reflections on collaboration: exhibiting contemporary maya art

reflections on collaboration:

Exhibiting Contemporary Maya Art

Mary Katherine Scottuniversity of east anglia

abstract

This article describes the collaboration with Maya artisans

during the exhibition, Crafting Maya Identity: Contempo-

rary Wood Sculptures from the Puuc Region of Yucat�an,

Mexico. The exhibition called into question the applicability

of Western systems of value and classification to the aes-

thetic works of other cultures and also explored notions of

contemporary Maya identity in the context of the local tour-

ism industry. The artisans’ presence during the exhibition

and their engagement with the public during organized

events created opportunities for visitors to learn more

about the artisans and their work. This paper takes a criti-

cal look at the exhibition’s successes and shortcomings by

way of feedback from the artisans and the public and offers

recommendations for future collaborative projects. [tourist

arts, woodcarving, identity, Puuc region, Yucatan, Mexico]

As a result of the tremendous efforts involved in orga-

nizing an exhibition, it is normal to want to focus on

successes rather than shortcomings. When an exhibi-

tion is a collaborative effort and includes engagement

with members from source communities, it becomes

even more important to highlight how amove toward

inclusivity increases awareness and understanding of

other cultures. But collaboration can be a double-

edged sword; collaborators often have competing

agendas and different perspectives on the purpose of

an exhibition. This can lead to misunderstandings

that sometimes have ethical implications. However,

even in such situations, there are opportunities for

learning about other cultures, the desires of different

peoples, and their goals for the future.

My interest in this volume’s special theme stems

from my research on contemporary Maya “tourist

arts” and the traveling exhibition I co-curated with

Jeff Kowalski, Crafting Maya Identity: Contemporary

Wood Sculptures from the Puuc Region of Yucatan,

Mexico.1 The exhibition featured approximately fifty

low relief and freestanding sculptures by four con-

temporary Maya artisans from the Puuc region, a

hilly zone known for its restored Terminal Classic

(800–900/1000 C.E.) archaeological sites.2 First

presented at the Jack Olson Gallery at Northern Illi-

nois University (NIU) in DeKalb, Illinois, in Septem-

ber 2009, it traveled to Trinity University in San

Antonio, Texas, in October 2010, and to the Teatro

Peon Contreras in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico, in

March 2011. As other contributors to this volume

discuss in their own case studies, collaboration with

the artisans was key for Crafting Maya Identity. Their

participation in organized events and interaction with

the public created opportunities to learn about Maya

culture and to be introduced to an art form not well

known beyond Yucatan.

This paper takes a retrospective look at the making

of an exhibition in collaboration with four Maya arti-

sans whose works were featured: Angel Ruız Novelo,

Miguel Uc Delgado, Jesus Marcos Delgado Ku, and

Wilbert Vazquez. As first-time curators, the process

was a learning experience for us. The feedback we

received from the public, our colleagues, and espe-

cially the artisans was key in the evaluation of our

original goals (but see Castaneda 2004a:36). As a

point of departure, the following section provides a

brief summary of the exhibition. Subsequent sections

discuss how the artisans participated and the com-

ments and reactions we received from visitors and the

artisans.3 I conclude with a summary of the findings

of this case study, in particular, the importance of

communication and transparency during the exhibi-

tion process, especially when collaborating with

source community members.

The Crafting Maya Identity Exhibition

The exhibition and its accompanying catalogue

(Kowalski 2009) explore the shortcomings of tradi-

tional Western categories of “high art” and “low art”

as well as notions of contemporary Maya identity in

the context of tourism in Yucatan (see Scott and

Kowalski 2009). Created mainly from cedar or

mahogany, the woodcarvings are detailed reproduc-

tions of pre-Columbian Maya figures from ceramics,

codices, and carved stone monuments (Figure 1).4 In

this way, they exhibit “past” as “present.” They are

popular among tourists who desire souvenirs that

reflect their experience traveling in a Maya cultural

area. Puuc artisans adjust their subject matter and

representational and artistic styles based on buyers’

preferences, while also providing the tourist an

“authentic” encounter with a contemporary Maya

museum anthropology

Museum Anthropology, Vol. 35, Iss. 1, pp. 71–84© 2012 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved.DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1379.2012.01123.x

artisan (Castaneda 2009a; Scott 2008, 2009; Scott and

Kowalski 2009). A principal goal of the exhibit was to

show how these “tourist arts” are culturally and aes-

thetically complex contemporary Maya sculptures

that deserve, along with other relegated examples of

tourist art, more art historical attention (cf. Cohodas

1999:161). The idea was not to impose on the public

the concept that these sculptures were “art,” but

rather to provoke contemplation on the validity of

Western art categories today, and especially the appli-

cability of these categories to the creative works of

those who live and practice in “art worlds” outside of

theWest. In relation to identity, we presented them as

part of a recently invented tradition that is a self-con-

scious revival of an art form and subject matter with

preconquest roots, rather than as a continuation of

ancient Maya traditions and ideas. Where the cata-

logue explored Maya cultural identity in a broader

sense (Scott and Kowalski 2009:40–48), the exhibitionconveyed that for the featured Puuc artisans, working

with older Maya imagery promotes the continuation

of certain traditions and ideas that contribute to

their particular identities as “Maya,” “artesano,”

“yucateco,” and others (see also Loewe 2010).5 This

was supported by their personal testimonies in video

interviews, wall labels, and other signage, and through

their own interaction with visitors during organized

tours and events.

