On the Mythological and
the Monographic
The Single-Artist Museum and the Notion of Genius
Master Thesis Author: Megan Mullarky Student number: 10869808 Supervisor: Dr. Rachel Esner Second Reader: Dos Elshout University of Amsterdam Heritage Studies: Museum Studies Word Count: 22,919 2 December 2016
Table of Contents
Preface………..………...…………...…….3
Acknowledgements……….……….….………….4
0. Introduction 0.1 Introduction to Topic……….………...………..….………5
0.2 State of the Research……….…………...………6
0.3 Research Question and Framework………..………....……….7
1. Artistic Genius and its Role in Art Historical Discourse 1.1 Introduction………...…………9
1.2 Immanuel Kant and the Definition of Genius………..……..…….10
1.3 Biography, Mythologization, and the Inexplicable………..…………15
1.4 The Early Twentieth Century: Diversity and Discontent……..………….…….17
1.5 Barthes: Rupture and Legacy………..……….22
1.6 The Aftermath of the Death of the Author……….…..……...…….24
1.7 The Era of Criticism………...……….………28
2. Case Study 1: Musée National Picasso 2.1 Introduction………31
2.2 The Formation of the Musée National Picasso………...………..32
2.3 The Mythologies at Stake: Narcissist, Misogynist, Mystery…………..……….38
2.4 Mythologies in the Museum: Musée Picasso circa 1985………….……….……42
2.5 Musée Picasso 2014: Renovations and Reconsiderations………..46
2.6 Conclusions……….………...….49
3. Case Study 2: Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam 3.1 Introduction………55
3.2 The Formation of the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam……….……….56
3.3 The Mythologies at Stake: Martyr, Lunatic, Saint……….………62
3.4 Mythologies in the Museum: Van Gogh Museum circa 1973……….…...68
3.5 Van Gogh Museum circa 2014: Renovations and Reconsiderations…...72
3.6 Conclusions………..………..……….……77
4. Conclusion 4.1 Results and Interpretations………...………..……….81
Images………..……….86
Preface
During my bachelor’s degree in art history in the United States, I became extremely interested in the problematic aspects of biographical art history and how to deal with the identity of artists in my own practice. I constantly asked myself, why does any of this matter? Can I, or anyone else, really give a good reason for studying the identity or authorship of artists as interpretative material for their works?
It was my continued interest in this problem that inspired this thesis project. Fascinated by the way in which monographic museums of celebrity artists must deal with the issue of artistic identity, yet slightly frustrated at times that the museum world did not seem to notice the challenges going on in these institutions, I felt compelled to write about these issues. I chose the following case studies specifically according to my interests and expertise. Because I completed an eight-month
internship at the Van Gogh Museum, it was a highly accessible choice for me to conduct a case study. The Musée Picasso, on the other hand, was simply an institution which I had previously found both beautiful and problematic, a great combination for my interest in a case study.
I hope in this thesis to provoke more interest and attention towards monographic institutions today, and show also that the issue of authorship and identity in art museums remains an extremely complicated challenge. I thoroughly hope that you enjoy reading my findings.
Acknowledgements
During the research period of this project, there were many people at the University of Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, and Musée National Picasso whose assistance enormously improved the results of this study. Most importantly, I would like to thank Dr. Rachel Esner at the University of Amsterdam, whose close guidance and inspirational attitude truly made this project possible. I would also like to thank those who were willing to be sit through long interviews, namely Leo Jansen at the Mondrian Edition Project, whom I thank for his deep interest in this topic and openness to exchange ideas. However, I would also like to thank Nienke Bakker, Joost van der Hoeven, Edwin Becker, and Renske Suijver at the Van Gogh Museum for offering assistance when needed and access to the Van Gogh Museum archives. At the Musée National Picasso I would like to express my thanks to Émilie Bouvard, who was willing to be interviewed and direct me towards the correct information in the extensive Musée Picasso archives. At the University of Amsterdam I would like to thank Dr. Dos Elshout, who guided my internship at the Van Gogh Museum and supported the development of this research idea.
0. Introduction
0.1 Introduction to Topic
Art museums dedicated to the work of a single artist are today common occurrences in the landscape of the contemporary art world. Often called “monographic
museums,” such institutions are generally dedicated to artist’s of a certain celebrity status. However, often overlooked by contemporary museum professionals and art historians are the fundamental differences in the historical development, ideological identity, and methodological strategies between monographic museums and today’s standard art museums. Most particularly unaccounted for, in fact, is that in
comparison to the freedom of a typical art museum to innovatively design their display of a collection originating from a variety of artists, monographic museums lack such liberties due to their investment in the display of the life and work of only a single artist. The development of such institutions, in fact, are intrinsically bound to the historical notion of “artistic genius” and the mythologization1 of the artist in
order to justify the veneration of a single historical figure through the establishment of such a museum. As a result, today’s monographic museums are often
methodologically indebted to the notion of artistic genius, thereby occluding a variety of other methodological perspectives. This thesis will therefore present an investigation of the role of the historical notion of artistic genius and
1 The term “mythologization” will throughout this essay refer to the way in which biography and the
notion of genius can be combined in the consideration of certain artists and therefore instigate the notion of the artist as “mythologized.” This process will be explained further in the first chapter of this thesis.
mythologization in two single artists museums: the Musée National Picasso and the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam.
0.2 State of the Research
Although the investigation of the ideological presence of the notion of artistic genius in monographic museums is the main topic of this study, the concept itself has been long popularized as a major research topic by the fields of philosophy, art history, museology, and anthropology. Considered the most significant instigator towards the trajectory of this scholarship, Roland Barthes’ 1967 text “The Death of the Author”2 stimulated throughout the twentieth century a profound interest in the
examination of the author (or artist) as creative subject. The largely positive reception of Barthes’ text aroused not only a series of responsive essays, such as Michel Foucault’s “What is an Author?,”3 but also the interest of academics to
continue to analyze the meaning of the author’s death in terms of a variety of methodological situations, identities, and disciplines. This process occurring in the twentieth century will be outlined in the first chapter of this thesis.
In contrast, the broader landscape of monographic museums as institutional category is largely ignored, despite the fact that Europe is home to nearly fifty of such establishments. The single known account of the theoretical foundation of monographic museums is that found in the PhD dissertation of Maarten Liefooghe completed in 2013 at the University of Ghent, entitled, “De monographische factor:
2 Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author,” English translation in Image, Music, Text by Stephen
Heath, (1968), 141-148.
