On Object Dialogue Boxes: Silence, Empathy and Unknowing Dr Alexandra Woodall Head of Learning, Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, University of East Anglia1 [email protected] Biography Alexandra Woodall is Head of Learning at the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, where she also undertakes research and teaches undergraduates and postgraduates across disciplines including Museum Studies, Art History and Education. Her PhD at the School of Museum Studies, University of Leicester, was supervised by Dr Sandra Dudley and explores encounters between people and things, focusing on imaginative and sensory engagements with objects in art galleries. She has worked in museum and gallery learning, interpretation and exhibitions roles in the UK since 2001, including at the Royal Armouries in Leeds, Manchester Art Gallery, Museums Sheffield and Kettle’s Yard in Cambridge. She has an MPhil in Mystical Theology from the University of Cambridge and, prior to working in museums and galleries, she was a teacher of Religious Studies and Philosophy. Dedication This paper is written in memory of Dr Elee Kirk (1977 – 2016): a brilliant thinker and doer, a creative museum educator, and an inspiring researcher. Keywords Object Dialogue Box Mystical theology Material interpretation Silence Unknowing 1 Abstract Museums and the objects they hold are full of noise, yet at the same time, they are silent. They are ‘places of knowledge’, where people access and interpret objects through research, dialogue, display and participation. Yet their objects are often hidden away, physically inaccessible, or devoid of original context and information. This paper explores the oxymoronic ‘deafening silence’ of the museum object by investigating 'Object Dialogue Boxes' and visitors’ responses to these. Made by artists Karl Foster and Kimberley Foster, these boxes contain surreal things made as interpretive or pedagogical art objects. Use of these objects, as a form of ‘material interpretation’ enables visitors to respond to collections in imaginative, empathetic and playful ways. Yet the objects inside the boxes are unfamiliar and strange. Provoking an initial silence, they often destabilise visitors, whose expectations of museum visiting might be to know and find out, but who now find themselves in a situation of deliberate not knowing. This paper explores ‘unknowing’ as an interpretive strategy, arguing that it allows for rich empathetic responses to objects from visitors. Paradoxically, this engagement is often as much about silence as it is about dialogue. The paper experiments with the twin metaphors of cataphasis and apophasis (derived from mystical theology), to explore some of these paradoxes, and concludes by suggesting they are helpful in developing imaginative strategies for museum and gallery interpretation. 2 Introduction In her influential practical guide to making museums more accessible for a wide range of communities, ‘museum visionary’ Nina Simon2 begins her chapter ‘Social Objects’ with the following: Imagine looking at an object not for its artistic or historical significance but for its ability to spark conversation. Every museum has artifacts that lend themselves naturally to social experiences. It might be an old stove that triggers visitors to share memories of their grandmother’s kitchen, or an interactive building station that encourages people to play cooperatively […] These artifacts and experiences are all social objects. (Simon 2010, C4) For Simon, not all objects are social (cf. Appadurai (1986) and Kopytoff (1986)), but those that are, are ‘the content around which conversation happens’ (2010, C4). Conversation for Simon is a positive outcome of a museum visit, where learning facts about things is not necessarily the central aim, but where an imaginative response to objects, and engagement with both things and with others, is. Those objects that are ‘social’ have common attributes: they are personal, active, provocative and relational. They inspire dialogue with others. The objects that Simon describes as being social are arguably those that have the capacity also to engender empathy in museum visitors: they spark conversation, trigger memory or enable cooperation. Although defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as ‘the ability to understand and appreciate another person’s feelings, experience etc.’, the notion of empathy is a contested one. Discussed variously across disciplines from psychology and the medical humanities (Bleakley 2015) to pedagogy and the teaching of history (Davis et al. 2001), theorists often use the term either epistemologically, to describe empathy as a cognitive attribute, or socially, to describe it as an affective or emotional attribute. In other words, empathy, or understanding another, can either be something learnt as a skill, or it is something that is experienced and felt. And postmodern historians, most notably, Keith Jenkins, debate whether it is even possible to empathise at all (Jenkins 2003). Can we ever step into the shoes of another person? Or is empathy itself a metaphor? For the purposes of 3 this paper, a second definition from the OED is also drawn upon, whereby empathy is ‘the quality or power of projecting one’s personality into or mentally identifying oneself with an object of contemplation, and so fully understanding or appreciating it.’ The term ‘object’ here can thus be understood either as a person (to differentiate it from the subject doing the empathising), or as a physical thing. Both of these are relevant to what follows, although empathy with people through objects is particularly pertinent to museum practice (see Golding & Modest 2013; Silverman 2010). This paper is an exploratory one. Focusing on a particular creative and object-based pedagogical practice within the museum or art gallery, I develop Simon’s notion that social objects do indeed have the capacity to inspire conversation, dialogue and empathy beyond the factual. While I would argue, going beyond Simon, that all objects have the potential to be social objects, here I have chosen to focus on objects that have been deliberately made to be social, or to be ‘dialogic’. But I also suggest that such objects can achieve just the reverse: paradoxically they often inspire silence and an unknowing, which is just as significant. Indeed dialogue and silence are inter- connected, working together dialectically. Mirroring the very museum itself, objects both speak and remain silent, and visitors’ reactions to them might be at the same time both social (or dialogic) and not social (or silent). In turn, all these reactions can be described as empathetic, be they verbalised or silent. The paper focuses on responses to objects from Object Dialogue Boxes (although other object-based projects are also included). After a brief methodological overview, I describe what an Object Dialogue Box is, tracing elements of its development, exploring how visitors engage with it, and how museum staff reflect on these engagements. Perhaps unusually, I then introduce the discipline of theology. Drawing on two metaphorical concepts derived from the medieval mystical tradition, and not previously used within museological discourse, cataphasis and apophasis, I discuss what I refer to as ‘unknowing’ in museums. Use of such theological metaphors seems to open up conversations and offer the potential for understanding object-based museum practices in new ways, not least in providing a new language to theorise the shared conversations, empathy, unknowing and silences provoked by certain objects. Having introduced these concepts, I then return to analyse the conversations inspired by one session using objects from the Object Dialogue Box to suggest that such 4 theological language might help us explore some paradoxes of the museum context, and can even be useful in developing interpretation strategies for visitor engagement with objects and with each other. Methodology This paper is derived from fieldwork undertaken between 2013 and 2015 which took a qualitative ‘bricoleur’ approach (Costley et al. 2010, 90; Denzin and Lincoln 2003, 5), using mixed methods to explore case studies, including reflective interviews, participant observation, and researcher-led workshops. The data used in this paper is predominantly that derived from some of these reflective interviews held at Museums Sheffield, although aspects of one of the researcher-led workshops held for MA students of Public Humanities, are also described and analysed. Kathryn Roulston uses the term ‘reflective interviews’ to describe her ‘romantic’ approach to interviewing: one in which the researcher may contribute ideas and co- construct data (Roulston 2010). Interviewees here comprised museum staff from across teams (collections, learning and conservation), as well as teachers (mainly senior lecturers at university level) and artists using collections within their practice. They were semi-structured and took place in one-to-one settings (see Denscombe 1998, 113). Each interview began with contextual questions about use of objects and Object Dialogue Boxes and the role the interviewee had in relation to their use with visitors, before moving on to reflections on the value of imaginative interpretations of objects and artwork for both audience and institution. What is an Object Dialogue Box? Object Dialogue Box is the name given to an interpretive resource created by Norwich-based artists Karl Foster and Kimberley Foster during the period when they were working collaboratively under the name ‘hedsor’ (roughly between 2002 and 2015).3 The artists were commissioned on several occasions over a number of years to develop these devices for museums, galleries and heritage sites across the UK, including at the British Library, Royal Norfolk Regimental Museum, Museums 5 Sheffield, Manchester Art Gallery, Harewood House, Turner Contemporary, Imperial War Museums, Nantwich Museum and Rochester Cathedral. I first came across Object Dialogue Boxes in 2004, introduced to them through Bridget McKenzie, then Head of Learning at the British Library, who I interviewed as part of a research project about using galleries to enable children to have philosophical conversations inspired by objects in collections (Woodall 2005). During our discussion, she talked about an extraordinary box that hedsor had made for the Sir John Ritblat Treasures Gallery at the British Library, the permanent exhibition space there, which includes exemplar works, first editions, illuminated manuscripts, and handwritten notebooks. Ranging