This was not the first time similar premises regard-

ing a reevaluation of “art” and “artisanry” with

respect to tourist arts from Yucatan had been featured

in an exhibition. In 1999, Quetzil Castaneda (with

Lisa Breglia, Fernando Armstrong Fumero, and Abdel

Hernandez) curated and organized Ah Dzib P’izte’:

Modern Maya Art in Ancient Tradition at Lake Forest

College in Lake Forest, Illinois. It displayed contem-

porary sculptures in wood and stone made by artists

and artisans from Piste, a town located near the

archaeological site of Chichen Itza in eastern Yucatan

(Castaneda 2004a, 2009a; Castaneda et al. 1999). The

exhibition was the international extension of a larger,

ongoing project in Piste; using experimental ethnog-

raphy as a kind of “art-writing” (amethod of thinking

and writing about art), Castaneda organized local art

exhibitions and competitions from 1997 to 1999 to

empower local artisans within their own community

(2009a:147). Castaneda’s work in Piste has been

largely responsible for artisans’ re-assertion that their

work is legitimate and important (see also Castaneda

2004a; Marcus and Myers 1995). In my own engage-

ment with artisans in the Puuc region, both in prepa-

ration for Crafting Maya Identity and during

Figure 1. View of the exhibition, with Jesus Marcos Delgado Ku’s three-dimensional version of the “vision serpent” from Lintel 15 of Yaxchilan, Chiapas, in

the foreground. (Photo by Mary Katherine Scott.)

exhibit ing contemporary maya art

72

subsequent fieldwork, I have observed similar out-

comes. While tourist preferences play a significant

role in the production of Puuc tourist arts, interest

and writing from academics and other researchers has

a parallel effect on the way many artisans value their

own work. I argue that this is especially true for those

who are in frequent contact with national and inter-

national scholars and archaeologists (see quote by

Delgado Ku, below).

The Crafting Maya Identity exhibition was

inspired by the pioneering works of Nelson Graburn

(1976), Ruth Phillips and Christopher Steiner (1999),

and Quetzil Castaneda (1996, and his 1999 exhibi-

tion), among others, who have sought to elevate and

value tourist arts as a serious subject of scholarly

inquiry. To create an aesthetic comparison of these

works with the historically related art tradition of

Chichen Itza, we sought collaboration with Castaneda

to include nine pieces he had collected over the course

of twenty years from Piste artists working in the Chi-

chen Itza tourismmarket (see Castaneda 1996, 2004a,

2005a, 2005b, 2009a, 2009b). In addition to pieces

from his private collection, a portion of the Puuc-

based examples were from Vazquez’s private collec-

tion, which included works by other artisans from the

Puuc region. At subsequent installations organized by

Jennifer Mathews in San Antonio and Alfredo Barrera

Rubio in Merida, the guest curators produced new

and thoughtful interpretations of the “same” exhibi-

tion (Fienup-Riordan 1999:339). They made their

own curatorial decisions regarding the qualities and

number of pieces appropriate to their specific (smal-

ler) gallery locations. They also chose how to display

the pieces according to their own criteria, including

theme, size, orientation, and subject matter. Since

these later exhibits and associated public program-

ming were the result of local efforts by Mathews and

Barrera Rubio, my discussion focuses on the events

that Jeff Kowalski and I organized at NIU. I begin

with the following commentary by anthropologist

Nelson Graburn:

The exhibition in the Jack Olson Gallery was

much larger, more comprehensive and, if any-

thing, more professional than most ethno-

graphic craft exhibits I have seen. The wood

sculptures are exceptionally well made, aestheti-

cally engaging replicas of the stunning ancient

Maya sculptures, ceramics, and manuscripts.

… Prior to my visit I was neither familiar with

this genre of artworks nor with these artists, but

I must admit they are among the most accom-

plished tourist arts anywhere.6

The exhibition was based on research and field-

work begun in the Puuc region, especially in the town

of Muna, which is a center for woodcarving in Yu-

catan.7 Around forty Muna woodcarvers currently

work in this activity. Our decision to feature works by

just these four artisans was due to their decades of

experience, their unique carving styles, and their

direct connections to the tourism industry (see Scott

and Kowalski 2009:20). Regarding the last point, Del-

gado Ku and Vazquez work as tour guides, and Ruız

Novelo and Uc Delgado are encargados (caretakers or

park wardens) at Puuc archaeological sites for the

National Institute of Anthropology and History

(INAH).8 Each artisan, in his own way, acts as an

intermediary, or “cultural broker” (Szasz 2001), for

Maya archaeology and history. Tour guides in Yu-

catan are required to keep up to date with current

archaeological research by attending conferences and

lectures as part of their licensing and certification.

Though not required, INAH employees are encour-

aged to undertake further study of Maya culture and

history to, in Miguel Uc Delgado’s words, “provide a

better service” to their international tourist clients.

He notes that daily interaction with archaeologists,

tourists, and others makes his position as a “cultural

promoter” both a responsibility and an honor.9 Del-

gado Ku shares this sentiment; it motivated his desire

to knowmore about the imagery he references:

To be involved with INAH, to work in the sites,

to know professional people—archaeologists,

epigraphers, ceramicists, conservators—those

who work in reconstructing the sites, well you

focus a little more in what you make. So when I

make a figure, a lintel let’s say, I don’t only make

the design but I also want to know the signifi-

cance of this figure. What does it mean? What

does it represent? Who are the personages? So I

study more. … For instance, I always carve the

hieroglyph Pop as faithfully as I can. Why?

Because it represented the important social elite.

And when academics, archaeologists, or epigra-

phers see it they say “Oh! Ok! Perfect!” There


73

are people who make carvings but they don’t

know what the various symbols mean. … So

from the moment you begin working in the sites

and you meet professional academics, you focus

more on the meaning of each design, that’s the

difference. It’s wanting to learn about what

you’re doing and why you’re doing it.10

I believe this knowledge of Maya archaeology and

history is one aspect that promotes such a strong con-

nection to, appreciation for, and understanding of

the pre-Columbian Maya imagery these artisans ref-

erence in their woodcarvings.11 Although these

woodcarvings are generally reproductions of earlier

pre-Columbian Maya imagery, it was never our

intention that the exhibition would merely provide

visitors a visual comparison between “past” and

“present.” Thus, in both the exhibition and catalogue,

comparative photos of the “original” Maya monu-

ment were kept to a minimum. Instead we empha-

sized how these works were dynamic expressions of

the contemporary Maya culture in which the artisans

live. We were interested in how they reinterpret, rein-

vent, and revitalize older Maya imagery while recog-

nizing that these are part of their cultural heritage

(Fienup-Riordan 1999:345; see related discussions by

Bouttiaux, this volume; Drewal, this volume; and

Melandri, this volume).