3 Foucault, Michel, “What is an Author?” English translation in Authorship: From Plato to the
theoretische en architecturale aspecten van kunstenaarsmusea.”4 This PhD project,
sponsored by Bart Verschaffel en Wouter Davidts, explores the foundational aspects of the single-artist institution in terms of theory and architecture within the broader scope of the generalized aims of monographic museums. Liefooghe’s project can be considered the first of its type in its development of a theoretical survey of the monographic museum within the field of museology. However, this thesis will nonetheless differ fundamentally from Liefooghe’s in that the focus will not be on architecture, but rather, the specific museological strategies in the broadest sense utilized in the display of the permanent collection within which the notion of artistic genius plays a major role.
0.3 Research Question and Framework
With respect to the state of the research, this thesis will answer the following question:
How do contemporary monographic museums function in relation to the problematic history of the notion of the artistic genius and the process of mythologization of the author-figure?
This question will be answered in three chapters. The first chapter will outline the relationship between the theoretical notion of the mythologized artistic genius and art historical practice from the development of art history as a discipline until today, concluding by identifying the broad scope of disciplinary challenges faced by
4 English translation: “The Monographic Factor: Theoretical and Architectural Aspects of Single-Artist
Museums.” Maarten Liefooghe, “De monografische factor: theoretische en architecturale aspecten van kunstenaarsmuea,” (Ghent, Belgium: PhD diss., Universiteit Gent, 2013).
monographic museums in relation to the contemporary treatment of the notion of genius. The second and third chapters will respectively present two comprehensive case studies dedicated to the historical and contemporary practices of the Musée National Picasso in Paris and the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam in order to examine the function of both museums in relation to the complexities of the notion of artistic genius as established in the first two chapters. Finally, the conclusion of this thesis will offer the findings pertaining to the research question and further, will reflect on the potential meaning of these results within the context of single-artist museums.
1.
Artistic Genius and its Role in Art Historical Discourse
1.1 Introduction
The notion of artistic genius has played a significant role in art historical discourse since the development of the discipline itself. Moreover, the relationship between the notion of artistic genius and the practice of art-historical study has undergone a variety of transformations due to the variety of methodological models developed since the eighteenth century. This chapter will examine the history of the notion of artistic genius since the earliest stages of art-historical practice, thereby establishing chronologically both the historical role of this notion in contemporary art history, and by extension, museum practice. Consequently, this chapter will focus first on Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgment (1790), which was not only widely influential in the art-historical consideration of genius until the twentieth century, but whose characterization of genius is that by which the concept in this thesis will be defined.5
Secondly, this chapter will elucidate the methodological trends occurring in art historical practice in the first half of the twentieth century in order to illustrate the major shifts occurring in the consideration of the notion of artistic genius in the modern period. Finally, this chapter will discuss Roland Barthes’ 1967 essay “The Death of the Author” in addition to its contemporary reception.6 Furthermore, in
characterizing the transformations of the notion of artistic genius throughout art historical scholarship, this chapter will provide a theoretical background for the
5Immanuel Kant, A Critique of Judgment, English translation by James Meredith Creed, (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2007).
6
following case studies in which the ideas here discussed will be applied to the analysis of the museological strategies practiced at the Musée National Picasso and the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam.
1.2 Immanuel Kant and the Definition of Genius
Immanuel Kant’s characterization of the notion of artistic genius was not only widely implemented in early art historical practice, but can be viewed today as the most influential definition of the concept itself. Though the fascination with artists in an individualized and often biographical sense had already been long popularized by figures such as Giorgio Vasari and Karel van Mander,7 Kant’s theorization of the
nature of genius in A Critique of Judgment presented for the first time an explanation of genius and how to recognize it. 8 It is within the second section of this text,
entitled “Analytic of the Sublime,” that Kant defines the notion of artistic genius and furthermore, illuminates the circumstances under which artistic activity can be considered as such. The topics introduced by Kant in this section include the definition of an artistic object in relation to its maker, the necessary presence of genius in the production of artistic objects, and the means by which artistic genius can be distinguished from other human capabilities.9
7 The founder of the biographical model, Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574), and his Northern Renaissance
follower, Karel van Mander (1548-1606), can be considered as several figures who popularized the emphasis on biographical art history and the notion of individuality in terms of artistic ability. Donald Preziozi, “Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects,” in The Art of Art
History: A Critical Anthology, (London: Oxford University Press, 2009) pg. 22-26.
8 Brigette Sassen,“Artistic Genius and the Question of Creativity,” in Kant’s Critique of Power of
Judgment: Critical Essays, (Maryland: Littlefield Publishers, USA, 2003), 171.
The first significant topic at hand, the definition of an artistic object in relation to its maker, appears as the topic of section 43, entitled “Art in General.” This section establishes the nature of the relationship between an artistic object and its maker. In order to properly establish this relationship, it is first necessary to define an artistic object by creating a distinction between art and nature. While the two categories are related in that both can at times be considered beautiful, Kant asserts that the essence of artistic objects versus that of natural objects remains fundamentally disparate. Kant contends that objects of art differ principally from nature in that while nature appears of its own accord, the form of artistic objects are determined by the will of their maker.10 Furthermore, the will of the maker
manifests specifically in terms of artistic creativity, and cannot be categorized as scientific learning. Therefore, it must also be established that “ability is
distinguished from knowledge.”11 While knowledge is generated by education and
leads to the production of a known outcome, ability is that which cannot be taught and is generated only by the will of an individual.12 In sum, the assertion insisted on
by Kant in section 43 is that firstly, art differs from nature in that it requires the will of its maker in order to come into being, and secondly, that the will of the maker manifests through artistic ability rather than scientific knowledge.
10 In this case, “knowledge” refers to scientific practice, while “ability” refers to the mental facility to
create art. Immanuel Kant, “Art in General,” English translation by James Meredith Creed, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
11Ibid., 304. 12 Ibid.
Following the establishment of this logic in section 43, Kant explores in section 46 the nature of artistic ability and its resulting limitations. In the first passage of this section, Kant proposes that:
“Genius is the talent (natural endowment) which gives rule to art. Since talent, as an innate productive faculty of the artist, belongs itself to nature, we may put it this way: Genius is the innate mental aptitude (ingenium) through which nature gives the rule to art.”13
This final statement of the passage, that “genius is the innate mental aptitude through which nature gives rule to art,” fundamentally illustrates the consideration with which Kant will further identify genius in this section.14 This statement
requires the interrelatedness of three concepts: nature, creativity, and art. These notions are related by means of genius, in that genius itself originates in nature, and furthermore, is the circuit through which nature propels the creation of art. While nature exists indefinitely, it cannot itself generate art. Rather, only the manifestation of nature in the creative faculties of the human mind, described above as genius, allow the production of art.15 Therefore, the final statement of the passage not only
generates a relationship between the ideas of art, nature, and genius, but correspondingly privileges genius as the determining factor in the relationship between the additional two concepts. Moreover, with consideration to the assertion of Kant that “nature gives rule to art,” genius can here be defined as that which motivates the ability to produce artistic objects, and furthermore, is essential to the established relationship between the notions of art and nature.
