acheson2013theroleofsculptureincommunicatingarchaeologyinmuseums

8/11/2019 Acheson2013TheRoleOfSculptureInCommunicatingArchaeologyInMuseums

1/21

Introduction Archaeology has a responsibility to engagewith the broader public (e.g. Schadla-Hall1999; Ascherson 2000; Matsuda 2009). As acrucial point of interaction between the dis-cipline and society, it is important that muse-ums provide a meaningful journey into thehuman past (Merriman 1991:1,117 & 13940). Traditional museum display methodsare often unsuited for this purpose, creatingan atmosphere that limits engagement andprecipitates passive acceptance of specialistexplanation (Silverman 1995: 161; Skram-stad 2004: 128). Equally, archaeologists andcurators rarely acknowledge the uncertain-ties of archaeological investigation thatleave room for non-specialist perspectives(Hooper-Greenhill 1999:18; Gardner 2004:1415). Museums should instead encourage

visitors to become like archaeologists andreach their own interpretations of displayedmaterial. New and creative approaches toexhibition design can enhance public expe-rience of archaeology whilst also conservingobjects (Falk and Dierking 2000; Basu andMacdonald 2007).

Contemporary sculpture can achieve theseaims: three-dimensional artwork has thegreatest capacity to activate visitor agency via the unique viewing experience it creates.By occupying space, sculpture facilitates abodily-engaged response, first confrontingand then drawing viewers in and around thepiece to discover its form, materiality anddetail (Tucker 1974: 9; Potts 2001: 910). This captivates and sustains visitor attention,encouraging further exploration of its mean-ing, as well as the wider exhibition context.

This paper has three main sections: the

first introduces a working definition of con-temporary sculpture and the challengesassociated with a shortage of data relating

Acheson Roberts, L 2013 The Role of Sculpture in CommunicatingArchaeology in Museums. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology,23(1): 6, pp. 1-21, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.425

RESEARCH PAPER

The Role of Sculpture in CommunicatingArchaeology in MuseumsLeah Acheson Roberts *

* Institute of Archaeology, UCL, United [email protected]

pia

In this article I discuss an innovative museum strategy that aims to create a more evoca-tive and engaging visitor experience. I argue that the inclusion of contemporary art, and

speci cally sculpture in exhibition design, activates visitor agency, empowering the publicto take part in interpreting the human past. I explore the unique sensory engagementsculpture provides and the important role this can play for the public presentation ofarchaeology. I also examine an existing project that has called upon sculpture as an inter-pretive resource at the National Museum of Scotland, discussing its impact on visitorsand its contribution to the discipline. I conclude with a discussion of a selection of livingsculptors including Rachel Whiteread and Antony Gormley whose work, I argue, signalsexciting opportunities for future artist-curator collaboration. By considering both currentexamples and future possibilities, this article builds a case for sculpture as an importantand dynamic tool for the public understanding of archaeology in museums.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.425mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.425


2/21

Acheson Roberts: The Role of Sculpture in CommunicatingArchaeology in Museums

Art. 6, page 2 of 21

to the visitor experience. The second sectionis a detailed discussion of existing collabora-tions between sculptors and curators, focus-ing particularly on a project at the NationalMuseum of Scotland. In the third, I explore aselection of works with archaeological rele- vance not yet displayed in a museum contextthat represent opportunities for purpose-designed commissions. Finally, I highlightkey points for future research and drawtogether the range of interpretive objectivesmet by contemporary sculpture for archaeol-ogy in museums.

A Working De nition of

Contemporary SculptureIn order to ground this discussion, a shortand necessarily partial definition of contem-porary sculpture is offered: a three-dimen-sional art form that occupies space, andranges in style from classical to conceptual.

The Modernist movement of the early 20th century led to more freedom in the creativeprocess extending the range of materialsused by artists. With a rejection of realism

and shift towards the avant-garde, the cat-egory of sculpture was extended to includefound objects (Marcel Duchamp b.1887d.1968), moving parts (Jean Tinguely b.1925d.1991) and performance (Joseph Beuysb.1921 d.1986) (Causey 1998: 711). Sculp-ture expanded even further with postmod-ernism (c.1970 c.1990), giving rise to an artform that became increasingly conceptual(McEvilley 1999: 46). Contemporary sculp-ture is therefore not bound by conventionalparameters such as the plinth (Morse 2010:31). It is a dynamic and open category thatis full of possibilities (Causey 1998: 7 & 259).

Obviously this explanation is a gross sim-plification of the shifting cultural attitudesaffecting art, the terminology (modernism/postmodernism) of which suffers from anoveremphasis on chronological succession(McEvilley 1999: 35) and continues to be thesubject of much debate. My aim is to provide

a brief summary of how these movementsaffected sculpture. Causey (1998) providesa clear guide to contemporary sculptures

changing definition and role; Potts (2000)discusses the history of sculpture and its pub-lic reception, and Tucker (1974), a sculptor,presents his personal reading of the art form.

The Data GapIt is important to preface the following dis-cussion by highlighting the shortage of relevant data that would allow for wider analysisof sculpture as a communicator of archaeol-ogy in museums. There are very few audi-ence research projects available as sourcesin this field. My evaluation therefore reliesheavily upon the views of artists and cura-tors, as well as my own interpretations. This

is problematic because any study that seeksto create a more engaging museum experi-enceshould include the perspectives of visi-tors. Where possible, I support argumentswith data from a similar project for whichmuseum visitor responses to contemporarysculpture are published (Morris HargreavesMcIntyre 2009).

The termsvisitors , viewers and the public are not applied without an awareness

of their drawbacks: these blanket terms donot reflect the diversity of people who visitmuseums from a range of demographic,educational and cultural backgrounds, andwith different interpretive needs. Likewise,due to lack of data, any detailed assessmentof the sculptures according to criteria suchas whether they cater to the interpretiveneeds of specific groups (e.g. families) can-not be tackled.

Both factors lead to an unfortunate butinevitable homogenisation of individualvisi- tors to museums and galleries, and the public body that is archaeologys potential audi-ence. These issues are the subjects of exten-sive debate: this paper is also by no meansthe final word on the topic.

Existing Collaboration To further explore the purpose that sculp-ture can serve for archaeology, examples of

existing collaboration between the two disci-plines must be examined and their contribu-tion assessed.


3/21



Relocation and Absent Materials The British sculptor Andy Goldsworthy(b.1958) typically works in the landscapeusing natural materials to make sculpturesthat degrade and cease to exist except inphotographs (Malpas 2004: 146). Theseephemeral sculptures explore themes per-tinent for archaeology such as time, decayand the human relationship with the naturalenvironment. Goldsworthy has also collabo-rated with curators, creating installationsthat transport visitors back in time and out-side the museum walls.

In 19941995, Goldsworthy collaboratedwith the British Museum forTime Machine ,

an exhibition in the museums EgyptianSculpture Gallery (Putnam and Davies 1994)with works by other artists such as the sculp-tor Marc Quinn. By including contemporarysculpture amongst ancient Egyptian works,this project sought to encourage visitorsto see continuities in, and identify similarmotifs between, past and present products ofhuman creativity, thus making the past moreaccessible (Putnam 1994: 8).

