





































With Brett Bailey’s modern re-cre-
ation of early nineteenth-century 

human zoos, many have engaged in public 
critiques of the colonial practice of put-
ting humans on display. Exhibit B, Bailey’s 
installation, is meant to spread awareness 
of the widely popular human zoos of the 
past. Audiences stand on both sides of Ex-
hibit B—some protesting the “otherness” 
of hired actors and some praising the risks 
Bailey takes by creating such an exploit-
ative performance. My essay investigates 
whether or not re-creating scenes of slavery 
does more harm than good. In order to 
spread awareness of early nineteenth and late twentieth-century human zoos, Bailey subjugates 
non-white actors to portray performances similar to those from these previous periods. Is there 
an effective way to recreate scenes of slavery and oppression? Does Exhibit B provide a critique of 
racism and colonialism? Or, could Exhibit B be another instance of racism?

In this paper, I am going to argue that Brett Bailey’s Exhibit B is a poor attempt to provide an 
artistic critique of nineteenth and twentieth-century colonialism and racism in the practice of the 
human zoo. I will do this by examining the history of the human zoo and recounting the story of 
the real-life Hottentot Venus. This will help us understand how the human zoo is historically tied up 
with colonialism and racism. I will then look at Bailey’s own views surrounding Exhibit B and, lastly, 
I will provide an analysis of why Exhibit B is not a proper representation of the history of American 
and European ethnological enlightenment. I will also discuss why Bailey’s intentions cannot over-
come the colonialism and racism that lingers around his modern re-creation of the human zoo.

If you think the human zoo is a thing of the past, you may want to reconsider. South African 
artist Brett Bailey has created a modern representation of the human zoo called Exhibit B. In 
his exhibit, actors portray nineteenth-century human zoos in scenes that have been historically 
re-created. In one such scene, titled “Civilizing the Natives: Herero prisoners cleaning Herero 
skulls for European museums,” two African-American women hold human skulls and pieces 
of glass. The plaque next to this display explains the history of African women being forced to 
clean skulls that were meant to be sent to Germany for “pseudoscientific examination” in the late 
nineteenth and early twentieth century (Carvajal). In Bailey’s rendition, the women are enclosed 

The Human Zoo: A Critique of 
Brett Bailey’s Exhibit B

Mercadies Brown, Ball State University

Key Words:
Brett Bailey, human zoo, slavery, Exhibit B, 
critique, colonial practice

Abstract:
This essay examines Exhibit B, a controversial 
art installation by South African artist Brett 
Bailey in which actors portray historical scenes 
of colonialism and slavery. Exhibit B is meant 
to spread awareness of the widely popular 
human zoos of the past. Brown’s essay inves-
tigates whether or not recreating scenes of 
slavery does more harm than good. 

106

Digital Literature Review, vol. 2 (2015). © Ball State University. All Rights Reserved.
Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce critical edition to dlr@bsu.edu. 



in a small area, fenced off by barbed wire. A large cooking pot sits upon a stack of wood between 
the women. Hanging from the barbed wire are what look to be pieces of flesh. The entire display 
is placed behind four pedestals, and on these pedestals are four skulls enclosed in glass cases. 
A backlight causes the faces of the women to be lost in shadows—the darkness of the exhibit 
further dimming their already dark skin. Spotlights draw attention to the hands of the actresses, 
causing the audience to focus on the actions taking place, as described by the plaque. 

Also featured in Exhibit B is “A Place in the Sun: quarters of an officer of the German Colonial 
Forces, Windhoek 1906.” This scene involves a woman with an iron chain around her neck. In 
the eighteenth, nineteenth, and even early twentieth century, it was common practice for Euro-
pean colonists to chain up an African woman and allow her access to food in exchange for sexual 
services. This type of action sought to demean 
the women to little more than poorly treated 
house pets. As an African-American actress 
sits on a bed inside Bailey’s “A Place in the 
Sun” exhibit, she stares into a mirror hung on 
the wall. With her back to the audience, the 
only sight of this woman’s face is whatever 
glimpse of reflection you may catch in the 
mirror. Clothed in only a bed sheet, emphasis 
is placed on the chain collar around her neck. 
On the walls hang animal furs and heads, as 
well as framed photos of indigenous tribes. 
The woman is not given a name, but instead a 
piece of paper scribbled with a series of numbers is attached to the sheet that she wears in lieu of 
a nametag. A man’s clothing and belongings are scattered about the room. His pants lie across the 
bed and his boots are thrown about the floor. A rifle is propped against the bedpost should the 
woman get any ideas about escaping her chain collar. 

