In search of the Artist’s Eye
On contemporary artist interventions in historical (art) museums from 1970-2017
MA Museum Studies Master thesis J.E. (Julie) Boodt
Master thesis Museum Studies
J.E. (Julie) Boodt
10270612
Master thesis Heritage Studies: Museum Studies Supervisor: dhr. dr. D.J. (Dos) Elshout
Second reader: dhr. dr. J. (Jeroen) Boomgaard boodtjulie@gmail.com
Student number: 10270612 Words: 22,745
21 December 2018
Abstract
In this thesis contemporary artist interventions in historical (art) museums are researched. The research has a focus on interventions from 1970 until 2017. The research aims to answer the questions what role such interventions play in the museum and how this role has changed in the past decades. Furthermore the research focusses on the current climate in the Netherlands. In the first chapter the development of the relationship between the artist and the museum is discussed. This chapter elaborates on the evolution of this relationship from hostile and excluding to institutional critique from the artist that developed in the sixties. This hostility changes in the nineties when the museum is forced to change its narrative due to societal changes. To achieve change the artist is invited by the museum to help change the narrative. This help often came in the form of interventions or re-arrangements of collection displays. The nineties show a large rise of artist interventions.
In the second chapter the interventions are categorized into two main categories: Re-arrangements of collections / guest curators and interventions within collections. A third
category of uninvited interventions stands apart. This category is occasionally used by artists to address misconduct in museums. Whereas the first category was most common in the nineties, in the last decade we have seen a rise of the second category. The third chapter focusses on the current climate in the Netherlands by addressing three case studies: the Rijksmuseum, Frans Hals Museum and Museum Van Loon. These museums all have a historical (art) collection but often programme contemporary artist interventions. The analysis shows that the interventions are a means to attract a new audience and to re-fresh a collection display. The category that is most common in the Netherlands is the intervention within a collection display.
Keywords:
Artist intervention, guest curator, Rijksmuseum, Frans Hals Museum, Museum Van Loon, transhistorical.
CONTENT
2
ABSTRACT 3
CONTENT 4
INTRODUCTION 5
1. OPENING UP THE MUSEUM 11
FOUNTAIN 1917 13
MUSEUM OF MODERN ART 1929 17
SHAPOLSKI ET AL.MANHATTAN REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS 1971 20
THE MUSÉE D’ART MODERNE 1968-1972 24
A GLOBAL AFFAIR 25
IMAGES 1.OPENING UP THE MUSEUM 28
2. WHO’S MUSEUM IS IT? 31
I. RE-ARRANGEMENTS OF COLLECTIONS / GUEST CURATOR 33
II. INTERVENTIONS WITHIN COLLECTIONS 40
A. SUPER ARTISTS 40
B. FOOTNOTES 45
III. UNINVITED INTERVENTIONS 46
IMAGES 2.WHO’S MUSEUM IS IT? 50
3. THREE CASE STUDIES IN THE NETHERLANDS 56
CASE STUDY 1:RIJKSMUSEUM 56
CASE STUDY 2:FRANS HALS MUSEUM 63
CASE STUDY 3:MUSEUM VAN LOON 72
IMAGES 3.THREE CASE STUDIES IN THE NETHERLANDS 78
CONCLUSION 87
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 91
LIST OF INTERVENTIONS 92
LIST OF IMAGES 96
Introduction
On 6 May 2011 the Rijksmuseum revealed La Berceuse (for Van Gogh), an artwork created by German artist Anselm Kiefer (1945). The museum had invited Kiefer to make an artwork that reflected on the Nachtwacht, made by Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669). Kiefer’s work was to be placed in front of and directly responding to the Nachtwacht. It was the first time the museum had given an assignment to a living artist.1 The artwork consisted of a three-dimensional
triptych, an iron frame with glass windows. The two side boxes were filled with tall metal sunflowers, hanging upside down. The middle box contained a distorted metal French foldable garden chair. The artwork seemingly did not have anything to do with the Nachtwacht but rather responded to a work of Vincent van Gogh. Van Gogh’s La Berceuse depicts a woman seated on a chair, surrounded by flowers. The only thing Kiefer and the Nachtwacht seemed to have in common was their size. Even before the revelation the artwork had been widely discussed in the press and was widely discussed after. In a statement the museum declared they had given the artist free reign.2 Though the work itself received full praise, it was the placement and relation to Rembrandt’s Nachtwacht that remained unclear and caused debate. Even the museum’s director, Wim Pijbes, did not grasp the relationship with Rembrandt but proclaimed to be pleased.3 An internal document of the museum mentioned that Kiefer’s La Berceuse did not have a direct connection with the Nachtwacht. It was, quite generally, inspired by art from the past. The document stated the museum considered it a challenge to make the connection with the
Nachtwacht.4
The work made by Kiefer is an example of an intervention by a contemporary artist in a historical collection. The intervention can take many forms. As author Claire Robbins states,
artist interventions are best defined as a genre of art that has the function of an interlocutor
within a museum’s collection display and narrative. “In-ter-ven-tion (n) - Stepping in, or
1 Elshout, Douwe Joost (2016). “De moderne museumwereld in Nederland: Sociale dynamiek in beleid, erfgoed,
markt, wetenschap en media.” Diss. University of Amsterdam, 2016: 927.
As will be discussed in the third chapter, this intervention was part of a broader series of interventions in the Rijksmuseum.
2 Ibid.: 929. 3 Ibid.: 930.
4 Willems, Marije. “Dit is de reactie op de Nachtwacht van Rembrandt… eh Van Gogh” NRC Handelsblad. 6 May
2011 <https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2011/05/06/dit-is-de-reactie-op-de-nachtwacht-van-rembrandt-eh-van-gogh-a1457467>. Accessed 10 June 2018.
interfering in any affair so as to change its course or issue (...). An action undertaken in order to change what is happening or might happen in another’s affairs, especially in order to prevent something undesirable.”5 As the definition presented by Robins explains, the artist interferes
with the affairs of the museum, with the aim to address issues/problems noted by the artist within the institution, aspiring to insert change.
Since the nineties the intervention has been an often practiced exhibition form. The intervention can be considered part of a broader movement. This movement consists of ways in which old and contemporary art are combined. It was first introduced in the Netherlands in 1985. Former director of the museum Rudi Fuchs organized the, now legendary, exhibition Het IJzeren
Venster at the Van Abbemuseum. The exhibition showed a display that combined contemporary
and old artworks in a non-chronological manner.6 Since Fuchs’ exhibition many museums have adopted this approach in thematic exhibitions or interventions. The intervention is used in different types of museums. Art museums, historical museums and especially ethnographic museums all use interventions though with different intentions. Interventions are also largely present in modern art museums.7 In this research I intend to research the function of these
interventions. To limit the research I will only research interventions in historical collections. Though the interventions are used on a large scale in ethnographic museums, these will not be part of the research. The motivation of such museums to organize interventions is significantly different than of art museums. This brings me to my research question: “What role do contemporary artist interventions now play in historical (art) museums and how has that role changed in the past decades?” This question will be combined with the following “What is the current climate regarding these interventions in the Netherlands?”
