The Hidden and the Unknown: African Art at UTSC

For nearly eight years, African art objects have been hidden away in a storage room at UTSC. A three-part investigation into their strange history and uncertain future. 

BY: MAISHA MUSTANZIR

An African art object from the collection donated to UTSC. By: Maisha Mustanzir // THE UNDERGROUND

Part One: An Introduction

This winter semester, the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus (UTSC) provided the ANTD15: Frontier’s of Socio-Cultural Anthropology course. The course switches topics every year to deal with ideas at the front line of Anthropology, and this year the theme was Objects. This stemmed from a series of African Art objects living in an isolated storage room inside the Environmental Science and Chemistry Building (ESCB). 

In October 2012, the African objects were donated by Joseph Tanenbaum, an art collector. He donated what was originally labeled as “African Art” pieces to UTSC to further student experiential learning. The entire transaction was handled by the department of Alumni Relations, who graciously accepted the objects. 

Accepted in by the campus in 2012 the objects’ home and purpose were never clarified. The objects have both taken on the title of African art and of commercial art objects while also creating an interdisciplinary tension of what to label them, and essentially what to do with them.

These art objects exist in a constant indeterminate state. They are ambiguous, and thus have raised much confusion. The fact that so much is unknown about these objects has created a bind for anyone who wants to care for them, as they are confused about what proper care looks like. However, all parties involved with these objects have had their best interest in mind. 

Different departments at UTSC were contacted in regards to adopting these objects, but without the sufficient history and lack of documentation, they eventually found a temporary home in the ESCB basement storage space. The objects raised some important questions such as: is this art? Are they just commercial objects? Who made them? Where did they come from? What is their value? How should their value be measured? Should an object titled “African Art” be displayed within an institution as big as UTSC with no concrete proof of history and origin? What should the university do with these objects now? 

With no solution as to what to do with these objects, they ended up in the Development Office. However, 5 years later in September 2018, the Development Office was preparing to move spaces and no longer had the storage capacity to hold these objects. 

These objects do not have a concrete traceable history and the campus has scant information regarding their specific origin and monetary value. What is known about these objects come from a few pieces of information: 

• A financial appraisal provided by the donor which lists brief information about the objects. In most cases, it’s a brief description, the physical dimensions and, a monetary value. 

• A document from The Doris McCarthy Gallery stating they did not take up the objects because they were not a part of their mandate. 

• Another commissioned appraisal of the objects, using a different scale for measuring value. This appraisal ended up showcasing a completely different value for the objects than the first list. 

The very first appraisal labeled these objects as authentic African Art. The second appraisal labeled these objects as commercial objects. The monetary value determined in both appraisals were wide-ranging.

These objects continued to build on the confusion faced by anyone who encountered their ambiguous state. In 2020, it inspired Dr. Lena Mortensen to base the 2020 ANTD15 course on these objects, with the tentative goal of figuring out what to do with them.

Currently, the objects still remain under the technical ownership of the Development Office. They remain in the storage space. All parties involved continue to look for the best way to care for, handle, and incorporate these objects into the university environment. Professor Mortensen has expressed this same sentiment. 

“I don’t think anybody had a nefarious motive. I think everyone wants to do right by these objects but nobody knows what that means.”

The true bind is trying to provide justice for these objects when no one knows what they are and what their future trajectory should be. 

Part Two: The Hidden and The Displayed 

On February 13, 2020, the class of ANTD15: Frontier’s of Socio-Cultural Anthropology went on a class trip to the Environmental Science and Chemistry Building (ESCB) at the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus (UTSC) to visit the African art objects in the basement storage facility of the building, their temporary home. 

One of the African art objects. By: Maisha Mustanzir // THE UNDERGROUND

ANTD15, led by Dr. Lena Mortensen of UTSC’s Anthropology department, is a course designed to focus on an idea or issue currently at the forefront of socio-cultural anthropology. This year’s idea was based on UTSC grounds: African art objects with an ambiguous history and an indeterminate status, making it difficult for university officials to determine what should be done with them.  

As a student in the class, I have been anticipating seeing these objects in person. I was itching to see if they were really like the image of bodies hidden in the basement embedded in my head. It was a more bizarre experience than I initially imagined it to be. 

Seeing the objects in person was as if the bodies hidden in the basement had been put on display.