The exhibit has caused such uproar that Change.org features a petition to have the London 
showing cancelled. Protestors did end up with a victory, as this particular London theatre, the 
Barbican, withdrew its showing of Exhibit B. Responding to the cancellation, Bailey wrote an 
article featured in The Guardian which included the following: 

The intention of Exhibit B was never hatred, fear, or prejudice. It is about love, respect, and outrage. 
Those who have caused Exhibit B to be shut down brand the work as racist. They have challenged 

107 Brown

Civilizing the Natives: Herero prisoners cleaning Herero skulls for European museums © Brett Bailey

A Place in the Sun: quarters of an officer of the German 
Colonial Forces, Windhoek 1906 © Brett Bailey



my right, as a white South African, to speak about racism the way I do. They accuse me of exploit-
ing my performers. They insist that my critique of human zoos and the objectifying, dehumanizing 
colonial/racist gaze is nothing more than a recreation of those spectacles of humiliation and control. 
The vast majority of them have not attended the work… I do not portray the world in the binaries of 
black and white, wrong and right, good and evil. I am an artist who works with colours and shades. 
(Bailey, “Yes, Exhibit B is Challenging”)

With thirty-eight tour dates scheduled for the 2014 calendar year, Bailey’s exhibit has been able 
to spread awareness regarding European and American history of “ethnological enlightenment” 
(“The Human Zoo” 3). The question remains, however, if awareness was spread in a manner 
deemed appropriate. 

Before further examining Exhibit B, we first need to look at the long history of the human zoo 
in order to understand the importance of the racial ties that continue to be present in Bailey’s 
modern re-creation. Zoos have been a large part of human history. Once entrepreneurs figured 
out that an audience would pay to see unique and exotic animals brought to nearby cities, zoos 
rapidly became popular. Lydia Kallipoliti recounts historical zoological events in her article, “Evo-
lution of the Zoo: An Overview of Significant Zoological Developments Spanning from Biblical 
Times through to Contemporary Proposals.” She describes the pre-modern zoos as such:

These aristocratic ménageries—including the Tower of London and the Vincennes Ménagerie—
were founded and owned by said aristocrats whose primary intentions were not scientific or 
educational but rather illustrated their established power and wealth as it required both of those 
conditions to acquire exotic animals. By the late seventeenth century, ménageries had developed 
into places where wild animals were kept and trained for the purpose of exhibition. Animals were 
objectified—collected and displayed in a similar manner to the cabinet of curiosities of Renaissance 
Europe in which rulers and aristocrats would showcase their personal collections (3).

Kallipoliti’s description of pre-modern zoos provides a basis upon which we are able to associate the 
first animal zoos. It is not until later, around the nineteenth century, that zookeepers begin display-
ing humans alongside animals. As Kallipoliti notes, the Age of Enlightenment largely influenced the 
changes to zoos and what became known as the “modern” zoos: “Thus the symbolic use of animals 
began to merge with notions of a well-ordered universe, leading to the collection of live specimens 
for study rather than amusement and ultimately to the development of the first scientifically estab-
lished zoos of the modern world” (9). With this shift to science-focused zoos, it would not be long 
before zookeepers began expanding their search of “live specimens” to include humans.

In the late 1800’s, cities such as Paris, Hamburg, Barcelona, and Milan were home to human zoos. 
Even some American cities, such as New York, hosted the human exhibits. M.B. David notes in the 
article “Deep Racism: The Forgotten History of Human Zoos,” that some 200,000 to 300,000 peo-
ple visited these zoos collectively. The human zoos consisted of public exhibits of mostly non-Eu-
ropean people. These people were often considered different and unusual to what Europeans were 
used to seeing. As part of the exhibit, the humans on display would be placed inside a habitat. These 
constructed habitats often offered ideas of where these people might naturally exist. 