13 Immanuel Kant, “Fine art is the art of genius,” A Critique of Judgment, English translation by James
Meredith Creed, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
14 Ibid., 307. 15 Ibid.
However, Kant further establishes the nature of genius by identifying the means by which it materializes in human activity. Of all creative faculties available within the limits of human endeavor, not all can be defined as that of artistic
genius.16 The first condition of genius presented by Kant is the distinction between
natural genius and “learned cleverness.”17 While the latter represents a learned skill
whose knowledge may be passed down from teacher to student in a linear fashion, genius leads to a product which is both unexpected and specific to the mental
faculties of its maker. This latter qualification can be termed “originality.” To further illustrate this notion, Kant claims that:
“From this it may be seen that genius (1) is a talent for producing that for which no definite rule can be given, and not an aptitude in the way of cleverness for what can be learned according to some rule; and that consequently originality must be its primary property.”18
However, while the presence of originality allows for the possibility of genius, it cannot alone determine its presence. The reason for this shortcoming is that while originality can lead to the creation of art, it can equally contribute to the creation of “nonsense.”19 Since nonsense can also be deemed original, genius equally requires
creative efficacy. Kant therefore insists that artistic objects must not only be original in form, but also generate what he terms “genuine inspiration.”20 Through these
qualifications, Kant determines that genius derives not only from nature, but equally from both individual ability and inspired originality.21
The content of sections 43-46 of Kant’s Critique of Judgment are dedicated 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid.
primarily to the explanation of the manner in which genius is specifically related to the creation of artistic objects and furthermore, the ways in which genius differs from other mental capabilities. However, it is significant to note that the question of why genius arises in certain individuals rather than other remains relatively
unexplained. In order to address the conspicuous absence of this clarification, Kant claims that:
“where an author owes a product to his genius, he does not himself know how the ideas for it have entered into his head, nor has he it in his power to invent the like at pleasure, or methodically, and communicate the same to others in such precepts as would put them in a position to produce similar products.”22
This passage represents a significant disparity in logic by claiming that the presence of genius within an individual is a mystery both to themself and others. This claim expressly denotes the point at which Kant makes a distinction between what is possible to explain and what remains fundamentally impossible. It is this evasive explanation offered by Kant in this passage which represents the most formative role of Kant’s philosophy in the history of the notion of artistic genius. While artistic objects, the role of genius in their production, and objects of genius can each be identified according to philosophical logic, the origins of artistic genius are rendered fundamentally mysterious.23 In fact, the explanation offered is that genius is itself
inexplicable. In other words, inexplicability as an abstract notion stands in for the lack of a true answer. Therefore, the paradox rendered by Kant is that artistic genius can be explained by being termed inexplicable.
22 Ibid. 23 Ibid.
1.3 Biography, Mythologization, and the Inexplicable
Despite the definitive explanation of genius offered by Kant in A Critique of
Judgment, the commentary provided does not encompass the notion of
mythologization; in other words, the version of artistic genius which encourages continuous fascination and subsists on the perpetuation of sensational and often biographical anecdotes. As a result, it is the history of the biographical model of art history which stimulated the mythologization of the artistic genius occurring after Kant. Before the publication of A Critique of Judgment, Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574) had developed the biographical model of art history, and by extension, the emphasis on the notion of artistic individuality.24 The development of the biographical model
instigated the heightened attention given to the disposition, biographical
circumstances, and individual desires of a given artist, thereby privileging above all other information the personality of the artist in the understanding of an oeuvre. As a result, the increased emphasis on the biography and personal traits of an artist established already by the seventeenth century the possibility of implementing such privilege also in the case of the artistic genius, thereby setting the stage for the process of mythologization upon the implementation of Kant’s definition of artistic genius appearing in A Critique of Judgment.
Because Kant’s text stimulated the implementation of the notion of artistic genius within a period in which art historical practice was already informed by the
24 This model was first introduced in Giorgio Vasari’s 1550 publication The Lives of the Artists, which
displayed a distinctly biographical construction of art historical research. Furthermore, Vasari’s model was widely perpetuated also in Northern Europe by Karel Van Mander (1548-1606), whose
Painter’s Book further instigated the popularity in the biographical model. Giorgio Vasari, The Lives of the Artists, (trans. by George Bull, Penguin Classics, 1986).
personality of the artist, his definition of genius can be seen to have largely
instigated the process of mythologization. According to Kant’s text, the presence of artistic genius defies explanation, even by the artist himself. However, the
mythologized genius artist manifests under conditions related to not only the artist as maker, but the artist as biographical subject. Consequently, the identification of the mythologized artist stems from the way in which the artist as human subject may present as equally inexplicable as the presence of genius itself. In particular, subjects who display behaviors outside of the “norm,” either a positive or negative sense, are often viewed as mysterious and are thus susceptible to mythologization. An example of such an instance is that of Auguste Rodin.25 In Rodin’s own lifetime,
his major success as an artist suggest already the presence of artistic genius. His sculptures were unlike those of any other sculptor of the period and through this unique quality, suggesting thereby that the faculties required to create them
stemmed not from learning, but inexplicable divine inspiration. Furthermore, Rodin was understood as biographically abnormal due to his history as a relatively self-trained artist, resulting in his mysterious identification as an “untaught.”26 The
resulting conflation of these two qualities is the identification of Rodin as mythologized genius, in that the nature of genius and the biographical
circumstances which led to its manifestations are equally beyond explanation. As a result, the notion of the mythologized genius continues to demonstrate the paradoxical quality of the aforementioned historical consideration of artistic
25 Sandra Kisters, “Musée Rodin: Thorvaldsen as a Role Model,” Van Gogh Studies 3, Van Gogh Museum
Amsterdam, 2010, 113-135.
genius as that which is simultaneously both explicable and inexplicable. For instance, the way in which Kant theorized the explanation for the existence of artistic genius as that which is in itself inexplicable renders an innately paradoxical conundrum which can also be applied to the case of the mythologized genius artist in that the mythologized genius must also be able to be explained in terms of inexplicability. Such a paradox can be seen, for example, in the case of the mythologized figure of the untaught genius. In this case, the explanation for the untaught abilities for the artist at hand is itself the myth that the artist is untaught, creating therefore a situation in which the myth (lack of explanation) stands in for the possibility of true explanation. Therefore, the Kantian paradox of the artistic genius is equally relevant in terms of the inexplicability of the mythologized genius. With respect to these paradoxical terms, the mythologization of the artistic genius renders a figure of utter fascination, whose cryptic personality type and divine artistic abilities have largely captivated the general public and art historians alike up until the start of the twentieth century.