Goldsworthy used thirty tonnes of sand(Putnam 2011) to createSandwork , a sculp-ture that snaked between cabinets andfigures [Figure 1]. The sand returned theancient statues to their original context, thedesert; but the shape ofSandwork also playedan interpretive role, recollecting the RiverNile, the life source of Ancient Egypt. Eitherreading encouraged visitors to imagine howthe statues might once have been seen.Goldsworthy did not however intend for itsshape to have one meaning but rather torefer to rivers, snakes, trees and prehistoricearthworks (Goldsworthy 2002: 113). In anycase,Sandwork worked as a powerful visualtool drawing the visitors attention into andaround the gallery, an effect intensified bythe contrast of the yellow sand upon the gal-lery floors dark granite.

The British Museum allowedSandwork to be displayed for just three days on the

grounds that it disrupted public access (Put-nam 2009: 155). The sculpture was insteadrepresented by video and photography for

the remaining weeks of the exhibition, astep that would normally diminish a worksimpact. For Goldsworthy however, thisenhanced the artworks message about thepassage of time. Just as the Egyptian sculp-tures (museum objects) are traces of a pastsociety, the photographs and film serve as amemory ofSandwork (sculpture). In fact, inits material form and as a photograph,Sand- work facilitated relocation: the sculpturereturned the Egyptian statues to the desertand the photograph helped visitors envisageGoldsworthys work as it was in the gallery.

In 1998, Goldsworthy made a group ofworks for theEarly People Gallery in the

new National Museum of Scotland (NMS),Edinburgh. LikeTime Machine , this estab-lished a dialogue between the ancient and

Figure 1: Andy GoldsworthysSandwork(1994) created for theTime Machine exhi-bition at the British Museum this river ofsand returned the Egyptian statues to theNile Valley. James Putnam


4/21



the contemporary (Goldsworthy 2000: 8).Made from 66,000 horizontally-laid roofingslates, the largest of the series isEnclosure : acircular, four-part sculpture that represents abroch, an Iron Age structure unique to Scot-land (Goldsworthy 2000: 10). It encircles dis-plays [Figure 2] about prehistoric agricultureand food processing, encouraging visitors tofollow its sweeping form to explore the gal-lery (Malpas 2004: 139). LikeSandwork , italso encourages visitors to consider objectsin their original, prehistoric context as partof the agricultural landscape. Goldsworthyintended thatEnclosure be a reminder of thecyclical nature of working the land (Golds-worthy 2000: 10). Each of the sculptureswalls has a circle of slate in its centre. Readleft to right the circles turn clockwise, repre-senting the rising and setting of the sun and

moon as well as circularity of time (Golds-worthy 2000: 10). While there is no data toestablish the proportion of visitors to whom

this conceptual message is successfully com-municated, it would be interesting to exam-ine, for example, if an explanatory leaflet isrequired and how far this step could under-mine my wider argument for the facilitationof independent interpretation by museum visitors.

Goldsworthy created a second sculpture forthe centre ofEnclosure: a circle of burnt andunburnt wood that forms a notional hearth[Figure 3]. The hearth had a practical roleproviding food and warmth but also a sym-bolic and social significance for prehistoriccommunities in Europe (Bradley 2002: 70).Goldsworthys choice of wood sourced fromthe NMS construction site is also significant.By creating something new through burn-ing he references another important prehis-toric concept - rebirth and transformation

through fire (Bruck 2001: 153). The presenceof wood in the gallery also reminds visitorsof this organic materials important role in

Figure 2: Enclosure by Andy Goldsworthy (1998) represents an Iron Age structure unique toScotland and provides an interpretive context for displayed objects. Nick Kirkby


5/21



prehistory, a material typically absent fromdisplays due to lack of preservation. Thebias of the archaeological record means thatmetal, ceramic and stone artefacts dominatemuseum displays. This can often give museum visitors a skewed impression of a past whereno textiles or wood were used: Goldsworthyswork helps to counteract this distortion.

For the bays of the south wall ofEarly Peo- ple , Goldsworthy created a series of large,cracked-clay panels. These bring earth itselfinto the sterile museum context and so serveas a reminder of the excavation process. Theircolour also reminds visitors of the richness ofnatural pigments used in prehistory, coloursthat, on recovered objects have lost their vibrancy with time (Blackwell 2012). Golds-worthy designed one panel,River [Figure 4]specifically for the display of a prehistoricdugout canoe, an object that could easilybe mistaken for a coffin or tree trunk rather

than a water-faring vessel. It is the only panelto include the sinuous meander (Goldswor-thy 2000: 8) of a dried-up riverbed. This jux-

taposition provides visitors with visual cluesas to the use of the object thus encouragingindependent interpretation. Traditionallymuseums use painterly backdrops of land-scape-settings to provide a context for thistype of object; yet, these artistic representa-tions are inflexible and rarely look anythinglike the real world (D. Clarke, pers. comm., March 2013). Goldsworthys contextualisa-tion is more appropriate. His sculpturesencourage visitors to imagine, rather thanpassively accept one interpretation of thepast. They also reflect the nature of archaeol-ogy, which can, at best, only provide partialtraces from which the human past can startto be understood.

Distant Past: Familiar People The Scottish sculptor Sir Eduardo Paolozzi(b.1924 d.2005) is famous for his collagesbut describes himself primarily, as a sculptor

(Paolozzi 1983: 39). Whatever the medium,his works create a fusion between past andpresent using found objects in his sculptures

Figure 3: Andy Goldsworthys hearth of burnt wood withinEnclosure (1998) puts this natu-ral material, typically absent from museums, at the heart of a display about processing ofresources. Andrew McMillan


6/21



and pages from old books in his collages.Paolozzis longstanding interest in this syn-thesis and the related practice of museumcuration is further evidenced by his involve-ment with theMuseum of Mankind in 1985(Paolozzi 1985). His exhibit rejected conventional approaches of display, presentinga diverse collection of ethnographic mate-rial as a homogenous group (Anon. 2005).Paolozzi believed that the objects could beunited by their all being human-made prod-ucts regardless of their date or place of origin(Overton 2009). This is an interesting prefacefor his later collaboration with the NationalMuseum of Scotland.

In addition to Goldsworthys sculptures,NMS commissioned a series of works fromPaolozzi, also for theEarly People Gallery .Since the museums primary objective is todisplay all things Scottish (McKean 2000:

101), Paolozzi served a dual purpose as aScottish artist whose sculptures could rep-resent prehistoric Scots. Today, Paolozzis

twelve one-and-a-quarter-life-size bronze fig-ures People form an avenue that welcomes visitors to the exhibition.

PaolozzisPeople are abstract and dynamicwith organic and mechanistic forms com-bined into their prominent musculature(Paolozzi 1983: 43). They project a univer-sally identifiable human that unites peopleof the present (viewers) with people of thepast (sculptures). Traditionally mannequinsare used to represent past people but theselifeless models project one reading as faithfulreconstruction, such as the entrenched pop-ular prehistoric stereotype of the bearded,fur-clad brute (Moser 1998). Instead, Paoloz-

zis stylised, non-sex-specific depictionsreflect the archaeological reality that there islittle evidence to help us describe prehistoricpeople realistically the figures provide animpression from which visitors can developtheir own ideas.

