The representation of biodiversity, animals, and ecologies at the Museum of Natural Sciences in Brussels.
A review of the ‘Living Planet‘ hall, at the Museum of Natural Sciences in Brussels, visited in January 2021.
In September 2020, the Museum of Natural Sciences announced a new permanent exhibition called ‘Living Planet’, of which the museum is very proud. Unfortunately, I was much less enthusiastic.
However, what I saw on my visit was a misguided way of presenting ‘nature’ to an already vastly urbanised audience, and I found it deeply dystopian in its implications: a sterile and detached vision of the natural world.
‘Living Planet’ exhibits taxidermic specimens as if they are part of a contemporary art show: isolated, without context, in a white, unimaginative space. Touch screens, which are probably outdated within a couple of years, offer minimal information on individual species or their relations to one another. The overall effect resembles a high-end shopping mall more than a natural history museum; consumerism applied to what remains of the natural world.
For other parts of the exhibition, an array of abstract video projections – of water, fire, close-ups of plants – are deployed as though channeling Bill Viola in an attempt to achieve ‘immersion’. Immersion in what, exactly? In videographic exhibition design?
The great natural history dioramas of the 19th and early 20th centuries were elaborate and painstakingly constructed groups of habitats that placed specimens within meticulously recreated environments. They attempted to demonstrate the interconnectedness of ecosystems. Despite the complications involved, such as Romantic and colonial ideas of ‘pristine’ wilderness and the hunting of rare animals for display, they presented the idea that one could not understand an animal without understanding its world.
‘Living Planet’ has abandoned this notion entirely. Instead, scattered throughout are vague references to those traditions, limited to a shadow on a wall. There is no attempt made to recreate the fact that a species is part of a large system. The taxidermied animals are separated from their landscapes. There are no references to endangered ecosystems. The minimalist exhibition design, which appears to have been conceived by television studio set builders, consists of coloured LED lights and white voids, rather than actual biological information.
Perhaps the museum intended to emphasise the laboratory dimension of natural science. But this completely disregards the discipline’s long and genuine engagement with actual natural environments — and, more urgently, its role in communicating the fragility of those environments to the public.
This is not worthy of a museum of natural history or natural sciences of this scale. It turns natural sciences into a multimedia theme park, and does nothing to close the already substantial gap between audiences and their relation to the environment.
‘Living Planet’ is a miscast title for a department that chose to represent life in dead spaces – as far removed from a living planet as can be.
Photos of the exhibit below.
Compare the presentations of the Museum of Natural Sciences in Brussels and the American Museum of Natural History in New York below.
After I posted some images with critical captions reflecting the text above via the Instagram stories feature, in which I tagged the museum, the museum sent me a personal message:
Dear Alexa,
Thanks for your critic remarks. As museum we want to show our visitors that biodiversity is important; we want to do so, not by mimicking nature (it is just not possible to do that in a building *), but by using a large variation of museological means: video, animation, games but also naturalised collections. In that first part of the gallery we would like to amaze visitors with the incredible diversity of life on earth. In the other parts we highlight the connection between life forms, and the vulnerability of ecosystems.
All the specimen we are exhibiting have a scientific value; thanks to them scientists can enhance our knowledge of what biodiversity is. Without knowledge we wouldn’t know what and how to protect. We are convinced that those naturalised specimens deserve a place in the exhibition hall, instead of being stocked in the scientific conservatory. No specimen has been killed for the exhibition; they died of old age or disease. Kind regards, the Museum team
(* link by me)
To which I replied:
Dear museum team, I think you misunderstand my criticism – my modest amount of followers know that I’m working on a PhD in arts (in digital animation no less, at KU Leuven/LUCA School of Arts Brussels) focusing on simulated nature and dealing with ecological grief. The habitat diorama is one of my research fields, and I compare the depiction of nature in museum settings. Within this – also scientific – context, it’s just silly to mention the value of taxidermic specimen or how they came to be, since I’m absolutely aware of this. My objections are aimed at the presentation, and its implications. I’ve written a more thorough ‘review’ on my Facebook. Social media is not the best means to discuss this, but I’d love to meet with the people involved to hear about the decision making process for the Living Planet hall. Best regards!
As of today, I haven’t heard back yet.