Are Museum Exhibitions Really All They’re Made Out To Be?

Hello and welcome back to speaking archaeologically, I'm Shri Agatham and in the previous episode we spoke about why Indian museums often struggle with visitor engagement. Today we're taking that conversation a step further by asking a very specific question. Are exhibitions really all they're made out to be? This episode is prompted by a recent exhibition at the Chattra Patishivaji Maharaj Vasthusangrale Mumbai which has been described as a part of a new model of museum loans and even framed in some narratives as a step towards decolonization. To pack what that looks like on ground, I'm joined by Nidhi Brahmakshattraya who visited the exhibition in person. Nidhi, thank you so much for joining me. Thank you so much, Shri Agam, for inviting me today. I'm really glad to be a part of this conversation because exhibitions like these, despite their immense potential, raise questions that are not publicly talked about. I'm very excited to be a part of today's podcast episode. Let's start with expectations. The language surrounding this exhibition terms like sharing, new model, decolonization sets a very high bar. When you walked into the gallery of CSMVS, what did you actually encounter? Honestly, I was expecting a kind of narrative, something that acknowledged why these objects were here. What journeys they might have taken and what this entire collaboration was meant to represent because the way the exhibition was described, even on their website, they made it seem like it was going to do a lot more than just display objects. They are advertising it, telling us that they are not just isolated stories but shared journeys. It feels like it's gesturing somewhat towards the colonization, which absolutely yes, it needs to be addressed. On the contrary, I was just encountered with these beautifully lit objects and glass cases with clean labels and emphasis on aesthetic appreciation. Overall, it felt less like entering an ongoing conversation about shared histories and more like walking into a familiar kind of museum display, which was carefully curated and visually very, very striking, but it was quiet about the very ideas that it should have actually explored. That's really important because decolonization at its core is about confronting histories of extraction and imbalance, not just moving objects temporarily. Did the exhibition contextualize the objects in any meaningful way? Not really and that absence felt particularly striking to me. The labels mainly focused on the objects' physical appearance, material, date and provenance. All in a very technical sense, as we see usually in museum and the labels that they put up, but the write-ups did not really highlight how these objects left their places of origin or what it meant for them to return temporarily through loans. And like you mentioned earlier, decolonization is absolutely about confronting these histories of extraction. There was no framing that encouraged visitors to reflect or even think about how these objects were originally collected, the unequal power relationships that shaped their movement across borders, or the ethical questions about who has the right to hold this play or even interpret them today. The exhibition surely focused on where the objects came from and how old they were, but I felt like it stopped short on asking why they ended up in certain museums. The objects were contextualized historically, yes, but never politically, and that silence to me felt louder than any whole text. Another issue that stood out to many visitors was access. Photography wasn't allowed, even though these alone objects that may never be seen again by the same audience. How did that affect your experience? The no photography part really changed how I experienced the gallery overall. I found myself moving through the space much faster than I intended to. At one point, I spoke to one of the museum staff at CSMVS to understand why photography was not allowed, but I was simply asked to refer to the website that they had made, which felt quite frustrating, especially when you're standing right there in front of the object. And there were also security, standing at regular intervals, tracking all of your moves, asking you not to use cell phones. So, A, there was no photography, and B, there was also no google that I could access for any questions that popped into my mind. So, the interaction overall felt very controlled and temporary. We look, you move on, and that was it. I personally think that photography isn't just about taking pictures. It's a way of slowing down, observing, asking questions, and continuing the engagement beyond your visit. When you capture the object from different sides, you also look into it in a much more detailed manner, without that possibility and the security people looking over my shoulder, the experience felt less open and more controlled. And this extends beyond general visitor. Researchers, too, were reportedly denied even photographic access. From your understanding, was there any pathway for academic engagement? From what I could tell, there wasn't much scope for academic engagement. There was nothing in the space that suggested how someone might learn more or engage with the objects much beyond just viewing them in their display cases. It just felt like the exhibition was designed more as a public spectacle than a scholarly resource, and that's honestly a missed opportunity because loaned objects and loaned collections in general like these could be incredible sites for teaching a scholarly dialogue or comparative research. But that's if institutions actively invited that engagement. Instead of security and guided tours once or twice a day, had there been any gallery attendants or volunteers to explain a particular exhibit or object that to me would have been a much more academically proficient exhibition and also an interactive experience overall. That's a crucial point because exhibitions are not just public facing events, they're also intellectual spaces. Now, I want to bring in contrast here. I recently visited Made in Egypt at Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, and the difference was striking. The exhibition uses dynamic displays, graphic animation boards, and very clear storytelling. With the tours and are encouraged to spend time with objects, to look closely, to photograph, to film, gallery attendants actively engage with you in conversation, and importantly, access is generous. Students from anywhere in the world can enter for free with a valid university card. Nidhi, hearing this, what stands out to you in comparison? What stands out is the intentionality behind the two exhibits. The Fitzwilliam exhibition seems to portray curiosity. It signals that engagement is expected and welcomed even. In contrast, the CSMVS exhibition felt more guarded and more anxious about control somehow. The difference shows us that exhibitions are shaped not just by objects, but by how much trust institution places in their audience. At the Fitzwilliam, the trust is placed in the visitor, and that trust changes everything. When museums allow photography, encourage students to question and create welcoming spaces, visitors slow down. They engage, they feel included, which brings us to a bigger question. Who are the exhibitions for? Are they for the press releases and institutional branding, or for visitors and researchers? I think exhibitions should really be for people who have a curious mind and who are genuinely interested in studying history and archaeology through objects. It's also for students who are still figuring out how to look at objects, and for researchers, of course, who want to understand archaeology and history with the help of material culture studies. Ideally, these exhibitions should be spaces where knowledge is shared, questioned and built together. But I think with a lot of these high-profile collaborations, exhibitions start to feel more like performances of prestige or, like you mentioned, institutional branding. And I think when that happens, the visitor ends up as a witness rather than the participant, and the more playful explanatory side of museum learning yet pushed aside. And this raises another uncomfortable question. Can exhibitions that restrict access silence difficult histories and limit engagement unintentionally replicate the same power structures that they claim to undo? Yes, absolutely. That is a very valid question. When access is restricted and difficult histories are left unspoken, exhibitions begin to mirror the same hierarchies that they claim to challenge. And decolonization isn't just about moving objects. It's also about redistributing the power over interpretation and knowledge. And without that, collaboration risks becoming very symbolic rather than transformative. So as we wrap up, let me ask you this. What would you like to see in museums do differently when hosting such high-profile exhibitions? I would like museums to be more open and honest when they do exhibitions like these. That means clearly explaining where objects are coming from, being upfront about the difficult histories, and trusting visitors with access, whether that's photography or opportunities to learn more. Decolonization is not just about working with international museums, it's also about sharing control and knowledge. While these collaborations and high-profile exhibitions are rare, they shouldn't just make the institutions look important, they should also help people understand history more deeply and also make them feel included. That feels like a powerful place to end. Exhibitions are not just about displaying objects, they're about access, storytelling and responsibility. If museums want to be relevant, truly relevant, they have to move beyond optics and towards openness. Nidhi, thank you so much for sharing your experience. Thank you so much, ma'am, for having me and for creating this space for such an important conversation. It's been a pleasure to be part of the speaking archeologically podcast. Thank you. In our next episode, we'll continue this conversation by looking at what genuinely visitor-centered experiences, ethical exhibitions could look like in India, and whether our institutions are ready for that shift. This was speaking archeologically. Thank you for listening.