Each of Paolozzis sculptures was alsodesigned to incorporate the display ofartefacts into their dimensions [Figure 5].Glass boxes are included in the figures at

the points at which archaeologists believepersonal objects would have been worn. These glass components enable visitors tointeract with the archaeological materialat a level scale, human-to-human as thepieces would have been originally experi-enced. This means objects can be examinedclose-up rather than at a distance on thelow shelves of traditional museum cabi-nets. Knowledge of their detail and intricacyhelps impress upon visitors that amongstthe ancient Scots were skilled jewelers: oneof the intended messages of the gallery(McKean 2000: 113). By being non-sex-spe-cific Paolozzis figures also avoid genderingany of the jewellery they display. The glasscomponents therefore encourage visitorsto behave more like archaeologists, makinginterpretations based on a detailed assess-ment of material evidence. Such an engage-ment enables the public to take part in the

process of meaning making (Robins 2007:23) and champions the museum as an activelearning environment. Through important

Figure 4: Andy GoldsworthysRiver (1998)provides interpretive clues for visitors as tothe use of the object displayed at its front:a canoe. Nick Kirkby


7/21



steps like these, archaeology can become amore inclusive discipline.

Paolozzis twelve figures are grouped intofour sets, each of which illustrate a thematicsection of the gallery and form a sequencethat communicates the key developmentalstages of socio-economic complexity fromthe Mesolithic to the Viking Age. Their lay-out does not correspond with the linear Three Age System but zigzags to reflect theprehistoric conceptualisation of time basedon recurring seasonal cycles.

The first group and theme A Generous Land ,examining natural resources, is depicted bya scenario showing a rectangle (workbench)on which a cube (natural resource) is trans-formed into a sphere (product) (D. Clarke, pers. comm., February 2012). In the nextthematic groupWider Horizons , a figure pre-

sents this circle (product) to another, whoseoutstretched palm can be read to say helloor stop to reflect the amiable or hostile early

contact made between prehistoric communi-ties [Figure 6]. The circle here represents pro-cessed goods but also the ideas exchanged viatrading relationships. Paolozzis third grouppresents Them and Us , showing a seated(enthroned) figure flanked by two standingfigures (subordinates), whose hand rests uponan orb that represents the control of resources[Figure 5] (D. Clarke, pers. comm., February2012). And so the sequence continues, cul-minating in a lone figure who represents theinvisible prehistoric individual.

This is, however, an intellectually chal-lenging display. Many visitors will struggleto understand the full range of informa-tion presented without the help of textualexplanation or guided tour. The concep-

tual representation of the different stagesof socio-economic development may proveparticularly difficult to unravel. While this

Figure 5: Eduardo PaolozzisPeople (1998)display objects as well as presenting exhi-bition themes and stages of socio-econom-

ic complexity. Nick Kirkby

Figure 6: This group of figures by EduardoPaolozzi presents the themeWider Hori- zons: the upheld palm communicates hello

and stop, to reflect the possible manner ofearly contact between prehistoric commu-nities. Leah Acheson Roberts


8/21



limits the sculptures as interpretive tools, Iam convinced that explanation would alsobe required for conventional museum alter-natives, such as the often-impenetrable dia-grams and timelines. In fact, PaolozzisPeopleprovide a striking introduction to the themesand concepts explored in the exhibitionthat, combined with the avenue the groupsforge through museum space, persuades visitors to continue their journey throughthe gallery. An example of a sculpture play-ing a similar role, for which published dataexists, is Antony GormleysCase for an AngelI (2008) , displayed in the entrance foyer forStatuephilia: Contemporary Sculptors at the

British Museum (Morris Hargreaves McIn-tyre 2009: 8). Many interviewed visitors feltits outstretched wings welcomed them andoffered a choice of directions to go withinthe Museum (Morris Hargreaves McIntyre2009: 26).

Future CollaborationIn the following section, I propose potentialareas for future collaborations between muse-

ums and contemporary sculptors. Unlikethose by Goldsworthy and Paolozzi, thesesculptures are not made with the museum visitor in mind. Instead, they are existingworks that have an archaeological relevanceand/or demonstrate that the artist hasexplored ideas suited to a purpose-designedcommission for archaeology. Analysis oftheir role as communicators of archaeologyis therefore based upon artists, curators andcritics interpretations of the sculpturesout- side the museum. Consequently, I offer myown ideas about how visitors will respondto the works in an archaeological context. These are convincing arguments that dem-onstrate the potential for further collabora-tion between the two fields.

Human Traces and Spaces British sculptor Rachel Whiteread (b. 1963)is essentially concerned with how humans

regard and relate to their built environment.Her sculptures express absent human bodies,

drawing the viewers attention to overlookedaspects of objects and architecture (Whit-eread 2004), ideas resonant with archaeo-logical aims and practice.

The majority of Rachel Whitereads worksare casts of abandoned objects such as furni-ture found in second-hand shops (Whiteread2004). Using synthetic materials like plaster,concrete and dental putty she solidifies neg-ative space, creating detailed three-dimen-sional inversions that are both unsettlingand familiar. They describe our physicality(Mullins 2004: 10) by capturing the unoccu-pied spaces of objects created for a universalhuman: baths, beds and wardrobes are, for

example, about the height and length of aperson (Elliott 2001: 9). Thus, the absenceof the human form is described through thereification of absent space. Close inspectionof her negative casts of chairs, sinks and hot-water bottles also reveal traces of humanity.By detecting and interpreting these marksand fragments, viewers of Whitereads sculp-tures become like archaeologists, inferringhow the objects were used and by whom.

This echoes the central aim of archaeologi-cal investigation: to reconstruct past humanexperience from the traces left behind.

This concept is most clearly expressed inher series of bed mattress casts made duringthe early 1990s. Whitereads use of a urine- yellow coloured rubber to cast these evoca-tive objects recalls the recurrent urban imageof the abandoned, stained mattress. It leads viewers to speculate as to the intimate pasthuman actions these traces might represent,ranging in kind from sickness to passion(Elliott 2001: 9), once again appointing themthe role of the archaeologists.

Whiteread next sought to capture traces ofthe human past in architectural space as, likefurniture, it too corresponds to the humanform (Mullins 2004: 39). In 1990, she madeGhost [Figure 7], a plaster cast of a room ofa North London house, not dissimilar fromher childhood home (Mullins 2004: 23). The

casting process reversed positive and nega-tive features, transforming the inside walls


9/21



into the outer and defining shape of her

sculpture (Potts 2001: 2021). Archaeologi-cal traces of the life lived there, such as wall-paper fragments and soot from the fireplace,were also lifted with the plaster for viewersconsideration (Mullins 2004: 23).

In 1993, Whiteread took this idea further,creating a large-scale, in-situ concrete castof an entire terracedHouse [Figure 8] on astreet in Hackney, London. LikeGhost , thiswork petrified space and inverted architec-tural features; alcoves became protrusions,and doorknobs, rounded hollows (Dixon1993). This made amateur archaeologists ofthe onlookers (Mullins 2004: 52), invitingthem to imagine past room uses and users. The transformation of the familiar into theunfamiliar unsettled viewers, drawing outthe sense of sadness we all experience atmemories, people and past lives now lost -themes relevant for archaeology (Lingwood1995; Sinclair 1995). Equally, by fossilising

urban space Whiteread highlights the scaleat which humans live, a message that could

be used in the museum to aid public under-

standing of social space through time. How-ever, for local residentsHouse exposed a pri- vate home like their own to public scrutiny(Mullins 2004: 7). Some were so outragedthey campaigned for its demolition, whichwent ahead in 1994 (Schlieker 2001: 59).Indeed, the strong public reaction, as well asthe critical acclaim it received (winning the Turner Prize 1993), are an indication of theworks powerful social and political impact.