Carl Hagenbeck, considered to be a German entrepreneur of human zoos, exhibited Nubian 
people in 1876. While working with a collaborator for the Nubian exhibit, Hagenbeck requested 
“wild beasts” be placed in the exhibit. Hagenbeck considered his exhibits of human beings to be 
“savages in a natural state” (Ames 27). Beginning in 1874, Hagenbeck critiqued and perfected 
zoo exhibits, for humans and animals alike. In one such show called “The Savages from the Land 

108 Brown



of Fire,” Hagenbeck displayed a group of Kaweskars, people native to the Tierra del Fuego area 
of the South American Chilean Patagonia. Hagenbeck’s expedition captured the Kaweskars and 
displayed them to an audience of half a million visitors in Paris alone (“Europe’s ‘Human Zoos’”). 
Human zoos had gained so much popularity that the 1889 World’s Fair featured an exhibit with 
four hundred indigenous people (David). 

By the early twentieth century, human zoos had sprung up across Germany. With big names 
like Hagenbeck, Germany helped human zoos, or “Peoples Show,” to gain popularity throughout 
the Western world. A Congolese pygmy called Ota Benga was displayed in a primate exhibit at the 
Bronx Zoo in New York City from 1906 until 1910. A plaque outside Benga’s exhibit labeled him 
as, “The Missing Link” (David). A zoo in France continued to display an Ivory Coast Village as 
part of an African safari up through 1994, as well as a London zoo including an exhibit depicting 
the earliest Homo sapiens in 2005 (David). In a document titled The Human Zoo: Science’s Dirty 
Secret, Channel Four Television Corporation investigates late nineteenth and early twentieth-cen-
tury cultural practices regarding indigenous peoples. The document states, “Scientists were so fas-
cinated by race that thousands of indigenous people from all over the world were put on display 
in human zoos in pseudo-scientific demonstrations of ‘racial difference’” (“The Human Zoo” 3). 
Though the concept of a zoo began with animals, it quickly incorporated human specimens. Just 
as the animals had been captured from their homelands and objectified for visitors to gawk at, the 
same ended up happening to people. 

Perhaps the most famous story involving the human zoo is that of Saartjie Baartman. Baart-
man’s story describes the life of an indigenous woman captured for display in a human zoo. Baart-

man was deceived by European explorers 
and kidnapped from her home. Like other 
performers, Baartman was taken because of 
her unusual appearance. Human zoos, and 
their audiences, thrived off of exotic spec-
imens. If white Europeans had not seen 
something before, it was sure to be a hit at 
a freak show carnival. Baartman became 
known as “The Hottentot Venus,” and from 
that point on, she wouldn’t be known by 
any other name. Tortured and inspected, 
Baartman’s story is one of few historical 
accounts of human zoo captivity that was 
ever recorded.  

Born in the Eastern Cape of South 
Africa in 1789, Saartjie Baartman would be 
taken from her homeland and eventually 
brought to England to be displayed in a 
collection of human spectacles (Holmes). 
Baartman agreed to venture to London, re-
assured by an exotic animal dealer that she 
would gain fame and wealth. Human zoo 
exhibits often sent scouts to find recruits 
with aesthetic qualities “that either coin-

109

Portrait of Saartjie Baartman, naked © British Museum

Brown



cided with the European beauty ideal or offered unexpected novelty” (David). Baartman lived in 
Europe from 1810 until 1815. She was placed on stage in London amongst other members of the 
human freak show. Displayed for her genetic condition, steatopygia, Baartman had protuberant 
buttocks and elongated labia (David). Clifton Crais, history professor at Emory University, writes 
“for a little extra, you could poke her with your fingers or a stick” (Qtd. in Firth). In Searching for 
Sara Baartman, Susan Firth notes: “Since her death, the Hottentot Venus has appeared in the 
writings of William Makepeace Thackeray, Victor Hugo, Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould, 
even Barack Obama’s inaugural poet, Elizabeth Alexander. These days, activists and academics 
claim her as a symbol of Western exploitation and racism” (Firth). Baartman died in 1815 and 
continued to be displayed to the public (Davie). As recently as 1974, the remains of Baartman, 
along with her genitalia, were displayed in France’s Musée de l’Homme, which translates to 
Museum of Man. Ridiculed and pestered for five and a half years of her life, Baartman continued 
to be taunted after death. In 1994, President Nelson Mandela formally requested that Baartman’s 
remains be returned to Cape Town. Baartman was not returned to South Africa until 2002, 187 
years after leaving for Europe (Davie). 

