Anna Leidecker: As a young Tibetan person, I viewed the Rubin museum as an emblem of cultural pride. I grew up in a very culturally homogeneous area, so the fact that someone in New York City had decided to make an entire museum dedicated to Himalayan art was affirming—it demonstrated for me that Tibet was important, and my heritage was something to be proud of. But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve begun to have doubts around the cultural appropriateness of the representation of Tibetan Buddhism in Western society.

Western praise or even practice of Tibetan Buddhism often feels hollow to me. One can wear tagna and speak the mantras, but still ignore the very visceral and very immediate plight of the Tibetans in Tibet today who are being stripped of the right to do the same. And suppression of religious freedom is only one of the dangers—amidst human rights abuse and ethnocide, Tibet is considered the second-least free place in the world.

Is the Rubin an accurate representation of Tibetan Buddhism, or is it just a palatable version for Western consumption?

Nachama Stern: Bringing a culture out of its context straightaway makes it vulnerable and subject to simplicity and often misinterpretation. This doesn’t mean that we should not broaden our understandings of religion and explore the depths of other cultures, it just means that there is a large gray area between appropriation and curiosity. There is a great value in sharing Tibetan Buddhism and making it known to Western society. Daily Buddhist practices like meditation and mindfulness can change the lives of Westerners too, even if they aren’t committed to majority of Buddhist tradition. It’s important for others to be exposed to this— how can we make this option available in the West? It’s impossible to portray an entire culture in a museum without missing details, but museums like the Rubin open the visitor’s interest to a wider study of Tibetan Buddhism. Shouldn’t that be the goal in portraying a different people?

AL: I agree that mindfulness and meditation practices are beneficial for all. The tricky thing about religion in particular is that technically, it can belong to anyone. It is difficult to pinpoint ownership of religious practice because in theory, any individual who decides that they identify with a religion is then in ownership of it. However, for Tibetans, an enormous part of cultural identity is historically tied to Tibetan Buddhism. If we look at the altars, temples and palaces of Tibet, it is easy to see that this is where Tibetan society chose to allocate its wealth and resources. The distinctions between religion and culture in this context get blurry. 

NS: Much of the time, religious practices that appear elsewhere are diluted this exact way, which I agree is an inappropriate implementation. It’s important to note that there is also a side of this that, in the background, practically seeps into Westerners thinking, being mindful of the present moment being just one of them. There is a community in the West that is eager to explore the culture and learn more about it, and these are the people that know that the image they are being shown by the Rubin is just a glimpse into the expansive culture. The current popularity of Buddhism (though often taken out of context) does contribute to an increase in mindfulness and the values that Buddhism preaches. The Rubin museum with their World is Sound exhibition brings the listener into a world of mindfulness of the sounds surrounding them and makes it extremely accessible to people who have never meditated on sound before. The exhibition is a great way to bring an idea largely rooted in Tibetan Buddhism to New York City.

AL: I do think the World is Sound is an innovative, aesthetically beautiful exhibit. They creators took Tibetan Buddhist concepts and framed them as simply “listening,” which makes it accessible and universal.  My concern is that often, by attaching the words “Tibetan Buddhist” to something, it gains a whole context that it doesn’t really have. Popularization of Tibetan Buddhism is often because it is seen as “cool” and “obscure,” or even spiritually “prestigious.” Through this, Western culture has adopted parts of Tibetan culture. Tattoos of Tibetan characters are common on non-Tibetan bodies. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is a widely recognized icon. It mingles with celebrity, as well. Uma Thurman’s father is a Buddhist scholar, Richard Gere is a vocal activist for Tibetan issues, and the late Adam Yauch of the Beastie Boys married a Tibetan woman and has a half-Tibetan daughter. At the same time, erasure of East Asians, and specifically Tibetans, is apparent in pop culture. Recently, in a notable case of whitewashing, the role of a Tibetan monk was cast to Tilda Swinton in the movie Doctor Strange. This produces an ironic contrast between the adoption of Tibetan culture while Tibetans in media are being erased. 