Whitereads sculptures present ideas perti-nent for archaeology, drawing viewers in toinspect traces of humanity and reflect upontheir own lives and relationship with the builtenvironment. Her process could also work asa kind of rescue archaeology, capturing posi-tive impressions of excavation trenches orhistoric building interiors that would other-wise be lost to urban redevelopment. How-ever, such casts prevent any internal spatialinformation being accessed: rather like a jar

of air, any evidence beyond the outer shellwould become invisible to the viewer. This

Figure 7: Rachel WhitereadsGhost (1990): a cast of a room that captured traces and memo-ries of the lives lived there. Nathan Harrison


10/21



friction between preservation and inacces-

sibility highlights the similar limitationsof the virtual reality (VR) and 3D modelingtechniques now widely used to map archaeo-logical sites (Hermon and Nikodem 2008). Whitereads casts facilitate public experienceof lost space but also limit it, just as VR and3D visualisations enable future generationsto experience sites to the forensic detail, butcannot recreate what it feels liketo be there .In a museum context, these new sculpturescould be used to encourage visitors to takepart in academic debate both about theauthority assigned to particular categoriesof evidence (i.e. tangible over intangible)and the role of embodied experience for theinterpretation of archeological sites.

The similarity between Whitereads castingprocess forHouse and archaeological excava-tion also offers an important message for thepublic presentation of archaeology: for theinformation and evidence to be reached, the

original material context must be destroyed. To cast its rooms meant filling them with

liquid concrete before tearing away the

original shell and source of the work (Dixon1993). In the same way, the act of digging byarchaeologists is unrepeatable and inevitablydestructive. A similar museum-based instal-lation could help communicate that the pastis vulnerable to human agency, both in theform of landscape redevelopment and pro-fessional misconduct by archaeologists innot providing a clear and detailed record ofan excavated site.

Being Human Antony Gormley (b. 1950) is another sculp-tor chiefly concerned with human scale butunlike Whiteread, he expresses this throughdirect figurative representation. His sculp-tures explore the limits of human bodilyexperience, creating a conversation with viewers via their co-habitation of space(Gormley 2011).

Aside from his monumental public work

The Angel of the North (1998) Gormley ismost famous for the multitude of body case

Figure 8: House (1993) by Rachel Whiteread: the Turner-Prize winning cast of a house inte-rior made and displayedin situ in East London. Simon Edney


11/21



sculptures he creates by casting his own body[Figure 9]. What begins as a plaster cast istransposed into lead, bronze or iron to makesculptures that both contain and occupyspace (Gormley 2000cited in Caiger-Smith2010: 29). These hollow forms express thedarkness of the body, the space behind theexternal appearance in which all humansdwell (Gormley 2005: 17). The ritual of begin-ning with a cast of Gormleys form results inunique works, each of which record differentand momentary experiences of being in hisbody. They capture fleeting moments frozenin time at the point of creation, echoing theplaster casts of Pompeii. Because they havethe same origin, these sculptures also have

an inevitable physical uniformity, a charac-teristic emphasised by the regimented still-

ness of Gormleys poses and simplicity of hisfinal forms. Through the dichotomy betweentheir unique internal experience and exter-nal uniformity, Gormley exploresindividual embodied experience and theuniversalhuman condition.

The scale shared by sculpture and viewerprompts viewers to recognise aspects of theirown condition in Gormleys bodily experi-ence. In fact, the artist describes these hol-low sculptures as void spaces, awaiting [the viewers] thoughts and feelings (Gormley2011). This shared human scale thereforedirects viewers to look at themselves (Gorm-ley 2000) and consider what it feels like to

be in their bodies (Gormley 2005: 17). Byhighlighting that we all experience andunderstand the world through our bodies(Merleau-Ponty 1962), Gormley expresses ahuman commonality, a message that couldhelp unite museum visitors with the peopleof the past.

The viewer was also the focal point forGormleysField series [Figure 10]. Alwaysmade collaboratively and just a few inches

tall, these small abstract sculptures werebrought together to form vast installations.Gormley created many different versionsduring the1990s and 2000s, ranging fromthe 150 prehistoric-looking (Caiger-Smith2010: 49) fired-clay figures of 1989 to the35,000 displayed in the British MuseumsGreat Court in 2002. Gormleys undiffer-entiated forms always filled their displayspace and outnumbered viewers, provokingresponses that ranged from awe to anxiety(Caiger-Smith 2010: 5052). Each figuresmute unflinching gaze (Caiger-Smith 2010:50) transformed viewer into viewed andconsequently highlighted the very act oflooking (Putnam 2009: 178). Rather like thereflective ceiling panel in Olafur ElliassonsThe Weather Project installation (Leahy 2010:167) in Tate Moderns Turbine Hall in 2003,GormleysField series encouraged view-ers to see themselves, seeing and in doing

so, evaluate their own condition (Elliassonquoted by Meyer 2004cited in Leahy 2010:

Figure 9: An early example of Antony Gorm-leys body case sculptures made by cast-

ing his own body. Antony Gormley SOUNDI, 1986 Lead/fibreglass/water 188 x 60 x45 cm Installation view, Salvatore Ala Gal-lery, New York, USA, 1986. the artist


12/21



167). For archaeology,Field could highlighthow public constructions of the past areinfluenced by present-day prejudices andtherefore underline the importance of a rep-resentative and ethically responsible disci-pline (Ucko 2001).

For his 20112012 installationStill Stand- ing at The Hermitage Museum in St Peters-burg, Gormley worked directly with archae-ological material, creating a conversationbetween ancient and contemporary sculp-ture (Gormley 2011). He removed Romanstatues from their plinths so that viewershad the unique experience of encounteringthe gods and heroes of antiquity as equals[Figure 11]. Through this, Gormley soughtto make viewers more aware of their ownbodies in space (Gormley 2011). Gormleyalso installed his own sculptures composedof pixels of rusty iron, a degrading mate-rial used to encourage viewers to reflect on

concepts of time and decay (Gormley 2011)- themes relevant to archaeology.

In his 2007 workBlind Light [Figure 12] Gormley created an interactive environmentthat made the viewer participant and subject(Caiger-Smith 2010: 108). A glass box (10mwide and 3m high) was filled with a cooledatmospheric cloud of 90% humidity, which,combined with the effects of intense fluores-cent white light reduced visibility to less thanan arms length (Caiger-Smith 2010: 108). This led visitors to experience a heightenedstate of consciousness and bodily aware-ness, highlighting the broader sensory capa-bilities of perception.Blind Light therefore reminded participants of the human condi-tion that we are both restricted and enabledby our corporeality.

