Although historically the museum display has changed and evolved over time and in conjunction with the differing tastes and needs of the artworld, the conceptual basis for collecting and displaying objects has remained relatively the same. From its beginnings in Europe as the cabinet of curiosities to the contemporary museum format of the white cube, museum displays have in essence aestheticized objects and therefore removed their contextual relationships to society and its culture at large.

By removing objects from their original locations, purposes, and histories, they are immediately “artified” and given a superior precedence that would not have been offered to them in their original context. This can be problematic, especially when museums are displaying objects that are outside of the Western cultural context. Many of the ritual objects from non-western cultures are displayed in isolation and under strong lighting. These methods of display give the object importance solely due to its aesthetic qualities. This may be an acceptable format for objects that are made specifically for their aesthetic qualities and whose intended purpose is for their visual enjoyment alone. However, ritual objects from other cultures and other time periods often have a different meaning and purpose, which is diminished in the traditional museum format. For example, Tibetan sand mandalas that are preserved and encased in glass are valued for their aesthetic qualities, but their original meaning is lost. It is not the physical object of the Tibetan sand mandala, which is the artwork. The artwork is the ceremony surrounding the mandala’s creation and its purpose is to depict the impermanent nature of existence. In many ways, it is the sand mandala’s destruction that is at the heart of the artwork’s significance.

By removing the context from the art objects themselves, the object becomes more or less a signifier that points to its ritual and historical experience and significance. In a similar vein, Stephen Bann’s article “Shrines, Curiosities, And The Rhetoric Of Display” relates the act of collecting with mourning. “The time of collecting is an accumulation of small-scale and fragmentary objects, it is a work of mourning” (Bann 7). In both instances, the object is a signifier for a tangible experience that is no longer available or present. This is not to say that the museum’s methods of display are in need of drastic alterations, but it is a call for the museum institution to be aware of its implications and to educate its audience in understanding the limitations that arise when displaying works of art.