1.4 The Early Twentieth Century: Diversity and Discontent
In the wake of the nineteenth century, which saw the widespread influence of Kant, the first half of the twentieth century marked a period of rapid transformation in the treatment of artistic genius within art history. As artistic production shifted
dramatically in terms of materials, reproductions, visual strategies, and medium, the consideration of the artist underwent simultaneous revolution. As a result, a variety of art historical methodologies were developed which spanned throughout a variety
of disciplinary and philosophical frameworks, thereby resulting equally in the diversification of the consideration of the mythologized artistic genius. This section will therefore examine several themes and sub-strategies of art historical practice developed in the first half of the twentieth century in order to establish the situation of the notion of artistic genius in the field prior to the appearance of Barthes’ essay “The Death of the Author” published in 1967.27 The themes hereby examined are:
firstly, the interest in deriving meaning from the work of art itself (formalism), secondly, the construction of meaning in relation to the social milieu (Marxism and social art history), and thirdly, the acquisition of meaning from the maker (the biographical or psychological model). The diverse nature of the methodologies will hereby demonstrate the disparate art historical models developed the early
twentieth century which on one hand suggested growing dissidence towards the notion itself, yet failed to directly criticize the notion of genius.
One of the major themes emerging in art historical practice during this period was that which emphasized the ability to derive meaning from a work of art as a subject in itself, thereby instigating the close examination of the visual qualities of the object. Knowledge of or about the maker is superfluous in this model. The specific methodologies dedicated to this theme consisted mainly of hard sciences, formalism, semiotics, and connoisseurship. In particular, hard sciences and formalism were largely rooted in the belief that the visual qualities of a given artwork provided the most comprehensive meaning, thereby requiring the close examination of the visual aspects. One of the leading figures of formalism, Swiss art
historian Heinrich Wöfflin (1864-1945), even developed a categorical system by which to examine artworks. For example, paintings could be judged in terms of those which were defined as “painterly vs. linear,” rendering, therefore, a binary system of discussing artworks based on their stylistic qualities.28 Wöfflin’s
methodological schema can be viewed as largely influential to the art historians of the Vienna school, including Max Dvořák (1874-1941) and Alois Riegl (1858-1905), who equally viewed stylistic developments as categorical systems generated by historical patterns of art making.29 Formalism as a practice excluded the previously
established attention given to the artist as subject and instead shifted the
consideration to the artwork alone, thereby signaling a departure from the notion of artistic genius.
Another major theme that developed in the discipline of art history was the notion of looking outside of the artwork towards the social environment which contributed to its conception. In particular, social art history and Marxism
developed as main methodological frameworks. One of the major figures of social art history was German philosopher Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), who was most commended for his focus on the corresponding progress of industrialization and artistic practice. Benjamin’s work theorized the way in which the understanding of artwork itself was dictated by the conditions of the modern age, thereby situating its meaning in the social circumstances of culture at large.30 Furthermore, the role of
28 Heinrich Wöfflin, “Principles of Art History,” in The Art of Art History, 119-126.
29 Matthew Rampley, “Art History and the Politics of Empire: Rethinking the Vienna School,” in The
Art Bulletin, vol. 91, no. 4, (December 2009), 446-462.
30For example, Benjamin focuses often on the notion of reproducibility and the way in which modern
techniques of reproduction shaped the way in which the “aura” of the original artwork was
Karl Marx played an equally large role in the development of social art history. Interested in the way in which labor operates in the social field and the
determinative relationship between economic class and artistic objects, scholars such as German art historian Max Raphaël (1889-1952) sought to analyze artistic objects under these conditions. As a result, a variety of sociologically indebted art historical models ultimately solidified the role of social art history, and furthermore, the notion of analyzing the social conditions surrounding the creation of an artwork, in the aims of the discipline during this period. Moreover, these models occluded the analysis of the artist as subject, thereby instigating the ideological departure from the notion of artistic genius.
By contrast, a third major theme was developed during this period in which art historians directed their attention even more acutely toward the maker of a given object. Principle among these methodological models is psychoanalysis, developed by Vienna-based psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Emphasizing the mystery of the subconscious and its ability to be interpreted through artistic analysis, Freud’s writings often surrounded the hidden layers of the psyche of the artist themselves and the way in which the meaning of the artwork can be determined through this investigative structure.31 Yet furthermore, other
methodologies focused largely on the psyche of the maker in addition to
circumstances of modern culture. Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction, English translation by Harry Zohn, (New York: Schocken Books, 1969).
31 Freud used this model to write several of his most famous art historical texts, including one in
particularly dedicated to the analysis of the work of Leonardo da Vinci. In this essay, Freud defines the meaning of a painting by the artist primarily in terms of the sexual innuendos interpreted from the painting and the likely sexual orientation and desires of the artist himself. Michael Hatt and Charlotte Klonk, Art History: A Critical Introduction to its Methods, (Manchester University Press: Oxford UK, 2006), 1-245.
psychoanalysis. For example, phenomenology, developed first by Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), became attractive to several art historians due to its emphasis on consciousness as that which structures individual experience, providing perhaps, an insight to the psyche of a visual artist. Namely among the followers of Husserl was Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961), whose analysis of artists such as Paul Cézanne were largely informed by the desire to explicate the circumstances of the artist’s conscious state at the moment of artistic creation, thereby drawing meaning from the notion of the artist’s individual experience.32 As a result, the emphasis on the
psyche of the maker fundamental to both psychoanalytic and phenomenological practice suggests the continued relevance of the notion of artistic genius in the twentieth century.
In the early twentieth century, the treatment of the artist as mythologized genius became increasingly inconsistent. While the emphasis on the maker in
methodological schemas such as psychoanalysis and phenomenology can be viewed as at least somewhat participatory in the notion of artistic genius, the remaining methods lack clarity in the specific understanding of this notion. However, despite the departures illustrated by the methodological models of formalism and social art history, the notion of artistic genius remained extent due to a fundamental lack of criticism towards the notion. This phenomenon is described in Frederick Antal’s 1949 reflection on the state of the art history, in which he states that
“Although…it has become fashionable to introduce a few historical facts, these may only enter the art historical picture when confined to hackneyed political history, in a diluted form, which gives little indication as possible of the existing structure of society and does not disturb the romantic twilight of
the atmosphere. The last redoubt which will be held as long as possible is, of course, the most deep-rooted nineteenth century belief…of the incalculable genius of art.”33
In other words, even within the divergent methodologies of art historical practice at the start of the twentieth century, the notion of artistic genius continued to exist on more or less the same terms as its historical precedent, representing, therefore, a fundamental lack of criticism towards the notion of genius. As a result, Barthes’ seminal 1967 text, “The Death of the Author,” 34 represented a unique moment of
ideological rupture in which Barthes punitively criticized the historical notion of artistic genius.