5 Robins, Claire. Curious Lessons in the Museum. The Pedagogic Potential of Artists’ Interventions. Routledge,
2013: 2.
6 In the third chapter this type of curating will be further highlighted in the description of the Frans Hals Museum.
The museum uses the term ‘transhistorical’ for this type of display. Curator Jean-Hubert Martin defines the term as follows: “The transhistorical approach aims to connect heritage to contemporary art and social issues, questioning
traditional art, historical categories and developing new insights in the meaning and interpretation of (art) Objects.” Jean-Hubert Martin, “Le Musée Imaginaire,” Lecture, De Oude Kerk, Amsterdam, 25 November, 2016.
As he clarifies, the transhistorical approach connects our past to the present and is therefore a tool to make the past relevant again, which can be applied to historical museums. This theory could also be applied to artist interventions. However, museums that programme artist interventions not all use the theory of transhistorical curating. It is for this reason that the term will only be mentioned in relation to the Frans Hals Museum.
7 A recent example is the year long intervention undertaken in the Stedelijk Museum by contemporary artist Tino
Sehgal in 2015. In a year at the stedelijk Sehgal intervened in the daily practice of the museum with monthly changing performances.
To find an answer to my question I will use the following questions as guidelines: what motivates museums to show contemporary artworks together with their non-contemporary collection? Can these interventions be considered a contemporary trend or are they part of a longer tradition? As Wieteke van Zeil states in her review of the contemporary artworks in the Rijksmuseum, it seems that we are at a crossing point. Either these juxtapositions and combinations are a gimmick and the surprise is over now, or this is a structural different way of handling art.8 With the rise of these ‘new’ presentations we see a strong move away from the chronology that has dominated museological displays for the past century.
In publications and in the press the terms modern and contemporary are often used to address the same things. I will use the term modern to address an artwork created between 1880 and 1960. The term contemporary art has been used since the second half of the twentieth century. In my thesis, especially in the third chapter, the term contemporary artist or contemporary art intervention will be used to address an artist who created the artworks in the twenty-first century and is still alive. Most of the examples are of artworks that were created at maximum five years before the intervention took place.
To find an answer to my questions I will first give a historical overview of the origin and the early development of the intervention, as will be discussed in chapter one. To give context to the development of the relationship between the artist and the museum, the early creation and development of the museum will be discussed. The relationship between the then contemporary artist and the museum starting in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was hostile. Artists responded to institutional developments in their artworks and manifestos. One of the earliest mentioned examples of an intervention can be considered Fountain, an artwork created for an exhibition in 1917. Though this artwork was not created for, or placed in, a museum, it sparked a different approach towards art for contemporary artists. It served as an inspiration for later interventions. Several other artist movements and manifestos from the early twentieth
8 “Met de combinaties van oude meesterkunst met moderne en hedendaagse kunstwerken, staan we op een
kruispunt. Óf het is een hippigheidje, en in dat geval is het wel klaar met de verrassing. We hadden Damien Hirsts diamanten schedel in het Rijksmuseum, Jeff Koons enorme glansobjecten in Versailles, Miró naast Jan Steen, Marlene Dumas naast oude meesters, Kiefer naast de Nachtwacht, goed, we hoeven het rijtje niet nog een keer op te noemen. Óf het is een structurele nieuwe omgang met beeldende kunst: een tanker die met gekraak en geweld op gang is gebracht voor een lange, stabiele vaart. We zijn nu goed op stoom, wen er maar aan. Als dat zo is, verdienen deze presentaties des te meer serieuze reflectie.” Zeil, Wieteke van. “Duel tussen Grootheden” de Volkskrant. 23 September 2011. <https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/duel-tussen-grootheden~b9d3c3b4/>. Accessed 20 June 2018.
century served as an inspiration for the institutional critique movement that developed in the sixties and seventies. The eighties will not be discussed extensively since the amount of interventions was limited. As will be discussed in chapter one, after the opposing positions that the more traditional museums and artist encountered, a change occurs in the nineties. Gradually artists are invited into such traditional museums to intervene in collection displays.
Even though the topic is very current and is often highlighted in a chapter or in an essay, there are not many publications that deal with artist interventions solely. I used the below mentioned publications as guidelines and consulted exhibition catalogues where possible. Claire Robins’ Curious Lessons in the Museum. The Pedagogic Potential of Artists’ Interventions (2013/2017) is an exception. The publication shows a broad research on different artist interventions and their value for museums. Robins’ focus is on the educational function that artists can fulfil. She gives a broad range of examples, her geographical focus is mainly on the United States and United Kingdom. In her book she argues the valuable role that artists can play in the communication between the museum and its public. Art and Artifact, the museum as
medium (2009) by James Putnam illustrates the relationship between the artist and the museum.
It gives attention to artist interventions as well as to artists as curators. Furthermore it illustrates the way that artists have been inspired by classifications of museum collections and how this is visible in their work. The publication gives examples of artists intervening in museums but also highlights projects outside of the museum, architectural additions made by artists as well as online projects. This publication informed me on a lot of interventions that are less well-known. Though the publications give a broad, and global, overview of interventions, the descriptions often remained superficial. Two publications on curating were published by the Dutch ministry of culture: L’exposition Imaginaire (1989) and De Kunst van het tentoonstellen. De presentatie
van beeldende kunst in Nederland van 1800-heden (1991). Both publications shed light on the
exhibition practice in the Netherlands. L’exposition is a collection of texts by theorists, curators and museum professionals, De kunst van het tentoonstellen sets a more historical framework on exhibition practice in the Netherlands and beyond, written by professors and specialists. Both publications dive deep into the relation between museum and public and the place of the artist in the museum. Though both publications give a very thorough view on exhibition practice in the Netherlands, they are now very dated as they appeared in 1989 and 1991. A more recent view on the museums current climate seems to miss, even though Claire Robins’ publication of 2013
gave a great description on the museum field, what lacked was the inclusion of the Netherlands.9
The Netherlands are a very important and prominent player in the development of a-chronological museum presentations and in getting rid of traditional narratives in museums. Therefore I will here focus on museum practice and artist interventions in the Netherlands. First I will give an overview of different types of interventions, chapter two will categorise the interventions. The diverse categories will be illustrated with examples of the past 30 years. In the second chapter many examples are given. Most of the historical interventions were published in multiple publications on the topic. Especially Robins and Putnam often mentioned the same iconic exhibitions that stood out. Other historic examples were found in McShine’s publication
The museum as Muse: Artists reflect that was published in 1999 for the exhibition in MoMA
with the same name. A small essay from curator Jasper Sharp from the Kunsthistorische Museum Vienna on the topic mentioned several examples from the twenty-first century. The majority of these examples were widely discussed in the press. I became familiar with the examples in the Netherlands during my internship at the Frans Hals Museum.