from Magna Carta, to Gutenberg’s 1455 Bible, to Handel’s Messiah, to Beatles’ lyrics on napkins, all these works are kept behind glass, on display but unable to be read in their entirety: to some extent therefore, they are silenced. A physical book is of course something that usually needs to be held, to turn the pages in order that it can speak.4 But here, this opportunity was missing. The Object Dialogue Box was introduced as one way around this silence and lack of tactility. More significantly for the purposes of this paper, the box was developed as a resource for enabling open-ended questioning with no right or wrong answers. Its strange objects provoked visitors to develop narratives and reflect on questions that they themselves posed of items within the collections on display with others in their groups. The ensuing conversations allowed participants to appreciate the stories of others, often responding empathetically. Above all, it allowed them to be comfortable with not knowing (because the objects were deliberately unfamiliar), and to see beyond objects purely as repositories of information. Consisting of an intriguing outer shell typically designed and constructed as a result of conversations with museum staff, the boxes are often representative of a collection or an institution: they are material metaphors. Manchester Art Gallery’s box is a beehive, since bees represent the city’s industrial revolutionary heritage (see Figure 1), while that at Turner Contemporary, a gallery without a permanent collection but situated by the sea, is made from a large buoy, many examples of which can easily be seen when gazing out of the vast windows of the building. The box made for the Norwich Regimental Museum was designed as part of an intergenerational project 6 between WW2 veterans and secondary school pupils, exploring issues of loss, conflict and memory, and it looks like a giant search-light. Conversations usually begin almost as soon as visitors see the boxes, especially when sessions are facilitated (as most of them are). The boxes are arguably Simon’s ‘social objects’ par excellence: they are personal, active, provocative and relational, both as containers and in the use of their contents. They encourage talking about objects within a museum, when the voices of these objects might otherwise be silenced.5 It is a talking that reveals a distinct form of knowledge, not necessarily based on fact, something that might be called, as will be explored, an ‘unknowing’. Figure 1: Manchester Art Gallery’s beehive Object Dialogue Box. Image courtesy Karl Foster and Kimberley Foster. Object Dialogue Boxes contain a series of surreal objects, usually amalgamations of two familiar things brought together to make something unfamiliar. A toy wheelbarrow pushes along an over-sized apple. A china figure of a cat has its head covered in buttons. The bowl of a spoon is bandaged. An umbrella with its fabric removed has table tennis balls balancing at the end of each spoke. The objects are known and yet they are unknown. They are loud with possibility, yet silent in their impossibility. Visitors are invited to use the strange things as props, or navigational compasses which allow for playful or empathetic connections to be made between this thing in their hand, and the art gallery or museum’s collections on display. Facilitated sessions led by gallery staff or artists encourage reflecting on questions such as: What is it? What does it remind you of? What could it be? Where will it take you? What links will you make? The objects are revealed, selected, questioned and handled to enable the creation of imaginative connections with and between objects in the gallery, and with and between other members of the group. At Museums Sheffield, for example, one of the extraordinary objects in the hexagonal unravelling wooden box was in fact made from a very ordinary white plate of the sort from which one might eat a school dinner, fastened to the centre of which with string, 7 were two smaller white ceramic pieces, one slightly larger than the other (see Figure 2). Both pieces were smooth and almost mushroom-shaped. There was something slightly clinical, perhaps even sinister about this thing. Glassy and cold to the touch, the object had been made heavier than a normal plate by the addition of the ‘mushrooms’. When held upside down, the ‘mushrooms’ dangled, clinking together gently like chimes. Yet when turned back over, the sound of the ‘mushrooms’ on the plate was a loud, disruptive clattering. Figure 2: ‘Mushrooms on a plate’ object from Museums Sheffield’s Object Dialogue Box. Image courtesy Karl Foster and Kimberley Foster. During a research interview, the learning officer there recalled a story created after imaginative handling and exploration of this object, linking it with the collection. In this case, the activity took place in Museums Sheffield’s Graves Gallery in 2013. The learning officer describes how after initial reluctance, hesitation and silence, a group of students discovered a painting, Man with a Skull, in the manner of Jusepe de Ribera (see Figure 3), and made up a story: The man portrayed is a well-loved king, and the plate belonged to him. The king had a servant whom he loved deeply. But the servant became gravely ill and eventually died. The king, having loved the servant, fell into a deep depression, and could not bear to be parted from the servant he had loved. So in order to ensure that he would stay close to his servant, even after death, he decided to cook the body of his servant and then eat him so that he would literally become part of the king. This he did, and all that remained from this gruesome dish were two bones, which the king kept with the plate, and his servant’s skull, portrayed in the painting as his very own memento mori. (from interview in Woodall 2016, 238) Figure 3: Man with a Skull in the manner of Jusepe de Ribera (1590 - 1652). Image courtesy Museums Sheffield. 