Gormleys sculptures establish a relation-ship with viewers by exploring the univer-sal conditions of human experience. This is

Figure 10: Antony GormleysEuropean Field : this photograph shows how the works ban-ish viewers from the display space. Antony Gormley EUROPEAN FIELD, 1993 Terracotta Variable size: approx. 40 000 elements, each 826 cm high Installation view, Muse dArtModerne de Saint-tienne Mtropole, France, 2009. Photograph by Yves Bresson. Commis-

sioned by Malmo Konsthall, Malmo, Sweden. the artist


13/21



useful for the presentation of archaeologybecause it offers a message of human con-tinuity: although the world is always chang-ing, the way that we experience and perceiveit remains the same. This could help banishcondescending stereotypes (Moser 1998)and so enable museum visitors to relate tothe people of the past. Gormleys ideas arealso in-line with phenomenology, a school ofthought that argues that human perceptionand understanding are determined by thebody (e.g. Merleau-Ponty 1962). This embod-ied approach has been used for the interpre-tation of archaeological sites and landscapes(e.g. Tilley 1994). It has also been identifiedas an important avenue for museum research(e.g. Monod and Klein 2005) but there is lit-tle evidence of any concerted application ofthese principles in this field. Gormleys sculp-tures represent a route through which theembodied approach to museum interpreta-tion can be developed.

Order and Disorder American artist Mark Dions (b. 1961) cre-ates sculptural works comprising conceptualinstallation and performance elements thatexamine how dominant ideologies, tradi-tions and public institutions, shape our mod-ern-day understanding of human history andthe natural world (Art 21 2013).

For his projectHistory Trash Dig (1995)Dion simulated an archaeological excava-tion in an art gallery context [Figure 13].In the early phases, viewers could observethe artist and volunteers unearthing objectsfrom piles of earth transported from nearbyconstruction sites (Coles 1999: 26). Thisrelocation meant that archaeology gained anew audience who were able to learn aboutexcavation processes but also witness thecreation of Dions final installation, a com-ment on museum convention comprised offound objects and tools used by excavators(Coles 1999: 42). Through these stages Dion

Figure 11: For this part of the exhibitionStill Standing , Antony Gormley removed ancientsculptures from their plinths so that they confronted museum visitors face-to-face. An-tony Gormley STILL STANDING The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, Russia, 20 2012. Photograph by Yuri Molodkovets. the artist


14/21



highlighted problems associated with thelack of information provided by museumsabout objects contexts of discovery andassociated artefacts. The indoor-excavationalso questioned the sterility of the art gal-lery, an activity that could be usefully trans-posed to the museum domain to remind vis-itors of the many processes through whichdisplayed objects arrive on display, that is:discovery, processing, restoration, analysisand curation.

Dion took his exploration of archaeologicalprinciples further with theTate Thames Dig(19992000). He, along with a team of local volunteers, used archaeological field-walkingtechniques to comb the Thames foreshore for

any objects that caught their attention (Wil-liams 1999: 78; Blazwick 2001: 108). Becausecollection was guided by choice and personal

interest rather than research questions, somefelt that this project harmfully misrepre-sented archaeological method to the public(Renfrew 1999: 14). However, by gatheringonly surface material devoid of stratigraphiccontext, Dions approach was sensitive to anyunderlying archaeology (Dion 2009)

These issues carry over into Dions finalpiece: a four-metre long, double-sided,wooden cabinet to display the objects col-lected on the foreshore [Figure 14]. Thisdesign was based upon theWunderkammer(literally, wonder cabinet) of The Enlighten-ment but, unlike the original, was interac-tive (Williams 1999: 98). Dion chose a sym-bol of the look-but-dont-touch (Blazwick

2001: 105) tradition for an installation thatencouraged participation, as a way of chal-lenging the detached observation expected

Figure 12: Antony GormleysBlind Light : an environment that enabled an experience of

heightened bodily-consciousness. Antony Gormley BLIND LIGHT, 2007 Fluorescent light,water, ultrasonic humidifiers, toughened low iron glass, aluminium 320 x 978.5 x 856.5cm. Commissioned by the Hayward Gallery, London. Installation view, Hayward Gallery,London. Photograph by Stephen White, London. the artist


15/21



of museum and gallery visitors. The cabinetactivated viewers to make interpretations ofmaterial, just as an archaeologist would do(Williams 1999: 94). Being able to handlethe objects also meant viewers could estab-lish personal links with the people of thepast (Renfrew 1999: 15).

The diverse spectrum of objects presented ranging from a fifty million year old seaurchin to a mobile phone (Williams 1999:86) also prompted visitors to question whycertain objects are favoured for museum dis-play over others (Dion 2009). By organisingonly some objects, and according to differ-ent taxonomies such as their colour, use orshape, Dion undermined established taxo-nomic principles (King and Marstine 2006:272). This rejected the authoritative roleassumed by specialists (Coles 1999: 29) and

empowered viewers to reach their own con-clusions as to the meaning and significanceof the objects.

In a museum setting, an interactive dis-play likeWunderkammer could help trans-form how the public experience and regardarchaeology. Dions cabinet would providean exciting snapshot of Londons long his-tory for a museum in the city. Exploration ofits diverse contents could help visitors learnhow to interpret objects and realise thatarchaeology includes recognisably modernmaterial as well as ancient artefacts. Equally,if Dions simulation of excavation was trans-posed to the museum environment, thiscould provide opportunities for the closeobservation of, and even direct visitor partici-pation in, the archaeological process.

DiscussionIt is clear then that contemporary sculpturemeets a range of interpretive objectives forarchaeology in museums. Through this cri-tique three specific impact categories haveemerged, which I discuss below.

1. Sculpture can facilitate independentinterpretation

Goldsworthy and Paolozzis sculptures cre-ate a dialogue with museum objects. Golds-worthy provides textural and symbolic cluesthat guide visitors to independently interpretdisplayed artefacts and locate them in theiroriginal context as part of a living landscape. Through the display of personal objectsinsitu , about the bodies of hisPeople , Paolozzifacilitates a viewing experience like that of thearchaeologist. The glass boxes enable close-up consideration of artefacts which, com-bined with the figures being non-sex specific,encourages visitors to imagine past wearersbased on the archaeological evidence.

The details captured in Whitereads casts ofobjects and architectural space also encour-age viewers to behave like archaeologists,reconstructing past human uses and occu-pants from the traces left behind. Dion goesfurther by involving the public directly inarchaeological activity. Plus, hisWunderkam-

mer provides a hands-on experience thatchallenges the authority of specialist expla-nation by enabling the public to draw their

Figure 13: History Trash Dig (1995) by MarkDion: a simulation of archaeological excavation and processing in an art gallery con-

text. Eliane Laubscher, FRI-ART


16/21



own conclusions and connections betweenobjects. In a similar vein, Gormleys sculp-tures, by instructing viewers to look at them-selves, highlight that our interpretation ofthe past is determined by our present-dayexperiences. This interaction could be usedto activate museum visitors or conversely tohelp them face up to their own prejudiceswhen building a picture of the past.

Sculpture therefore empowers the publicto take part in the construction of meaning,achieving a more engaging museum experi-ence that reflects the archaeological realitythat very little is certain. While this is notthe sculptors primary aim, it is a powerfulsecondary impact of their work: whetherthrough the objects, traces and symbolic

clues they present, or through the relation-ship they foster, these sculptures bring the

viewer into focus and facilitate independentlearning about archaeology.