The theory that is analysed in chapter one and two will serve as a basis for the third chapter. Here I will focus on the practice in the Netherlands. In my research I will explore the current situation through analysing three case studies. For my case studies I have chosen three museums that have a historical (art) collection and that also programmed exhibitions or interventions with contemporary artists. The three case studies are the Rijksmuseum, Frans Hals Museum and Museum Van Loon. In the theory a difference is made between large museums and smaller museums when handling interventions. As will be visible in the examples of the second chapter, there is a correlation between the size of the museum and its motivation to undertake interventions. Therefore I have chosen one large museum, the Rijksmuseum, a medium-sized museum, the Frans Hals Museum, and a smaller museum, Museum van Loon. I furthermore chose the Rijksmuseum because of its presence in the press. When looking at Dutch examples of interventions, examples of the Rijksmuseum were often reviewed. Personally, I learned more about the topic of transhistorical curating and artist interventions through my research internship at the Frans Hals Museum. The Frans Hals Museum has recently taken a new approach on the
9 Robins uses one exhibition example in the Netherlands, Het Ijzeren Venster in 1985, curated by Rudi Fuchs, at the
subject and often combines their historical artworks with contemporary works. Therefore they serve as an interesting case study. Third Museum van Loon was one of the museums I researched during my time at the Frans Hals Museum. The museum has fully embraced contemporary art as part of their programme, even though their collection is purely historical. For each case study I will analyse several interventions instead of focussing on a single example. In doing so I aim to give an overview of the practice of programming artist interventions and get a better notion of the function of these interventions in the three museums. Artist interventions are also undertaken in other museums in the Netherlands. However, not on the scale as it occurs in Amsterdam and Haarlem.
1. Opening up the museum
In this chapter the development of the relationship between the contemporary artist and the museum up to the mid twentieth century is construed. First, the origin of the museum and the development of this institution is described to give context to this development. From a showcase, a gallery for the upper classes, the museum developed into an educational institution. Second, the response from the artist against the politics of the museum will be described. In the first half of the twentieth century many artist groups expressed criticism on the museum institution through artworks, manifestos and essays. The end of the twentieth century showed a rise in collaborations between artists and museums. To understand the changing role of the artist towards the institution, from an excluded position to the development of institutional critique, towards becoming a collaborating partner, the development of the institution should be highlighted.
The origin of the museum as we know it today, arose from the ideals of the Enlightenment. Reason and order became the basis of thinking and replaced wonder and myth. This was especially visible in the presentation of art and artefacts. Before the museum existed, art had mainly been displayed in princely galleries in the 16th, 17th and 18th century.10 These
galleries functioned as reception rooms and aimed to overwhelm and impress visitors.11 Art
fulfilled an aesthetic pleasure. This would change around the end of the 18th century when many princely galleries throughout Europe changed into public art museums. Pleasure would be replaced with education and art would be organized chronologically and in national schools. As Claire Robins, author of Curious Lessons in the Museum. The pedagogic potential of artist
interventions states, “the concept of the public museum was born out of and essential to the constitution of social, political and pedagogic transformations in many European nation states.”12 The transformations Robins mentions refer to the transformations in society and
10 Carol Duncan mentions these galleries as the predecessor of the museum in her article “From the Princely Gallery to the Public Art Museum: The Louvre Museum and the National Gallery, London”.
11 Duncan, Carol. “From the Princely Gallery to the Public Art Museum: The Louvre Museum and the National
Gallery, London.” in Grasping the world. The idea of the museum, ed. Preziosi, Donald and Claire Farago. Ashgate, 2004:251.
12 Robins, Claire. Curious Lessons in the Museum. The pedagogic potential of artist interventions. Routledge, 2017:
politics, the rise of the ideals of the Enlightenment. This affected the way art was displayed; the public art museum was born.
Not the first but the most influential example of a princely gallery turned museum was the Louvre, which would become a prototype for the public art museum. As a result of the French Revolution, the public museum was created in 1793. The King’s collection was nationalized by the French revolutionary government and the Louvre was made into an institution that was open to the public.13 The focus of the displays was progress that would be demonstrated through the different national schools and the masters that belonged to it. The progress was measured in a so-called universal ideal of beauty to which all societies evolved.14 The birth of the museum was not an isolated event but occurred simultaneously with the rise of art history as an academic subject. Paintings placed in a historical narrative told a story of development and evolution, focussed on the West.
After the Louvre many states throughout Europe designated imperial collections as new public art museums. In 1795 the Uffizi was created, in 1830 the Altes Museum in Berlin, the National Gallery in London opened in 1824 and in Amsterdam the Rijksmuseum opened in 1808.15 Around 1825 almost every capital in Europe, either monarchical or Republican, had a
public art museum.16 The approach to the visitor changed when the princely galleries were
turned into public museums. The new display was ideologically useful for the upcoming bourgeois state, by placing an emphasis on national schools and state power, national identity was addressed and promoted. The visitor could experience unity with fellow countrymen, despite their different social positions.17 The opportunity arose to construct the world in principles that
appeared objective but were manipulated to serve the interests of new nation states.18 The centre
13 Duncan 2004: 251-252. The museum was open for all citizens, in practice this meant it was open to wealthy men.
In the museum there was little information on what on display, making it less accessible for those who had limited knowledge of art. In principle everyone was considered equal in the museum, the uneducated visitor could still be amazed by the display of treasures.
14 Ibid.: 254.
15 Alexander, Edward P. and Mary Alexander. Museums in Motion. An Introduction to the History and Functions of Museums. 2nd ed. Altamira Press, 2008: 27, 33.
16 Duncan 2004: 261. 17 Ibid.: 255.
focal point no longer was the monarch but the citizen.19 The same story was told in state
museums in large cities all over Europe.20
The need for order and classification resulted in a large categorisation of not only art itself but of general objects as antiquities and natural artefacts as well. Artefacts and natural historical objects that had previously been on display together with artworks were shown separately, even in separate museums. The aim of the display of objects was no longer to find connections between objects but to emphasize what separated them.21 The view on different types of display changed considerably. The display in the Kunst und Wunderkammer and the royal galleries was now characterised as being chaotic and random. The preferred type of display was a historization of art and a division of natural collections by class, genus and species. This display was based on new taxonomies created in the natural sciences by encyclopaedist and naturalist Comte de Buffon 1788) and the father of taxonomy Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778).22 This new scientific model was used by art historians to create order in the art displays. It
became so common that art dealer and historian Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Lebrun stated that art collections that were not arranged by school and artists were “as ridiculous as a natural history
cabinet arranged without regard to genus, class, or family.”23
Fountain 1917
From the 1900s onwards museums received a lot of criticism. Artists criticized the power these institutions had and believed the museum had developed into a Grande Parade for the bourgeoisie.24 They thought the museum was an outdated institute that could be associated with the other outdated institutions as the salon and the academies of art. The main criticism was that there was no place for the avant-garde artist as the museums only collected dead art and focussed too much on education and creating a history of art.These institutional developments resulted in a rise of criticism from artists who distanced themselves from the past and the history of art and
19 For more in depth information and multiple theories on the birth of the museum, see Bennett, Tony. The Birth of the Museum. Routledge, 1995.
