Credits: http://www.thinkhotels.com/blog/henri-matisse-cut-outs-tate-modern-2/
At a month from Christmas, and despite the festive lights that adorn the city, everybody goes mad and anxious with deadlines. My personal to-do list includes a bunch of university essays, lots of projects related to work, heaps of presents and last but not least moving to a new home with all the hardships and disorientation that come from it. Believe me, November has been a though month!
London hosts many beautiful exhibitions at present, and I have been long undecided on which to report on my blog. Finally, I chose to go for something more difficult this time, because, you know, I’m always looking for new trouble! So, merrily and carelessly, here I am, dealing with the role of art museums in shaping people’s perception of art. I hope you enjoy my reflections.
When people go to an art museum, they know they will “see” particular objects. My aim will be to develop an understanding of what a museum is, and why and how art museums in particular have a significant role in shaping people’s views on art. I will enclose what various authors have said concerning the experience of looking at objects in a museum. Finally, I will try to evaluate three theories of art that in my opinion are mostly influential in the museums’ world, one by Arthur Danto, two by George Dickie. By doing this, I hope to give reason of the multiplicity of aspects that comes into play within the viewer’s experience, and to suggest a particular relevance of his or her personal synthesis.
First of all, we need to bear in mind that the concept of museum is a Western construction. In the Classic world, the “mouseion” was a place consecrated to the Muses, goddesses of learning and inspiration. In the twentieth century there has been a true proliferation of museum types. The institution spread to virtually all the countries around the world, often becoming a symbol of power and independence, and helping the establishment of national identities. In fact, as Carol Duncan rightly argues, a Western style national museum in a non-Western country is a sort of business card to show «to the West that one is a reliable political ally» (Duncan, in eds Karp and Lavine, 1991, p. 88).
As many authors have noticed, museums closely resemble religious spaces: They often show splendid façades, similar to classic temples or in a neo-classical style (e.g. the British Museum), which recalls republican ideas of democracy and education. We can also notice fences, steps, porticos and columns outside the museum, to signify a clear delimitation of its space. Even in the architecture of modernist and post-modern buildings (e.g. the Tate Modern) there are clear thresholds marking the difference between outside and inside. Moreover, moving into this sacred space, we will never go to see the displayed objects straightforward; on the contrary, the entrance of a museum is a sort of liminal space that stresses again the passage from a realm to another. Thus the outside, profane world is juxtaposed to the museum space, which retains many aspects of a sacred area. Finally, museums are usually in the centre of the city, a location that also hosts other important sites of civic and politic life (town halls, law courts, etc.).
Just from these simple observations, we can already say that the museum is part of a geography of power, and not a neutral zone of pure contemplation. Whenever someone decides to open a museum, there are already necessarily some ideas and views that permeate the institution, so that even in principio we are talking of something ideologically constructed. There is no such a thing as a neutral museum, since every exhibition may present objects in some other way. When we talk about museums, we inevitably talk about power too.
Actually, museums not only look like religious places, but they also work like them. A whole series of unwritten rules provides the behaviour one must hold inside the galleries, e.g. prohibition of quotidian activities (no talking, no eating, etc.), appropriateness of movement, special state of receptivity. Now, focusing on art museums, it is interesting to recall what Brian O’Doherty tells us about the purpose of this kind of space: They want to give the impression that the works displayed are untouched by the passing of time, just like religious verities (O’Doherty, 1999, p. 7). Galleries in this sense are truly ritual spaces, because walking through the museum is a ritual act, with its codes and rules of behaviour, and while walking the visitor «is prompted to enact and thereby to internalize the values and beliefs written into the architectural script» (Duncan and Wallach, 1980, pp. 450-51). The ideas conveyed in these «chamber[s] of eternal display» (O’Doherty, 1999, p. 8), where the outside world is completely left out and a systematic camouflage of time and change takes place, are the ones of «artistic posterity, of undying beauty, of the masterpiece» (p. 9). Thereby, an art museum is always evaluating one particular point of view on art, that is, the one of the group that holds the power in the institution. This perspective does not come to a comparison with others; conversely, it claims to be the only one possible, and so to be exclusively right and eternal. Any possibility of starting a dialogue is precluded: The museum or gallery states its supposed eternal truth in a monologue that is also, again, a strong statement about power and the status quo.
