Curving along the Seine between the Eiffel Tower and the Pont de l’Alma, the arresting Musée du Quai Branly opened its doors on June 23. It was inaugurated by President Jacques Chirac, who made construction of the museum of artifacts and primitive art works from Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americas a major priority of his presidency.
    Designed by renowned architect Jean Nouvel (also known for his work on the Institut du Monde Arabe and Fondation Cartier in Paris), the museum is home to some 300,000 works of art previously displayed in the Musée de l’Homme and the Musée National des Arts d’Afrique et d’Océanie. The main idea behind Branly’s construction (which began in 2001) was simple: to create a space that would bring together what is arguably the most impressive collection of non-European cultural art and artifacts under one roof, and to organize its space and resources to maximize its appeal to the general public and experts alike.
    Architecturally trendsetting and outfitted with state-of-the-art technologies for both protecting works and informing visitors, Branly is, by decree, a research center as well as a museum. Along with space for permanent and temporary exhibits, it features an auditorium and a vast multimedia library as well as lecture halls and meeting rooms.
    Stéphane Martin has directed the project and now leads the completed Musée du Quai Branly as president and general director. It’s far from his first brush with museology. A graduate of the Ecole Nationale d’Administration and a member of France’s Cour des Comptes, Martin oversaw the Pompidou Center from 1989-1990 before taking over the Museum of Music and Dance. He served as chief of staff to Culture Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy from 1995-1997 while simultaneously assuming the vice-presidency of the Musée de l’Homme, des Arts et des Civilisations. He recently spoke with France Magazine about the new museum, its mission—and how it just may change visitors’ views of primitive art.



Branly is obviously an enormous project. What prompted it?
This collection, which belongs to the French State, was previously divided between two museums: one that took an ethnographic approach—comparable to that of the Museum of Natural History in New York—and another that had a more aesthetic approach—closer to the Metropolitan Museum’s department of tribal art. But their displays were rather dated, and the rationale for keeping them separate was no longer valid. So it was decided to regroup them into a new institution.
    The other main element—and the reason for President Chirac’s direct interest—is that most museums today are built to display art and culture directly related to the societies they issue from: Museums of Chinese art are built in China; those with American art in the United States and so on. But the original function of a museum was in fact to do the opposite, to display Italian art in Spain, for example, or Spanish art in Flanders. President Chirac wanted to create a very significant setting that would be a tribute to all civilizations and cultures, including those beyond the Mediterranean basin. He also wanted to do this in a city where museums play an important symbolic and economic role.

Wouldn’t that result in a kind of super museum—a worldwide “best of” collection from the kinds of natural history exhibits we all saw as kids?
No, what we are doing is quite the opposite. Museums of natural history have traditionally served as a substitute for travel by creating scaled-down models of other places. That attracted a public interested in things that were rare, strange, mysterious, exotic. People really don’t need that kind of museum today—television, cinema and other mass media now play that role. So with this museum, we have steered away from the typical “voyage-around-the-world-in-80-display cases” approach.
    Two other factors have changed during the past 25 years. First, the relationship that visitors have with museums has evolved tremendously. Museums are no longer places your parents take you as a kid, and that you don’t go back to until you take your own kids there. They are no longer merely didactic spaces but rather are huge resource centers—databases that you have a more simple, direct relationship with, a relationship that changes depending on your reasons for visiting that particular day, the mood you’re in and so on. Today, we approach museums more like readers do libraries or like season-ticket holders do concert series: We take what interests us and leave the rest. You could say that we have evolved from students to clients.
    Second, there’s been a real shift in the way people view other parts of the world. Not that long ago, most people figured the “rest of the world” had little influence on their lives. Today, a young American or European is directly influenced by tastes being formed in Thailand, Korea and elsewhere. By the same token, events breaking out in, say, the Ivory Coast or the Middle East will have repercussions on our societies. So the desire to understand better, to have a kind of portal allowing access to these cultures is very strong. But these cultures are themselves anchored in history, traditions and practices that we must also grasp if we are to understand them in their current state. What’s more, our own pop culture is increasingly embracing aspects of those traditions. I recall, for example, reading an article on the Branly project in a magazine on tattoos. Why? Because people interested in tattoos are also interested in Polynesia. That, in turn, led to an interest in what can be found at Branly.

Isn’t there the risk that regrouping all these objects from other cultures may provoke accusations of neocolonialism in museum form?
I don’t believe so. Branly—like most modern museums—will devote 50 percent of its available space to temporary exhibits. The staff won’t be able to monopolize the museum’s subject matter and discourse because half of our exhibits will be put together by outside curators. Why is this important? Exhibits are not merely objects placed behind glass; there’s a method and angle to their presentation that gives them a broader meaning. And half of those “meanings” will be determined and managed by people of different origins and from different places.
    I think that we have to be wary of, and indeed resist, a danger that is lurking within our societies today, namely, the desire of different groups to claim that it is their exclusive right to interpret the thinking and expressions of their culture. I don’t think that’s a good idea. I don’t believe that Jews alone can speak about and discuss Jews, nor can only Bretons speak about Bretons or only the Sioux speak about the Sioux. It’s important to have outside perspective and mediation.

