ReFrame - Untitled, Untitled Broken Crowd, Statuette of the god Bes

Untitled - Existing Reframe Sign

This first painting, Untitled, has a reframe label. I was really interested in how it described how a Langston Hughes essay encouraged black artists to paint black people, and how this painting could have been a reaction to that essay. However, I was a little confused at first, because it was not apparent to me at the beginning that the artist of the painting was black. This was only referenced at the end in a roundabout way, where the label says that the abstraction in the painting is “incidental to the black artist’s process.” This allows the reader to assume the artist is black, but it never directly tells you. I do understand that this is a touchy subject, and that usually this information is not explicitly started. However, I feel very strongly that this is not a fact that needs to be hidden in the reframe label. I read through the whole label, and only at the last sentence did the context of the label make sense to me. Some information about the artist at the beginning would definitely improve this label for me.

Untitled Broken Crowd - Existing Reframe Sign

The next work, Untitled Broken Crowd, is a large board covered in various tiles and objects. It also has a reframe label. This reframe label explores the types of materials used in the work, and the connotations that come from using them. It then suggests that these materials emerge the theme of “reckoning with the trauma of structural racism.” In my opinion, the label does not provide enough context to explain how this theme was settled upon. The label does reference that this work is part of a continuing series, but does not elaborate upon what that series is or what it represents. I think that this label would greatly benefit from describing elements of the collection and how the artist is, as this could provide context for why these themes emerge in the work.

Statuette of the god Bes - NEW Reframe Sign

I was interested in this work, as it is extremely old - from the 1st-2nd century CE. It is a roman sculpture, but does not have a reframe sign. This made me question some of the other ReFrame signs. At what point does a work need to be “ReFramed?” The Benin Bronze in the museum has a ReFrame sign, and these belonged to Benin. Benin does not exist anymore, but the public opinion largely states that these statues should be returned to the area in which they were taken from. This raises the question of extremely old things - should Roman artifacts be returned to the area in which they were taken as well, even if it was 2000 years ago? Given that so long has elapsed, it is extremely likely that this object was taken immorally or illegally at some point. The chain of ownership is presumably unknown, so how should that be handled? I think this is a really interesting subject - where do we draw the line for returning objects in museums to their rightful owners. I propose a reframe sign for this sculpture that tackles some of these issues, and tries to track down some of the chain of ownership of this statue. With objects this old, the chain of ownership and the history surrounding the object is arguably more interesting than the object itself, so I would like to see a label that tries to explore some of these issues.