In a space like the one described, anything can become object of pure visual interest. Svetlana Alpers calls “museum effect” «the tendency to isolate something from its world, to offer it up for attentive looking and thus to transform it into art» (Alpers, in eds Karp and Lavine, 1991, p. 27). Although she speaks about objects taken out from other cultures, I think we can talk about the museum effect even regarding those objects considered works of art in the Western context. I am referring in particular to the most recent contributions to the Western artworld, which are mostly controversial. If we stop for a moment to consider the objects displayed in a contemporary art museum, it will not be difficult to discover that artists may have taken them out from our daily life – sometimes without even attempting to redefine them in some way or another. The simple fact that the object is there, in an art gallery, makes it an art object by right. Actually, the museum effect is «a way of seeing» (ibid.) peculiar of the Western world, which, through conventional devices and visual technologies (e.g. the special use of light), offers virtually any kind of object to the viewer’s «attentive» gaze. Nevertheless, as I pointed out before, the museum display is always articulating a particular way of seeing (usually the one of the curator). Consequentially, we should be aware at all times of the fact that it is not in our range of possibilities to “see” an artwork without being conditioned by the context, even if the context itself was developed to give an impression of objectivity. Thus, on the one hand I agree with Alpers when she claims more freedom for visitors, less explicative panels, audio-guides and general information, all elements that tend to divert the attention from the object to what it is said about it (pp. 30-31). Information regarding the display should be placed in the catalogue and, in any case, people should read them after having looked at the object in the first place, since the experience of art is more powerful when it is not mediated at all. On the other hand, I recognise that the museum effect is a cultural construction and we should experience it with at least a basic cognition of its mechanisms of power.
I would like now to concentrate on the active roles that come to play within the art museum. Indeed, we can see three diverse subjects operating at different levels (I follow Baxandall, in eds Karp and Lavine, 1991, pp. 33-41): Firstly, there is the artist, the maker (or at least the founder) of the art object, who has an immediate and spontaneous understanding of his or her work. She may have thought of what he was doing, but his interpretation of it is not necessarily verbal and shareable. The second subject is the exhibitor, namely the gallery curator(s). The artist and the curator are both cultural operators, but the «purposes and conditions» (p. 37) of the first differ from ones of the latter, who is the main agent for the creation of the gallery as we see it, the display arrangement, the information given and, generally, the museum effect as we experience it. The curator is a powerful figure not only in shaping our perception of the objects, but also, subtly, in handing out a theory regarding what art is. However, what I think can be the most important agent is the third and last, that is to say, the viewer. A “standard” viewer will be a product of his or her culture. Although each visitor has «his own cultural luggage of unsystematic ideas [and] values» (p. 34), all of them have in common that they visit the art gallery to see objects of visual interest. This means that the viewer comes to the museum already accepting the fact that, if the displayed objects are there, that is because they must be worthy of appreciation. Some humean judges (the curator or anyway the bunch of connoisseurs whose opinion has been asked while choosing the pieces for the collection) have imposed their authority on those works, which thereby must be works of art.
Credits: http://artcollection.wayne.edu/exhibitions/REIMAGINING_SPIRIT.php
At this point, I would like to highlight a peculiar link between the role of the museum in shaping our perception of art, and the theories of art formulated in recent years by Arthur Danto and George Dickie (Danto, 1964, and Dickie, 2001). In Danto’s view, there is no such a thing like Art in general; rather, an object can be art only in a precise context, namely, the Artworld, a philosophical space created by history of art and art theories. What is most appreciable of Danto’s theory is the fact that it defines art in a very broad manner: «To see something as art requires something the eye cannot decry – an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld» (1964, p. 580). In this way, he can include all those contemporary works that could not find space in prior theories. They may be not so great, but still, they are art. The theory is great in its simplicity also because it gives only one necessary condition for objects to be art: only through theories of art, we can give voice to artworks. Thus, he answers to all the contemporary voices who want to stop defining art at all and gives way to relational theories on art, like the one later formulated by Dickie.
Dickie’s version of the artworld is less metaphysical, as it includes all the people that have some kind of relation to art: artists, museum curators, critics. These are in charge in admitting any piece of work in this hub – only by obtaining this admission the object will acquire the status of artwork. The artworld is then a cultural institution, and that is why we call Dickie’s contribution on this matter “Institutional Theory of Art”. He formulated two versions of this theory, but for a matter of interest I will focus only on the second and most recent, which is divided in five definitions:
1) An artist is a person who participates with understanding in the making of a work of art.
2) A work of art is an artefact of a kind created to be presented to an artworld public.
3) A public is a set of persons the members of which are prepared in some degree to understand an object that is presented to them.
4) The artworld is the totality of all artworld systems.
5) An artworld system is a framework for the presentation of a work of art by an artist to an artworld public (Dickie, 200, pp. 58-61).
