Do you agree or disagree with the issues raised exhibition review?
Why or why not? Use examples from the article to support your point of view.
Can you find any other criticisms for this exhibition not raised in the article?
How does the approach to designing this exhibition differ from exhibitions of art from
other parts of the world, such as, for example, Netherlandish art?
What, if anything, do you think the curators could have done differently that would have
improved this exhibition?
I agree with the issues raised in the Machu Picchu and the Golden Empires of Peru' review
because it is an inaccurate representation of Andean cultures and glamorization of Machu Picchu.
As stated by the article, "...Most artifacts here come from the Moche culture (A.D. 100-800);
while there are just enough examples to suggest that other Peruvian cultures shared beliefs, this
reading of Andean life ignores distinctions and differences in belief and region.." This
generalization of Andean cultures shows not much effort was put into making sure the exhibit
was historically accurate. As for Machu Picchu, it remains such a great mystery as to who lived
there I am unsure if it should be included in an Incan exhibit. Another criticism for this
exhibition is the fact that its guided by Ai Apaec. The exhibition website refers to him as a
"mythical Andean hero" but if you do a little research you find out he was the chief deity of the
Mochica who was both feared and adored due to his brutal enforcement of restoring order.