On occasion, Puuc carvers also create pieces for

special commissions or their own pleasure, for which

they find inspiration beyond the usual pre-Colum-

bian Maya milieu. In consultation with them, each

artisan displayed one “personal” piece to show the

range of imagery they explore when not creating

works for tourists. These pieces took the form of

romanticized portrayals of Maya and Aztec myths, a

reproduction of a Freudian drawing, abstracted fig-

ures arranged to resemble a Maya hieroglyph, and an

image of one of the artisan’s sons at the moment of

his birth (Figure 2). From the curatorial side, we felt

that the creative expression and intentionality of the

personal pieces further illustrated why Western sys-

tems of classification are an unproductive means for

understanding the ethnic, commercial, and tourist

arts of indigenous peoples (see Graburn 1976; Phillips

and Steiner 1999; Steiner 1994). Upon his visit to the

exhibition, Graburn remarked that these pieces “gave

a window into the contemporary lives of the artists,

their families, and their desires. I expect that more of

these will appear in the future as the ‘craftsman’ begin

to realize that as ‘artists’ they should have greater free-

dom of expression.”12 Uc Delgado found that visitors

seemed more interested in or curious about these

pieces because they were a departure from the rest of

the exhibit. Delgado Ku remarked, “The figure of the

baby really drew one’s attention because it has noth-

ing to do with the [ancient] Maya … when I told

[the visitors] the story behind it, something very per-

sonal for me, they liked it even more.” Vazquez, how-

ever, saw no difference in the public’s reaction to the

personal pieces compared with the replicas. He

decided that the way someone views any work of art

is based on preference, and what is meaningful for

one personmight signify nothing to someone else.13

Engaging with the Artisans

Engagement with the artisans was a highlight both for

visitors and the curators. During the curators’

research trips to Yucatan in 2006–07, the artisans

Figure 2. Jesus Marcos Delgado Ku talks with two student visitors about

the sculpture of his son at birth. (Photo by Mary Katherine Scott.)


74

determined which pieces to display that would not

only emphasize their talent and skill but also a diver-

sity in subject matter. Our role was only to ensure that

a good range of figures were represented. The artisans

were consulted as part of the process of giving titles

and descriptions to the pieces. They also provided

some photographs used for the exhibition’s website

and catalogue, and we included a prominent bio-

graphical section in the catalogue, on the website, and

in the gallery space that was based on interviews with

them (Scott and Kowalski 2009:23–26).14 Accompa-

nying the exhibition was a looping video of conversa-

tions with the carvers, filmed in July 2008. They

devised questions that would allow them to respond

and speak freely about their work, culture, goals, and

what is important to them about being an artisan.

The interviews were in Spanish but subtitled in Eng-

lish to ensure that most visitors would be able to

engage with this gallery component.

Thanks to generous support from the Target Cor-

poration, the NIU Venture Grant fund, the NIU

School of Art, and the Mexican Consulate in Chicago,

we were able to invite the four Puuc artisans to the

United States to participate in educational events,

activities, and public receptions during the penulti-

mate week of the exhibition in DeKalb (September

14–19, 2009). One of our biggest challenges, however,was figuring out how to include them in the exhibi-

tion process without “Othering” or exoticizing them.

In consultation with the artisans, we countered this

effect by focusing on their work and providing oppor-

tunities for them to speak directly about their pieces.

I summarize several of these activities below.

First, the artisans gave gallery talks to high school

students from the Chicago area during organized

exhibition tours (see also Castaneda 2004a) (Fig-

ure 3).15 Latino students of largely Mexican Ameri-

can descent comprised three of the tour groups. The

artisans also attended a “meet-and-greet” with uni-

versity students at the NIU Center for Latino and

Latin American Studies, and visited the Barbour Lan-

guage Academy, a bilingual Spanish–English K–5 andmiddle school in Rockford, Illinois. At Barbour, the

artisans addressed a group of approximately two hun-

dred students and brought along several carvings that

could be handled. For Uc Delgado, this visit was one

of the highlights of the week because he was able to

acquaint the students with an aspect of their Mexican

culture and heritage and to “remind [them] that they

have a special connection to Mexico.” With each

event, the artisans felt they could share their knowl-

edge with a younger generation, and these young peo-

ple viewed them as role models.

Second, the artisans were present at the main

reception that closed the exhibition, which gave the

public an opportunity to talk to them about their

Figure 3. Wilbert Vazquez talks to a visiting student group about the Puuc woodcarving tradition. (Photo by Mary Katherine Scott.)


75

work and the artisans a chance to network with

potential clients. The artisans used the opportunity to

encourage people to visit the Puuc region and see

more examples of the woodcarvings they make as well

as the other types of artesanıas (handicrafts) pro-

duced in the area. This interaction facilitated the

commissioning of a special woodcarving by one of

the artisans and may eventually lead to other com-

missioned projects (for the impact the exhibition had

on the artisans’ sales and reputations, see below).

Third, the artisans were invited to give woodcar-

ving demonstrations to university art students and

the public (Figure 4). In Yucatan, it is common to

use electrical tools (e.g., saws and routers) to save

time during the early carving stages, but in DeKalb

the artisans decided to use only hand-carving tools

from start to finish so that students could see all the

different kinds of manual carving techniques possible.

This choice was also due, in part, to the fact that the

cedar wood they were given to use was drier and

chipped more easily than the variety they carve in

Yucatan. Plus, the types of electrical tools available in

the sculpture studio were “much more sophisticated”

than those they are accustomed to using and there

was little time to become familiar with them.16

Furthermore, they did not bring their personal hand-

carving tools with them for fear they might be confis-

cated by airline security. Using unfamiliar tools and

materials, they worked surprisingly quickly, taking

breaks to speak to the students and staff gathered

around to watch. Vazquez, the only fluent English

speaker among them, served as de facto spokesman

for the group and fielded many of the questions. His

experience working as a tour guide in Yucatan was

evident as he took on the role of teacher, explaining

the steps involved in the planning and preparation of

a piece of wood and the different kinds of carving

techniques. The informal setting encouraged a num-

ber of students to get involved and work alongside

the artisans on their own pieces. The three artisans

who did not speak English were still able to commu-

nicate in other ways. For instance, with translators

nearby, they demonstrated and instructed on appro-

priate techniques. While this interactive component

was only meant to be a demonstration, with just

six hours spread over two days, all four completed

their projects. The artisans chose to donate the fin-

ished pieces to the NIU School of Art.