1.5 Barthes: Rupture and Legacy
Following the contributions of Kant, Barthes’ post-modern text can be viewed today as “the single most influential meditation on the question of authorship in modern times.”35 In contrast to his early twentieth-century counterparts, Barthes staged a
complex exploration of the historical idea in which the devotion to the artist as figure of genius was exposed as problematic. In fact, according to theorist Seàn Burke in his book The Death and Return of the Author,
“Barthes…[was] not content with simply sidelining the authorial subject as in earlier formalisms. A phenomenological training had taught [him] that the subject was too powerful, too sophisticated a concept to be simply bracketed; rather subjectivity was something to be annihilated.”36
33 Frederick Antal, “Remarks on the Methods of Art History,” in The Burlington Magazine, vol. 91, no.
551, (February 1949), 50.
34 Barthes, “The Death of the Author.” 35 Ibid., 19.
36Seán Burke, “Introduction: A Prehistory to the Death of the Author,” in The Death and Return of the
Author: Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault, and Derrida, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
In other words, Barthes’ text did not merely sideline the notion of authorship in terms of a specific author or text, but attacked the very concept itself by
reformulating the historical notion regarding human subjectivity in terms of creative production. Beginning his text with the revolutionary contention that “the removal of the author…is not merely an historical fact or an act of writing; it utterly transforms the modern text,”37 Barthes claims that the metaphorical death of the
author-figure is not simply an optional methodological detail, but rather,
revolutionizes the meaning of the “modern” text in lieu of the author’s absence. As the text continues, Barthes further enforces the inherently problematic aspects of genius and the way in which alternative methodologies open the reader to a variety of otherwise excluded interpretations.
Following his conclusive statement cited above, the text charges on by outlining the ways in the author’s death allows the modern text to evolve. Firstly, the modern text is of the present, while in the case that the author is privileged it can only be of the past. Secondly, while “to give a text an author is to impose a limit on that text,”38 thereby “closing” the writing,39 to implement the death of the author
is to allow the text a renewed openness of meaning. Thirdly, in closing the territory of the author, the abilities of the reader are unlocked: “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author.”40 Lastly, the author’s death does not
instigate a total abandonment of the author’s initiative, but rather, allows the author to return under the conditions of death. As Burke states in his chapter “The Birth of
37 Ibid., 145. 38 Ibid., 147. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid., 149.
the Reader,” “It is not that the author may not ‘come back’ in the text…but he then does so as a ‘guest.’”41 The premises cited here demonstrate the way in which
Barthes’ text not only initiated a critical attitude towards the notion of genius, but also suggested that without the notion of genius, when the text is “opened” to the reader, interpretation itself is exponentially multiplied in possibilities.
1.6 The Aftermath of the Death of the Author
In order to fully examine the implementation of Barthes’ declaration in practice, it is necessary to discuss a key example of the adoption of his methodology. The instance examined in this section is with respect to one of the most influential art historians to implement the notion of the death of the author: Rosalind Krauss, whose analysis of biographical art history will be a guiding notion in the examination of the case studies in the second and third chapters. The most notable demonstration of her devotion to Barthes’ thesis appeared in Krauss’ iconic 1981 essay, “In the Name of Picasso.” 42 Instigated by the 1980 retrospective of Pablo Picasso at the Museum of
Modern Art, Krauss explores in her essay the ways in which this exhibition could be viewed as decidedly problematic in terms of its veneration of Picasso as artistic genius. A highly publicized exhibition occurring at major venue for modern art, this show was the first large-scale Picasso retrospective in the United States.
Furthermore, the curator of the exhibition, William Rubin, had served as curator of paintings and sculpture at the Museum of Modern art since 1968 and was by 1980 a
41 Seán Burke, “The Birth of the Reader,” in The Death and Return of the Author: Criticism and
Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault, and Derrida, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998), 31.
well-established Picasso scholar.43 However, Rubin’s heavily biographical
perspective ultimately catalyzed Krauss’ response and the daring nature by which she implemented the notion of the death of the author, particularly in the case of one of the most famously mythologized artists of the modern era.44
In her essay, Krauss begins by identifying the most prominent ideological flaws demonstrated in the organization of the 1980 Picasso retrospective. More specifically, the text responds directly to Rubin’s explanation of the methodological perspective of the show in which he focused on two paintings of women, 45
presumably based respectively on the artist’s most common models, Olga Picasso and Marie-Thérèse Walter.46 However, Krauss claims that Rubin’s examination of
these paintings promoted the notion that
“Olga and Marie-Thérèse provide not merely antithetical moods and subjects for the pictorial contemplation of the same artist, but that they actually function as determinants in a chance in style, we run full tilt into the
Autobiographical Picasso. And in this instance Rubin himself was the first to invoke it. The changes in Picasso’s art, he went on to say, are a direct
function of the turns and twists of the master’s private life.”47
Krauss’s critique in this passage is twofold. First, she disparages the assumption of a reciprocal relationship between “the Autobiographical Picasso” and his artistic production, which would not only instigate the privileging of the author as subject, but in the case of Picasso would equally utilize biographical elements as explanation
43 “Pablo Picasso: A Retrospective,” MoMA, no. 14, (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, Spring
1980), 1.
44 Ibid., 1-2.
45 Krauss’ response was actually largely catalyzed specifically by Rubin’s lecture about the exhibition at
the Baltimore Museum of Art in 1980, which was mainly biographical in content and features heavily in Krauss’ essay published the following year.
46 Olga Picasso was Picasso’s wife, while Marie-Thérèse was young model with whom he had an
affair.
for genius. The latter aspect can be understood most clearly in Krauss’ ironic use the word “master” while referring to Rubin’s treatment of the subject, which further indicates the way in which Rubin instigated the notion of genius in his own methodological considerations of Picasso’s work.
