Centre for Heritage Research, University of Leeds

CENTRE FOR HERITAGE RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS

THE ETHICS OF MUSEUM DISPLAY: CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON INTERPRETING SLAVERY OBJECTS

24TH OCTOBER 2007

HELD IN THE EDUCATION SUITE, THE COURTYARD

HAREWOOD HOUSE, YORKSHIRE

WORKSHOP NOTES

Delegates first assembled in the Entrance Hall at Harewood House and were welcomed and introduced to Harewood House by Mick Stanley (Harewood House). Mick had very kindly stepped in at the last moment as David Lascelles was unable to attend, and briefly outlined the history of the house and the Lascelles family. There followed a very comprehensive tour of the piano nobile at Harewood led by the senior curator Melissa Gallimore. Melissa proved an excellent guide, explaining the context for the displays and the rationale underlying the 1807 bicentenary exhibition material on display throughout the main floor at Harewood. Will Rea (History of Art, University of Leeds), who was instrumental in designing the exhibition of African Art in the exhibition rooms at Harewood, directed attention to some of the African Art objects on display and explained the context of the exhibition. The tour continued into the sub-hall at Harewood, where Melissa explained the relationship of the contemporary art exhibition to the 1807 bicentenary and the history of the Lascelles family and Harewood House.

Following the tour delegates made their way to the Education Suite in the Courtyard at the stable block at Harewood House for the start of the workshop proper. The Workshop was formally opened by Graeme Gooday (HPS) and suggested that the workshop was an excellent opportunity for ethicists and museum professionals to reflect on the 1807 bicentenary of the abolition of slavery. Graeme drew attention to the purpose of the Ethics Workshop;

1. To bring together curators, historical researchers and ethicists at the end of the bicentennial year to share museological practices on slavery heritage.

2. To articulate solutions to the challenge of representing the particular ethically sensitive issues of slavery collections at Harewood House, especially in view of the revelations from the Lascelles Papers published by the Borthwick Institute.

3. To comment critically on the application of the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics to issues of slavery heritage.

Graeme further outlined the broader objectives of the CHR, its research aims in the Yorkshire region, and its purpose to identify possible collaborative projects and to seek opportunities for funding for such projects. Graeme also directed attention to the information on the CHR website; Graeme hoped that the CHR Harewoodworkshop would act as a catalyst for a range of KPT and other collaborative projects. Highlighting one of the specific objectives of the CHR Ethics Workshop Graeme directed attention to the Museums Association Code of Ethics, especially points 9.5 and 9.6 in the code, and posed a important rhetorical question to the audience at the Workshop, asking what is ‘sufficient’ to be ‘sensitive and respectful’ in the context of the interpretation of Slavery artefacts?

Terry Suthers (former Director of the Harewood House Trust) delivered the first paper of the afternoon with a focus on The Lascelles West Indies Papers,now held at the Borthwick Institute in York. Terry said that Harewood House had been addressing the issue of its connections to the Slave Trade over the last few years and this had proved both interesting and challenging. The Lascelles family were not fully aware of these details in the history of Harewood, which had not been passed down, and this. Terry suggested that this contrasted with the folklore history in the West Indies where the common adoption of the Lascelles name was still a tangible legacy of the families’ former presence. Terry outlined the rather romantic discovery of the Lascelles Papers, which had been found in several deed boxes secreted in wall-safe backing onto a flue in the 1990s. This discovery, filmed later by the BBC as part of the ‘House Detectives’ series, acted as a catalyst for research into this aspect of the history of Harewood. Terry contacted Professor Jim Walvin at YorkUniversity, and a project for reviewing, interpreting and publicising the Lascelles papers evolved with the help of Dr Simon Smith and Dr Doug Hamilton. The Seacole Charitable Trust provided funding for the review of the papers and the Leverhulme Trust provided funding for further research, which involved visits to London and Barbados. One of the results arising from the research was Simon Smith’s publication on the economic and trading history of the Lascelles family in the 18th century. Terry highlighted that it was felt important that the present members of the Lascelles family were part of the project from the beginning, this was a journey for the family too, and the family became excited by and deeply interested in the project. Terry then outlined some of the details that emerged from the research by Simon Smith and Jim Walvin. The main focus was on three distinct periods in the history of the family; as merchants, traders, planters and customs officials (c.1648-1734); as London financiers (1734-1774); and as Members of Parliament and absentee landlords in the West Indies (1774-1838). The papers led to some interesting discoveries, a painting of a ship, ‘The Lascelles’, hanging in the steward’s room at Harewood for example, was revealed to be one the trading ships of the family. Terry informed the Workshop that a decision was taken to deposit the archive at the Borthwick Institute, University of York, which had an excellent reputation for conservation and a HLF grant was secured to conserve the papers. It was also felt important thatthe papers should have further scholarly access and Terry indicated that the papers were now beingdigitized, allowing worldwide access to this resource. This was, Terry suggested, part of an ethical decision to make the papers more accessible, and was a part of the HLF grant application. A further ethical dimension was highlighted when Terry indicated that representatives from the communities in the West Indies had been consulted about the interpretation of the history of the slave trade and Harewood House.