The main problem of this definition is that it is circular. Furthermore, it gives way to many questions. What exactly is an artefact? Who are the members of this artworld? Why should we care to have something like the artworld? However, it seems to me that it remains one of the deepest reflection on art as it is today, and anyway it is indeed very useful in trying to leave value out of art. Moreover, both Danto’s and Dickie’s contributions have a strong influence in the way we look at artworks when we visit a museum, because they have cleared the way for potentially everything being art. Thus, we are not amazed to see the most hazardous installations within the walls of a gallery, since we are used to the fact that, nowadays, anything goes. Both theories also strengthen the role of the art museum as the institution where art is made accessible; no other place has this crucial role.
Considering all that I said, you might now think of the artworld, rather sadly, as a closed circle, where the people who detain the power decide everything regarding art, museums are spaces for ideological display and the uncultivated viewer is left with no choice but accept everything he sees,. Nevertheless, I still think that the role of the viewer is the most important, precisely because her set of unsystematic ideas let her be free of boundaries and approach art with a fresh gaze. The personal experience, both emotional and rational, that takes place when we look at an artwork can be stronger than anything the artworld can say. Of course, I recognise the strong influence that the institution of the artworld and its representative, the museum, has on the public – I hope I explained it in detail in this essay. However, within the «intellectual space» (Baxandall, 1991, p. 37) that exists between object and label, the viewer can make the other agents (the artist and the exhibitor) come into contact: in that space the viewer is trying to give reason of the others’ purposes. This highly active role is desirable for the viewer, if he wants to create a personal synthesis out of the museum effect.
To conclude, I still think as the artworld as the space of connoisseurs, critics and artists who decide what art is, where the philosophical thinking on the art issue takes place. It is indeed a space that looks like an institution, because even if its laws are not written, it still has a strong influence on the individuals who get into contact with it. This is especially true for the visitors of museums and art galleries, which are the bodily incarnation of the artworld. However, the influence a museum can have is not necessarily overwhelming the viewer’s attentive activity, so that, in the end, I would suggest a balance between the role of the museum and the viewer’s personal sensibility.
Now I hope you’ll go out there and experience what I tried to outline here…
If you are interested in reading the authors I cited, here’s my bibliography:
Alpers, Svetlana (1991) “The museum as a way of seeing”, in Karp, I. and Lavine, S. (eds) Exhibiting cultures: the poetics and politics of museum, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, pp. 25-32.
Baxandall, Michael (1991) “Exhibiting intention: some preconditions of the visual display of culturally useful objects” in Karp, I. and Lavine, S. (eds) Exhibiting cultures: the poetics and politics of museum display, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, pp. 33-41.
Bennett, Tony (1995) The birth of the museum: history, theory, politics, Routledge, London.
Carroll, Noel (1999) Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction, Routledge, London.
Danto, Arthur (1964) “The Artworld”, The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 61, no. 19, American Philosophical Association Eastern Division Sixty-First Annual Meeting (Oct. 15, 1964), pp. 571-584.
Dickie, George (2001) Art and Value, Oxford, Blackwell.
Dickie, George (2006) “The Institutional Theory of Art” in Janaway, C. Reading Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art: Selected Texts with Interactive Commentary, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 166-185.
Duncan, Carol (1991) “Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship” in Karp, I. and Lavine, S. (eds) Exhibiting Cultures: the poetics and politics of museum display, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, pp. 88-103.
Duncan, Carol (1995) Civilizing rituals: inside public art museums. Routledge, London.
Duncan, Carol and Wallach, Alan (1980) “The universal survey museum”, Art History, vol. 3, issue 4, pp. 448-469.
Janaway, Christopher (2006) Reading Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art: Selected Texts with Interactive Commentary, Oxford, Blackwell.
Karp, Ivan (1991) “Culture and Representation”, in Karp, I. and Lavine, S. (eds) Exhibiting Cultures: the poetics and politics of museum display, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, pp. 11-24.
Karp, Ivan and Lavine, Steven (1991) “Introduction: Museums and Multiculturalism”, in Karp, I. and Lavine, S. (eds) Exhibiting Cultures: the poetics and politics of museum display, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, pp. 1-10.
McEvilley, Thomas (1986) “Introduction” in Brian O’Doherty (1999) Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, pp. 7-12.
O’Doherty, Brian (1999) Inside the White Cube. The ideology of the gallery space (Expanded Edition), University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London (first ed. 1976-1986 in Artforum).
Perry, Grayson (2014) Playing to the Gallery: Helping contemporary art in its struggle to be understood, Particular Books, Penguin Random House, London.
Diotima in the Gallery 