As Krauss continues her critical refutation of Rubin’s methodology, she outlines the ways in which the privileging of the genius artist and his biography results in inevitably inadequate conclusions regarding the work at hand. In her view, to interpret the art of Picasso as biographically inspired is to
“wish to achieve signification beyond which there can be no further reading or interpretation. Interpretation, we insist, must be made to stop
somewhere.”48
In other words, to privilege the agency of the artist is to close the discussion and claim the success of truthful interpretation. However such an interpretation
severely limits the methodological framework in which the artwork is considered, in that the triumph of truthful interpretation by biographical means occludes the consideration of the multitude of other methodologies, including the analysis of social, economic, cultural, gendered, or formal aspects. This ideological process is therefore termed by Krauss as “proper naming,”49 leading her to the most influential
conclusion of the text: that while privileging the intentionality or genius of the author cannot be considered indisputably wrong, such a consideration is severely limiting when bearing in mind the possible meanings to be derived from a given artwork. By contending that to allow the author the status of the “master” is to
48 Ibid., 10.
49 As stated above, Krauss will be a guide in the second and third chapters, particularly this notion fo
“close the text,”50 Krauss adopts Barthes’ original contention to the language of the
art historical premise, and claims that the meaning of a given artwork should be opened up, naturally at the cost of the “master’s” metaphorical death.
Although Rosalind Krauss serves as an example of one of the first leading art historians to fully substantiate the ideological death of the author, her work can be viewed only as one of the first in a long line of scholars. First and foremost, perhaps, was Michel Foucault in his 1968 response to Barthes’ essay, entitled “What is an Author?”51 The scholarship of later figures such as T.J. Clark, the author of the 2010
publication Picasso and Truth,52 illustrates the continued rejection of the Author
figure, in conscious defiance of biographical art-historical models. Clark’s text concentrates principally on the formal aspects and compositional qualities of Picasso’s paintings of the mid 1920s. The skeptical attitude towards the historical notion of the genius artist demonstrated in Clark’s text is shared also by scholarship dedicated to other mythologized artists. For instance, social anthropologist Nathalie Heinich’s 1996 book The Glory of Van Gogh: An Anthropology of Admiration,53
focuses on the mythology of genius surrounding the work of Vincent Van Gogh and the means by which scholarship today could depart from such closed
interpretations. Such examples illustrate the widespread influence of Barthes by the late twentieth century in art historical practice, thereby demonstrating a heightened
50 Barthes, 145.
51 Foucault, “What is an Author?”
52 T.J. Clark, Picasso and Truth, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2012).
53 Nathalie Heinich, “The Glory of Van Gogh: The Anthropology of Admiration,” (New Jersey:
disillusionment with the notion of artistic genius that would have an effect on the further development of art history as a discipline.
1.7 The Era of Criticism
Most fundamental to the consideration of the role of genius in scholarship today is that Barthes’ declaration initiated a revolution in the examination of creative subjectivity in the wider sense. This inquiry is demonstrated most notably by the rapid increase in the number of publications dedicated to the discussion of authorship as an isolated notion. For instance, often cited in this thesis is Seán Burke’s 1992 publication The Death and Return of the Author,54 a text entirely
dedicated to examining the function of Barthes’ legacy in contemporary thought. Furthermore, publications such as Dean Keith Simonton’s The Origin of Genius in 1999,55 and Darrin McMahon’s Divine Fury: A History of Genius in 201356 continue to
illustrate the unrelenting interest in how this notion reached the historical privilege it was once allowed. Additionally, today’s leading methodological handbooks of art history generally contain a chapter dedicated to the history of authorship and artistic identity, including the widely used handbooks published by Vernon Hyde Minor57 and Donald Preziosi.58 The variety of examples noted hereby serve to
illustrate the widespread influence of Barthes in the contemporary situation and the ways in which the discussion of authorship today remains motivated by the 1967
54 Burke, The Death and Return of the Author.
55 Dean Keith Simonton, The Origin of Genius, (Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 1999) 1-321. 56 Darrin McMahon, Divine Fury: A History of Genius, (New York: Basic Books, 2013) 1-361. 57 Vernon Hyde Minor, Art History’s History, (London: Pearson Publishers, 2000).
declaration of its death. As demonstrated by the many texts dedicated to the examination of authorship, Barthes’ text catalyzed the desire to make visible the notion of authorship itself and to reevaluate its authority, whether deserved or misplaced, in art historical scholarship.
Although Barthes’ continued influence in the contemporary situation is indisputable, the subject of authorship today is by no means dictated entirely by a single ideological perspective. The previously cited statement of Burke, that “the subject was too powerful, too sophisticated a concept to be simply bracketed,”59
serves again here as a reminder that the human subject is a notion in constant flux which is unable to be fully contained by theoretical frameworks, even perhaps, by Barthes himself. However, because “The Death of the Author” functioned most influentially as a catalyst for the initiation of other art historical methodologies, Barthes text can be seen as that which opened the discipline to a variety of interpretive structures outside of the primary consideration of the artist as
individual subject. Implemented in both art history and museum practice, the post-modern era saw the opening of both the art-historical text and the art museum to a wide variety of previously overlooked meanings due to the demoted status of the author. Museum institutions shifted their ideological interests from the artists themselves to concepts such as the consideration of exhibition practice, the role of the curator, institutional critique, and a variety of other interpretive structures which considered the art world in a wider sense.
Yet monographic museums, due to their function as institutions dedicated to a single-artist, can be viewed as far more intrinsically bound to the notions of artistic genius, mythologization, and the pre-Barthes concept of the Author. As a result, the strategies practiced within single-artist museums often continue to instigate a single-faceted interpretation of the artist specifically indebted to the historical concept of authorship, thereby problematizing their ability to instigate the variety of methodological perspectives available in the contemporary era. The following two chapters will therefore examine the problematizing nature of artistic genius in terms of the interpretive strategies practiced at two major monographic institutions: the Musée National Picasso and the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam. These chapters will outline the strategies utilized by each museum in the
presentation of the permanent collection at the time of the opening of each
institution, as well as the most recent renovations occurring since this time, in order to formulate an analysis of the function of genius during the most influential
2. Case Study 1: The Musée National Picasso
2.1 Introduction
While the previous chapter served to illuminate the theoretical transformations of the notion of artistic genius throughout the historical and contemporary practice of art history, the following two chapters will integrate these ideas within the analysis of existing monographic museums. This chapter in particular will focus on the Musée National Picasso in Paris in order to examine an institution which cannot escape confrontation with the mythologized status of the artist to which it is dedicated. The argument presented in this chapter will rely largely on Rosalind Krauss’ 1981 text, “In the Name of Picasso,” by not only citing her influence on contemporary Picasso scholarship, but also utilizing her theorization of biographical art history in a broader sense. Therefore, Krauss’ notion of “proper naming” will play a large role. This theory refers to the process occurring under the conditions of art historical practice implementing the notion of genius in which all interpretative techniques refer back to the name of the genius at hand, thereby severely limiting the possible interpretations from a given body of art works.60 This chapter will
demonstrate that methodological strategies displayed at the time of the museum’s opening and as well its current practices, the institution has remained subject to its “proper naming” as an establishment of Picasso himself, thereby limiting the
interpretation of the collection to the notion of Picasso as mythologized artistic
genius. As a result, these practices give life to the mythologization of Picasso as venerated Author, thereby discounting a variety of other contemporary
perspectives and greatly limiting the potential interpretations of the permanent collection.
