Said Tayeb
Jawad, Afghanistan’s ambassador to the U.S., at Metropolitan Museum’s press preview for his country’s antiquities
I recently wrote about the wrong kind of blockbuster—extravaganzas organized under commercial auspices that are big on evocative atmospherics, low on scholarly
seriousness, and high on exploiting artifacts as cash cows.
Now let’s salute the right kind of blockbuster—Afghanistan: Hidden Treasures from the National Museum, Kabul, which last week opened at the last of its four U.S. venues, the Metropolitan Museum (to Sept. 20).
Some critics, notably Lynne Munson, former deputy chairwoman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, had found fault
with that show when it was being planned, two years ago. Munson alleged (in an interview with Robin Pogrebin of the NY Times) that the exhibition’s organizers were not adequately
compensating Afghanistan for the loan of its great treasures, including
the breathtakingly
beautiful, intricately worked Bactrian gold that glitters at the end of the Met’s spacious installation. The profit-driven Tutankahamun show, still touring, was cited by critics of the Afghan arrangement as an appropriate financial role model.
At that time, I commented:
It was odd to see the megabucks deal struck by Egypt for the current
Tutankhamun show being held up…as a gold
standard for cultural diplomacy. Many observers, including Philippe de Montebello
of the Metropolitan Museum, found that arrangement to be, as de
Montebello had disapprovingly described it, “dominated by lucre and the
need to make make colossal sums of money for the…circulators and for
the Egyptian Department of Antiquities.”
At the recent press preview for the show’s opening at the Met, Said Tayeb
Jawad, Afghanistan’s ambassador to the U.S., movingly explained why fundraising was not the impetus behind his country’s cultural largesse:
Seven years ago, when the Taliban were roaming the streets of Afghanistan, it was hard for us to imagine…having the opportunity to display part of the art and culture and history of Afghanistan here in the United States….New York has important symbolic significance for us because the same evil forces of terrorists that destoyed your Twin Towers destroyed the twin [Bamiyan] Buddhas in Afghanistan.
By bringing this collection to you, we want to emphasize that you cannot destroy the history, identity, determination and courage of the people by acts of sabotage and terrorism. It is also a token of our appreciation as Afghans to you for your support in helping us recover our country, our culture and in helping us rebuild Afghanistan….
Our national museum [shelled in 1994, and attacked by the Taliban in 2001] still is not in a condition to be able to display these objects. The museum suffered a lot, and a lot of the items were looted.
This is a way of displaying the real Afghanistan, the Afghanistan behind the headlines that unfortunately have been dominant in the past five or six years.
…and even today, on Page 1 of the NY Times.
In one way, Munson was right, though: 40% of nothing IS nothing. Afghanistan’s deal with National Geographic (organizer of the American tour with Washington’s National Gallery) calls for the strife-torn nation to receive a lump sum of $1 million for the tour, plus 40% of the exhibition’s net proceeds. Kathryn Keane, director of traveling exhibitions development for National Geographic, conceded to me at the press preview that “we don’t anticipate any profit [from which to draw Afghanistan’s supposed 40%]. There will be some royalties [for Afghanistan] from the merchandise.”
And what merchandise!
Here’s just a sample (actually, the priciest sample):
And here’s its label:
You read that right, shoppers: $24,000—another in a line of outrageously expensive souvenir trinkets developed by the Met for various “treasures” shows in recent years. These contemporary fabrications are described in the Met’s press release as “museum-quality jewelry” but, to my mind, they lack museum quality, let alone any value related to the museum’s exempt purpose—its educational mission. This relationship to exempt purpose is required by the IRS in order for museum merchandise proceeds to be exempt from unrelated business income tax (UBIT).
The pricey baubles in the “Afghanistan” shop are not replicas of objects in the show. They’re loose “adaptations” that were “inspired by the traditional shapes seen in the original gold jewelry and ornaments on exhibition,” according to the press release.
When he fashioned the above necklace, could the Turkish designer, Gurhan Orhan, have had vaguely in mind the authentic exhibition piece below?
Ornament for the neck of a robe, gold, turquoise, garnet, pyrite
Tillya Tepe, Tomb V, 1st century A.D.
For shoppers on a budget, there’s always this teeshirt, adorned with another “inspired” neck ornament—this one directly attached to the shirt. It’s yours for $40.
I’ll try to rinse out the bad taste these wares left in my mouth, and savor the memory of the glorious exhibition. I’ll have more to say later about two of the greatest treasures of “Afghanistan” (at least at this showing)—the Met’s own incomparable curators. (Unfortunately, that post could come considerably later: My husband next week will begin wearing a metallic ornament of a different sort—a hip replacement. I will NOT be posting from the hospital!)
For now, I’ll leave you with the exhibition’s moving coda, which you’ll arrive at just before you enter (arrggh!) the gift shop:
