Case Study: Kimono Wednesdays at the Boston MFA

by: GracePosted on:
From WBUR’s “MFA Director On Kimono Controversy: ‘I Think That Was Misguided And Apologize’.” Amber Ying and Shaina Lu/Decolonize Our Museums.

Key Events

Written by Yereem Chun

On Wednesday evenings from the 24th of June to the 29th of July 2015, the Boston MFA ran “Kimono Wednesdays,” an interactive exhibition centered around French Impressionist Claude Monet’s painting La Japonaise. The painting depicts Camille Monet, wearing a kimono, surrounded by various uchiwa fans and holding a fan bearing the colours of the French flag. 

As a method of allowing visitors to further engage with the work, the exhibition had an interactive component which featured a replica kimono which museum-goers could try on, and was accompanied by a series of spotlight talks titled “Flirting with the Exotic”. The event was concerned with Japonisme, a phase of fascination with all things Japanese that began in France and spread throughout Europe, with wide-ranging effects on European art and aesthetics; yet the programming sparked initial controversy due to its racially charged nature, with ensuing dialogue regarding cultural appropriation and orientalism.

Shortly after the event started, a group of Asian American identifying protesters occupied the museum space with signs that claimed to expose the racist and orientalist nature of the exhibition, with particular focus on the museum’s appropriation of the kimono. They were also active on social media such as the Stand Against Yellow Face group on facebook and Decolonize Our Museums (DOM) on Tumblr, further drawing media attention. 

DOM drafted a collective response to the event, framing Kimono Wednesdays as Boston MFA’s clear dismissal of the US’s current struggles regarding race and racial violence, and a promotion of racism, cultural appropriation, and cultural insensitivity. Their understanding of the exhibition was one that both reaffirmed the imperialist notion that Asians are the Other and encouraged a fetishizing view of Asian culture. They urged others to recognize the systemic racism at play and demanded the following from the Boston MFA:

1. An apology through multiple media outlets and on social media acknowledging the reasons why this event is unacceptable

2. Stop “Kimono Wednesdays”, including the updated version where visitors were invited to touch and engage with, rather than try on, the kimono  

3. Change the Spotlight Talk from “Flirting with the Exotic” to one that is a more critical discussion of La Japonaise and organize a public discussion to discuss the controversy surrounding the initial event

4. Change the placards to acknowledge and explain the history of the museum’s art so that curators may engage with the works more critically.

In response, the BFA halted the interactive element of the exhibition, a decision that was viewed by some as unnecessary, and avoidant of the conversation it would have led to. The protest was also met with counter-protests by people identifying as Japanese, claiming that the protesters’ argument of the kimono try-on as cultural appropriation was unfounded. Media outlets such as Hyperallergic cited that similar events had been offered in Japanese museums such as The Setagaya, The Kyoto Municipal Museum, and The Nagoya Museum of Fine Arts with “La Japonaise”’ on view with critical success, to refute claims of cultural appropriation.

The ensuing media debate between various stakeholders of the controversy such as the Asian American-identifying protesters, the MFA, Japanese-identifying people, and the National Coalition Against Censorship was a complicated and nuanced one as each was speaking on behalf of their own experiences and political agenda. The complex conversation raised questions regarding the following:

1. What should a museum’s response to controversy be? While the protesters demanded immediate cancelation and claimed that the exhibition was directly harming them through propagating racial ideals of yellowface and conceding acts of cultural appropriation of the kimono, many viewed this action as a missed opportunity to talk about the underlying implications of the event, which may be more complex than the protesters made it seem

2. What are the implications of the BFA choosing to concede to one group of stakeholders, the initial protesters and DOM members, over other stakeholders such as the counter protesters? In favor of the larger pan-ethnic grouping of AAPI, the BFA inadvertently silenced the voice of Japanese-Americans, whose culture was being directly dealt with in the incident. By conceding to the anti-racist and colonialist protests, the MFS is propegating the porblematic practice of equating race with a specific national identity and experience of colonialism, which is untrue. A better approach would have been to highlight this problem and bring it into the center of discussion: the US’s racialized thinking is not only problematic in the way it manifests but also is built on the colonialist conflation of unique asian identities as the ‘orient’. By providing more context about the intention of the event and Japan’s unique cultural identity as a colonial power, the MFA could have contributed to stepping away from this problematic narrative.

Written by Edith Copp

Questions of cultural appropriation, group think, racism, and rhetoric are all at the core of the Kimono Wednesday’s controversy. What started out as an interactive exhibition at the MFA gained controversy when protestors deemed the exhibition culturally insensitive and asked for it to be taken down. Originally I saw this controversy as another clear mistake on the part of the white, homogeneous curatorial staff of elite western museums, trying to celebrate diverse culture but instead commodifying and oppressing it. However, as I delved deeper into this story, I found a much more complex, generative conversation about differences in cultural identities which are not so clear cut, as well as the dangers of censoring tough discussions instead of critically analyzing them. In the following paragraphs I will break down the chain of events prior to, during and after the initial controversy of the MFA’s Kimono Wednesdays events. I will also try and parce out the ethos, pathos, and logos of the museum, different protest groups, as well as Monet himself in regards to La Japonaise. 

