Examines the ways that curators have attempted to represent multiple forms of indigenous experience and politics in exhibition, including the successes and failures of the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, DC (Smith), the hybridizing curatorial legacies of Rene d'Hamoncourt (Lutkehaus), and the contemporary “transpacific fusion” artworks of Michael Nicoll Yahgulanaas (Levell).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmesMichael1994. “What Happens When the Object Becomes the Subject?” in Harbour. Vol. 3, No. 1.
2.
BeeHarriet, and ElligottMichelle (eds). 2004. Art in Our Time: A Chronicle of The Museum of Modern Art.New York, NY: Museum of Modern Art.
3.
Cobb-GreethamAmanda, and LonetreeAmy (eds). 2008. The National Museum of the American Indian: Critical Conversations.Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
4.
ColesAlex2000. Site-Specificity: The Ethnographic Turn.London: Black Dog Publishing.
5.
GonzálezJennifer. 2008. Subject to Display. Reframing Race in Contemporary Installation Art.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McMasterGerald2007. “Museums and the Native Voice,” in PollockGriselda, and ZemansJoyce (eds), Museums After Modernism: Strategies of Engagement.Oxford: Blackwell Publishing: 70–79.
8.
OlesJames2002. “For Business or Pleasure: Exhibiting Mexican Folk Art, 1820–1930,” in DanlySusan (ed), Casa Mañana: The Morrow Collection of Mexican Popular Arts.Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
9.
OstrowitzJudith2009. Native American Art for Far-Flung Territories.Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
10.
RushingW. Jackson, 1995. Native American Art and the New York Avant-Garde.Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
11.
SchraderRobert1983. The Indian Arts and Crafts Board: An Aspect of New Deal Policy.Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
12.
SmithPaul Chaat2009. Everything You Know About Indians is Wrong.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