20 Carrier, David. Museum Skepticism. A history of the display of art in public galleries. Duke University Press,
2006: 11, 92-93.
21 Robins 2017: 25.
22 McClellan Andrew. The Art Museum from Boullée to Bilbao. University of California Press, 2008: 120. 23 Ibid.
24 The museum was an institute through which the bourgeoisie could receive status as it would show art donations
of this societal group. Blok, Cor, and Riet de Leeuw. De kunst van het tentoonstellen. De presentatie van beeldende
instead focussed on the future. James Putnam, author of Art and Artifact. The museum as
medium, places the origin of Modernism amidst the emerging political climate of reinvention and
progress and a rejection of the past. In the beginning of the twentieth century several artist groups were formed, among them the Futurists and the Russian Constructivists. These artists criticized the museums’ permanent status through demonstrations in manifestos or confronting the institutionalism in their art. The futurists, specifically Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, proclaimed in a Futurist manifesto - “We want no part of it, the past, we the young and strong
Futurists!”25 Prominent Russian avant gardist Kazimir Malevich proclaimed that historical art
should be burned and replaced with art of the present. The Russian Constructivists - born out of the Futurists - were not focussed on the destruction of the museum as such, but were more interested in taking the art out of the institutions and onto the streets. Instead of functioning as mausoleums for art, artists manifested the need for museums to function as laboratories for experiments and display contemporary life. The Russian Constructivists stated that it was only the artist who truly understood the problems of contemporary art. The artists were the creators of artistic values and therefore should be the ones to collect modern/contemporary artworks for the museum and decide how a country should be educated in art.26 The Russian Constructivists
believed art, also the art on display in museums, should give a better reflection of contemporary life. Malevich declared the following, in his short essay On the Museum, on the matter; “contemporary life needs nothing other than what belongs to it”.27 Artists were the ones who
should have a say on what was on display in museums. As they grasped the problems of contemporary art and created artistic values, they should be the ones to establish how a country should be educated in artistic matters.28
The institutional criticism formulated in the beginning of the twentieth century would peak with the creation of a single artwork. In 1917 a urinal was submitted for the exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists, an association of American artists. The object was admitted anonymously. The organisation thought the mystery and banality of the object were too obscene and decided to discard the object from the exhibition. The piece was placed behind a curtain in
25 Putnam James. Art and Artifact. The museum as medium. Thames & Hudson, 2001: 25. 26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 As stated by Alexander Rodchenko in his Declaration on the Museum Management (1919).
the show.29 Duchamp who was director of the Society at the time did not agree with the decision
and resigned.30
The urinal, named Fountain by a critic of the exhibition, was signed R. Mutt. It was attributed to Marcel Duchamp by André Breton in 1935.31 This attribution is still applied. As the
legacy of the artwork grew over time, Duchamp's legacy grew with it and as a result he came to be seen as the godfather of modern art.32 In 2004 the urinal was voted Most Influential Modern
Artwork of all time.33 Duchamp questioned what criteria defined art and also those who were in the position to decide what could be considered art, which resulted in his readymades.34 He opened the discourse that art is defined by its context, often by the environment -museum- where it is displayed. Fountain, which was thrown away after the exhibition, before anyone could know that it would become an iconic piece of art, questioned what defined an art object. Many consider Duchamp a forerunner of artist interventions as he took the power to decide what makes art from the institutions and gave it to the artists. Duchamp did not generate an immediate change in institutions, but rather inspired artists in their institutional critique in the sixties and seventies and still appeared to be an inspiration in the nineties. Duchamp had changed the power dynamics that were thought to be unchangeable.
In his work Duchamp expressed critique on the institution that was shared by the artists groups Dada and the Surrealists. These groups disregarded the cultural authority of the
29 As there was no jury to the exhibition and no prices, which was more common at that time, it was highly unusual
that censorship occurred. “Marcel Duchamp – Fountain.” Tate. <https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573>. Accessed 10 September 2018.
30 Paijmans, Theo. “Het urinoir is NIET van Duchamp.” See All This, no. 10 (Summer 2018): 20.
31 New research questions the attribution of Fountain to Duchamp and claims the actual maker of the readymade
was Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven, a dada artist, working and living at the time with Duchamp. In “Het Urinoir is NIET van Duchamp.” Theo Paijmans recovers a letter written by Duchamp in which he states a female colleague created Fountain and not himself, one of the reasons Paijmans now attributes the artwork to Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven. The matter questions Duchamp's position and authority as the father of modern art and suggests a need to rewrite the history of modern art from a more female focussed perspective. As this article was recently published and response is yet to be given by institutions that present copies of the work - the Fountain remains attributed to Marcel Duchamp - this thesis mentions Duchamp as father of modern art and as the, although disputed, maker of the Fountain.
32La, Khadija Carroll. “Object to Protect: Artists’ Interventions in Museum Collections,” in Sculpture and the Museum, ed. by Christopher R. Marshal. Henry Moore Institute, 2011: 232.
33 In a poll held under 500 art experts running up to the Turner Prize of 2004, Fountain was voted first place.
“Duchamp’s urinal tops art survey” BBC. 1 December 2004
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4059997.stm>. Accessed 10 September 2018.
34 As Paijmans states in his article, the readymades were also claimed by Duchamp but were not originally his idea.
Von Freytag-Lotharingen already made found objects or objets trouvé in 1913, years before Duchamp came to New York. She was known to present random objects as artworks, an example is her work God (1917), a cast iron plumbing trap, made in the same year as Fountain. Paijmans 2018: 25-26.
museum.35 The artists of both groups expressed their discontent by creating exhibitions outside
the museum. First came the First International Dada Art Fair in Berlin in 1920, followed after several years by the International Exposition of Surrealism in 1938 in New York. The Surrealists proclaimed the museum imprisoned one’s fertile imagination and the real inspiration could be found on the street. The Surrealists also found their inspiration in the associative categorisations of the displays of one of the museum’s predecessors, the Kunst- und Wunderkammer.36
Duchamp, Dada and the Surrealists did not challenge the museum within the institution itself, most criticism was given outside of the walls of the museum. These examples proved to be inspiration for a new generation of critical artists in the sixties and seventies.