Her story provides us with a glimpse into the life of a human zoo specimen. By understanding 
Baartman’s account, we can better relate to what is going on in Exhibit B. Baartman’s experience 
tells us that the nature of human zoos was one of cruelty, torture, and inhumanity. Her story helps 
me shape an analysis for Bailey’s exhibit by giving me an inkling of an idea about how these zoos 
worked. For someone like Bailey to re-create an environment like this, it not only creates a con-
troversial endorsement of racism, but it also negates and dishonors any humanity that Baartman, 
and others like her, had left. To take non-white volunteers and place them into a historical depic-
tion to the liking of what Baartman suffered is to strip these people of their humanity and makes 
them pawns in a game of objectification. 

110

Brett Bailey with a performer from Exhibit B © Pascal Gely

Brown



As I was reading through the tour dates of Exhibit B, I began to look up the venues that would 
be hosting Bailey’s show. I located web pages of four venues on the touring list. Of these four 
venues, two charged admission (Poitiers—TAP, Moscow—Museum of Modern Art) and two ap-
peared to be free to the audience (Paris—Theatre Gerard Philipe de Saint-Denis, Edinburgh In-
ternational Festival). Because we have been presented with venues that charge and venues that do 
not, we can address both sides of this matter and how it may complicate Bailey’s installation. On 
one hand, we must consider what it means to have humans on display like animals and to charge 
an audience an admission fee to see these spectacles. While Bailey argues that he is attempting 
to make a point with his artistic abilities, we are left wondering how much compensation he 
could be making from admission fees, and further, whether or not his live displays are being 
paid justly, or at all, for their time. Is Exhibit B able to send a message about the horrible acts of 
racism and colonialism committed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries while still profiting 
from spectators, just as the original human zoo did? Knowing Baartman’s history, are we able to 
comfortably allow Bailey to objectify actors—be it at their own will? We know that human zoos 
of the past charged an audience to view the humans on display. One may consider that Bailey has 
crossed a line by displaying his exhibit in a venue that charges admission. Can we then argue that 
admission-free venues showing Exhibit B are more successful in spreading awareness about the 
human zoo? If an audience sees that show, and has not spent money on it, are they more likely to 
see the atrocities of these historical acts? Or perhaps, because they have not invested money, they 
may care less about what the exhibit is trying to show? These questions help determine the lack of 
critique that Exhibit B provides. 

Human zoos are not a modern-day practice because humans have realized the cruelty and 
objectification that takes place within these settings. Though Bailey promotes Exhibit B as an 
artistic journey through ethnological enlightenment, this show does not totally eliminate the 
racism involved. Bailey’s Exhibit B does not properly critique historical racism and colonialism 
because he has not drawn a line thick enough between what happened in the past and what he 
is doing now. To an audience with little to no knowledge of European and American human 
zoos, Exhibit B simply looks like a racist white man decided to morph his superiority complex 
into a live display. Even for those who are fully aware of what happened regarding human zoos, 
Bailey’s comparison comes too close to the real thing.

Though collections like Exhibit B provide the audience with informative scenes about 
slavery and racism, these pieces still objectify the actors performing within the art. By using 
actors to recreate nineteenth-century human zoos, Bailey is, in turn, exerting power over 
other humans. It also does not help matters that Bailey is not a man of color. To have a white 
man create exhibits of colonial slavery drudges up ideas of superiority that some would 
much rather leave in the past. 

Equality has become more widespread in today’s culture. We are much farther along as a 
species than we were in the times of the human zoo. Objectification is a sensitive subject and 
must be addressed in a sensitive and respectful manner. Exhibit B transports the audience back 
to centuries when racial intolerance was at large. Rather than painting a scene from a human 
zoo exhibit, or sculpting a statue of The Hottentot Venus, Bailey uses real, live people in an 
attempt to show his stance on racism and colonialism. Where that failed, however, is in his ex-
ecution. Bailey’s exhibit allows current spectators to place themselves in an actual human zoo. 
Exhibit B is no different than Hagenbeck’s zoo. By understanding the cruel history of Saartjie 
Baartman, Hagenbeck’s Nubian captives, Ota Benga, and other humans put on display, we gain 

111 Brown



perspective about this modern recreation. Visitors obviously know that these people are not 
being held against their will, but the visitors are still doing the same thing that was done hun-
dreds of years ago: observing humans in an unnatural state. 