To give basis to this argument, maybe I should start with contextualizing japonisme as a cultural movement. During the late 19th century Japanese textiles, papers, fashions, architecture and aesthetics became very popular in Europe due to newly opened trading relations with Japan. As Monet struggled to make ends meet, some say he painted this picture knowing it would sell quickly following the art trends of the times(Valker). His painting depicts his wife wearing a uchikake style kimono, lavishly decorated with flowers and demons. Fans half haphazardly litter the wall behind her and her feet in excess. She dons a blonde wig, accentuating her European features. It seems La Japonaise was a satirical retaliation by Monet, who poked fun at the European obsession with Japanese culture. This was a key point of the painting, which if it had been made clear from the start of the exhibition, I think could have changed the entire course of discussion and protest around the kimono Wednesdays exhibition. 

As part of the exhibit called “Looking East”(boston globe), which travelled throughout museums in Tokyo, Kyoto, and the MFA’s sister museum in Nagoya, visitors could try on a replica of the kimono worn by Camille Monet and take photos in front of the painting. The replica Kimono was created by Japanese artists from NHK broadcasting and was well received in Japan. This brings about the interesting question of why the donning of the kimono in front of La Japonaise became so controversial when done in Boston Massachusetts. 

Kimono Wednesdays was to take place at the Boston MFA every Wednesday throughout the summer of 2015 in hopes that it would give the audience a deeper understanding of Japanese culture. Soon after its opening, predominantly asian-american protesters stood by the painting wearing signs saying things like “decolonize our museum”, and “Try on the kimono, learn what it’s like to be a racist imperialist !!!today!!!”. There was even a facebook page created called, “Stop Yellow Face”. In the eyes of the protestors, this exhibition served to perpetuate racist steriotypes of Japanese people, profited off a culture not their own and in doing so perpetuating a colonialist regime. In response to this, the museum handed out fliers at the exhibition explaining why they did not think the exhibition was racist and asserted that the exhibition came from a genuine admiration of Japanese culture and a sincere attempt at engaging the audience with Japanese dress and history. To add another opinion to this, counter protesters also attended the exhibition with signs saying things like ““I am Japanese. I am not offended by Kimono Wednesday”. I am giving this variety of opinions on the exhibition, not to follow up with who is right or wrong, or racist or not racist, but instead to show the complicated nature of ownership, representation, and identity politics. While the original protestors of the exhibition meant well, their call to take down the exhibition seems more like censorship than progress to me. Some of the counter protestors agree with this point, feeling as though the call to stop the exhibition was a threat to cultural exchange and stunted an appreciation of Japanese culture by non Japanese people. All this I think boils down to the core of Japonisme and defining what its true intentions really are. Critics like Steph Rodney form Hyperallergic as well as Julie Valk in Asian Ethnology agree that Japonisme itself is complicated due to the somewhat level playing field of trading and commercial exchanges between Europe and Japan during the 19th century. Japan during this time was itself a colonist power, and had strategically encouraged the spread of Japanese culture to the West in order to promote global trade. If we speculate an alternative narrative to this exhibition using the nuanced information gathered on the content of this exhibition, we could formulate a very different conclusion. For example, if Japan did in fact have a hand in the Japonisme craze in order to gain power, expansion, and profit throughout the west, then isn’t the exhibition actually subverting an American audience. And maybe more importantly, if Monet had originally created the painting as a satire of the West’s aesthetic obsession with Japan, isn’t it ironic if a North American audience then assumes the same role. Is it really appropriation if the viewer is appropriating an appropriation of an object i.e. the viewer is not dressing up as a Japanese person but as a European person wearing a kimono with the intention of subverting Japonisme. I also have thoughts on the divisions of cultures, such as the differences shown in this case study about being Japanese and Japanese America as well as Asian-American and a person of color existing in America. While protests arose, supposedly fighting for the rights of Asian Americans, counter protestors questioned what Asian-American really means. The context of a Japanese person living in Japan, or Japanese person living in American, or Thaiwanese or Korean person living in Taiwan or Korea or America are all very different lived experiences and should not be lumped in the same equations or conclusions. 

