Made in Museum Art & Culture Blog

What would Alexander Hamilton have thought of the condition of the US budgetary woes and the related financial crisis?

Hamilton is considered to be the father of the American banking system. As the first Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton wrote with great passion in favor of uniting debt accumulated during the Revolutionary War. Loans came from the colonies, private citizens and foreign investors who were owed vast sums of money. Hamilton convinced Congress that it assume all responsibility and make payments in a prudent, consistent manner. In turn, the first federal public debt would rest in private bonds, of which only the interest would be paid. This system is the forerunner of today’s Treasury bills, which are in turn the basis of our entire lending system.

His “Report on Public Credit” was a controversial document, opposed by some of his peers (forceful luminaries such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson). But Hamilton, being no coward in the face of opposition, and a writer of tremendous skill, carefully laid out his proposal in a document that clocked in at 140,000 words. Hamilton’s motives extended far beyond alleviating the repayment situation. The colonies, he felt, not only deserved the assistance, but guaranteeing debt payment would increase respect and faith in the future of the fledgling country. The effects of the Report on Public Credit changed the face of the United States forever. Hamilton’s influence, for good or for ill, led Congress to behave like a ‘bank’ or borrower, offering interest payments in the absence of immediate funds to repay the debt. His hopes were that such an action would build trust, fill coffers and pave the way for a booming economy. How ironic that we seem to be mired in a system that has destroyed trust, emptied congress’s pockets numerous times and has so impacted lending that it is actually an obstacle to economic growth…

What do you think he would say? What do you say?

By Sheela Kangal

Many museums in our country are focusing less and less on traditional African and Indian art in favor of exhibitions on contemporary pieces. Oftentimes this stems from the relative ease of procurement of “New Art,” as opposed to the sensitive diplomacy it takes to acquire works from Africa and the Indian sub-continent. What’s more interesting ,however, is how the up and coming world of art is mimicking the trend away from the traditional and toward the contemporary.

In a break from the past, eighty percent of art history students are now citing their field of interest as Contemporary Art. As an Art History student myself, with an affinity for the Roman classics, and Renaissance and Baroque works, I find myself in the minority of my peers, where once upon a time my choices were the mainstay of art history scholars. A degree in contemporary art opens up job markets full of positions in museums, auction houses, art dealing, and even corporate advising, whereas my opportunities lie solely in teaching and curating.

But what does this mean for the future of traditional art?

That’s yet to be seen, as both phenomenon are happening in parallel. Countries are making it more difficult to acquire traditional pieces and students are less interested in studying them. Could the slow movement away from viewing traditional African and Indian art, like tribal and ritual objects and sculpture lead to a “Lost History”?

What do you think?

• Tweet