Philosophy for a Diorama and Documentary

 

Hall of African Mammals, American Museum of Natural History, New York. Public Domain.

The diorama(often composed of taxidermied animals, props, and paint) has been a longtime staple of the museum-- often regarded as a “morality play on nature,” the diorama reflects ideological values, displays institutionalized messages, and invents nature through a rehearsal of scientific spectacle. I argue that the museum diorama and the documentary film are kindred art objects through Kracouer’s definition of the “material reality,” or as he also refers to it as,“nature.”

Encounters with both documentary and diorama engage power relationships between active viewers and passive objects; their displays reflect our curiosity. Animals and film are constructed entities that reflect ideology-based decorum- the focus on “nature” in both mediums creates an “authentic” experience in which viewers’ preexisting ideals are reinforced. The co-creation of truth and beauty that is the intent of diorama and film produce a “nature” in which a romanticized reality is the only acceptable way of learning. The artistic, and at times ironic, sub-genre of “rogue taxidermy” (also frequently known as bad taxidermy) is not present in museums, just as the self-aware, homemade, “bad” documentary film is not shown in theaters. There is no room for imperfect specimens. 

Both mediums rely on the myth of “Mechanical Objectivity,” as demonstrated by the early 1900s wildlife photographer Osa Johnson, who wrote, “the camera cannot be deceived…[and therefore it has] enormous scientific value.” Most diorama artists rely on this "mechanical objectivity" when utilizing images as references for their art. However, Johnson also distinguishes between a “snapshot” and a “photograph,” with a snapshot being undesirable when photographing wildlife, as it is in essence a “bad” photo- one where the animal was startled by the human’s presence, drawing attention to our imposition into their “nature.” Similarly, in documentary film, it is rare to see this “breaking of the fourth wall.” Both of these undesirable effects prove the falsity of mechanical objectivity- although the camera is an object, it is still at mercy of ideological and individual expectations of itself. 

Similar to sculptures, dioramas and film offer a material intrusion into the space of the viewer. However, the silence that they offer in return means that tangible intra-actions are an impossibility between the viewer and object. To quote Dr. David Getsy, notable art historian and theorist, “I have real relations with an illusion, or, if you prefer, my true distance from the block of marble has been confused with my imaginary distance from the image it represents.” In essence, the sculpture, as well as the diorama and the documentary film, are corporeal, spatial, and re-represented objects. 

The diorama and the documentary are both indistinguishable from the cultural confines that have led to its creation(for the taxidermied animal, its re-creation). Therefore, defining a “material reality” or “nature” that they both reflect is pointless as it does not exist. Film and diorama are no better than, or no more intelligent than, art or theatre, in fact, they are products of both of them. If film and taxidermy are not art, or the experience of engaging with a diorama or documentary is not theatre, then what is it?

Sources:

Giovanni Aloi "Speculative Taxidermy: Natural History, Animal Surfaces, and Art in the Anthropocene." 2018.

Getsy, David "Acts of Stillness." 2014.

Johnson, Osa. "Prospectus to the American Museum" 1923.

Kracauer, Siegfriend. "Basic Concepts."