Whereas it would take a while before museums would step away from chronology and a strict historical display, this method had already been applied in literature. The method to combine artworks of different times has been inspired by the earlier mentioned Kunst- und Wunderkammer and by artist publications dating from the early twentieth century. Between 1924 and 1929 Aby Warburg worked on (but never finished) the Mnemosyne Atlas. In his quest to create an ‘afterlife of antiquity’ he combined images ranging from all decades, trying to show how images of “great symbolic, intellectual, and emotional power emerge in Western antiquity
and then reappear and are reanimated in the art and cosmology of later times and places, from Alexandrian Greece to Weimar Germany.”37 In putting together these images, Warburg worked
intuitively. Warburg hoped that the Mnemosyne Atlas would allow its spectators to experience for themselves the “polarities” that riddle culture and thought. Warburg believed that juxtaposing certain images would provide insights in life and understanding it. 38 Another defining
publication was Zeitlose Kunst, by Ludwig Goldscheider, who presented a compilation of iconic images throughout art history in 1934. These images were meant to have an immediate effect on the viewer, even to the inexperienced one. The intention was to present an anthology of images that would speak to the viewer and could be viewed without a works context, ideology or
35 Putnam 2001: 26. 36 Ibid.
37 Johnson, Christoper D. “About the Mnemosyne Atlas”, Mnemosyne. 2013-2016.
<https://warburg.library.cornell.edu/about>. Accessed 10 September 2018.
origin.39 Goldscheider’s main aim was to legitimate modern art by comparing it to established
works from the past.40 André Malraux presented his ideology in his Le Musée Imaginaire in
1947: “(..)In summary, the concept of the musée imaginaire rests on a philosophical view of art
and art history as essentially arising out of dialogue between works. This dialogue is possible only if artworks can be compared, whether in the museum space or in the mind of any individual. (..)”41 These publications and theories on art are important to mention because they would serve
as an inspiration for new modes of display that arose in the second half of the twentieth century.42
Museum of Modern Art 1929
The first change that came from within the museum occurred in the United States. The first museum for modern art was created in New York. The lack of long display traditions most likely helped establish this fact. The Museum of Modern Art opened its doors on 7 November 1929. Although the museums in the United States had less display traditions than the public museums of Europe, they still focussed mainly on older art and few collected contemporary or modern art.43 Contrary to Europe, where most museums were government owned, most American
museums were created between 1870 and 1920 by prosperous individuals. These museums
39 Grasskamp, Walter. The Book on the Floor. Andre Malraux and the imaginary museum. Getty Trust Publications,
2016: 95.
40 Ibid.: 96.
41 Full citation: “Therefore, the ideal dialogue of art history must take place within the musée imaginaire – ‘the
imaginary museum’ or ‘the museum without walls’ (as it is often translated) – which is a collection of all major works of art represented in our imagination (a collection that may vary between individuals, but nonetheless will far outreach the capacities of any physical museum). In summary, the concept of the musée imaginaire rests on a philosophical view of art and art history as essentially arising out of dialogue between works. This dialogue is possible only if artworks can be compared, whether in the museum space or in the mind of any individual. The musée imaginaire is the ideal compilation of all significant works, a compilation that is practically impossible in the physical world, but through photographic representation it has become a possibility of our time.” Milling, K. “Malraux and the Musée Imaginaire: the ‘museum without walls’ “ Cultural Virtual Spaces. 17 June 2014. <https://culturalvirtualspaces.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/malraux-and-the-musee-imaginaire-the-museum-without-walls/>. Accessed 11 September 2018.
42 Museums that use a-historical curating or transhistorical curating, often refer to the Kunst-und Wunderkammer as
well as these publications. These exhibitions will not be discussed intensively but it is worth mentioning their existence as the artist interventions with contemporary art in a historical surrounding could be categorized as such.
43 Initiated by Arthur B. Davies and Miss Bliss, a modern art exhibition was organized at the Metropolitan Museum
in 1921. The exhibition showed works ranging from the Impressionists until Picasso’s pre-Cubist period. Due to the backlash the exhibition experienced, the museum decided not to undertake more experiments with modern art. Hunter, Sam. The Museum of Modern Art, New York : the history and the collection. Abradale Press/Harry N. Abrams Inc., 1997: 9.
showcased their own private collection or a combination of collections and did not have a political strategy.44
MoMA was the first museum to focus on modern art. The approach of the museum was a “combination of sober art historical scholarship with evangelical zeal for its subject”.45 This
resulted in a popularization of modern art, which did not exist before. The museum successfully portrayed the modern artist as a cultural figure of importance.46 The exhibition programme
alternated modern art with contemporary art. Although the museum showed a new approach to modern art, director Alfred Barr Jr. had a semi-hesitant attitude towards contemporary art and did not take on a very direct approach. As contemporary works had not passed the proof of time yet, where modern art had, Barr seemed hesitant to show contemporary artworks in the museum. When the museum organized two contemporary art shows in 1936: Cubism and Abstract Art and
Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism, Cubism was already thirty years old, Dada had existed for
twenty years and had moved over its peak, and Surrealism was already ten years old.47
MoMA brought an entire new view on the creation and presentation of art to the museum world. The museum shaped Modernism into an ideology, which was spread through a strategy that was based on business terms as ‘Production’ and ‘Distribution’. This was addressed in an early confidential report written by Alfred J. Barr to the museums’ trustees. ‘Basically, the
Museum “produces” art knowledge, criticism, scholarship, understanding, taste…. Once a product is made, the next job is distribution. Circulation of exhibition catalogues, memberships, publicity, radio, are all distribution.’48 The MoMA example shows a growing corporate
involvement. This corporate involvement can be seen in the funding of the museum but also in the growing number of blockbusters organized in museums.49 The corporate approach,
44 McClellan, Andrew. The Art Museum from Boullée to Bilbao. University of California Press, 2008: 28. 45 Hunter 1997: 9.
46 Ibid. 47 Ibid.: 13.
48 Putnam 2001: 28.
49 The blockbuster can be defined as an exhibition that will surely generate a large flow of income. These
exhibitions are often accompanied by immense marketing strategies that start long before the exhibition opens. The blockbuster proves to be an inventive way to attract a large audience number and generate more income for the museum. Blockbuster exhibitions often focus on an accessible topic that will interest a large audience. Typical blockbuster topics could be exhibitions by old masters or the Impressionists. These exhibitions are not typically known to be innovative or experimental but quite often do present a ‘unique’ experience, for instance through a unique loan or by presenting artworks that are in private property.
West, Shearer. ‘The devaluation of ‘cultural capital’: post-modern democracy and the art blockbuster.’ in Art in
introduced by Barr, proved to be fuel for the many artist interventions in the late twentieth century.