You mentioned that Branly will have a new relationship with visitors. Can you tell us a little more about how that will be accomplished?
Many of our temporary exhibits, for example, won’t be directly related to our permanent collection. Imagine, for example, New York’s Museum of Natural History hosting contemporary art exhibits—it will be similar to that. And like the Pompidou Center and most other modern museums today, we will offer not only exhibits but an entire range of activities—workshops for children, concerts, film festivals, shopping, dining…. People can take an à la carte approach to their visit.
    Today there is still a big difference between museums that have a more educational vocation and those that have a more aesthetic or artistic mission. There have been efforts on both sides to create sections reflecting the interests and focus of the other, but they remain as different as the publics they attract. This is especially true in the United States—the people who visit MoMA are very different from those you’ll typically see at the Museum of Natural History. Our objective here at Branly is to bring these two types of museumgoers together in the same place, to remove that feeling of separation.

In other words, you don’t want someone to see a piece of primitive art and think either “it’s art” or “it’s an archeological relic”?
Right—especially since I don’t think there’s any sense to that way of thinking any more. An object can be both a relic of an ancient culture and a work of art. Museums and visitors are fully capable of appreciating that.

In a city full of great museums, what makes Branly unique? What makes it a must-see?
Given that France is an old country that has been collecting since the Age of Discovery, we have a number of pieces that are both unique and aesthetically stunning. Some of our most exceptional objects are those from Mali and Vanuatu. One of my personal favorites is a 10th- century “Djenneké” statue from Dogon, in northern Mali. It is a masterpiece not only because of its remarkable aesthetic qualities but also because of its historical significance and its age.
    Also very dear to my heart are the Australian paintings by eight great Aboriginal artists that decorate the building’s façade. Branly boasts the largest collection of native Australian art outside of Australia, and our holdings from former French colonies in Africa are also quite astounding. We also have the largest collection of Indonesian objects in Europe. All of these are excellent reasons to visit.

I understand that music is also a big part of Branly.
Yes, absolutely. Each instrument on display is accompanied by wall text, and if you want additional information, you can consult nearby video terminals or the database on the mezzanine level. In addition, the theater offers regular music and dance performances, and two smaller halls—which we call “music boxes”—provide still other musical experiences through sound and light shows.
    We also offer personal listening stations that, for example, allow visitors to listen to the progression of various forms of traditional Indian or African music. Perhaps most spectacular, though, is the way we store the musical instruments not currently on exhibit: They are in a sort of glass tube that runs through the museum. Along the way there are listening posts that allow you to hear what these various instruments sound like.

That will probably be a big draw for young people, don’t you think?
As I said before, I think one of the most interesting things in our societies these days is how popular culture incites people to trace its influences back to their original roots. World music is a striking example. People are also becoming interested in popular Indian music, thanks to the soundtracks of Bollywood movies. That in turn is leading some to want to learn more about the traditional Indian music it sprang from—information they’ll certainly be able to find in this museum.

How much of the collection can be explored online?
All of it. Each of the 300,000 objects was cleaned, and many of them were restored as part of the massive reorganization that preceded the museum’s opening. They were also photographed, and all information about them was digitized. So now, researchers around the world can examine these objects whenever they like.

The museum is built on the last large chunk of available land in central Paris, along the Seine and next to the Eiffel Tower. Constructing a major new building here must have been quite a challenge.
Yes, especially because Paris is a very conservative city in terms of architecture. The general trend has been to respect a norm, known as “alignment,” that the city of Paris holds very dear. That is, all new buildings must conform to and respect the aesthetics of the ones built previously. There is no Guggenheim in Paris. Branly respects alignment to some extent, with the green vegetation covering the side of the building and the curving shape that flows with the Seine. But other aspects are far more audacious, innovative and creative.
    Challenging the sacrosanct rule of alignment was a gamble. Especially because—as in politics, business or any other area of human relations—there are all kinds of odd and mostly artificial hierarchies that rank people and places in terms of prestige. In our sector, this means that no museum of natural history or primitive art—no matter what city it is in or how spectacular its collection is—will get the same consideration and visibility as a modern art museum. So it was a gamble for Branly to take what is traditionally considered a “second-string” collection and give it first-string prestige, first-string ambition, in terms of both architecture and museology.

Having part of your collection on permanent display at the Louvre will likely help confer a certain prestige….
Indeed, one of the most important things we’ve done is to set up an exhibit of our sculptures in four rooms in the Louvre’s Pavillon des Sessions. Symbolically, it’s very important because the Louvre is visited by so many, many people—most of whom believe that the Mona Lisa is the pinnacle of human creation and culture since man came down from the trees. So we felt it was very important to show that while works produced around the Mediterranean basin are indeed magnificent, many of the pieces from our collections are also masterpieces—perhaps even the Mona Lisas of their period.
    If nothing else, we hope this display will incite visitors to at least consider the notion that primitive art can be viewed simply as art, and maybe broaden the scope of what they consider to be their personal Pantheon of artists.
The Musée du Quai Branly, Arts et Civilisations d’Afrique, d’Asie, d’Océanie et des Amériques, is open Tuesday through Sunday. General admission is €8.50; museum entrances are located at 218 and 206 rue de l’Université as well as 27, 37 and 55 quai Branly, 7th arrondissement. Tel. 33/1-55-61-71-72; quaibranly.fr.