Right but the bowls aren’t being eaten out of, the urns have had the organs removed. The instruments lay silent and the religious artifacts hold no more spirits.

You might take a collection of dried leaves and put them on display and call it a “tree museum”, but your visitors aren’t going to get a good appreciation for what trees are like just by looking at their dead refuse

The urns and bowls that were used weren't preserved, because they were used. Only the ones no longer used exist at all.

But then this is rather a critique of teaching history no? It's basically impossible for anyone to get a good appreciation for any historic subject from studying history. You can read books about WW2 nonstop and it would be futile, hell, I could tell you about what I did last weekend but I'm afraid you just had to be there.

I believe "merely aesthetic objects" in this case should be interpreted as "dead objects". The very word "artifact" signifies the distinction.

These objects were once alive - they were parts of active interactions. Now they are dead and ossified.

This is the difference between your album CDs when you actually listened to them, and then when you put them on a display case on the wall.

but in most cases they were dead before they were in the museum. In some cases dead before capitalism even existed. I don't really see how this amounts to a criticism of the museum itself (or capitalism alongside it). (I will agree in the cases where they were not: there are certainly a lot of infamous examples there, where even if the objects were dead relative to the culture that created them, they are also being seperated from the closest culture that exists today)

And lots came from places where the original culture of the objects had been replaced and/or was being erased.

I don't think the original quote is really a criticism (in the sense of "this is bad and must change") of museums in itself. It's using museums as an example of capitalist realism - the idea that capitalism today is so dominant and malleable that it's able to basically "corrupt or co-opt" anything, and that we reflexively view everything through capitalist lenses.

That even these artifacts that might have once been immensely important to the workings of a non-capitalist society, now exist dead, entombed within a capitalist construct - and as a sibling notes, as literally little pieces of capital.

In addition, the idea here is one of commodification of culture. An idol of religious significance and a spear used for fishing are the same kind of "stuff" from the point of view of a collector or someone visiting a museum. They can be traded, exchanged, which decontextualizes them from the non-capitalistic cultures in which they were created.

But that's not true. The objects in museums are used by museum visitors (who look at them, or draw studies of them, etc) and researchers (who remove them from the displays and study them).

Mark Fisher is just an idiot like the bullshit jobs guy, who doesn't respect anyone he doesn't personally know and thinks they're all faking doing real work.

Note that the other thing Fisher was known for is writing an essay about how Russell Brand is cool and people should stop caring that he's a rapist.

I’m not so sure about that part either, although ethnographic museums certainly have a history of, well, not being exactly respectful – or factually accurate – of the cultures they exhibit. Plus, of course, the BM is not a great example of capitalism, being free of charge to visit! I just included the quote because I found it while googling what Joyce’s exact phrasing in DE is and thought it gave interesting context.