Meditations and Mediations on the Sacred

Readers of the original NY Times article about the Association of Art Museum Directors’ new report on The Acquisition and Stewardship of Sacred Objects may have been surprised to see a large photograph of the Tibetan Buddhist altar at the Newark Museum, which is nowhere mentioned in the article itself.
Although neither the article nor the caption says so, the photo illustrates the last of several examples cited in AAMD’s report of “special care” that American museums have given to sacred objects:
Museums can also work directly with artists as well as religious leaders of indigenous cultures. In one example, a Tibetan artist was provided an artist-in-residency in order to replace a Buddhist altar originally constructed by an American artist. The Tibetan artist worked with museum staff and Tibetan consultants in the design and creation of the new altar, which was consecrated by the 14th Dalai Lama after its completion.
Strangely, AAMD’s report does not identify the Newark Museum as its “one example” of a museum that altered its altar. The museum’s original altar had also been consecrated by the Dalai Lama. The new altar was created in 1988-1990 and painted by Tibetan artist Phuntsok Dorje, who had trained at a Tibetan monastery. The consecration ceremony, as described by the museum, was elaborately religious:
His Holiness, the XIV Dalai Lama first made three prostrations and presented a white kata, a silk scarf, which is the traditional Tibetan greeting symbolizing purity. Next, prayers were chanted, with grain tossed between chants to make the prayers “true” and “solid.” The potent emblems of tantric Buddhism, the dorje and bell (power and wisdom) were held in special positions. The central moment of the ceremony was an invocation to the Buddhas who have promised to stay in this world to teach enlightenment to all and not to enter final Nirvana until this task is completed.
Some, including Tiffany Jenkins, the author of the provocative New Statesman article that I cited in a previous post, might consider such religious rites inappropriate to a museum. Jenkins wrote:
Museum directors must not act as priests, nor must they treat the public as their flock. Idolatry has no place in museum policy. Those with faith already have churches and other places to venerate religious icons. If museums continue to be confused with places of worship, we will all suffer, as the pursuit of truth is sacrificed on the altar of veneration.
It seems to me that respecting and celebrating cultural differences is part of the job description of museum officials and is not the same thing as “idolatry.” Given the fact that many ceremonially significant objects may have been illicitly or improperly expropriated from their original societies, it seems clear that the best resolution of custodial issues is, whenever possible, a negotiated compromise that balances the interests of public access and sacred strictures.
But when the function of honoring an object’s original meaning and context conflicts with museums’ equally important missions of making objects publicly accessible and valuing them for their intrinsic beauty, something’s got to give. The criteria for resolution should be similar to those for returning or retaining antiquities: If an object was improperly acquired and is of high significance to its society of origin, there is a strong argument for giving it back or at least honoring the wishes of the society of origin regarding care and display.