Melissa Gallimore (Harewood House) then discussed the issues involved in actually presenting and interpreting the slavery artefacts at Harewood House. Melissa outlined the context for the 1807 displays and exhibition, and how, as a curator, she had negotiated the ethical considerations at the heart of a sensitive interpretation of slavery artefacts. Melissa highlighted two important considerations; what was Harewood to do with the 1807 exhibition after 2007. And how do the issues raised by 1807 fit with the existing interpretation at Harewood.

Melissa explained that there were many curatorial issues to be negotiated in the display and interpretation of slavery at Harewood. The main problem is that fact that there are very few specific objects to interpret. There were problems, for example, in distilling information into the standard 100 word limit recommended by curators forinformation text panels. Decisions also needed to be taken in respect of where to display the artefacts. Melissa explained that whilst a separate exhibition in the dedicated exhibitions rooms at Harewood was considered it was decided that the best way to display the slavery artefacts was in small displays throughout the main floor in the house. But this decision also had problems, because large scale objects could not be moved to small displays. There were also the problems of how to be to sensitive to the family history and their connections to the history of slavery, and the problem of negotiating the expectations of the conventional country house visitor (something that Laruajane Smith, later in the Workshop, also highlighted). There was some resistance by visitors to the notion that Harewood and slavery was a legitimate subject for display in the house. Many people had come to Harewood for a ‘nice day out’ and did not wish to be reminded of such problematic history.

Melissa highlighted some of the strategies that had evolved in the curatorial process, including an innovative educational leaflet for the 1807 exhibition, and the staging of the Carnival Messiah at Harewood. The Carnival had started as a project at Bretton Hall and had been reinterpreted at the West Yorkshire Playhouse in Leeds. David, David Lascelles, took up the idea for Harewood and wanted the Carnival to celebrate Harewood House and the West Indian community of Leeds. Melissa explained that Carnival Messiah also involved a Caribbean Food Weekend and included 20 performances over 2 weeks, with the production itself involving a part-professional, part-community chorus. A HLF grant had funded a number of educational outreach programmes associated with the project, emphasising a ‘shared heritage’. Melissa suggested that the exhibition had also allowed Harewood to demonstrate that it was not afraid of revealing these problematic histories and allowed Harewood to confront accusations that it was trying to hide its links to slavery.

Finally, Melissa drew attention to how the future education and interpretation initiatives at Harewood would build on the information that has come to light in the archive. It was considered vital to continue the work on slavery history at Harewood. Slavery research must be part of the everyday interpretation at Harewood House and the dialogue that had been established between Harewood and the local West Indian community must remain open. Melissa indicated that there had been specific initiatives arising from the 1807 exhibition, such as the granting of a Harewood Card (allowing free visits) to all the participants in Carnival Messiah, and Harewood was also intending to develop a Young Ambassadors Scheme. Indeed, the theme for next year at Harewood was ‘China’ and there were already plans for a dragon boat race, with the involvement of a wide variety of communities.

Will Rea (History of Art, Leeds University), who had very kindly stepped in at the last moment because one of the speakers was unable to attend, discussed the displays of African artefacts in the exhibition rooms at Harewood, part of the 1807 exhibition. Will had co-curated this exhibition with Sarah Brown and explained how the catalyst for the exhibition was his involvement with some displays of African Art belonging to Ronnie Duncan at the LeedsUniversity gallery. Will suggested that there was double ethical dilemma in the exhibition at Harewood House; the ethics of displaying African art itself, and the extra complexity arising from the issues at Harewood. Will outlined the history of the problems of the display of African artefacts, taking the Workshop audience through a familiar trajectory that took in notions of a timeless ‘authenticity’ and the aesthetics of Modernism, and the issues of the repatriation of African objects collected during Colonialism and Imperialism. Will explained that the difficulty was how to deal effectively with these issues for a public that was mostly unaware of the historical trajectory of African Art. 1807 proved to be a base-point, and offered the opportunity to make links between a number of ideas and issues. Will drew attention to the significance of a number of African Art objects, and also suggested that he felt that it was important that the display drew on the space and decorations of the exhibition rooms at Harewood to produce a sense of an aesthetic display, rather than trying to explain the social and symbolic function of the African objects. Will also explained that he felt that it was important to present some contemporary African Art in the display, as this would go some way to subvert the notion that African Art signified a timeless ‘authentic’ art.

