Assignment #4 – Label Writing – Bengi Atun – November 17th 2013

A LABEL IN THE ASIAN CIVILIZATIONS MUSEUM IN SINGAPORE

The Asian Civilizations Museum is located in the touristic center of Singapore across from the historic Fullerton Hotel[1] and its mission is to “explore and present the cultures and civilizations of Asia, so as to promote awareness and appreciation of the ancestral cultures of Singaporeans and their links to Southeast Asia and the world.”  Furthermore, the museum aspires to be the “Best Museum in Asia Inspiring the Discovery of Selves & Others.”[2] 

Although rich in its collection of the material cultures of Asia and a delight for me roam around, I found that most of the labels written to explain the objects failed to facilitate the admirable mission of the museum as a place for “the discovery of self and others.”  Below is one of those labels, which I first analyzed and then suggested an alternative for.  The underlying principle with which I have carried out the below analysis is that the museum intends to reach out to as many people as possible, both Singaporeans and tourists.[3]  As such, I have assumed a general visitor profile with limited knowledge of the cultures of Asia and tried to draw them in through a more relevant label.   

ANALYSIS OF THE LABEL

The Title:

“Bronze Somaskanda

Ca. 12th Century, Late Chola,

Tamil Nadu              

(200-00277)”

The First Sentence: 

 “This is a family-oriented representation of the otherwise ferocious deity Rudra-Shiva.”

Instead of beginning to establish relevance to the visitor this label starts off by stating what the sculpture represents; i.e. “family-oriented representation of otherwise ferocious deity.”  Such definitive statements remove the possibility and space required for the visitor to start making her/his own meanings as they present her/him with an already established interpretation and summary of the sculpture.  Not only is the visitor told what the sculpture represents, the statement itself is a confusing one as it introduces concepts such as family-oriented and ferocious, which seem irreconcilable with each other.  Perhaps it was hoped that the inclusion of these opposite terms would create an intriguing and mysterious introductory sentence but it has instead created a confusing one because the visitor does not yet know who these three figures are and needs to be introduced to them first for any interpretative statement such as the one above to make any sense.  The sentence therefore appears more like a conclusion as opposed to an introduction.  The first sentence of the label thus fails to create an entry point into the beautiful sculpture standing in front of the visitor.

The Second Sentence:

“Shiva has a unique dichotomy in his personality, combining asceticism with sensuality.”

While the first sentence states what the sculpture represents as a whole, the second statement tells the visitor that Shiva has opposing personality traits.  From the sex of Shiva, a male, the visitor guesses which figure in the trio he is.  Nonetheless, the visitor is not given any clues as to what relevance his opposing personality traits of asceticism (a word unlikely to be known by most visitors) and sensuality have to do with the scene of the sculpture itself.  The second sentence not only fails to introduce the visitor to the sculpture, but is problematic regardless of the sculpture on a conceptual level as a statement which follows from the first one.  There is no link made between the family-oriented representation of the sculpture presented in the first sentence with the personality traits of Shiva presented in the second sentence.  Moreover, we were told in the first sentence of a ferocious deity by the name of Rudra-Shiva while in the second sentence the Rudra part is dropped and there is now a Shiva only.  Is the ascetic and sensual Shiva in the second sentence the same as the ferocious Rudra-Shiva in the first sentence?  The second sentence not only fails to accomplish what the introductory sentence was meant to do, but also fails to follow from the first sentence.  Instead, it stands apart as yet another separate statement introducing additional concepts which the visitor cannot yet relate to the beautiful sculpture standing in front of her/him.

The Third Sentence: 

“The Somaskanda - Shiva with Uma (Parvati, his consort) and Skanda their son -  is generally worshipped during festivals of the Shaiva cycle in South India; no North Indian representation is known.”

The third sentence is the first one that has the name of the title in it and tries to explain for the first time who the three figures represent.  We understand from this sentence that Somaskanda refers to the trio composed of Shiva, Uma and their son Skanda.  The additional name for Uma given in parentheses as “Parvati, his consort” is very distracting as it is yet another name in the large number of names presented in this sentence.  Although the visitor is at this point told that Somaskanda is the name given to the family of three figures, she/he is still not given any clues with respect to the meaning of Somaskanda.  Why is their depiction together significant and why are they worshipped in festivals as also mentioned in this sentence?  As a family depiction, this is one of the strongest visual aspects of the sculpture to attempt to create relevance to the visitor, yet the reasons for its worship are left unaddressed.  Instead, we are presented with yet more historical information such as this practice not being observed in North India; a fact which will not interest a visitor who is still trying to make sense of what the sculpture is and why it was significant to the people of Tamil Nadu in the 12th century.  The three sentences have already taken half a minute to read and my guess is that most visitors would be bored at this point, since it is yet to present the visitor with any meaningful introduction to the sculpture.  