I frequently make the point that contem-porary sculpture encourages museum visi-tors to behave like archaeologists. The vis-iting public should feel inspired to assess,consider, examine and reflect upon museumobjects and displays sculpture encouragesthis. Granted, this behaviour is not uniqueto archaeologists; it applies to other practi-tioners who interrogate material evidencesuch as detectives. However, my point isless about uniqueness and more about theimportance of greaterequality between thepublic (visitor) and specialist (curator). Toclarify, this behaviour is important becauseby encouraging non-archaeologists to inter-

pret displayed material independently, visi-tors will experience a deeper engagement

Figure 14: Mark DionsWunderkammer, part ofTate Thames Dig(19992000): an interactivedisplay that offered visitors the chance to handle and interpret material discovered on the Thames foreshore. Tate, London 2013


17/21



with the artefacts and better understandassociated archaeological concepts. Throughthis, a more meaningful museum experi-ence and indeed, a more inclusive disciplinecan be developed.

2. Sculpture can help museum visitorsrelate to people of the past PaolozzisPeople present a universal humanthat rejects traditional prehistoric stereo-types. The figures provide an abstract impres-sion from which visitors can formulate theirown ideas of how prehistoric people looked. Just as these represent theEarly People ofScotland, Whitereads casts of objects and

architectural space might also be used torepresent theabsent people of the past. The mix of objects from different time

periods included in DionsWunderkam- mer inspires viewers to build narratives anddraw connections between themselves andthe lives of past people. Similarly Gormleyssculptures express aspects of the human con-dition shared by all humanity, a message thatcould be used to encourage museum visitors

to consider what they share with the peopleof the past. Archaeology is about the people of the

past. It is therefore extremely important thatthe objects we uncover and display do notbecome detached from the people who onceowned and used them. Equally, an expressionof continuity in the experiences of humansthrough time helps make the passage oftime less incomprehensible. Sculpture canprovide this link.

3. Sculpture can communicate importantarchaeological themes and conceptsGoldsworthys sculptures remind visitors ofthe archaeological processes through whichobjects have come to be in the museum. Byusing wood and clay inEarly People , Golds-worthy also highlights the role of naturalmaterials in prehistory materials typicallyabsent from displays. The vibrancy of his clay

panels recalls the richness of the natural pig-ments used by prehistoric people, the traces

of which are now faded or lost to the archae-ological record. In their quest for conserva-tion, museums present an impression of thepast as being stable: Goldsworthys sculp-tures help to counteract this misrepresenta-tion by relating themes of time and decay. Whitereads work examines the similar,important concepts of death and memorythat are often sanitised from the traces of thehuman past as displayed in the museum. Inperforming a kind of rescue archaeology herprocess could also be used to highlight thelimitations of digital methods of recordingand the importance of embodied approachesto interpreting archaeological space.

Paolozzis sculptures provide an intuitiveillustration of the developmental stages ofsocio-economic complexity important tounderstanding prehistory. This is, however,difficult to unravel. The groups also, likeGoldsworthysEnclosure , present time ascyclical not linear, to reflect the prehistoricconceptualisation of time based on the cir-cularity of the seasons. Both these works alsoencourage further exploration, playing an

indirect but nevertheless valuable interpre-tive role for archaeology: they contextual-ise the displays thematic sections and theirshape and configuration physically guides visitors further into the gallery.

ConclusionContemporary sculpture enables a physi-cally engaged encounter with the remainsof the human past, bringing vibrancy to themuseum experience and activating visitorsto make independent interpretations. Byreminding visitors of important concepts,themes, and materials not usually presentin the museum environment, sculptureinspires an active response that leads to anenhanced idea of the past and archaeology record, practice, and theory. By encouraging visitors to take part in archaeological inter-pretation, sculpture animates the people ofthe past and builds relationships between

them and the people of today. Empower-ing non-archaeologists to participate also


18/21



helps to achieve one of the main aims ofpublic archaeology: to reach a multi-vocaland more representative discipline. Archae-ology strives to bridge the gap between pastand present, and through these interactions,contemporary sculpture is able to contributeto this goal.

My arguments are restricted by the lack ofdata relating to the visitor experience: ques-tions about whether sculpture might be achallenging interpretive tool for some visi-tors are under-explored. There is also limiteddiscussion of the extent to which traditionalmethods are required, or indeed appropriatealongside sculptures to aid interpretation.

My proposals are not applied to a specificaudience or exhibition type e.g. temporary versus permanent display. However, thesepoints have been identified as prioritiesfor future research and are limitations thatreflect the nature of this field, which reliestoo heavily upon the views of specialists forits self-evaluation.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank: Dr David Clarke whosework and ideas continue to inspire myresearch, Tim Schadla-Hall for his encourage-ment and Dr Gabriel Moshenska for his sup-port and advice. I am also enormously grate-ful to Antony Gormley, Meirian Jump, The Tate, James Putnam, Simon Edney, AndrewMcMillan, Eliane Laubscher, Nathan Harri-son and Nick Kirkby.

References Anon 2005 Sir Eduardo Paolozzi.The Tel-

egraph , 23 April. Available athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituar-ies/1488447/Sir-Eduardo-Paolozzi.html [Last accessed 13/5/2013].

Art21 2013 Mark Dion: Art21 Artist Profile.PBS: Public Broadcasting Service . Availa-ble athttp://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/mark-dion [Last accessed 10/5/2013].

Ascherson, N 2000 Editorial.Public Archae-

ology , 1: 14.Basu, P andMacdonald, S 2007 (eds)Exhi- bition Experiments . Oxford: Blackwell.

Blackwell, A 2012 Past Meets Present: Ar-chaeology and contemporary art atthe National Museum of Scotland.TheFeastbowl . Available athttp://feastbowl.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/past-meets-present-archaeology-and-contemporary-art-at-the-national-museum-of-scotland/ [Last accessed 28/04/2013].

Blazwick, I 2001 Mark Dions Tate Thames Dig.Oxford Art Journal , 24(2):103112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ox-artj/24.2.103

Bradley, R 2002 Entering the Present. In: RBradleyThe Past in Prehistoric Societies . London: Routledge. pp. 4982.

Bruck, J 2001 Body Metaphors and Tech-nologies of Transformation. In: J Bruck(ed)Bronze Age Landscapes: Tradition andTransformation . Oxford: Oxbow Books.pp. 149160.

Caiger-Smith, M 2010 Anthony Gormley . London: Tate Publishing.

Causey, A 1998 Sculpture Since 1945 . Ox-ford: Oxford Paperbacks.

Coles, A 1999 The Epic Archaeological Digsof Mark Dion. In: A Coles (ed)Mark Dion: Archaeology . London: Black Dog Publish-ing. pp. 2446.

Dion, M 2009 (Film)Mark Dion Lecture . CCA Graduate Studies Lecture Series,October 15. Available athttp://www. youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i5yB2thWxBI#! [Last ac-cessed 18/5/2013].

