Paper short abstract:

This paper will explore the limits of community consultation through a case study based on the works of Dennis Nona in order to explore the added responsibilities that museums and galleries take on when displaying Indigenous material culture.

Paper long abstract:

Earlier this year, art historian Sasha Grishin took the National Gallery of Australia to task in an opinion piece for the Conversation about their decision to take down the works of Dennis Nona (8 April, 2015). Calling it the erasure of Nona from Australian art history, Grishin asked, "should the punishment of an individual extend to the censorship of that person's art?" (ibid). This paper attempts to tackle this question.

The representation of Indigenous material culture in major museums and galleries typically includes some semblance of community consultation (Harrison 2013). Consultation is meant to help develop exhibitions in order for the objects to be displayed in ways that are in congruence with Indigenous cosmologies and with respect for the stories such objects encompass (Fienup-Riordan 2011). Although the application of the consultation process is something up for debate (what it is, how should it be done, and what is 'successful' consultation), all consultation presupposes a source community that is relatively homogenous in its understanding of 'correct' community representation. This paper will explore what happens when morally challenging works are suddenly in doubt as to their appropriateness for display and the incredible amount of pressure put on communities to 'solve the problem'. This paper will explore the limits of community consultation through a case study based on the works of Dennis Nona in order to explore the added responsibilities that museums and galleries take on when displaying Indigenous material culture.