The Fourth Sentence:

“It depicts the mutual admiration of the parents of their son Subrahmanya or Skanda-Murugan as he is known in South India.”

Another additional fact mentioned in the fourth sentence, the fact that the parents admire their son, serves only to add to and reinforce the present confusion about the meaning of this sculpture.  While this seems like a very human condition, the visitor is not given clues as to the significance of this admiration in Hindu culture.  Why is this common human situation elevated to a ceremonial sculpture?  Surely there must be more to it than the simple admiration of parents for their son.  Yet, we are not told what.  Added further to this confusion is the additional names introduced in the fourth sentence.  Skanda, the son, is now also Subrahmanya and Skanda-Murugan.  All these duplicate names create confusion in the visitor’s mind as to the identity of the three sculptures.  Is it Rudra-Shiva or just Shiva?  Is it Uma or Parvati? Is it Skanda, Subrahmanya or Skanda-Murugan?  These duplicate names have no meaning for the visitor who is yet to know the meanings of these figures in the first place.  The fourth sentence also fails to introduce the visitor to the sculpture providing her/him with information which adds to the confusion already present in so far as relating to and comprehending this sculpture is concerned.

The Fifth and Final Sentence: 

“These figures, which are great Works of art of the Chola period, also act as meditative constructs to invoke divine forces for a quiet contemplation.”

It appears that the final sentence in the label is trying to define the relevance of the sculpture to the visitor by telling her/him what  she/he is supposed to feel/think and how the sculpture can be used for contemplation.  Such statements are akin to telling someone that she/he should love you when she/he just doesn’t harbor those kinds of feelings for you.  Likewise, any real emotion/thought invoked by a work of art in the visitor comes from the visitor herself/himself.  The label can facilitate this but cannot achieve this by simply telling the visitor what to feel or think.  Although it is helpful to know that these figures are considered great works of art of the Chola period, this is taken for granted for any object displayed in The Asian Civilizations Museum.  Moreover, this fact does not help the visitor understand or feel relevance to the sculpture itself.  As in the rest of the label, too many big words are used in just this one sentence alone; “meditative,” “divine,” “construct,” and “contemplation.”  The final sentence also fails to introduce the visitor to the sculpture and ends with a statement of how we are supposed to feel. 

Overall Evaluation of the Label:

Overall, the label does not encourage the visitor to look at the sculpture.  Neither does it attempt to explain the overall significance of the sculpture.  Too many big words and too many names are used which only adds to the confusion created by the unrelated set of concepts presented about the sculpture.  Instead of presenting the whole sculpture, many disjointed parts are presented which remain as dry facts because no links are made between the parts.  None of the five sentences properly introduces the visitor to the sculpture and in the end the visitor is told what meaning she/he should take home but not given any opportunity to arrive at those meanings herself/himself.  In effect, the label is very similar to dry historical facts children are asked to memorize in history texts but find a very difficult time doing so because they are not related to anything that has relevance to the children’s current lives.  Similarly, what is said in this label has no relevance to the life of a common visitor to the museum.  The label has thus failed in facilitating the realization of the museum’s mission of the “discovery of self and others.” 

Intention of the New Label:

In the new label, a general introduction into the meaning of the sculpture has been attempted with as straightforward a language as possible and with as few words as possible.  The daily language chosen to express this meaning is intended to provide for relevance to the visitor’s daily life.  Duplicate names have been avoided in favor of generic terms such as Shiva, Uma (wife) and Skanda (son).  The TempleNet website has been used as a resource to supplement information lacking in the original label.[4]  The legend of Somaskanda has been used to explain the sculpture because it is a very interesting legend which brings up issues such as inclusion, family and jealousy which the visitor can easily relate to.  Details of the legend have been purposefully omitted from the label for the sake of brevity, seen to be an essential characteristic of a good label.  A conscious effort has been made to keep the new label under 100 words, with the knowledge from literature that most people don’t read longer labels.       

THE PROPOSED NEW TITLE & LABEL

“Somaskanda”

Bronze, Ca. 12th Century, Tamil Nadu South India

Late Chola Period

Legend has it that this family threesome of Shiva, his wife Uma, and their son Skanda, known jointly as the Somaskanda, came to symbolize fertility after Uma got very angry when Shiva alone was worshipped as a source of fertility.  The threesome have ever since been worshipped in Tamil Nadu with bronze sculptural representations appearing from the 9th century onwards. 

Appendix:  First Mark-Up of Label