Dixon, A G 1993 This is the house thatRachel built.The Independent , 2 No- vember. Available athttp://www.in-dependent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-

nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.html [Last accessed6/5/2013].
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1488447/Sir-Eduardo-Paolozzi.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1488447/Sir-Eduardo-Paolozzi.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1488447/Sir-Eduardo-Paolozzi.htmlhttp://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/mark-dionhttp://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/mark-dionhttp://feastbowl.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/past-meets-present-archaeology-and-contemporary-art-at-the-national-museum-of-scotland/http://feastbowl.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/past-meets-present-archaeology-and-contemporary-art-at-the-national-museum-of-scotland/http://feastbowl.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/past-meets-present-archaeology-and-contemporary-art-at-the-national-museum-of-scotland/http://feastbowl.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/past-meets-present-archaeology-and-contemporary-art-at-the-national-museum-of-scotland/http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/24.2.103http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/24.2.103http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i5yB2thWxBI#!http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i5yB2thWxBI#!http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i5yB2thWxBI#!http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/this-is-the-house-that-rachel-built-rachel-whitereads-house-is-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-public-sculptures-to-have-been-created-by-any-english-artist-working-this-century-says-andrew-grahamdixon-here-he-examines-the-work-pictured-by-nicholas-turpin-and-below-whiteread-and-three-other-artists-nominated-for-the-turner-prize-describe-their-work-1501616.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i5yB2thWxBI#!http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i5yB2thWxBI#!http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i5yB2thWxBI#!http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/24.2.103http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/24.2.103http://feastbowl.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/past-meets-present-archaeology-and-contemporary-art-at-the-national-museum-of-scotland/http://feastbowl.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/past-meets-present-archaeology-and-contemporary-art-at-the-national-museum-of-scotland/http://feastbowl.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/past-meets-present-archaeology-and-contemporary-art-at-the-national-museum-of-scotland/http://feastbowl.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/past-meets-present-archaeology-and-contemporary-art-at-the-national-museum-of-scotland/http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/mark-dionhttp://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/mark-dionhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1488447/Sir-Eduardo-Paolozzi.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1488447/Sir-Eduardo-Paolozzi.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1488447/Sir-Eduardo-Paolozzi.html


19/21



Elliott, P 2001 Sculpting Nothing: An Intro-duction to the work of Rachel Whiteread.In: L G Corrin, P Elliott and A Schlieker(eds)Rachel Whiteread . Edinburgh andLondon: Trustees for the National Galler-ies of Scotland with The Serpentine Gal-lery. pp. 913.

Falk, J J H andDierking, L D 2000Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and theMaking of Meaning . Plymouth: AltamiraPress.

Gardner, J B 2004 Contested Terrain: His-tory, Museums and the Public.The Pub- lic Historian , 26(4): 1121.http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/tph.2004.26.4.11

Goldsworthy, A 1998Stone . New York: Har-ry N Abrams, Inc.Goldsworthy, A 2000 Time, Change, Place.

In: A GoldsworthyTime . London: Thames& Hudson. pp. 725.

Goldsworthy, A 2002 Andy Goldsworthy:Refuges . Lyon: Editions Artha

Gormley, A 2000 (Film) Antony Gormley: The Naked Sculptor.Omnibus , 27 March. Available athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/ar-

chive/sculptors/12808.shtml [Last ac-cessed 12/5/2013].Gormley, A 2005 High Profile: Body Lan-

guage - Nigel Haliday talks to AntonyGormley.Third Way , 28(2): 1618.

Gormley, A 2011 (Film) Still Standing, StateHermitage Museum 2011 . Available at http://www.antonygormley.com/re-sources/video-item/id/176 [Last accessed6/5/2013].

Hermon, S andNikodem, J 2008 3D Mod-eling as a Scientific Research Tool in Ar-chaeology. Layers of Perception: Proceed-ings of the 35th International Conferenceon Computer Applications and Quan-titative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frhgeschichte , 10:140146. DOI:http://www.academia.edu/1226903/3D_Modelling_as_a_Sci-entific_Research_Tool_in_Archaeology [Last accessed 24/5/2013].

Hooper-Greenhill, E 1999 Education, Com-munication and Interpretation: towardsa critical pedagogy in museums. In: E

Hooper-Greenhill (ed)The EducationalRole of the Museum . London: Routledge.pp. 328.

King, L andMarstine, J 2006 The UniversityMuseum and Gallery: A Site for Institu-tional Critique and a Focus of the Cur-riculum. In: J Marstine (ed)New MuseumTheory and Practice: An Introduction . Ox-ford: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 266288.

Leahy, H R 2010 Watch Your Step: Embodi-ment and encounter at Tate Modern. In:S H Dudley (eds)Museum Materialities:Objects, Engagements, Interpretations . Lon-don: Routledge. pp. 162172.

Lingwood, J 1995 Introduction to the

Publication House. Artangel: Projects . Available athttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/an_idea_without_a_name/james_lingwood_the_story [Last accessed 23/5/2013].

Malpas, W 2004The Art of Andy Goldswor- thy: Complete Works . Maidstone: CrescentMoon Publishing.

Matsuda, A 2009 The Concept of thePublic and the Aims of Public Archae-

ology.Papers from the Institute of Ar- chaeology , 15:9097. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.224 [Last accessed21/4/2013].

McEvilley, T 1999 Sculpture in the Age ofDoubt . New York: Allworth Press.

McKean, C 2000The Making of the Museumof Scotland . Edinburgh: National Muse-um of Scotland Publishing Ltd.

Merleau-Ponty, M 1962 Phenomenology ofPerception (Translated from the French byColin Smith) . London: Routledge.

Merriman, N 1991Beyond the Glass Case: ThePast, the Heritage and the Public in Britain .Leicester: Leicester University Press.

Monod, E andKlein, H Z 2005 A Phenom-enological Evaluation Framework forCultural Heritage Interpretation: Frome-HS to Heideggers Historicity. AMCIS2005 Proceedings . DOI:http://aisel.ais-net.org/amcis2005/394

Morris Hargreaves McIntyre 2009 Wherewe are now, where we have come from:Visitor responses to Statuephilia: Contem-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/tph.2004.26.4.11http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/tph.2004.26.4.11http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/sculptors/12808.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/sculptors/12808.shtmlhttp://www.antonygormley.com/resources/video-item/id/176http://www.antonygormley.com/resources/video-item/id/176http://www.academia.edu/1226903/3D_Modelling_as_a_Scientific_Research_Tool_in_Archaeologyhttp://www.academia.edu/1226903/3D_Modelling_as_a_Scientific_Research_Tool_in_Archaeologyhttp://www.academia.edu/1226903/3D_Modelling_as_a_Scientific_Research_Tool_in_Archaeologyhttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/an_idea_without_a_name/james_lingwood_the_storyhttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/an_idea_without_a_name/james_lingwood_the_storyhttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/an_idea_without_a_name/james_lingwood_the_storyhttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/an_idea_without_a_name/james_lingwood_the_storyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.224http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.224http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2005/394http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2005/394http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2005/394http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2005/394http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.224http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.224http://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/an_idea_without_a_name/james_lingwood_the_storyhttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/an_idea_without_a_name/james_lingwood_the_storyhttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/an_idea_without_a_name/james_lingwood_the_storyhttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/an_idea_without_a_name/james_lingwood_the_storyhttp://www.academia.edu/1226903/3D_Modelling_as_a_Scientific_Research_Tool_in_Archaeologyhttp://www.academia.edu/1226903/3D_Modelling_as_a_Scientific_Research_Tool_in_Archaeologyhttp://www.academia.edu/1226903/3D_Modelling_as_a_Scientific_Research_Tool_in_Archaeologyhttp://www.antonygormley.com/resources/video-item/id/176http://www.antonygormley.com/resources/video-item/id/176http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/sculptors/12808.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/sculptors/12808.shtmlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1525/tph.2004.26.4.11http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/tph.2004.26.4.11


20/21



porary Sculptors at the British Museum . Available athttp://www.britishmuseum.org/research/research_projects/all_cur-rent_projects/visitor_research.aspx [Lastaccessed 8/7/2013]

Morse, R 2010 Photography/Sculpture inContemporary Art. American Art 24(1):3134.