NS: I completely agree and I find this fad dangerously problematic. Adopting aspects of another religion should not be done this casually. There should be sufficient research and care that goes into foreigners cultivation of deeply meaningful and religious practices. It’s elementary to pick and choose pieces of a culture and not consider that it is but a snippet of a larger picture. Something I found problematic specifically in the Rubin’s display of Tibetan Buddhism was its iconoclastic presentation and recreation of Tibetan altars and religious objects. Iconoclasm—the act of making religious and sacred objects art, ultimately devaluing their religious purpose—is common in museums and widely discussed. It’s tricky to portray a religion in a museum without it being iconoclastic. There is a value in re-creating holy spaces and displaying it as art when the religion is dead, or if it is extremely inaccessible to the common folk. However, it is not the case with Tibetan Buddhism, which is widely practiced today, with a huge presence in Queens. There is no need to travel far to experience first hand the religion and learn about it. The Rubin Museum seems to be trying to sum up a religion in a few rooms, something which puts all of its visitors at a disadvantage. There is a sense of discomfort that arises from religion being regarded ordinarily. Religious statues are stripped of their meaning with their placement in the Rubin, and the greater image of a culture is easily overlooked.

AL: The “Sacred Spaces” altar in the Rubin museum is perhaps the most problematic aspect of the Rubin. Because it’s just…an altar. There is no artistic interpretation or alteration to it; instead, art is presented as a lens to view the religion. Instead of being in a museum where it is only viewed, it belongs in a monastery or temple where religion could be practiced. The important distinction is that this religion is very much alive still. Like you said, you could walk into any Tibetan household in Queens and see a similar setup—candles, statues, thangkas. I’d rather go to my grandparent’s house to visit family and see it for free than go to a ticketed museum. If the roles were reversed, how do you think people would react if they walked into a museum and saw a cathedral or pulpit from a more dominant Western religion?  

NS: Very true, there are many churches and old religious spaces, specifically in Europe, that are now heavily trafficked tourist attractions, and it devalues the religious importance to say the least. The spaces are no longer holy, they have a more historical and artistic value to the viewers. Its interesting to point out that this representation of religion becomes an economy this way. I question the purpose of a gift shop in the Rubin—the materialism does not seem connected to the point of the exhibitions, and I doubt Tibetan Buddhists are benefitting from the sales. You mentioned earlier the westernization of Tibetan practices —the tattoos, the unjustly cast roles— and I wonder how much of the money accumulated through this actually goes back to the Tibetan community. What is the motive of Westerners as the culture is being brought to the surface here? And what about the Rubin? How many Tibetans are involved in the thought and construction of exhibitions?

AL: I agree. According to the Rubin’s website, there are no Tibetan members on the board of trustees. There needs to be a highlighting of Himalayan people, both in the staff and the artists featured. Moreover, the Rubin needs to talk about the politics of Tibet. I strongly believe that to learn about Tibetan culture, you need to talk about the human rights movement. Understanding how the culture is under attack is a critical piece of why it is so precious.

NS: The Rubin Museum is off to a good start. They are bringing Himalayan culture to the masses in the West, and elevating its value here. This is just the beginning of the positive work they could do. There is a huge potential in the Rubin to provide education to the public and service to Himalayan communities. There are some changes they could make that would further their goal and help the Rubin appropriately represent Tibetan Buddhism and Himalayan culture.

AL: I would recommend for the Rubin to remove the Sacred Spaces exhibit and replace it with one featuring the politics of Tibet, specifically why and how practicing Tibetan Buddhism in Tibet is policed. In future, as many Himalayan artists, curators and other creators should be involved with the museum, and compensated for their work, as possible. Some outreach has already been initiated in efforts to increase the amount of Himalayan visitors to the Rubin. This, as well as the museum’s preservation efforts after the earthquakes in Nepal, were admirable. This is the kind of direct involvement that needs to be continued and expanded. A fund could be made specifically for more outreach to Himalayan communities in New York, and events could be sold at sliding scale prices. Internships could be offered for youth with Himalayan heritage. Mindfulness programming could be offered specifically by and for Himalayan people. Resources could be provided for those who want to learn more or get involved with human rights work for the region. There is a wealth of ways that the Rubin could become more engaged and active. This museum represents Himalayan culture, so the goal should be to give back to Himalayan communities.