2.2 The Formation of the Musée National Picasso
It is rumored that Pablo Picasso once said, “Give me a museum and I will fill it.” The fictionalized nature of this statement aside, this declaration came to fruition shortly after the artist’s death on 8 April 1973.61 While the estate of the immensely wealthy
artist was required to pay a substantial death tax, a law had been passed only several years prior stating that death taxes may be paid to the French state in the form of art objects of equivalent value to the monetary sum. Therefore, rather than face the hefty monetary sum, the artist’s surviving wife, Jacqueline Picasso, paid to the French state much of her husband’s personal collection in the hope that it would one day fill its own museum.62 The collection consisted of two hundred paintings,
fifteen hundred drawings, and a small number of works by Picasso’s
contemporaries.63 Considered an extensive overview of the artist’s lengthy career,
the collection itself embodied from the start the holistic oeuvre of the artist.
Following the payment by Jacqueline Picasso, the French Ministry of Culture decided in 1975 that the acquisition of the Picasso collection warranted the
61 “Chronologie du project de l’Hôtel Salé,” Ministère du Culture, 21 October 1982, Archives Musée
National Picasso, Box “Historique de l’Hôtel Salé,” Paris, France, July 2016.
62 Jacques Michel, “Les particularités de la collection particulière de Picasso,” in Le Monde des Arts, 25
April 1974.
63 Picasso, in his own lifetime, had acquired works by Henri Rousseau, Paul Cézanne, and Henri
development of a new museum in Paris, allowing Picasso’s statement to manifest in the French capital. Only several months later, it was determined that the location of this new institution would be the Hôtel Salé in the eleventh arrondissement (figure 1).64 Requiring extensive renovations, the seventeenth century building would be
transformed into the Musée Picasso with the aim of opening its doors in 1981, on the one-hundredth anniversary of the birth of the artist. Furthermore, the museum would be one of the select few “national” museums in France. Such a denotation exhibited the interest in identifying the institution not only as an important
collection of modern art, but equally of Picasso as a symbol of national pride.65 This
series of decisions paved the way for the final realization of the museum in October of 1985 as the home of an impressive collection and symbol of national French pride.66
The Picasso collection was determined to be housed in the Hôtel Salé in Le Marais neighborhood of Paris. Originally constructed in 1656, the Hôtel Salé was the property of the wealthy salt tax financier Pierre Aubert de Fontenay.67 Yet over the
ensuing decades, the building became intermittently the location for a variety of functions, including that of an “école des arts et manufactures” in the nineteenth
64 On 1 March 1975, the Ministry of Culture created a declaration for the intention to build the
museum at the Hôtel Salé, explaining the justification for the location of the museum and the desire for the collection to remain as a whole, in order to “constituer le plus grand Musée Picasso du monde.”
65 Despite the fact that Picasso is of course Spanish (and after being refused French citizenship in 1941
never again sought a French passport), the French public often views the artist as particularly French due to the fact that he spent the vast majority of his life living in Paris, thereby taking ownership of Picasso’s accomplishments and often considering his work as the “French” contribution to the development of modernism.
66 Renovations were severely delayed between 1981 and 1985. Various newspaper articles show
clearly the frustration of the French public, similarly, actually, to the reaction to the severe delay occurring in the renovations between 2009 and 2014.
67 The trade of this figure clearly contributed to the somewhat humorous name of building, which has
century, a bronze workshop in the early twentieth century, and the official “École Métiers de l’art” from 1950 onwards.68 However, in 1961 the Parisian municipality
acquired the building69 from the école and by 1968 the structure was named a
historical monument of the city of Paris. Held by the city for seven years prior to the 1975 decision to house the Picasso collection, renovations on the Hôtel Salé
commenced in 1976 in order to transform the building into a modern museum. Though the plan was initially to open the museum in 1981, a series of major setbacks in the renovation process delayed the inauguration until 28 September 1985.70 Twelve years following the death of the famous artist, the Musée National
Picasso opened its door to welcome the public into the world of Picasso, a museum which housed not only the personal collection of the artistic himself, but a glimpse into the diverse creations of one of the world’s most important modern artists.
The original organization of the permanent collection largely reflected the aforementioned characterization as a holistic overview of Picasso’s lengthy career. Due to the stylistics and chronological diversity of the acquired works, the collection represented a comprehensive view towards the variety of elements employed throughout the artist’s career. In order to emphasize the transition between periods and styles, the oeuvre was displayed chronologically. A segment of the project plan reads as follows:
“La présentation de la collection se fera sur trois niveaux et dans l’ordre: premier étage en totalité, rez-de-chaussée en totalité mais réparti en deux
68 “L’Hôtel Salé: Picasso au Musée,” no. 104, 1979, pg. 42-48, Archives Musée National Picasso, Box
“Historique de l’Hôtel Salé,” Paris, France, July 2016.
69 The acquisition of the building and later transformation into a museum also required the eviction
of around thirty occupants of the building. A full list of the evicted occupants is kept still today in the archives of the museum.
secteurs séparés par un hall donnant sur le jardin, sous-sol. L’ordre choisi constituera un parcours linéaire chronologique mettant en valeur la périodisation dans l’oeuvre de Picasso.”71
The language used to communicate this plan betrays the initial desire to categorize the periods of the artist’s oeuvre in order to stimulate a linear understanding of the life-cycle of Picasso and the corresponding oeuvre. Furthermore, this aim illustrates the intention of the institution to utilize the chronology of Picasso’s career as an explanatory tool for the many styles appearing throughout the oeuvre. This objective is further illustrated by the 1985 Visitor Guidebook, which continued to emphasize the chronological display by describing the function of each individual room as that which corresponded to a specific “era” of Picasso’s career. Such spaces included “The Early Years: The Blue Period, 1881-1903,” “From the Rose Period to
Desmoisells d’Avignon, 1904-1907,” “On the Fringes of Surrealism, 1924-1929,” and
“Mougins: The Last Years, 1961-1973.”72 As a result, the biographical elements of
Picasso’s life took precedence over aspects such as style, theme, or the conditions of the modern era.