Fourth, a scholarly symposium presented current

issues surrounding the debates involved in the study

of tourist art. In addition to papers presented by the

curators, there were case studies on tourist arts from a

variety of perspectives (see also Castaneda 2004a).17

The four artisans also attended the symposium but

were not asked to present formal papers. During the

final panel discussion, when questions were raised

Figure 4. (L-R) Angel Ruız Novelo and Miguel Uc Delgado give a woodcarving demonstration at the NIU School of Art while students look on. (Photo by

Mary Katherine Scott.)


76

about a person’s identity and how this is manifested

in art, two of the artisans participated very actively,

pointing out how being an artisan and working with

older Maya imagery is one way they find a connection

to their Maya heritage.18 This dialogue proved to be

motivating for many in attendance, judging from the

lengthy discussion that followed between the panel

members, the artisans, and members of the audience.

Some problems and miscommunications also

accompanied their participation. For instance,

although the four men are acquaintances, friends,

and in one case even relatives, they are in direct

competition with each other with the artesanıas they

make and sell. Consequently, on several occasions,

there were tense moments and sharp comments

between them. These disagreements were often car-

ried out in Yucatec-Maya, their native language, so

as not to involve the Spanish-speaking curators or

others. Even so, in an interview Delgado Ku revealed

another reason why electrical tools were not used

during the NIU demonstration: he said he was

instructed not to use power tools by one of the older

members of the group because he believed their

audience would not be fully accepting of this as a

“traditional” woodcarving method. From this per-

spective, just as they have adjusted the woodcarv-

ings’ subject matter to appeal to the preferences of

tourists who visit Yucatan, so too the artisans felt it

was necessary to adjust their artistic process to

ensure that the scrutinizing viewers at NIU judged

their work as handcrafted and authentic. But this

also has ethical implications: while they were not

“faking” in the usual sense (i.e., they were not trying

to pass them off as ancient sculptures), concealing or

manipulating their normal carving techniques is still

misleading for viewers. MacCannell (1973, 1999)

might view this as an example of “staged authentic-

ity,” where a tourist’s desire to see how things are in

“real life” is satisfied with a fabricated cultural dis-

play—in our case, a slightly “enhanced” version of

reality. Whatever the reasons, their decision not to

use power tools during the early stages meant that

the carving process took them much longer than

normal. Additionally, the borrowed chisels, which

were shaped differently from their own, gave them

blisters on their hands. Despite this, the demonstra-

tion seemed to have been instructive and enjoyable

both for the artisans and their audiences.

Another problematic issue concerned the selection

of these artisans. As curators, we chose to include

them not “because [they are] Native” (Mithlo

2003:157), but rather because of their artistic talent,

their knowledge of Maya archaeology and history,

and their connection to tourism in the Puuc region.

The fact that they are also Yucatec-Maya speakers and

self identify as Maya was certainly considered in

selecting them and provided data for our discussion

of both insider and outsider conceptions of “Maya

identity.” While each made it a point to recognize

other Puuc artisans throughout the exhibitions and

associated events, we were concerned that visitors to

the gallery might still view them and their work as

“representative” of Maya culture in general, not to

mention the dozens of other woodcarvers who, due

to practical limitations, we were unable to invite to

participate. After the final installment of the exhibi-

tion, I asked them how they felt about the fact that

other artisans from the region were not included.

Their responses varied. They all agreed that their rela-

tionships with these other artisans had not changed

due to the exhibition, and only Delgado Ku reported

in an interview that he had experienced feelings of

resentment or jealousy toward him as a result but

from just one Muna artisan. However, the exhibition

had not given them any kind of elevated status within

their communities either (see also Melandri, on

Kwoma painters, this volume). Both Delgado Ku and

Vazquez stressed to me that in Yucatan, woodcarving

—and artesanıas in general—are not esteemed activi-

ties, which makes it difficult for artisans to gain local

recognition.19 Delgado Ku thought it was telling that

“North American universities are more interested [in

what we do] and they are the ones who get involved.

They end up preserving a culture that isn’t their

own,” which echoes what Bouttiaux (this volume)

observed among the Guro of the Ivory Coast. Uc

Delgado found that other Muna woodcarvers were

simply not interested in their participation in the

exhibition because several of them “have had oppor-

tunities to exhibit their work elsewhere.”20 Ruız

Novelo suggested it would have been beneficial to not

only include other woodcarvers but also “those who

work with other types, like ceramics, stone, and

bone.”21

Vazquez also told me it would have been prefera-

ble to invite additional woodcarvers to participate in


77

the exhibition so that more artisans fromMuna could

be recognized for their work. His reaction partly

stems from a misunderstanding: some of the pieces

he displayed in DeKalb were incorrectly attributed to

him and instead were pieces from his personal collec-

tion made by other artisans.22 Once the mistake was

realized, we corrected this information for future

installments of the exhibition.23 This example illus-

trates one of the obstacles we had to overcome during

the exhibition process: the distance between the arti-

sans (in Yucatan), Jeff Kowalski (in Illinois), and

myself (in England since 2008) made communication

difficult. Some decisions had to be made quickly,

which precluded consultation with all team members

and led to some errors.

With the public exposure that the artisans received

at NIU (as well as in San Antonio and Merida), there

was concern that they may have felt “on display.”

Though the exhibition attempted to deconstruct the

Western ideal of a “timeless” and romanticized Maya

culture (see Castaneda 1996:131–151), had the arti-

sans themselves been exoticized? Did the publicity

make them uncomfortable? As a tour guide, this kind

of attention was nothing out of the ordinary for Vaz-

quez. He remarked, “I didn’t feel any differently

because I am accustomed to being around and pro-

viding explanations to many people at once.” Ruız

Novelo also seemed at ease speaking in front of the

groups of students as did Delgado Ku, who said he

was not only completely comfortable, he really

enjoyed the moment when visitors, after admiring his

work, realized he was present and came over to con-

gratulate him: “No one ever [congratulated] me with

a frown on their face, so I was happy.” For Uc

Delgado, “the people [were] more interested in the

woodcarvings, not us,” and so he never felt as though

he had himself become an exhibit.

Feedback and Evaluation

On the whole, the artisans were pleased with the end

result. We tried to make sure they were comfortable,

that we presented their “voice” in as many aspects of

the exhibition and textual material as possible, and

that we incorporated their suggestions when we

could. As Phillips notes, “A key ethical principle of

collaborative exhibition projects, is, then, that both

sides should be able to define and gain the benefits

they deem appropriate” (2003:159).

