This might be an odd question, but what's your opinion on changing the verbiage in museums of 'artist unknown' to 'artist once known?' I want to the MFA in Boston a few weeks ago, and I noticed the change from the last time I visited. You've always stricken me as someone with a finer bead on these things, so I wonder if you have any thoughts.
I've also seen that, also in the MFA! I understand the logic behind it, but I... think it's a bit cheesy honestly.
I appreciate the goal. A lot of works by unknown artists are either very old, or made by people from communities who were not given the same kind of institutional respect that European artists get, or both. "Artist unknown" too easily fades into the background, makes it feel like the piece just materialized in place; "artist once known" is an attempt to remind people that just like Van Gogh painted those paintings in the Impressionist wing, somebody - some artist - made this pot, or textile, or furniture, too. And just because we don't know doesn't make them nebulously unknown. Someone once knew who they were and that they made this artwork.
I think that's beautiful and a good impulse. I feel bad for thinking it sounds kinda dumb. But every time I see it, it feels like... when someone's trying too hard to be poetic and ends up saying something meaningless. Like no kidding the artist was once known, but we don't know who it was, which is the relevant information we're trying to convey here.
My instinct is always for verbose clarification so if it were up to me I'd have it say something like "Artist: a Puebloan potter, likely a woman, who lived Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, in the 11th century, who probably lived in one of the outlying settlements around Pueblo Bonito" or "Artist: a woman textile artist, likely a mother or aunt, who lived in a small village in Shangdong, China" or something that emphasizes 1) anything we do know about the person who made it 2) that they were an artist and an individual with a whole life. But that's wordy and changes for every piece and not conducive to the way museum plaques are done. Another equally wordy option I also kind of prefer would be "The name of the (Puebloan/Chinese/Egyptian/Nigerian/Colonial era apprentice/Enslaved African/Beninese/Inca/Maya/etc.) artist who created this piece is not known to the MFA." Still, I will always prefer specificity, and I think giving a few details we can extrapolate about the artist is preferable to the vague obviousness of "artist once known." But also I don't resent it, because I do see what it's trying to do, and what aspect of "artist unknown" it's trying to get people to think about.