Laurajane Smith (University of York) presented the next paper, which was based on an AHRC research project and a Knowledge Transfer Grant she held along with Geoff Cubit. Laurajane’s project was to investigate audience responses to 1807 exhibitions at various museums/galleries in various locations. Laurajane had conducted ca 300 visitor surveys at museums/galleries in Liverpool, 200 in Birmingham, 100 in Bristol and 91 at Harewood House and provided an analysis of the results so far. Laurajane suggested that the social demographics of the visitors to 1807 exhibitions in Liverpool, Bristol and Birmingham had appeared to have changed, but the visitor demographic to Harewood had not really changed to any significant degree since her earlier survey in 2004. Laurajane gave some examples of the responses given by visitors to the Harewood House 1807 exhibition. The results suggested that ethnically white visitors mostly felt confronted by the issue of slavery or did not wish to engage with the issue of slavery at Harewood. Laurajane suggested that as the majority of visitors to Harewood fell into a particular social demographic, and that their visits were part of a performance and a process of ‘asserting a positive sense of British identity’, they had some difficulty in negotiating the problematic of slavery in the country house context. Laurajane concluded that it was perhaps ironic that Harewood is a representation of slavery given its place as a signifier of middle-class identity, and that this makes the 1807 exhibition particularly problematic.

Geoff Cubit (University of York), who was also, like Laurajane, a member of the University of York’s ‘1807 Commemorated’ project, had undertaken research into various exhibitions on the 1807 bi-centenary. Geoff outlined, using selected examples, the ways in which museums and exhibitions established and explored the local relevance of the histories of slavery and abolition. He directed attention to the factors and constraints that shaped their strategies for doing this, and highlighted the conceptual and ethical issues that were raised by these ‘localising’ strategies.

There followed a short question and answer session and a lively debate, led by Graeme Gooday. Jim Parry (HPS) began the session as respondent, deliberately striking at the heart of the matter and, rather provocatively, asked ‘what’s wrong with slavery?’ Jim suggested that we need to ask the question what makes slavery wrong. Was it, Jim asked, that it was wrong to ‘own’ people, or did slavery subvert the notion of ‘human rights’? Was it a question of ‘responsibility’? If so, what responsibility do we have, and do we bear the responsibility for continuing to benefit from slavery? Jim suggested that there was a potential imbalance in the responsibility of the benefits from slavery. Did the working class, for example, benefit in the same way that other classes benefited? Jim concluded that we need to think about applying some kind of principles to these debates, suggesting that we had a ‘duty’ to future people.

Graeme Gooday took up Jim’s suggestions and asked how do we display these slavery exhibits without exploiting them, drawing attention to the notion that by exhibiting slavery artefacts we may be ‘exploiting’ them in new ways.

Melissa responded, suggesting that the displays at Harewood were problematic, but it was difficult to stage the exhibition without forcing the issue. She informed the Workshop that the position of DavidLascelles, was not to apologise for his ancestors but to acknowledge their involvement in the slave trade and celebrate what Harewood is today, and she agreed. She considered that the exhibition had allowed the issue of slavery and Harewood to be raised, and hoped that it would act as a catalyst for debate.

Geoff Cubit agreed that the exhibitions do not question why we now think that slavery is wrong, suggesting that perhaps slavery is wrong through an analogy with ‘cruelty’. But this, Geoff suggested, was a composite answer and dodges the slavery issue. However, Geoff suggested that the may be a value in this ‘fuzziness’, in these questions as they direct attention to other aspects of slavery. Geoff also considered that many of the slavery exhibitions are less to do with condemnation than with understanding. Slavery, Geoff suggested, could be a device to explore what the limits of our responsibility could be.

One respondent (I’m sorry I didn’t get his name) suggested that one of the problems highlighted in Laurajane’s presentation was that academics often take it as read that slavery is bad, but that the wider population do not always see it this way. Malcolm Chase (History, Leeds) suggested that the wealthy context at Harewood House was overwhelming, and that this was part of the problem of attempting the slavery exhibition at Harewood. There was no obvious point, Malcolm suggested, at which the exhibition ended. For example, the black footman in the Servant’s Hall, was this part of the exhibition too? There was, Malcolm said, a danger of tokenism in the exhibition at Harewood. Melissa responded with some agreement, but indicated that it was felt important that the narrative of slavery and Harewood should continue. And Terry Suthers agreed that Harewood could have done more, but there were restrictions in what could be done, and it was difficult to try to display everything they wanted to. The policy was not to hide anything but to use the exhibition to provide a platform for debate. Terry also reiterated that Harewood hoped to continue working with the local community and was endeavouring to keep these relationships going. Harewood, Terry said, had a responsibility to do so, and Mick Stanley (Harewood House) expanded on this explaining that the Harewood website would provide an opportunity to make the Lascelles papers more accessible.