The class of ANTD15 interacting with the objects on display. By: Maisha Mustanzir // THE UNDERGROUND

Initially, all these objects were either wrapped up or in boxes. Upon hearing about the class trip, the custodians of the storage room placed them on display for the purposes of our class. 

The thought and effort that went into displaying these objects became apparent to me when I saw the way in which they were displayed. 

The class did not have access to the entire room because the storage facility contains other pieces of property. This small space was allocated to displaying the objects and the rest of the room was blocked off with divides reaching high enough that the view to the stacked chairs and storage supplies on the other side was hidden. 

Despite not being related or responsible for the objects, the custodians still felt a level of connection towards them due to the interactions they had with these objects. Their need to care for these objects can be seen in the way they carefully displayed them.  

Tall African art objects displayed. By: Maisha Mustanzir // THE UNDERGROUND

The tall pieces that look alike were aligned side-by-side in the back. Shorter pieces made from similar wood-like materials were placed in front of the tall pieces. This took up half of the allocated space. 

Both the tall and the small objects were made of lighter wood materials that resemble the human body and human features. 

Some of these objects showed clear signs of damage as well. One of these smaller objects was part of the wood material line of objects.

Damaged African art object. By: Maisha Mustanzir // THE UNDERGROUND

The origin of the dent on the object has been speculated upon. No one can tell for certain if it was due to irresponsible handling practices at some point in its history, if it happened before it got to UTSC, or if it happened due to the old age of the wood. 

The second type of African art objects on display beside the tall African art objects.

By: Maisha Mustanzir // THE UNDERGROUND

The second category of displayed objects was situated beside the first, which entailed a completely different art style and aesthetic traits. 

This category contained smaller human forms stacked up on top of each other that are also conjoined.

An African art object being taken out of a box in which it was wrapped. By: Maisha Mustanzir // THE UNDERGROUND

A third category emerged when one of the students opened the boxes against the wall to discover even more small objects which were either wrapped away with tape or covered with paper. This indicated that there was only enough space for the big objects to be displayed.

Without knowing the concrete history of these artworks, determining their value is impossible. But this is only true for the value associated with money. Value still exists through preconceived notions of what an important artwork looks like. 

The value is derived from the size and height of these artworks, and was shown in the way they were displayed. The bigger ones were neatly categorized for us to see but the smaller ones remained in the boxes. Bigger size and height somehow meant the artwork had more value without even knowing its actual monetary value.

This framework of value comes out due to the limited storage space which only allows the bigger works to be displayed and the limited care the custodians can provide for all objects, equally. It may also be the case that the custodians themselves did not know the boxed objects were part of the “collection” and due to their size, they were easier to be boxed away. 

The smaller objects were also more fragile and covered in substances that would come off the objects. 

Student holding an African art object with blue pigment. By: Maisha Mustanzir // THE UNDERGROUND

When I first entered the room, I was hesitant to even touch the objects because they are art objects and shouldn’t be touched. Dr. Mortensen noticed this hesitation and invited the students to interact with the objects and touch them. 

Touching the objects felt as if I was breaking the boundary between what we think art should be and how we give such strong meaning to objects without even thinking about it.

I remember touching the bat-like object with blue pigment and a sticky substance all over it. The pigment smeared onto my hands. It was as if a part of the object remained with me even after I exited the room. 

While walking out of the basement, into the elevator, out of the building, and into the world where only a select few know about the situation of these African art objects, I continued to look at my blue sticky hands and tried to fathom how such impactful works of art could continue to live out their days in the basement of ESCB. 

Part Three: The Hidden and the Revealed: How to Breathe Life into Art

An object from the African art collection resembling an African mask. By: Maisha Mustanzir // THE UNDERGROUND

Coming into contact with these objects and learning about them in Dr. Lena Mortensen’s ANTD15 seminar inspired me to create discussion around these objects with an uncertain history, in hopes to propose a solution as to what can be done with art whose origins remain unknown. 

I sat down with Dr. Mortensen, the instructor of the course, and Josee Barette, a student in the course, to discuss a possible solution for the objects. 

The answer is to breathe life into them in whatever form that may take. 

Objects, like people, are alive. They need to breathe, they need social interactions. They need to live their own course of life. 