8 This haptic experience of a curious thing is not based on facts, or context, or traditional curatorial knowledge. Perhaps the students did read some label text, and perhaps they did not. This does not matter. The experience does lead to a sort of knowledge though, an experiential knowledge derived through dialogue, imagination, empathy and made-up stories. But it also leads to, and allows for, silences. Sometimes, there are no words. Handling this object, deeply familiar but at the same time deeply unfamiliar, one can make sense of things in a completely unique, and even playful, way. The painting comes alive and is made known and knowable through a relationship with the material object: sometimes the object speaks, the participants speak, the painting speaks. Objects and dialogue There is of course nothing new in using objects in museums as a starting point for conversation. At the British Museum, a whole partnership programme entitled Talking Objects was developed based on the premise that objects talk (Poulter 2010; Hogsden & Poulter 2012).6 Likewise, Collective Conversations at Manchester Museum was a community programme for diverse groups inspired by objects in the stored collections and was established in 2007 as part of the Revealing Histories7 work to commemorate the UK Abolition of the Slave Trade Act: objects from nutmeg to a Benin Oba bell ‘spoke’ to participants and inspired new conversations (see also Lynch & Alberti 2010).8 In their article about Objects Talk, a community-led exhibition held at the Pitt Rivers Museums in 2002-3, McLellan and Douglas note that it is a positive of that museum that objects there are often left to speak for themselves (2004, 57). However, Objects Talk deliberately used community interpretations to ‘explore the many ways that objects “speak” to people and how people “respond” to them’ (2004, 58). Often the ‘speech’ of the objects was about their materiality, texture or weight, and where this was the case, handling objects were placed alongside in the displays created, thereby (and in a way not dissimilar from the Object Dialogue Box) creating a ‘visual and tactile interpretation, not as a replacement for curatorial expertise, but as an equivalent to it’ (2004, 60). 9 In some of these projects, it could be argued that the object is employed instrumentally to enable something beyond itself. For example, the object in UCL’s The thing is… project is deliberately staged to stimulate debate, to challenge and to deal with conflict, using Robert Janes’ model of museum as ‘dialogue centre’ (Janes 2009, 83). It focuses on ‘unplanned and incidental’ visitor conversations arising from one object. Indeed, project manager Celine West has stated: ‘the conversation is the experience’ (2013, 109). She categorises broad themes of discussions emerging from engaging with objects: narrative/storytelling, questioning, and processing (statements that illustrated visitors’ thought processes about things). The object, although ‘central’, is ironically superseded by conversations of others, and perhaps becomes a mere spectator in the process. Perhaps it is silenced. Each of the aforementioned programmes has a slightly different objective: all are object-centric, and interestingly all have been devised by learning and outreach teams with aims broadly around access and inclusion, rather than from curatorial perspectives. In projects such as these, objects are often used to find things out, but also to empower, overcome or discuss particular political, social, democratic, wellbeing or equality issues. Objects might even be described as levellers, for everyone can be brought into a conversation about and with an object. Objects can also thereby enable empathy with others. The very notion of engagement with an object is often described in political terms: the Fosters refer to holding and talking about one of their objects as being about someone ‘having ownership over their learning, and that idea of saying you have a voice and we like your voice' (Interview B, 03/05/13 in Woodall 2016, 195). At one museum, sessions led by the learning team for speakers of English as a foreign language always start with objects as the initial basis for conversations, either museum objects or the participants’ own things, and likewise, at another institution, a feely-bag is used to ‘get the children comfortable about talking about objects’. It is emphasised that ‘it’s not always about the right and wrong answer; it’s about the thinking that you’ve done to justify what you think’ (Interview L, 18/06/13 in Woodall 2016, 195). Things give people voice. As described by one member of staff: 10