One of most important developments in the museum’s relationship with the artist occurred after the Second World War. During the war, museums in Europe were raided by the Nazis, had to close temporarily; art stood at a standstill. After the war, museums in Europe measured the damage. The restitution of collections was a very slow, time consuming process, so it took many years before exhibition programmes were reinstated. Art was no necessity after the war, no money was available for the museums and it took European museums around twenty years to get back on track. Meanwhile in the United States art museums thrived. After the war it became clear that the cultural centre had moved from Europe to America. When art did regain its importance in Europe, museum innovators like museum director Wim Sandberg proclaimed that the museum should be a breeding ground for living art, which fundamentally changed the relationship between the museum and the artist. Where the museum, prior to the sixties, only had been in touch with the artwork - at the moment of collecting or exhibiting -, the renewed museum established contact with the artist. The public visiting the museum would experience artworks that were familiar and referred to contemporary life instead of viewing artworks that represented different times.50
The creation of a museum of modern art manifested a break within the museum. The contemporary artist now had a place within the museum where he/she could be exhibited during his/her lifetime. The division that was created between the traditional historical art museum and the modern art museum gave birth to several developments. The traditional museum would focus more on an epic view that told the story of art as one of progress and continuation. This story of continuation often includes the start of Modernism.51 Contemporary art would be on display
alone or combined with modernist art in a presentation without a grand historical narrative. This
50 Blok, Cor and Riet de Leeuw. De kunst van het tentoonstellen. De presentatie van beeldende kunst in Nederland van 1800 tot heden. Rijksdienst Beeldende Kunst, 1991: 100.
Even though the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam would become a modern art museum with international name and was created long before the Museum of Modern Art, it would take quite a long time before the museum displayed modern and contemporary art.
51 Theorists, as French philosopher Michel Foucault, indicate the existence of a break between older art and newer
art, which occurs around the creation of Manet’s Olympia and Dejeuner sur l’Herbe. These artworks were the first to be made more in recognition of old masters, as Raphael, Velasquez, than being made in acknowledgement of or in direct response to these artists. Carrier, David. Museum Skepticism. A history of the display of art in public
offers the visitor a body of artworks that is recognizable and relates to present day.52 Art has
entered a post-historical time, meaning a historical narrative can no longer be applied to all art. Contemporary art does not simply follow modern art as Post-Impressionism followed Impressionism.53In the post historical age, it is illogical to create a chronological history of art,
which explains the separation of old and new art in institutions where two different stories are being told. More recently this separation has caused the creation of contemporary art museums, Kunsthalles and the rise of mega contemporary art exhibitions as the Biennale, documenta and Manifesta that deem to give an accurate view on the status of contemporary art. 54
Shapolski et al. Manhattan Real Estate Holdings 1971
Where before the critique of artists on museums had been about what the institutions programmed and less about the institutions themselves, this changed around the sixties. Worldwide student unrest, the Vietnam war and the anti-war demonstrations, civil rights and peace movements set the tone in the late sixties, causing students and artists to question many established values and the set authority of institutions.55 In France new theorists Roland Barthes,
Michel Foucault and Jean Baudrillard stimulated a more critical approach and inspection of cultural institutions through their writings. Artists seemed to grasp that despite Duchamp's actions to claim power for the artist to define artworks, the power still very much remained with the institution.56
The critique was expressed outside and inside the museum, the critique that came from within was a result of the growing appreciation of Conceptual and Installation art. Artists from these new art movements often used a critical approach in their work. As they grew in popularity, the museum was willing to engage with these artists.57 In reality this was not always
52 Ibid.: 93. 53 Ibid.: 146.
54 The development of the contemporary art museum is not free from controversy. Contemporary art museums
collect and display artists that are at the start of their career. Through this action these artists become consecrated by their involvement with these museums. Where the artist formerly received a spot in the museum after establishing him/herself after a long career, the museum is now playing a part in the establishment of artists. Catherine de Zegher, former director of MSK in Ghent, argues that museums of contemporary art are a contradiction. Art should not be displayed separately in modern and old art museums. Contemporary art should be displayed in Kunsthalles, established art should be displayed in museums.
Zegher, Catherine de. Personal interview. 4 July 2017.
55 Putnam 2001: 26. 56 Ibid.: 27.
a successful collaboration as several examples and cases of censorship make clear that museums were not too willing to accept the critical note these artists applied in their institutions. Several examples from the early seventies in the United States can serve as an illustration.
In 1971 two large incidents of censorship occurred at the Guggenheim Museum in New York. The first resulted in the cancelling of a retrospective show on German artist Hans Haacke (1936) and the firing of the museum’s curator Edward Fry. These actions followed after two works made by Haacke were removed from the selection for the exhibition by the director of the museum, Thomas Messer. Shapolski et al. Manhattan Real Estate Holdings and Sol Goldman
and Alex DiLorenzo Manhattan Real Estate Holdings were both examples of works by Haacke
that combined a photographic image with recorded facts. (see fig. 2) As more often with Haacke’s work, the facts he used in the artworks were available in a publicly accessible institution, in this case the New York Public Library, these were collected and presented by the artist. The Shapolski and Sol Goldman works included information on the real-estate dealings by two to three New Yorker families, who had amassed vast empires of slum housing in New York under the disguise of holding companies and corporate entities. In assembling details of the relationship and connections between these owners and their properties, he laid bare the structure of these empires.58 Haacke revealed the information with a neutral tone, without pointing any
fingers. In response to the removal of the works from the museum Messer named the artworks “work that violates the supreme neutrality of the work of art and therefore no longer merits the
protection of the museum.”59 This shows an interesting discrepancy between the expectations of
the museum in the seventies of what an artwork should entail and what the artist, in this case Hans Haacke, favours. In this example the museum expects a more aesthetic ‘neutral’ artwork while the artist pursues a political journalistic approach.
The second example showed the different attitudes towards art between different artist groups active at the time in a direct confrontation with a Minimal artist and a Conceptual artist during the creation of the Sixth Guggenheim International Exhibition. Approved by the exhibitions curator, Diane Waldman, artist Daniel Buren (1938) created a work that resembled a banner, which would hang central in the cylindrical space of the building.60 (see fig. 3) After the
58 Foster, Hal. Art Since 1900, Thames & Hudson, 2011: 589. 59 Ibid.: 590.
60 The work aimed to challenge the architecture of the building created by Frank Lloyd Wright. Even though it is set
instalment of the work, some of the other participating artists opposed the artwork and demanded that it would be removed, threatening to pull their work out of the exhibition if the artwork by Buren remained. These artists, Donald Judd, Dan Flavin, Joseph Kosuth and Richard Long, had taken offense to the size of Buren’s work as it would hinder a view of their own work. Although their argument can easily be undermined - Buren’s banner was a piece of cloth that obscured only part of the exhibition while walking down the spiral of the museum, and was imperceptible from the side - the work was removed from the exhibition. The example shows a clash between Minimalists and the Conceptual artists who worked with a focus on institutional critique.61 These two actions of censorship in New York were not the only clashes between the institutional critical artists and an institution. In Europe Hans Haacke caused a controversy in a German museum. For the 150th anniversary of the Wallraf-Richartz Museum in Cologne, Germany, Haacke was invited to create a work for the exhibition Projekte ‘74. The work consisted of ten panels that explained the provenance of Manet’s Bunch of Asparagus (1880), which was donated to the W-R Museum in 1968 by the Friends of the museum during the chairmanship of Hermann Josef Abs. The final panel concluded the history of the artwork and revealed that Abs had been a financial advisor to Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945. It stated Abs was reinstated after the war and had remained in a comfortable position of power until the moment of the donation of the artwork to the museum.62 The revelation of Abs to be an ex-Nazi and the fact that his
problematic past had not hindered him to regain a position of power were considered scandalous. Though the curator had approved Haacke’s proposal for the artwork, the museum’s organization declined the artwork. Most likely this action was undertaken with pressure from the Friends chairman, Abs. The result was a second censorship of Haacke’s artwork.
