I joined the Met Museum as its first curator for Native American art three years ago, but fell in love with museums on a field trip in grade school to the Art Institute of Chicago when I was seven. I still remember a soothing calm that overcame me as I watched the Abstract Expressionist paintings and other works. Another significant moment was seeing an installation of photographs of Purépecha women at the Field Museum in Chicago. in the 80s and 90s. It was a visual representation that provided validation and personal connection. Today, my relationship with museums is deeper and more complex.
Both the Met and I were acutely aware that my appointment was a defining moment for the museum and the grounds. This curatorial position arose from the promised donation of an important collection of Native American works by Charles and Valerie Diker. It is a collection that has already been extensively researched and exhibited at many institutions across the country, including the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian, the Seattle Art Museum, and the Amon Carter Museum of American Art. The gift and role of Historical Curator has propelled significant change at the Met, in particular highlighting the voices of Indigenous peoples and presenting their historical and contemporary creative expressions to international audiences at a world-class institution. More important, but less visible to the public, were the much-needed collaborations with Native American source communities regarding items currently in the custody of the Met.
When the museum first began exhibiting Native American collections in its American wing, we also began to work more collaboratively with source communities as exhibit advisors, co-curators, authors, and installation contributors. . We were listening. We learned. We are still learning.
Native American and Indigenous museum collections require a commitment to building long-term relationships with source communities. These relationships have provided some of the most meaningful experiences of my career. When I joined The Met, I emphasized the importance of meeting the needs of Native American communities. I have worked to prioritize Indigenous voices in our exhibitions, programs and collections. As a woman of Purépecha origin, I understand the feeling of being marginalized. I also understand the simultaneous sense of connection and loss towards objects that embody cultural ties to my maternal ancestral community on display in museums. Such experiences are amplified in a historically colonial institution like the Met.
The Met is a 153-year-old institution that, when I arrived, did not have the infrastructure to care for or present Native American and Indigenous art from diverse Indigenous perspectives. It’s not unique to the Met, or on the field. During my first year, I worked with a small team to complete a museum-wide inventory of all Native American artifacts. We also drafted the first Native American Art Initiative (NAAI), which is a historic milestone for the museum. This includes the centralization of all work related to Native American collections, the creation of two new Native American art stations and, in the longer term, the construction of a Native study center for community visits and consultation. The work ahead has been embraced by Met management, who are sincere about making positive change and understand that museums need to evolve. The Met has the noble ambition to share expressions of human creativity across diverse cultures over 5,000 years; therefore, each generation of museum leaders has embraced this mandate while bringing new perspectives to the evolution of curatorial and collecting practices.
Prior to my arrival, the Met’s Native American collections were housed in five separate departments, representing hundreds of sovereign nations and indigenous communities, and spanning centuries. Together, with advice from an outside expert on the federal government Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), we have developed a regional plan to update collections abstracts for submission (and in many cases resubmission) to all Native American tribes materially represented in our collections and to the National Abstracts Database NAGPRA. We have reached out to hundreds of communities and organized collection consultation tours. Our group has adopted the motto ‘NAGPRA is Forever’, demonstrating our understanding that our responsibilities and care to source communities does not end with the provision of inventories. Our team is committed to developing and nurturing relationships – we’re in it for the long haul.
As ties with home communities developed, some colleagues shared their surprise at how repatriation attitudes regarding specific items can differ. Some tribes are calling for repatriation, while others favor a co-stewardship approach or prefer that the works remain in the museum. The needs of the community are diverse, but very specific. A commonality between communities and cultures is the desire to have a say in how works are presented publicly and how they are maintained. The founding director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian in Washington DC, Richard West Jr., said it best: Indians love and hate museums because “they have our stuff.” For many Indigenous peoples, museums can awaken inner tensions and traumatic stories. For Indigenous museum professionals, these painful pasts are still present.
In addition to Native American collections, the museum realm is now in a moment of transformation. For example, although still in retreat from the broader professional field, Native Americans and BIPOC representation in museum leadership positions has increased significantly in recent years and continues to grow. Highlighting this change makes it all the more painful that law enforcement, activists, journalists and media platforms have chosen this precise moment to target and “exemplify” museums at an unprecedented rate. , using extreme “repatriation” tactics. While some may applaud the dramatic grabs and clumsily rushed returns, I disagree with this approach. On the contrary, I believe we can learn from established Native American repatriation processes about the importance of building relationships and practicing collaboration with home communities, both at home and abroad. There is also a need to allow time and space for culturally specific surrender and return ceremonies, and the inclusion of international communities who, through access to the museum, also have connections to collectibles. representing their nations of origin and ties to their homeland. How an item returned to its original community is of great importance.
Collectively, museum staff include people with diverse life experiences, perspectives and opinions: people who occupy distinct roles and are dedicated to the safety of visitors and collections. Negative stereotypes about museums and museum staff do little to support the change people want to see. This can hamper the necessary work currently underway by emotionally and physically draining dedicated professionals who want to do what is right for source communities. It’s no surprise that much of the recent, high-profile criticism comes from people who have never worked in a museum or who haven’t worked in a museum long enough to see through the policies, processes or other necessary institutional changes. Museum teams know firsthand that effective change takes time and reactive change is not sustainable, especially when it comes to caring for museum collections, the public and others.
Building relationships between nations and cultures, between community members and museum staff, requires great care, long-term commitment and consistency. In addition to the requirements of federal and international law, repatriation is labor intensive for both home communities and museums. It can sometimes take years. Its challenges can involve a lack of funds, heavy correspondence, outdated email addresses, unanswered phone calls, staff turnover, shortages and postponed consultations. These are the day-to-day realities of repatriation work that few know about.
For me, there’s still a lot to love about museums, but I also embrace the need for critical change. While one person, or even a few, cannot correct all wrongs and hurtful actions of the past, by working collaboratively and respectfully with source communities, together we can do all that is in our power to ensure that we honor our responsibilities to all communities of origin, both at home and abroad.