Moser, S 1998 Ancestral Images: the iconog- raphy of human origins . New York: CornellUniversity Press.

Mullins, C 2004RW: Rachel Whiteread . Lon-don: Tate Publishing.

Overton, T 2009 Eduardo Paolozzi: Ven- ice Biennale Participation . Available at

http://venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org/people/id/617/initial/p/refer-ence/eduardo-paolozzi/ [Last accessed13/5/2013].

Paolozzi, E 1983 Where Reality Lies.Oxford Art Journal 6(1): 3944.http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/6.1.39

Paolozzi, E 1985Lost Magic Kingdoms andSix Paper Moons from Nahuatl: an exhibition at the Museum of Mankind . London:

British Museum Publications.Potts, A 2000 The Sculptural Imagination:Figurative, Modernist, Minimalist . NewHaven and London: Yale University Press.

Potts, A 2001 Installation and Sculpture.Oxford Art Journal 24(2): 523.http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/24.2.5

Putnam, J andDavies, W V (eds) 1994TimeMachine: Ancient Egypt and Contempo- rary Art . Leeds: Jackson Wilson.

Putnam, J 1994 Introduction. In: J Putnamand W V Davies (eds)Time Machine: An- cient Egypt and Contemporary Art . Leeds: Jackson Wilson. p8

Putnam, J 2009 Art and Artifact: The Mu- seum as Medium . London: Thames &Hudson.

Putnam, J 2011 Time Machine. James Put- nam Archive . Available athttp://www. jamesputnam.org.uk/inv_exhibition_01.html [Last accessed 13/5/2013].

Renfrew, C 1999 It may be art but is it archae-ology? Science as art and art as science. In: A Coles (ed)Mark Dion: Archaeology . Lon-don: Black Dog Publishing. pp. 1223.

Robins, C 2007 Strategic Interpretation:How did the Reticent Object Become soObliging? Artists Interventions as Inter-pretative Strategies.engage 20: 2328.

Schadla-Hall R T 1999 Editorial: Public Archaeology.European Journal of Ar- chaeology 2(2): 147158.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/146195719900200201

Schlieker, A 2001 Pause for Thought: ThePublic Sculptures of Rachel Whiteread.In: L G Corrin, P Elliott and A Schlieker(eds)Rachel Whiteread . Edinburgh andLondon: Trustees for the National Galler-ies of Scotland with The Serpentine Gal-lery. pp. 5965.

Silverman, L H 1995 Visitor meaning-making in museums for a new age.Cu- rator 38(3): 161170.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1995.tb01052.x

Sinclair, I 1995 The house in the park: a psy-chogeographical response. Artangel: Pro- jects . Available athttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/psycho-geography/iain_sinclair_psychogeogra-phy [Last accessed 23/5/2013].

Skramstad, H 2004 An Agenda for Muse-ums in the Twenty-First Century. In: G Anderson (ed)Reinventing the Museum:Historical and Contemporary Perspectiveson the Paradigm Shift . Oxford: AltamiraPress. pp. 118132.

Tilley, C 1994 A Phenomenology of Land- scape: Places, Paths and Monuments . Ox-ford: BERG.

Tucker, W 1974The Language of Sculpture . London: Thames and Hudson.

Ucko, P 2001 Indigenous Archaeology at theInstitute of Archaeology.Papers from theInstitute of Archaeology , 12: 111. DOI:http://pia-journal.co.uk/index.php/pia/article/view/pia.168/191 [Last accessed21/4/2013].

Whiteread, R 2004 (film)Rachel Whiteread:The John Tusa Interview . Available atwww.bbc.co.uk/archive/sculptors/12824.sht-ml [Last accessed 12/5/2013].

Williams, R 1999 Disjecta Reliquiae: The Tate Thames Dig. In: A Coles (ed)MarkDion: Archaeology . London: Black DogPublishing. pp. 7399.
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/research_projects/all_current_projects/visitor_research.aspxhttp://www.britishmuseum.org/research/research_projects/all_current_projects/visitor_research.aspxhttp://www.britishmuseum.org/research/research_projects/all_current_projects/visitor_research.aspxhttp://venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org/people/id/617/initial/p/reference/eduardo-paolozzi/http://venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org/people/id/617/initial/p/reference/eduardo-paolozzi/http://venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org/people/id/617/initial/p/reference/eduardo-paolozzi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/6.1.39http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/6.1.39http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/24.2.5http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/24.2.5http://www.jamesputnam.org.uk/inv_exhibition_01.htmlhttp://www.jamesputnam.org.uk/inv_exhibition_01.htmlhttp://www.jamesputnam.org.uk/inv_exhibition_01.htmlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/146195719900200201http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/146195719900200201http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1995.tb01052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1995.tb01052.xhttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/psychogeography/iain_sinclair_psychogeographyhttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/psychogeography/iain_sinclair_psychogeographyhttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/psychogeography/iain_sinclair_psychogeographyhttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/psychogeography/iain_sinclair_psychogeographyhttp://pia-journal.co.uk/index.php/pia/article/view/pia.168/191http://pia-journal.co.uk/index.php/pia/article/view/pia.168/191http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/sculptors/12824.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/sculptors/12824.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/sculptors/12824.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/sculptors/12824.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/sculptors/12824.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/sculptors/12824.shtmlhttp://pia-journal.co.uk/index.php/pia/article/view/pia.168/191http://pia-journal.co.uk/index.php/pia/article/view/pia.168/191http://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/psychogeography/iain_sinclair_psychogeographyhttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/psychogeography/iain_sinclair_psychogeographyhttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/psychogeography/iain_sinclair_psychogeographyhttp://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/1993/house/psychogeography/iain_sinclair_psychogeographyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1995.tb01052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1995.tb01052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/146195719900200201http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/146195719900200201http://www.jamesputnam.org.uk/inv_exhibition_01.htmlhttp://www.jamesputnam.org.uk/inv_exhibition_01.htmlhttp://www.jamesputnam.org.uk/inv_exhibition_01.htmlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/24.2.5http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/24.2.5http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/6.1.39http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/6.1.39http://venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org/people/id/617/initial/p/reference/eduardo-paolozzi/http://venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org/people/id/617/initial/p/reference/eduardo-paolozzi/http://venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org/people/id/617/initial/p/reference/eduardo-paolozzi/http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/research_projects/all_current_projects/visitor_research.aspxhttp://www.britishmuseum.org/research/research_projects/all_current_projects/visitor_research.aspxhttp://www.britishmuseum.org/research/research_projects/all_current_projects/visitor_research.aspx


21/21



How to cite this article : Roberts, L 2013 The Role of Sculpture in Communicating Archaeologyin Museums. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 23(1): 6, pp. 1-21, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.425

Published: 23 August 2013

Copyright : 2013 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY 3.0), which permits unrestricted use,distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ .

Papers from the Institute of Archaeology is a peer-reviewedopen access journal published by Ubiquity Press OPEN ACCESS
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.425http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.425http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.425http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.425

acheson2013theroleofsculptureincommunicatingarchaeologyinmuseums

Documents