Responding to the censorship, Daniel Buren invited Haacke to glue photocopies of the panels on the work Buren had created for the exhibition; large green and white stripes which covered large parts of walls in the museum.63 The panels from Haacke were now presented as an
Buren’s artwork challenges the control the building tries to hold over the artworks on display through its architectural shape. Ibid.: 590-591.
61 Ibid.: 591. For more information on this example and the clash between different artist groups see Art Since 1900.
The publication gives a broad overview of Haacke’s work and institutional critique.
62 Ibid.: 591-592.
63 Buren’s artwork functioned as a sculptural base as well as a background for the installed paintings. The act of
support of Buren might have been a reaction on the support Buren gained when he was kicked out of the Sixth International Exhibition at the Guggenheim. In response to the removal of his artwork, several artists including Sol Lewitt, Mario Merz and Carl Andre withdrew their own works from the exhibition. Ibid.: 592.
artwork made by Buren and were fully visible in the exhibition, to the agony of the organizers. (see fig. 4 and 5) This caused further retaliation as Haacke’s photocopies were torn off of Buren’s work, censuring Haacke a second time in the same exhibition and vandalizing Buren’s contribution.64
These examples show an effort from Haacke and Buren to address underlying structures and misconduct (often disguised) in artistic institutions, leaving it to the viewer to formulate critique. The actions taken by the institutions against the critical artworks show that they were not willing to accept this critique and address the misconduct. These examples of institutional critique from the sixties and seventies were closely associated with artists’ interventions, partially through their temporality. At the time, interventions were often presented as a critique, on the practice of the institutions but also on what had been accepted as the institutionalisation of art itself.65 As Robins states, these interventions show the influence of Duchamp, many interventions and critiques were conceptual and placed the artist’s self within the system; these initiatives practiced ‘the laying bare of the institutional conditions of art’.66 Despite the critical
nature of many artworks of the seventies, many of the critical artists were already established and institutionalized, which resulted in the acquisition of these artworks in the museums’ collections.67 In spite of their criticism, these artists belonged to the establishment they were
criticizing.
Haacke was part of a larger movement of artists that implemented institutional critique. The growing unrest in the sixties prompted two large demonstrations in the second half of the sixties in Paris and in Brussels. In 1967 Daniel Buren organized a demonstration together with other artists at the Salon de la Jeune Peinture, Museé National d’Art Moderne in Paris. The demonstrators organized an exhibition in which each artist exhibited a painting that displayed a simple motif, this was the image for the ‘objection’ against the institution. Buren continued this action by placing 200 panels with the same pattern - coloured stripes - all over Paris in the following year, suggesting that art should not be restricted to museum walls.68 These actions
64 Ibid.
65 Robins 2017: 63. 66 Ibid.
67 Images of Marcel Duchamp's Fountain are part of the collection of Tate, both MoMA and the Whitney have
artworks by Hans Haacke in their collection. Putnam 2001: 92.
occurred simultaneously with a protest in the Palais des Beaux-Arts in Brussels, which was occupied by students and where artist Marcel Broodthaers (1924-1976) was involved as a negotiator. The demonstrators requested more spaces in Brussels to organise contemporary art exhibitions and criticized the art establishment at large.69
Parallel with the institutional critique ran another protest against the ruling order, artists created their own museums with their own programming. These alternative spaces were often created out of a dissatisfaction with the way museums handled their work. Donald Judd was discontent with the way curators controlled the way his work was presented. In his view, museums separated art from life which resulted in art to lose its effect, in museums art seemed fake, according to Judd. He created his own ideal museum in the small town of Marfa, Texas. His first acquisitions were made in 1973, around the late 1980s he had basically bought the entire town, in which he established The Chinati Foundation.70 The intention of the foundation “is to
preserve and present to the public permanent large-scale installations by a select group of artists. The emphasis is on works in which art and the surrounding landscape are inextricably linked.”71
The Musée d’Art Moderne 1968-1972
In most of his art Marcel Broodthaers has expressed criticism on the museum, his biggest project started right after the student protests. The Musée d’Art Moderne, Département des Aigles (Museum of Modern Art, Department of Eagles) was a conceptual museum that had different appearances and was seen at different locations over the length of four years, between 1968 and 1972. The first time the concept took shape, a presentation was set up at Broodthaers own home. (see fig. 6) He displayed empty crates, supposedly for the transportation of artworks, he combined these with postcards of artworks. It was suggested that the (famous) artworks on the postcards were inside the crates. The several times he displayed a work or a concept that related to the Musee d’Art Moderne he gave it the name of a new ‘Section’, each time presenting new work. At one location, the Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, he used real paintings; by presenting these
69 Several artists, including Broodthaers, disapproved of the legacy of Pop Art. Although the movement had blurred
the lines between mass and high culture, they thought it had sold out to the commercialism it was ridiculing. This could result in the loss of arts value, that it would become a commodity or decoration. The museums did not offer a critical reflection on the art movement. Ibid.: 27.
70 Ibid.: 187.
71 “Mission and History.” The Chinati Foundation. <https://chinati.org/visit/missionhistory>. Accessed 12 October
together with caricatures and postcards, the value of the ‘real’ artworks was challenged. In another section he put 300 works on display that presented or referred to eagles. (see fig. 7) The works were combined with labels that stated ‘this is not a work of art’, hinting at Duchamp and René Magritte. In his work on the conceptual museum Broodthaers appropriated the daily museum practice of classifying, labelling, storing and exhibiting the artworks, this is what Broodthaers criticized. For his last two presentations for the museum, one in the Kunsthalle Düsseldorf and one at documenta 5, Broodthaers used the museums press release and invited curators to talk about the exhibition. Clearly the lines between his fictional and a real museum or exhibition became blurry. The artist recognized the meaning of his fictional museum had changed and let it “grind down in boredom” as he only found logical.72
A global affair
At the end of the twentieth century we see changes in society on a large scale. Due to political and societal developments, the end of the Cold War and the demolition of the Berlin Wall, the AIDS epidemic and growing awareness on overpopulation and climate pollution, a growing sense of insecurity existed amongst people, mass communication and consumption confronted humanity. In exhibitions this resulted in a more open attitude towards different types of art, e.g. artefacts were incorporated into presentations. Another outcome of these developments was that artworks were easily spread internationally, as it became easier to ship artworks all over the world; many exhibitions travelled and were displayed all over the world.73
Art itself changed, the distinction between high and low art, primitive/folk art seemed to disappear and with it the concept of the genius artist. Concepts as connoisseurship and the idea that art had to include certain aesthetic qualities or style were questioned. The artist was not perceived as a genius anymore. Artists became more aware of movements that had preceded them, from prehistory until now.74 The idea that art showed evolution and progress was
72 McShine, Kynaston. The Museum as Muse. The Museum of Modern Art, 1999: 62-64. Before Broodthaers let the
conceptual museum grind down in boredom, he attempted to liquidate the museum through the opening of the Section Financière. He announced the sale of the museum on a flyer handed out at the Cologne Art Fair in 1971 “Museum of Modern Art for sale on account of bankruptcy.” In doing so, the fictional museum was turned into a commodity, which served as an ultimate parody of the art market. Unfortunately, Broodthaers did not find any buyers. The case of The Musée d’Art Moderne, Département des Aigles is quite interesting, Broodthaers criticism on art institution is quite comprehensive and too thorough to fully explain in a couple of sentences. For further reading on the conceptual museum, see McShine 1999: 62-65.