The architectural language of the interior space of the Hôtel Salé in 1985 was in many ways not altogether unlike what is considered typical of museums today. Featuring mainly white walls and open spaces, the renovations occurring between 1976 and 1985 transformed the lavish seventeenth century building into what is
71 English translation: "The presentation of the collection will be on three levels, in order: first floor
in whole, ground floor completely, but divided into two areas separated by a hall overlooking the garden, basement. The selected order will be a chronological linear journey highlighting the periodization in the work of Picasso,” in “Memoire au Conseil de Paris,” Direction de l’action Culturelle, 1 March 1975, Archives Musée National Picasso, Box “Historique de l’Hôtel Salé,” Paris, France, July 2016.
72 Hélène Seckel, Musée Picasso: Visitor’s Guide 1985, Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Archives Musée
referred to today as the “white cube” (fig. 2-4).73 As a result, the crisp white spaces
of the display rooms exuded the purified severity of a modern museum space. Furthermore, within each room were benches designed by Diego Giacometti commissioned specifically for the museum, thereby perpetuating the insistence of the “white cube” by offering the visitor a place of silent contemplation within the given room. The effect of the space rendered can today be read not only as that which aimed to exude the modernity of the institution itself, but also that which provided a strategic container of the collection at hand. The “white cube” space of 1985 can be characterized as an attempt to both unify and neutralize the collection, in that the display technique amalgamated the holistic identity of the oeuvre despite the notable shifts in style, while also neutralizing the acknowledgement of all
context unrelated to the oeuvre itself through the “purified” appearance of the “white cube” space.74
Yet, such a characterization does not apply to all spaces of the Musée National Picasso in 1985. Though the renovations had implemented a modern, “white cube” exhibition space, the areas of the museum considered otherwise exterior to the exhibition spaces, such as entry halls, staircases, and passageways, continued to exude the visual language of seventeenth-century French architecture. For instance, the lavishly decorated grand staircase in the center of the building remained untouched throughout the renovations (fig. 5). As a result, the classically designed central hall stood in juxtaposition with the “white cube” space of the actual
73 Brian O’Doherty, “Notes on the Gallery Space,” in Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery
Space, (The Lapis Press: 1976), 9.
exhibition areas. Furthermore, several seventeenth-century aspects were even incorporated within the largely “white cube” spaces. For example, the passageways between rooms remained often adorned with the classical and ornately carved original wooden doors of the historical structure (fig. 6-8). Such notable contrasts in architectural language rendered the original interior design of the Musée Picasso a conflation of styles, and furthermore, demarcated the intention to render a dynamic experience of moving between classical and modern spaces, perhaps even in an attempt to reflect the simultaneously modern and classical artistic styles of Picasso himself.
With respect to the renovated spaces of the 1985 display of the permanent collection, the hanging can be characterized as a combination of aestheticism and periodization. First of all, each room, as cited previously in the Visitor Guidebook, exhibited a certain period of Picasso’s career. As a result, the works displayed in a given space presented similar formal and stylistic features, thereby generating a sense of visual unity by means of periodization. In addition, the artworks
themselves were displayed in a highly aestheticized fashion. Despite the somewhat overcrowded appearance of typical 1980s hanging, the presentation of the paintings nonetheless exuded a highly decisive, geometric quality. This intention was further augmented by the occasional display of smaller works in otherwise unused spaces, such as the empty space above passageways. The use of these otherwise ignored spaces can be understood as that which continued to utilize the “white cube” as a holistic and unified container within which the space in its entirely is viewed as container of the artworks at hand. This display method thus suggested the desire of
the museum to utilize aesthetic design as a visual feature in itself, thereby
presenting a pleasing geometric spatial relationship between the works displayed, further enhancing the stylistic demarcation in relation to the periodization of Picasso’s career.
2.3 The Mythologies at Stake: Narcissist, Misogynist, Mystery
Though the museological strategies described above initially appear not entirely unlike the aims of other modern art museums in the 1980s, the Musée National Picasso was far more confronted with the notion of genius than the standard art museum. The mythologies surrounding the biography of Pablo Picasso and the way in which the artist was already by the mid-twentieth century perceived as an inexplicable genius played a decisive role in the development of the museum even prior to its inauguration. In fact, certain mythologies had already manifested during the artist’s life regarding his personal habits, individual faults, tumultuous
relationships, and prolific working methods. Such stories not only originated from those who came into close contact with him personally, but more tellingly were often propagated by popular biographers of the artist, including Pierre Daix, Juan Eduardo-Cirlot, and Maurice Raynal.75 Yet the initially innocent development of
these mythologies became increasingly problematic in the 1960s and 70s due to their application to the interpretation of Picasso’s artwork which led to a revitalized interest in the biographical method. Moreover, the more the mythologies of Picasso
75 Daix authored his biography on the artist, and presumably his friend, Picasso, in 1964, and then
The Life of the Painter Picasso in 1977. In 1972, Eduardo-Cirlot published Picasso, Birth of a Genius,
could be connected to the visual language of his artwork, the more appealing they became.
Some of the best examples of this process can be observed with regard to the myths identifying Picasso as both egotistical and misogynistic, characteristics which not only were fascinating to the general public, but equally identified Picasso as somewhat “other” to what was considered normal human behavior.76 For instance,
one of the most dramatic mythologies of Picasso is in regards to his tumultuous relationships with a variety of women, whose sensational anecdotes were at one point understood to have manifested directly in his many portraits of women from the 1930s and 40s. In particular, Picasso’s adulterous relationship with his underage model, Marie Thérèse-Walter,77 provided particularly fascinating commentary due
to her appearance in a variety of famous portraits in the early 1930s.78 Furthermore,
the identification of Picasso as misogynist led seamlessly to the notion of his
elevated egotism. A particular anecdote which has since become famous surrounds Picasso’s 1907 painting of Gertrude Stein. In receiving the portrait, Stein evidently commented that it looked nothing like her, to which Picasso (supposedly)
responded, “No, but it will,” thereby narcissistically suggesting the fame of the portrait would later supersede Stein herself. The result of such mythologies is not
76 The interpretation of this characteristic as either positive or negative was of course subject to the times.
In the 1930s during his affairs, Picasso was generally considered more of a “bad boy” whose moral deviance in terms of his relationships with women was considered ultra-masculine in a positive way. However, the rise of feminism in the 1970s and 80s led to his identification more as a misogynist. In this thesis he is named a misogynist because it captures the opinion of the times in which the museum was established, despite the fact that it took several decades to reach this more modern conclusion.
77 Marie-Thérèse Walter was a long-time regular model of Picasso with whom he had a relationship
while married to his first wife, Olga. It is widely rumored that he began a sexual relationship with her while she was a minor, which was illegal in France during this period. Many portraits of woman during the 1930s are considered today to be of Marie-Thérèse Walter.
78 Megan B. Mullarky, “Space, Reality, and the Will of the Individual: Picasso’s Crucifixion of 1930,” in