ArtisansWhen asked about the most beneficial aspects of his

participation in the exhibition and accompanying

events, Ruız Novelo cited in an e-mail to me the pub-

licity, having campaigned for a position in his local

municipal government (which he later won) around

the time of the first exhibition.24 Not only were more

general articles written about the exhibition in uni-

versity and local newspapers, on the web, and in

e-mail newsletters for national arts organizations, he

was also approached to do interviews about the exhi-

bition for newspapers in Yucatan even before it was

displayed in Merida.

In response to the same query to all of the arti-

sans, all four lamented that with so much interest

in their work, they were not able to offer their

woodcarvings for sale. The exhibition was classed

as an educational project, and so restrictions with

the funding, regulations on commercial ventures

within the university, and international shipping

customs and tax structures meant that no works

could be commercially sold during any part of the

exhibition at NIU. The absence of price tags was

in some ways positive because it meant that visi-

tors were not reflecting on how much the pieces

were “worth” within larger, Western value systems.

Instead, they treated them in the same way as they

would any other artwork displayed in the Jack Ol-

son Gallery. However, the artisans did have an

opportunity to sell additional pieces they brought

with them to San Antonio at the Trinity University

exhibit. Since the works were on loan from the

artisans throughout the entire exhibition from

2009 to 2011, they were returned to them follow-

ing the Merida installment to keep, sell, or exhibit

elsewhere. As a direct result of the exhibition, in

particular the installation in Merida, Uc Delgado

reported to me that some opportunities had arisen

to exhibit their work in other parts of Yucatan,

including an arts fair and a commercial gallery.

Some of the successes and shortcomings of the

exhibition process have been highlighted already, but

the artisans’ specific comments are also instructive in

this matter. In Ruız Novelo’s words:

The best parts were that I became familiar with

and lived different kinds of experiences. I got to

know another country, another culture, and


78

also realized that my work is valued by other

people, both nationals [Mexican] and interna-

tionals.25

Vazquez said to me that being able “to make connec-

tions with people interested in Maya culture, but who

do not necessarily have the means by which to estab-

lish connections with Muna, with Yucatan, or with

Mayas in general,” was beneficial. However, he cited

problems with how we communicated the schedule

of events. As a tour guide, he is used to organizing

and following schedules, and then communicating

this information to his tourist clients. Because the

schedule in DeKalb was not firm in some cases, the

curators did not provide a printed itinerary for the

week when the artisans arrived. Vazquez said he

would have preferred a hard copy of the schedule

from the beginning, even if some of the activities were

likely to change. Delgado Ku reported that since it

was the first time he had ever left Mexico or been

away from his family, it had been difficult for him.

Despite all of his travel and accommodation expenses

being covered (as well as a small honorarium for each

artisan), he worried about what would happen after

not carving for several days.

Because [in Illinois] I don’t earn, I spend. …But at the same time just being there is a kind of

compensation because you become familiar

with and learn something new, while seeing

another way of life, which can also open new

doors.

Indeed, Delgado Ku as well as the others were able to

make contacts with many people interested in their

work. Uc Delgado praised the process as a whole,

saying:

The truth is that everything seemed really good

to me. I’m not saying that because you are sit-

ting here. If there had been something I would

tell you, but I think it all went really well. The

way we were treated, the location of the exhibi-

tion, where we slept, where we ate, all perfect.…There were no problems.

Following the final exhibition in Merida, I asked

how they felt about their participation. Had it been

enough? All of them agreed that they would have liked

to have been more involved, but they also conceded

that the geographical distance made further collabo-

ration difficult. Uc Delgado was very frank in saying:

each of us had to accept that we couldn’t partici-

pate in everything. And the truth is, I feel really

grateful that you were interested in doing all the

work that you did. I don’t feel badly about it.

On the contrary, I’m glad that you all thought it

was important to do.

Vazquez agreed and noted, “you all know how to do

certain things that we don’t … all the steps that are

required in an exhibition.” However, the only way

someone will learn these steps is by doing them,

which is a skill that could be transferred to the organi-

zation of similar projects in Yucatan. On a practical

level, though, providing adequate training would

have required that the artisans spend several weeks (if

not months) in the United States, which was beyond

the limits of our budget. As Castaneda (2004a) has

discussed in Piste, perhaps the most appropriate

training would come from mounting exhibitions and

organizing other arts events in the specific regions

centered on art production. This would not only help

to elevate the status of locally made artesanıas but also

create opportunities for local artists and artisans to be

recognized for their talent in their own communities.

Questionnaires and School GroupsAnother way we tried to gather feedback at NIU was

through anonymous paper questionnaires left at the

gallery entrance that were completed on a voluntary

basis. There were 42 respondents who each answered

7 questions, both multiple choice and comment

based. The questions were about their knowledge of

Maya culture and history prior to visiting, the areas of

the exhibition that were most interesting for them,

reactions to some of the multimedia components in

the gallery space, and any other comments they

wanted to share about their experience.

For most visitors, the video of interviews with the

artisans was their connection to understanding who

they were and what they hoped to achieve in their

work. One respondent commented that the video

“humanized the artists as people.” Another said, “The

artists’ panels on walls also helped. [The video] gave

memore interest when looking at the actual art pieces

because I could see and know firsthand about that

artist.” A third remarked, “I enjoyed seeing them


79

in real-time, and receiving a true, first-person

experience.”

Gallery-goers also emphasized those opportunities

when they were able to talk to and interact with the

artisans directly. For instance, one visitor wrote, “I

got a good sense of who they were [from the video],

but being able to speak with them was a great experi-

ence.” Another added, “How better to learn about the

artisans than from them personally?” Perhaps the

comment that struck the greatest chord for us came

from the person who said, “We had the opportunity

to speak with the artisans and we learn[ed] so much

more than a label can say.” The positive responses we

received from viewers regarding their interaction with

the artisans were also reflected in their comments on

other aspects of the exhibition.

Feedback via e-mail from the different school

groups that visited the exhibition to meet the artisans

mirrors the positive comments of the questionnaires.