Since he began touring Exhibit B in 2013, Bailey’s work has engaged many people in public 
critiques of historical human zoos. By examining the history of the human zoo, we can better 
understand the racial ties that Bailey’s show carries along. We are able to recognize the underlying 
trend of superiority and objectification that allowed human zoos to thrive in the past. The story 
of Saartjie Baartman gives us evidence that the practice of human zoos involved people being 
captured and displayed like wild animals. By creating Exhibit B, Bailey has tried to spread aware-
ness about the pseudo-scientific enlightenment that took place in the nineteenth and twentieth 
centuries, but his exhibit does not totally eliminate racism. It seems that no matter how carefully 
recreations are handled, people still end up being objectified. 

Ultimately, there are costs to recreating scenes of slavery. Our world already has a hard time 
honoring equality to all humans. No matter how good artistic intentions may be, any performance 
that objectifies other human beings is not worth the cost. Though we constantly strive to gain 
understanding of past events, it could be possible that our continuous efforts are not bringing us 
any closer. It does not matter how hard we try; we will never know what it is like to be in another 
person’s situation. Bailey, and numerous others, attempt to bring understanding to viewers, but 
what is lost in the process? I believe it is time to approach historical slavery and colonialism in a 
new way. That could mean many things. It may involve us reevaluating how we think about these 
situations, or it could possibly encourage us to change how we teach future generations about 
these atrocities. Whatever the solution is, we have not yet reached it.

 

112 Brown



Ames, Eric. Carl Hagenbeck’s Empire of Entertainments. Seattle: U of Washington, 2009. Print.

Bailey, Brett. “Yes, Exhibit B Is Challenging – but I Never Sought to Alienate or Offend.” The 
Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 Jan. 2015. 

---. “Exhibit A B and C.” Third World Bunfight. Third World Bunfight, 26 Sept. 2014. Web. 7 Jan. 2015. 

Carvajal, Doreen. “On Display, and on a Hot Seat: ‘Exhibit B,’ a Work About Human Zoos, Stirs 
Protests.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 13 Jan. 2015. 

David, M.B. “Deep Racism: The Forgotten History of Human Zoos.” Popular Resistance. 
PopularResistance.Org, 18 Feb. 2014. Web. 30 Dec. 2014. 

Davie, Lucille. “Sarah Baartman, at rest at last.” SouthAfrica.info. South Africa, 14 May 2012. Web. 
16 Mar. 2015.

“Europe’s ‘Human Zoos’: Remains of Indigenous Abductees Back Home after 130 Years.” Spiegel 
Online International. Ergo Direckt, 13 Jan. 2010. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. 

Firth, Susan. “Searching for Sara Baartman.” John Hopkins Magazine. The John Hopkins Magazine, 
1 June 2009. Web. 28 Dec. 2014.

Holmes, Rachel. African Queen: The Real Life of the Hottentot Venus. New York: Random House, 
2007. Print.

Kallipoliti, Lydia. “Evolution of the Zoo: An Overview of Significant Zoological Developments 
Spanning from Biblical times through to Contemporary Proposals.” Wordpress. Terra 
Incognita, 6 July 2014. PDF. 28 Jan. 2015. 

“The Human Zoo: Science’s Dirty Secret.” Race: Science’s Last Taboo. Channel Four Television 
Corporation, 1 Jan. 2009. PDF. 27 Dec. 2015. 

Bailey, Brett. Civilizing the Natives: Herero prisoners cleaning Herero skulls for European museums, 
2014. Digital File. Copyright Brett Bailey.

Bailey, Brett. A Place in the Sun: quarters of an officer of the German Colonial Forces, Windhoek 
1906, 2014. Digital File. Copyright Brett Bailey.

Gely, Pascal. Brett Bailey with a performer from Exhibit B, 2014. Digital File. Copyright Pascal Gely. 

Unknown. Portrait of Saartjie Baartman, naked, 1810. Digital File. Copyright British Museum.

113

Works Cited

List of Illustrations

Brown