One day in class, Barette presented an interesting proposition: the UTSC community should create a research lab environment in which scholars and students can engage with these objects to advance their educational experience. 

Barette outlined four steps in creating a path for these art objects.

Structure 

Barette draws from the structure of scientific labs on campus when speaking about the need for a lab-like space where these objects can be explored and thought through, more information can be attained, and they can receive well-deserved interaction. 

The class trip to ESBC inspired Barette to take the presence of these objects and the importance of their interaction with people into consideration. For her, experiencing the objects through touch, smell, and sound helped her understand and connect with the objects unlike before. 

It only makes sense that anyone coming to learn about these objects will also have a limited relationship to them until they too get the chance to interact with the objects. 

For Barette, putting these objects in an academic research lab setting is the first step to incorporating them into the world. 

She suggested a room with a circle or square of chairs in the middle that invites academics to sit down and have a discussion together. The objects will rest outside of the circle, in an open space where scholars can interact with them and take notes as they see fit. 

An idea of how to properly handle these objects is not currently present. Maybe the problem is that they have not been exposed to enough minds, limiting the birth of ideas. Barette’s structure eliminates that gap. 

“You just look up and you never know when the ideas come.”

Value 

Value and what qualifies as valuable varies depending on the person. Monetary value is not the only value through which an artwork should be accessed. 

If value lies in authenticity, price hardly holds merit in the face of authenticity. 

This was at the heart of the talk by Sylvia Forni, a UofT professor and Senior Curator for the African Arts and Culture section at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), which took place at UTSC’s Centre for Ethnography on January 23. This talk was part of a series for the ANTD15 class, and aided Barette in thinking through the value of these art objects. 

Forni discussed how objects take on authenticity in terms of creating value in different ways. Just as the ROM isn’t entirely certain about the origins of the objects collected throughout the world, UTSC also does not have absolute certainty about these art objects. 

These African Art objects may or may not be authentic, i.e. made by people of African heritage as belongings within different cultures in Africa. However, even if these objects were made for the commercial market in North America, that does not make them less authentic or less valuable. It just means that the objects are valued through a different set of lenses. 

For Barette, it is important to connect with these objects so more can be learned about them before judging their value from the ambiguous history of the objects. 

Barette suggests that the hypothetical lab be open to classes dealing with these objects in academic terms. 

“If you are not doing research on these objects, there is no reason to be there,” she says. “If you are in a science lab, you wouldn’t just hang out there.” 

Who gets to interact with these objects also determines the object’s value. Barette expresses that if anyone can have access to these objects, then it devalues these objects from being educational objects as well as art objects. 

Resolution 

Barette states that the objects were donated to UTSC for educational purposes. The solution to what to do with these objects lies at the root of its donation. 

In her provided model, the objects retain value through fulfilling its educational purpose by attaining value in an educational setting and living their lives through interacting with academics. 

She suggests that if such a space can be funded, then UTSC can also open its door to growing this collection of objects, inviting an experiential learning experience while letting these objects breathe their own lives. 

Dr. Mortensen supported Barette’s ideas. Her main advocacy towards the objects is to give them more life and let them live out their life cycles. She adds that although these objects may be closely tied to the social sciences and art history disciplines, they should be open to everyone. 

I propose a combined solution from both the model presented by Barette and Dr. Mortensen. The art objects deserve their own interactive museum-like space where the objects can live their life cycle while serving their purpose of inciting ideas and inspiration among students and helping them understand the objects, while also recreating their own history and meanings and fulfilling the main goal: providing education in its own right. 

This form of education is no stranger to the Canadian education system. The ROM is a museum but also an educational facility where interactive learning takes place with objects on display.

At the end of the day, everyone has their best interest in heart with these objects. There is no intentional malice behind keeping these objects in storage. The departments are limited in their role to act due to the lack of information on these objects and the constant transitioning status of the campus has made it even harder to properly care for these objects. 

It is these ambivalences that Dr. Mortensen focuses on whenever discussing these objects in class or otherwise. There is power in looking at the limitations of people at the university which create these ambivalences, to truly understand what our relation to these objects are. 

“The story is really about their indeterminate status and also why it's raising confusion,” Dr. Mortensen says.

And it has truly raised much confusion. However, for good purpose. Every time anyone questions these objects, they are trying to care for them and value them in their own way.