An English-as-a-second-language teacher observed

that her 40 students had been “deeply moved” and

“proud” to see “this art form recognized for its aes-

thetic value.” They were also “inspired by seeing suc-

cessful Spanish-speaking artists from their native

Mexico.” Following a visit from another school group

comprising mainly Mexican American students, we

received: “You have made a difference among my 33

students, because they emigrated from a country that

does not value the importance of the Mayan Art.

Now, for most of my students the need to learn more

about their parents’ country is not only part of a

book. It has become a need.”

Two high school Spanish teachers commented on

what a “great opportunity” it was to have this kind of

exhibition on display locally and their students’

“enthusiastic response” after seeing the woodcarvings

and talking with the artisans. Likewise, staff from

Barbour Language Academy described how the arti-

sans’ visit was a “one of a kind experience,” a view

that Miguel Uc Delgado also shared.

Implications and Recommendations

The dialogue and exchange that took place between

the artisans and the public, as well as the positive

commentary from our colleagues, visitors, and the

artisans, signaled that many of our original goals for

the exhibition had been achieved. Moreover, in 2010,

we were honored that both the exhibition and the

accompanying catalogue received “Superior” awards

from the Illinois Association of Museums. Vazquez’s

final assessment was similarly encouraging: “With

respect to what we consider ‘art’ or ‘artesanıa,’ [the

exhibition] began to plant seeds of doubt. It resulted

in the birth of a kind of polemic among the people

who consider themselves art critics, and caused a clash

between them,” regarding their established ideas and

beliefs. The “tourist art,” in all its complexity and

visual appeal, had encouraged people to question

their assumptions about art, while the public’s inter-

action with the Maya artisans served to dismantle

reified visions of the “Maya” as “past.” This engage-

ment actively confirmed the vibrancy ofMaya culture,

which, as Vazquez affirmed, has not “disappeared.”

In conclusion, I would be remiss not to offer some

reflection on the display of ethnographic collections

based on the results of this case study. First, following

the currents of reflexive or “new museology” (Vergo

1989), exhibition team members should strive for

transparency during all steps of the process and make

every effort to communicate information to source

communities partners, even if there is significant geo-

graphical distance between them (Basu and Macdon-

ald 2007). Keeping everyone “in the loop” will

minimize mistakes and help team members to feel

included in the process. Such coordination shows

that each voice matters in every decision (Kahn

2000). Second, while it may be against (or even pro-

hibited by) the goals of many art museums (or in our

case visa and U.S. Customs regulations), curators

should consider actively providing opportunities for

source community collaborators to sell their own

work (Castaneda 2004a). If not sold on-site, then

efforts should be made to locate other external ven-

dors or “brokers” through which to sell the pieces, as

it is an important way for collaborators to gain recog-

nition and esteem outside of their own countries, not

to mention extra income.25 Third, and most impor-

tantly, curators should endeavor to bring source com-

munity collaborators into the exhibition process,

both during the planning stages and later public pro-

gramming (Castaneda 2004a; Fienup-Riordan 1999;

Kahn 2000; also see authors in this volume). As many

of the contributors to this volume show, collabora-

tion is what makes the experience meaningful for so

many. The extra time and effort required—in terms

of the organization of outreach events with local


80

source communities or additional fundraising to

bring nonlocal source community members to the exhi-

bition—are considerable, but the rewards are immea-

surable (Peers and Brown 2003:8). Simply put, for us

it would not have been the same exhibition without

the collaboration of these individuals.

It should be clear by now that the benefits of the

artisans’ participation in the exhibition and related

activities were multiple. Providing opportunities for

them to speak directly about their lives, cultures, and

histories created another channel through which to

understand their work. In the context presented here,

engagement during various public activities allowed

visitors to interact with the Maya artisans more infor-

mally and helped to remove some of the boundaries

between the artworks, the artisans, and the audience.

While some aspects of the process might have been

handled differently, or even more effectively, the chal-

lenges that arose were also learning experiences that

will continue to inspire and motivate us in the plan-

ning and execution of future exhibitions of this type.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Jeff Kowalski, Jennifer Mathews, Quetzil

Castaneda, George Lau, Laura De Becker, and the four

anonymous reviewers who read and commented on early

drafts of this article, which greatly improved the final piece.

My special thanks go to my co-curator Jeff Kowalski for his

support throughout the exhibition process.

notes

1. I amgrateful for the support and collaboration ofmany indi-

viduals, without whom the exhibition at Northern Illinois

University (NIU) would not have been possible: co-curator

Jeff Kowalski; Peter van Ael, Coordinator of the Jack Olson

Gallery; Doug Boughton, Director of the NIU School of Art;

Janie Wilson-Cook; Andrew Liccardo; Kimberly Strom; Lee

Sido; and the many student workers who helped install the

exhibition. We are also grateful for financial support from

the Mexican Consulate in Chicago, NIU Venture Grant fund,

NIU School of Art, and Target Community Relations grant.

2. As I have noted elsewhere (Scott and Kowalski 2009:13),

most woodcarvers from the Puuc region refer to them-

selves as artesanos (artisans) rather than artistas (artists),

so it is this designation I use to describe them in the pres-

ent article. Based on my ongoing research in the Puuc

region, distinctions between “artist” and “artisan” are not

so clear-cut and in most cases do not preoccupy those

who produce tourist arts. Moreover, the term “artesano”

does not necessarily carry the same negative connotations

in the Puuc region as it does among Western visual tradi-

tions. Castaneda (2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2009a), however,

presents an alternative perspective on the use of these

terms within the art traditions of Piste where he has

worked to reassign local value systems. See Garcia Can-

clini (1993) for more discussion on hegemony in the arts

and popular cultural traditions of Mexico.

3. The artisans’ feedback comes mainly from interviews that

the author conducted with them in the spring of 2011.

These interviews were in Spanish. All quotes from the arti-

sans used in this article have been translated into English

by the author.