To conclude, Kimono Wednesday’s was a flop. It was a flop because the curators for some reason did not hone in on the very poignant Critic monet originally had in his painting La Japonaise. It also flopped in the silencing, subtractive rhetoric of the original protestors who, in trying to help, actually segmented their audience and drew light on the all or nothing approach to speaking about race that pervades in millennial culture today. It also flopped in the response by the museum to eventually prohibit audience members from trying on the kimonos and instead would only allow them to touch it. It is my highest hope for someone to eventually bring this exhibit back to life, to give it the discussion, uncomfortableness, and resolution it deserves and to hopefully answer some of the questions I have posed above.

Boffetta, Elena. “Boston Kimono Exhibit in Race Row.” BBC News, BBC, 8 July 2015, https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33450391. 
Cook, Greg. “MFA Director on Kimono Controversy: ‘I Think That Was Misguided and Apologize’.” MFA Director On Kimono Controversy: ‘I Think That Was Misguided And Apologize’ | WBUR News, WBUR, 8 Feb. 2016, https://www.wbur.org/news/2016/02/08/mfa-kimono-controversy.
Gay, Malcolm. “MFA Backs down over Kimono Event in Response to Protests – the Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com, The Boston Globe, 7 July 2015, https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2015/07/07/mfa-backs-down-over-kimono-eve nt-response-protests/lv9NHcnpW0lsRE77d9hvkI/story.html?event=event25. 
“La Japonaise (Painting).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Sept. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Japonaise_(painting). 
Rodney, Seph. “The Confused Thinking behind the Kimono Protests at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.” Hyperallergic, 26 July 2015, https://hyperallergic.com/223047/the-confused-thinking-behind-the-kimono-protests-at-the -boston-museum-of-fine-arts/. 
Valker, Julie. “The ‘Kimono Wednesday’ Protests Identity Politics and How the Kimono Became More Than Japanese.” Asian Ethnology, vol. 75, ser. 2, Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture, 2015, pp. 379–399. 2.

Written by Addie Liebhardt

In 2015 ‘The Boston Museum of Fine Arts’ had an event/ exhibit called “Flirting With The Exotic”. This exhibit was organized around the display of Claude Monet’s “La Japonaise” (1876) a painting of the artist’s wife, surrounded by fans, wearing a blonde wig and a bright red kimono. On Wednesdays, the event became “interactive” which meant museum-goers could put on a red kimono similar to the one in the painting and pose with the picture. It quickly became a tourist attraction with people (mostly white individuals) using the hashtag “‪#‎mfaBoston‬!” 

“Kimono Wednesdays” became a very hot topic. Protesters began to stand near and next to the exhibit talking about the cultural appropriation and blatantly racist connotations that taking a picture in a kimono has, especially in front of this display. Deputy Director of the museum, Katie Getchell, reported that “The idea was to give visitors a ‘tactile experience’ with the kimonos made in Japan ‘to understand and experience the painting in a new way’.” After the protests, the museum pulled the plug on the exhibit, apologized, and had the garment there ” only to touch and engage with”. Although “Kimono Wednesdays’’ were gone, it created a platform for some of the protesters to talk about issues like these and what we can do. A panel was selected to have “Honest discussions” about museums and the white washed idealism that they hold. (https://hyperallergic.com/223047/the-confused-thinking-behind-the-kimono-protests-at-the-boston-museum-of-fine-arts/ )

There have been some debates about whether it was cultural appropriation or not. The original art from Monet was poking fun at American society. After the protests started, some people of Japanese descent questioned the protests and didn’t think that the Kimono was a big deal. There is a lot of debate around this issue and many differing opinions from all communities and backgrounds. I don’t want to homogenize the protests, and because many people questioned them, there wasn’t a uniform consensus of what was “the right thing to do”.

Questions for Consideration

Written by Addie Liebhardt

  • Who is in the right here? Who do you side more with?
  • What makes this so complicated? 
  • Is there ever any perfect solution?
  • What is the broader issue?
  • How is this issue perpetuated in society?
  • How can we stop this from happening again/ can we even stop this issue from happening?
  • Did the museum purposely react in this unapologetic way? 
  • Who is in the wrong? The museum? The people who put on the Kimono? The people who opposed the protests? All of them? 
  • Today, in 2021, would it get the same or a different reaction? How might the museum’s apology letter be different from it was in 2015? 
  • What do you think of Katie Getchell’s apology letter? How could she have reacted differently?
  • Would this happen today? Would there be greater consequences in 2021?
  • Is having the Kimono there ‘to touch’ (even after all the controversy) appropriate? 
  • What are your thoughts on the panel assembled? Do you believe things like the talking panels are helpful? -The panel that was assembled were people who knew about the topic and had personal experiences and knowledge on the topic. The panel convened to discuss the separation between the two opinions and discussed how to educate and address the issues at hand. These issues can be talked about in the context of “colorblindness” in the humanities as well as institutions like the Boston Museum.

Resources

Gathered by Yereem Chun and Addie Liebhardt

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

css.php