society, and Politics, edited by Tony Bennett, 121-137. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
Bennett, Tony. “The Exhibitionary Complex.” New Formations, no. 4 (1988), 73-102.
Berman, Lawrence. Catalogue of Egyptian Art: The Cleveland Museum of Art. Cleveland: The
Cleveland Museum of Art, 1999.
Black, Graham. Transforming Museums in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Routledge,
2012.
Brand, Laurie A. Official Stories: Politics and National Narratives in Egypt and Algeria.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014.
Brands, H. W. Into the Labyrinth: The United States and the Middle East, 1945-1993. New
York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1994.
97
Brier, Bob. “Egyptomania!” Archaeology 57 no. 1 (Jan/Feb 2004), 16-22.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41780856 (accessed April 19, 2015).
Carbonell, Bettina Messias, ed. Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, 2004.
The Cleveland Museum of Art. The Cleveland Museum of Art: Catalogue of the Inaugural
Exhibition of the Cleveland Museum of Art, June 6-September 20, 1916. Cleveland: The
Cleveland Museum of Art, 1916.
The Cleveland Museum of Art Staff. “Cleveland Museum of Art: Founders.” The Cleveland
Museum of Art. Under Collection, in Focus. http://www.clevelandart.org/research/in-thelibrary/collection-in-focus/cleveland-museum-art-founders (accessed Jan 17, 2016).
Confino, Alon. “Collective Memory and Cultural History: Problems of Method.” The American
Historical Review 102, no. 5 (Dec. 1997): 1386-1403.
Conn, Steven. Museums and American Intellectual Life, 1876-1926. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1998.
Conn, Steven. Do Museums Still Need Objects?. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
2010.
Corsane, Gerard, ed. Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An Introductory Reader. New York:
Routledge, 2005.
Crane, Susan A. “Writing the Individual Back into Collective Memory.” The American
Historical Review 102, no. 5 (Dec. 1997): 1372-1385.
Curl, James Stevens. Egyptomania: The Egyptian Revival: a Recurring Theme in the History of
Taste. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994.
98
Eckels, Claire Wittler. “The Egyptian Revival in America,” Archaeology 3 no.3 (Sept 1950),
164-169. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41662395, (accessed May 14, 2015).
Falk, John H. Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast
Press Inc., 2009.
Falk, John H. and Lynn Dierking. The Museum Experience. Washington DC: Whalesback
Books, 1992.
Fisher, Genevieve. “Preventive Care.” In Museum Registration Methods 5th Edition, edited by
Rebecca A. Buck and Jean Allman Gilmore, 287-292. Washington D.C.: The American
Alliance of Museums Press, 2010.
Fritsch, Juliette, ed. Museum Gallery Interpretation and Material Culture. New York:
Routledge, 2011.
Genoways, Hugh H., ed. Museum Philosophy for the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: AltaMira
Press, 2006.
Giguere, Joy M. Characteristically American: Memorial Architecture, National Identity, and the
Egyptian Revival. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 2014.
Gunn, Simon. History and Cultural Theory. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006.
Holt, Frank L. “Egyptomania: Have We Cursed the Pharaohs?” Archaeology 39 no. 2
(March/April 1986), 60-63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41731744, (accessed April 19,
2015).
Jacobs, Matthew F. Imagining the Middle East: The Building of an American Foreign Policy,
1918-1967. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011.
Johnston, Patricia, ed. Seeing High & Low: Representing Social Conflict in American Visual
Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.
99
Karp, Ivan, Corinne A. Kratz, Lynn Szwaja, et al., eds. Museum Frictions. Durham: Duke
University Press, 2006.
Keating, W. Dennis, et al, eds. Cleveland: A Metropolitan Reader. Kent: Kent State University,
1995.
Knell, Simon J, Suzanne MacLeod, and Sheila Watson, ed. Museum Revolutions: How Museums
Change and are Changed. New York: Routledge, 2007.
Kozloff, Arielle, Betsy M. Bryan, and Lawrence M. Berman. Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep
III and His World. Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art in cooperation with Indiana
University Press, 1992.
Levine, Lawrence. Highbrow, Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.
Lidchi, Henrietta. “The Poetics and the Politics of Exhibiting Other Cultures.” In
Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, edited by Stuart Hall,
151-220. New York: SAGE Publications, 1997.
Little, Douglas. American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945.
Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002.
Marstine, Janet, ed. New Museum Theory and Practice: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, 2013.
McAlister, Melani. Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests in the Middle East,
1945-2000. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.
McKenna-Cress, Polly and Janet A. Kamien. Creating Exhibitions: Collaboration in the
Planning, Development, and Design of Innovative Experiences. Hoboken, New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013.
100
The Metropolitan Museum of Art. “Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History: Design, 1925-50.” The
Metropolitan Museum of Art. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dsgn2/hd_dsgn2.htm
(accessed January 25, 2016).
The Metropolitan Museum of Art. “Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History: Egyptian Revival.” The
Metropolitan Museum of Art. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/erev/hd_erev.htm
(accessed January 25, 2016).
Miller, Carol Poh and Robert A. Wheeler. Cleveland: A Concise History, 1796-1990.
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990.
Miller, Carol Poh and Robert A. Wheeler. “Cleveland: The Making and Remaking of an
American City, 1796-1993.” In Cleveland: A Metropolitan Reader, edited by W. Dennis
Keating, et. al, 31-48. Kent: The Kent State University Press, 1995.
Osman, Tarek. Egypt on the Brink: From Nasser to Mubarak. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2010.
Rutherford, Bruce K. Egypt After Mubarak: Liberalism, Islam, and Democracy in the Arab
World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993.
Schwarzer, Marjorie. Riches, Rivals & Radicals: 100 Years of Museums in America. Washington
DC: American Association of Museums, 2012.
Semat, Aude. “Art and Power in Ancient Egypt.” The Cleveland Magazine (March/April 2016).
http://www.clevelandart.org/magazine/marchapril-2016/art-and-power-ancient-egypt
(accessed Feb. 29, 2016).
Sherman, Daniel J. and Irit Rogoff, eds. Museum Culture: Histories, Discourses, Spectacles.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994.
101
Simon, Nina. The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0, 2010.
Smith, Jeffrey K. The Museum Effect: How Museums, Libraries, and Cultural Institutions
Educate and Civilize Society. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014.
Turner, Evan H., ed. Object Lessons: Cleveland Creates an Art Museum. Cleveland: The
Cleveland Museum of Art, 1991.
UNESCO. “Introducing UNESCO.” Under About. http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducingunesco (accessed Feb. 13, 2016).
Victoria and Albert Museum. “Art Deco: Global Inspiration.” Victoria and Albert Museum.
http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/art-deco-global-inspiration/ (accessed January
25, 2016).
Warf, Barney and Brian Holly. “The Rise and Fall and Rise of Cleveland.” Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 551 (May 1997): 208-221.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1047948 (accessed Feb. 13, 2016).
Weeks, Kent R. “Archaeology and Egyptology.” In Egyptology Today, edited by Richard H.
Wilkinson, 7-22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Weiner, Ronald R. Lake Effects: A History of Urban Policy Making in Cleveland, 1825-1929.
Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 2005.
Witchey, Holly Rarick and John Vacha. Fine Arts in Cleveland: An Illustrated History.
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994.
Wittke, Carl. The First Fifty Years: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1916-1966. Cleveland: The
John Huntington Art and Polytechnic Trust and the Cleveland Museum of Art, 1966.
102