4. For debates about the validity of the term “art” cross-cul-

turally, see Morphy (1994). Unless makers identify them-

selves and their work as such, I find the terms “art” and

“artwork,” and to some degree “artist,” problematic when

discussing the creative and aesthetic works of societies

outside the Western world. In the Crafting Maya Identity

exhibition and catalogue, the co-curators did refer to the

displayed woodcarvings as “art” in several instances, but

we did so cautiously, acknowledging the changing roles

and definitions of “artists” and “artisans” since antiquity

(see Dean 2006; Wittkower and Wittkower 2006). Based

on interviews with the four Puuc artisans, I use the closest

English equivalent of their preferred Spanish language

terms, or in some cases, the Spanish term itself to describe

them and their creative work, and indeed the work of many

woodcarvers actively working in the Puuc region: artesano

(artisan), tallado (woodcarving), artesan�ıa (handicraft),

pieza (piece, particularly in an artistic sense), and figura

(figure).

5. Examples of studies that discuss Maya cultural identity

from different perspectives and in relation to various

external forces, see Castaneda (2004b), Castillo Cocom

(2005, 2007), and Hervik (2003).

6. E-mail to Jeff Kowalski, November 25, 2009.

7. Research for the exhibition began in 2006 in conjunction

with the author’s fieldwork for her master’s in art history

from NIU. Her master’s thesis (Scott 2008) focused on the

contemporary Puuc woodcarving tradition, and a con-

densed version, along with additional contributions by Jeff

Kowalski, formed the basis for the exhibition catalogue’s

Introduction (Scott and Kowalski 2009). Both co-curators

made several research trips to Yucatan during 2006–08 in

preparation for the Crafting Maya Identity exhibition.


81

8. Until his retirement in 2009, Angel Ruız Novelo was the

Encargado or Head Caretaker at the site of Labna and the

only woodcarver on-site.

9. All quotes, unless otherwise cited, by Miguel Angel Uc

Delgado are from interviews by Mary Katherine Scott on

September 16, 2010, and March 20, 2011.

10. All quotes, unless otherwise cited, by Jesus Marcos

Delgado Ku are from interviews by Mary Katherine Scott,

September 8, 2010, and March 19, 2011.

11. However, not every artisan in the Puuc region feels such a

strong connection to his or her Maya heritage. Indeed, the

very idea of “heritage” might seem strange to them, and

many are even ashamed to speak their local Yucatec-Maya

language or outwardly acknowledge their identity as

“Mayas” (see also Hervik 2003; Loewe 2010).

12. E-mail to Jeff Kowalski, November 25, 2009.

13. All quotes, unless otherwise cited, by Wilbert Vazquez, are

from an interview byMary Katherine Scott, March 20, 2011.

14. The exhibition’s website can be found at http://vrc.niu.

edu/maya/.

15. Similarly, Castaneda in his Ah Dzib P’izt�e’ (1999) exhibition

invited five Maya artists to participate in exhibition tours

with high school students and workshops with Lake Forest

College art, Spanish, and anthropology students. See Cas-

taneda (2004a, 2005a, 2005b) for a discussion of these

activities.

16. Janet C. Berlo, Christopher Steiner, and Quetzil Castaneda,

as well as invited guest speaker Nelson Graburn, pre-

sented at the symposium in addition to Jeff Kowalski and

the author. Likewise, Castaneda previously organized the

symposium “Forum on Maya Art and Anthropology,” in

conjunction with the Ah Dzib P’izt�e’ exhibition (see Casta-

neda 2004a).

17. However, any notions that their artesan�ıas represent a

“Maya” identity is primarily the “identity” preconceived

by tourists who have been primed by media and tourist

promotion. Many local Yucatec-Maya speaking peoples

who make artesan�ıas do not attribute their work as arti-

sans to a strong self conception of their “Mayanness.”

Even the four Puuc artisans featured in Crafting Maya

Identity do not consider themselves “Maya” in the sense

of being closely related to the preconquest Maya. Perhaps

due to their connections to archaeology through employ-

ment with INAH and their work as guides they have a

greater understanding, appreciation for, and sense of their

longstanding connections with their distant forbears than

others. This is what, in part, distinguishes them from other

artisans.

18. Their reactions to the exhibition organized in Merida were

mixed and included both pride for being able to exhibit

their work at home among family and friends as well as

frustration that the public response was not as supportive

as it had been at the exhibitions in the United States. Del-

gado Ku recalled to me that gallery visitors in Merida val-

ued the exhibition not because of the artisans’ talent or

the quality of the work but because it had been presented

in the United States.

19. Various governmental departments and affiliates, such as El

Consejo de Unidades de Servicios Turısticos Culturales (CUL-

TUR), the sector responsible for cultural and touristic activi-

ties in Yucatan, organize ferias (art fairs) and concursos

(competitions), often with accompanying exhibitions to rec-

ognize the different kinds of artistic activities around the

state and region. However, these activities are annual, or at

best, semi-annual events. Long-term governmental pro-

grams in support of artisanal activities are limited, and those

created under one political party frequently disappear when

new parties take office (Wilbert Vazquez, interview, March

20, 2011). Despite the uneven support that these govern-

ment-sponsored events offer to locals, Castaneda (2005b)

notes thatmany artists and artisans in Piste prefer the format

of the concurso to the “art for art’s sake” gallery exhibition.

20. E-mail to Mary Katherine Scott, May 3, 2011.

21. A repercussion of the misunderstanding about the wood-

carvings from Vasquez’s collection was that it raised ques-

tions concerning several of the other pieces in the

exhibition. The artisans themselves voiced their doubts

about the authorship of some of the works their col-

leagues claimed to have made. However, when I asked

them about these suspect carvings, each asserted that all

the pieces in the exhibition were their own and were not

the efforts of other artisans.

22. Unfortunately, the misinformation in the catalogue could

not be changed and reprinted. On the positive side, it

meant that works by four other artisans—Lorenzo Chim

Domınguez, Antonio Canul, Renan Salazar, and William

“Hormiga” Martın—were included in the exhibition that

would not have been otherwise. They were invited to be

recognized at the opening reception for the exhibition in

Merida, but despite confirmation to Wilbert Vazquez that

they would be present, they did not attend.



25. For instance, during the Ah Dzib P’izt�e’ (1999) exhibition,

Castaneda accompanied visiting Piste artists to local Chi-

cago art galleries, museums, and even Mexican restau-


82

rants in an attempt to identify and make connections with

potential commercial venues for their work outside of

Mexico. See Castaneda (2004a, 2005a, 2005b).