73 Honour, Hugh and John Flemming. A world history of art. 7th ed. Laurence King, 2009: 870-871. 74 Ibid.
questioned. The artworks made with this background did not fit in the category of Modernism anymore. These new artworks were called Postmodernist. Postmodernist art started from an oppositional stance towards Modernist art. Over time the movement transformed and opened up the whole cultural field instead of opposing the previous art movement. Postmodernism did not necessarily attack Modernist art but more so the social and political institutions it had been associated with. Artworks were politically challenging, were aesthetically contradictory, were emancipated and very much interdisciplinary in nature.75 Postmodernist theory was also influenced by the deconstruction theory. More specifically by the process that lay behind the way how meaning is given to certain terminology, especially terminology on gender and ethnic diversity. These were explored in Postmodernist artworks. Whereas Modernism had been an exclusively Western based art movement, Postmodernism was a global affair. 76 The aforementioned social and political developments proved to be crucial for the artist interventions that were to appear in the nineties. The critical theory and reflection on the institution that the artist developed in relation to race and gender would prove to be the base for these critical interventions.77
Whereas the institutions seemed hesitant to accept the institutional critique in the seventies, they seemed to accept and seek out the critique and interventions in the nineties and following. Although several interesting interventions were initiated and acted out in the eighties, this is not the era that most publications focus on. A explanation might be that the more famous interventions did not take place in the eighties. The institutional critique from the seventies is considered a starting point for the wave of interventions in the nineties. Although the eighties are not specifically mentioned, there are some examples of interventions that are worth mentioning, in chapter two.
During the second half of the twentieth century, the relationship between the artist and the museum evolved. The artist brought institutional critique from outside into the institution. The rise of globalisation forced the museum to take on a new handling of art. The, as La calls it,
tyrannical closure of history, that often blots out the past of the specific collection in order to tell
a specific narrative, becomes more open at the end of the twentieth century, for instance through
75 Ibid.: 871-872. 76 Ibid.: 872. 77 La 2016: 234.
a artist interventions.78 Through these interventions, the collection and presentation of a museum
is no longer seen as a neutral set of objects but as something that can and should be debated. The intervention became a way to challenge the institution from within. “Interventionist work might
shift our understanding of a collection, revealing that we are looking at something quite different from what we expected; that our pleasures might be implicated in the exploitation of others.”79
Though for the artist the intervention became a critical tool in the approach towards the museum, this differed for the museum itself. Sharp addresses a different motivation of the museum to include contemporary art, he refers to the spirit of the Enlightenment that provided the ideological foundation for many museums. A primary objective of such museums is to present to their public where they stand in time, in the broader evolution of mankind.80 To further elaborate his point he quotes poet T.S. Elliot.
“The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to
persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new. Whoever has approved this idea of order... will not find it preposterous that the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past."81
78 Ibid. 79 Ibid.
80 Sharp, Jasper. “Contemporary artists and their place within historical museums.” Kunsthistorisches Museum: 9.
<https://www.khm.at/fileadmin/content/KHM/Contemporary/Jasper_text_PK_engl.pdf>. Accessed 10 September 2018.
Images 1. Opening up the museum
2. Hans Haacke. Shapolsky et al. Manhattan Real Estate Holdings, a real-time social system, as
of May 1, 1971. 1971. Gelatin silver print and printed and typed ink on paper.
3. Daniel Buren. Untitled. 1971. Canvas banner. 20,11 x 9,75m. Guggenheim International Exhibition 1971.
4. Daniel Buren. Kunst Bleibt Kunst. 1974.
6. Marcel Broodthaers. Musée d’Art Moderne, Département des Aigles, Section XIXe siècle. September 27 1968 - September 27, 1969. Broodthaers’s home, Rue de la Pépinière, Brussels.
7. Marcel Broodthaers. Musée d’Art Moderne, Département des Aigles, Section des Figures (Der
2. Who’s museum is it?
In this chapter I will shed light on the characteristics and different types of interventions. I will also take into account the different motivations to initiate interventions of the museum. The main focal point will be the sub question “What motivates museums to show contemporary artworks together with their non-contemporary collection?” The following question will serve as guideline: How has the intervention changed from the nineties until now? In this chapter I will dive deeper in the artist interventions by analysing different types. As was pointed out before but should be mentioned again - many interventions have been undertaken in natural history, historical and ethnographic museums. These often result from a need within the institution to change the tyrannical closure of history, as mentioned in chapter one. To generate change an artist is invited who can create a different collection display with the opportunity to address sensitive issues. Though very interesting, these interventions are created with such a different purpose and ideology than in art museums, that they will not be the focus of this chapter. One exception is made for the iconic intervention Mining the Museum, created by artist Fred Wilson.
Referring to the definition as mentioned in the introduction, Robins states the intervention is best defined as an interlocutor within the museum’s collection display and narrative.82 La states that by creating artist interventions, artists intervene in past and future ways
of seeing, hereby turning the museum objects into projects. She refers to the origin of the word - the Latin intervenire, translated by La as ‘to come between’. She interprets interventions as a means for artists to disrupt power relations in museums where the objects (that often existed prior to the museum itself) are presented as an authoritative representation of a given culture.83 Where Robins’ interpretation very directly states the intervention can function as a sort of translation and mentions its importance for the public, La focuses more on the way an intervention can change a presentation. Both Robins and La state an intervention can change the narrative and course of a collection.
Interventions in the nineties have been less radical compared to the institutional critique that was expressed in interventions in the sixties and the seventies. In the mid twentieth century artists had seemingly worked against the institution, this changed at the end of the twentieth century when the relationship between the artist and the institution developed more into a
82 Robins 2017: 2. 83 La 2016: 217.