References Cited

Basu, Paul, and SharonMacdonald

2007 Introduction: Experiments in Exhibition

Ethnography, Art, and Science. In Exhibition

Experiments. Sharon Macdonald and Paul

Basu, eds. Pp. 1–24. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Publishing.

Castaneda, Quetzil E.

1996 In the Museum of Maya Culture: Touring Chi-

chen Itza. Minneapolis: University of Minne-

sota Press.

2004a Art-Writing in the Maya Art World of Chi-

chen Itza. American Ethnologist 31(1):21–42.

2004b “We Are Not Indigenous!”: An Introduction to

the Maya Identity of Yucatan. Journal of Latin

American Anthropology 9(1):36–63.2005a Between Pure and Applied Research: Ethnogra-

phy in a Transcultural Tourist Art World. UN-

APA Bulletin 23:87–118.2005b Community Collaboration and Ethnographic

Intervention: Dialogues in the Piste Maya Art

World. Practicing Anthropology 27(4):31–34.2009a Aesthetics and Ambivalence of Maya Moder-

nity: The Ethnography of Maya Art. In Crafting

Maya Identity: Contemporary Wood Sculp-

tures from the Puuc Region of Yucatan, Mex-

ico. Jeff Kowalski, ed. Pp. 133–152. DeKalb:Northern Illinois University Press.

2009b Heritage and Indigeneity: Transformations in

the Politics of Tourism. In Cultural Tourism in

Latin America: The Politics of Space and Imag-

ery. Michiel Baud and Annelou Ypeji, eds. Pp.

263–296. Leiden: Brill.Castaneda, Quetzil E., Fernando Armstrong Fumero, and

Lisa C. Breglia

1999 Ah Dzib P’izte’: Modern Maya Art in Ancient

Tradition. Lake Forest, IL: Lake Forest College.

Castillo Cocom, Juan A.

2005 “It Was Simply Their Word” Yucatec Maya

PRInces in YucaPAN and the Politics of Res-

pect. Critique of Anthropology 25(2):131–155.2007 Maya Scenarios: Indian Stories In and Out of

Contexts. Kroeber Anthropological Society

96:13–35.

Cohodas, Marvin

1999 Elizabeth Hickox and Karuk Basketry: A Case

Study in Debates on Innovation and Paradigms

of Authenticity. In Unpacking Culture: Art and

Commodity in the Colonial and Postcolonial

Worlds. Ruth B. Phillips and Christopher B.

Steiner, eds. Pp. 143–161. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Dean, Carolyn

2006 The Trouble with (the Term) Art. Art Journal

65(2):25–32.Fienup-Riordan, Ann

1999 Collaboration on Display: A Yup’ik Eskimo

Exhibit at Three National Museums. American

Anthropologist 101(2):339–358.Garcia Canclini, Nestor

1993 Transforming Modernity: Popular Culture in

Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Graburn, Nelson H. H.

1976 Ethnic and Tourist Arts: Cultural Expressions

from the Fourth World. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Hervik, Peter

2003 Mayan People Within and Beyond Boundaries:

Social Categories and Lived Identity in Yucatan.

Oxford: Routledge.

Kahn, Miriam

2000 Not Really Pacific Voices: Politics of Represen-

tation in Collaborative Museum Exhibits.

Museum Anthropology 24(1):57–74.Kowalski, Jeff Karl, ed.

2009 Crafting Maya Identity: Contemporary Wood

Sculptures from the Puuc Region of Yucatan,

Mexico. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University

Press.

Loewe, Ronald

2010 Maya or Mestizo? Toronto: University of Tor-

onto Press.

MacCannell, Dean

1973 Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social

Space in Tourist Settings. American Journal of

Sociology 79(3):589–603.1999 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Marcus, George E., and Fred R. Myers

1995 The Traffic in Art and Culture: An Introduc-

tion. In The Traffic in Culture: Refiguring Art

and Anthropology. George E. Marcus and Fred

R. Myers, eds. Pp. 1–54. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.


83

Mithlo, Nancy

2003 Staging the Indian: The Politics of Representa-

tion. Museum Anthropology 105(1):156–161.Morphy, Howard

1994 The Anthropology of Art. In Companion Ency-

clopedia of Anthropology. Tim Ingold, ed.

Pp. 648–685. London: Routledge.Peers, Laura, and Alison K. Brown

2003 Introduction. In Museums and Source Com-

munities. Laura Peers and Alison K. Brown,

eds. Pp. 1–16. London: Routledge.Phillips, Ruth B.

2003 Introduction to Part 3: Community Collabora-

tion in Exhibitions: Toward a Dialogic Para-

digm. In Museums and Source Communities.

Laura Peers and Allison K. Brown, eds.

Pp. 155–170. London: Routledge.Phillips, Ruth B., and Christopher B. Steiner, eds.

1999 Unpacking Culture: Art and Commodity in the

Colonial and Postcolonial Worlds. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Scott, Mary Katherine

2008 Rethinking the Art in Artesanıa: Contemporary

Woodcarving in the Puuc Region of Yucatan,

Mexico. Master’s thesis, Department of Art

History, Northern Illinois University.

2009 Representing the Maya: When Is It Appropriate

to Call ‘Appropriations’ Art? In Crafting Maya

Identity: Contemporary Wood Sculptures from

the Puuc Region of Yucatan, Mexico. exh. cat.

Jeff Karl Kowalski, ed. Pp. 174–190. DeKalb:Northern Illinois University Press.

Scott, Mary Katherine, and Jeff Karl Kowalski

2009 Imaging the Maya: Carvings, Carvers, Contexts,

and Messages. In Crafting Maya Identity: Con-

temporary Wood Sculptures from the Puuc

Region of Yucatan, Mexico. Jeff Karl Kowalski,

ed. Pp. 3–82. DeKalb: Northern Illinois Univer-

sity Press.

Steiner, Christopher B.

1994 African Art in Transit. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Szasz, Margaret Connell

2001[1994] Between Indian and White Worlds: The Cul-

tural Broker. 2nd edition. Norman: University

of Oklahoma Press.

Vergo, Peter, ed.

1989 The NewMuseology. London: Reaktion Books.

Wittkower, Rudolph, andMargoWittkower

2006[1963] Born under Saturn: The Character and Con-

duct of Artists. New York: NYRB Classics.


84

reflections on collaboration: exhibiting contemporary maya art

Documents