A Post-Dogmatist Approach for Museums
As an artist I normally go to a museum as a way to study solutions to problems that I might be having in the studio or I might go to get inspired in a dull period or I might go to the museum to see a travaling exhibit of someone’s work that I would like to study first hand. When I am at a museum I normally make a quick inventory of all the works available for view and then go back to those pieces that are of personal interest to me and then spend most of my time viewing these few works.
I have tried what seems most people’s technique which seems to be to slowly move from gallery to gallery looking at each and every work as if a duty of some sort but I find that this leads to sensory overload which just gives me a headache rather than a gratifying experience.
The works that I tend to pass over quickly are those that every museum in the country seems to have several of such as Picassos for instance. Now, I do enjoy a Picasso now and then, especially if it is an unusual work or an unusually well done work. But I have to ask myself, ‘Why does every museum in the country have to have a dozen or so Picassos around? On top of that, why a dozen Picassos regardless of whether or not any of them are any good or not?
Is there some list somewhere that says, “Any museum, in order to open its doors to the general public, must have X number of modernist works by this, that and the next artist or don’t call yourself a museum.” This seems to be the case in all museums I have ever been in. There is some sort of formula that all museums seem to abide by as if collecting stamps or butterflys. The collection isn’t ‘world-class’ without certain examples of some preordained list of artists’ work.
The problem with this approach to collection building and display is that the truely great collections were purchased by collectors while the paint was still wet back in the teens and twenties. These collections then became the great modernist museums that everybody else is trying to catch up with which, quite frankly, is impossible.
What’s wrong with this idea? Imagine a director or curator of a museum who deceided that they were going to sell off all of the ‘B’ grade art in their museum on the open market. Just dump it all and create a multi-million dollar slush fund. Let’s call it a Post-Dogmatist Art Extravaganza fund. Then, with the first million hire a team of artists of all different perspectives as a collection committee.
This group would then be sent where ever they decieded to go to buy art from living artists without regard for anything but quality, creativity and artistic merit. No regard for what gallery the work was found in, no regard for price or discount, no regard for where the artists live or work, no regard for how big or small the works are, no regard for hype or popularity or political correctness. Just the finest contemporary work work-wide in any style or media. No politics, no back scratching, just good solid art. Let’s say the budget for this expenditure is five million. Now let me see; at an average price of ten thousand dollars ( many of the works would no doubt be well below this) that would be about five hundred of the finest works of contemporary art in the world, from all over the world. That would no doubt be an impressive collection.
Next, with a couple of million, ok, ok, ok, five more million, promote the collection publicly — advertising, catalogs, big glossy art books, post-cards, articles in the art mags, symposiums, world-wide traveling exhibitions, — the whole bit. Pretty soon, these works of art would be the hottest things going. All of the museums all over the world would be scrambling to catch up, scouts would be everywhere searching every nook and cranny for the next great work of art to add to their collection. The carrer of any artist with talent would be followed, files would be kept on their work by many different museums and occasionally when exceptional works became available they would be collected. But not like football players being chased by media reporters, the museums would do everything possible not to pressure artists or make them nervous or attempt to influence their work.
Museums might even concentrate on particular sorts of art but with an eye toward being unique and daring. Or some, like university museums, might focus on collecting objects that might not be art but are astheticly interesting that artists and students of art would enjoy looking at merely for their form and materials. These would be purely visual museums that deal with things like context and presentation and light and other issues that are interesting to artists and that would help to stimulate them in their work. They could be called visual research centers dedicated to the study of artistic seeing. These would not fall into scientific gibberish but would focus on how to encourage people to see and appriciate visual information as well as creative thinking and observation.
On a regular basis, museums could have a coffee hour when artists are invited by the museum to come in and congregate and share a meal and some good conversation. The curators and historians could sit in as well so that they have some idea about what artists are thinking about which is usually interesting. Maybe every once in a while the restorers and conservators from the basement could sit in to answer questions about preservation issues where artist’s materials and techniques are conserned. The coffee and tidbits are complimentory of course and the hour might last all afternoon. Artist learn from each other and many a great work of art has arizen out of such conversations. The museum could have someone going around conducting interviews during these gatherings and saving them on tape. These conversations would later be transcribed, approved by the artists and then published by the museum in it’s monthly newsletter as interesting reading for the general public.
The other thing that most artist would probably like to see is a dedicated fund and a generous one, for the purchase of art produced within the region of the museum. This money could be spent to collect works by artists who are frequent visitors to the museum.
If I were going to set the policies for this type of collection, I might do something like this.
1) The museum will attempt to stimulate and support the arts communittee in its region by the establishment of relations between the museum and the arts community through direct contact with the artists, galleries and universities. The museum will take the initiate rather than wait for artists to come to them. A number of hours per month will be dedicated to direct personal contact with artists through studio visits, phone calls, lunches and the like.
2) Through keeping in close contact with the arts community, the museum will collect and exhibit works from the local community without waiting for market indicators to determine whose work is ‘collectable’.
3) Collecting will be governed by a committee of artists, patrons and museum personel with committee members serving one year. These individuals would be selected randomly out of a pool of willing volenteers with the intent of:
A) bestowing recognition on bodies of work that have achieved artistic merit without regard of style or fashion.
B) The acquisition of a collection which reflects the actual arts community it is collected from rather than attempting to collect works which fit the image that the museum or city wishes to project.
C) To then attempt to promote that collection through traveling exhibitions and loans to other museums around the world.
D) To publish critical esseys and other studies about the collection and arts community from which it is derived in an effort to aid the arts community in it’s movement toward an identity if one develops.
If a museum did this it would undoubtedly draw many artists to the area who would come there from all parts of the world to work in an environment where they feel nurchered, appriciated and recognised rather than alienated and discounted. A community of artists who, through being morally supported and given a voice through the local art institutions, would begin to develop a high level of self esteem which would lead to a creative ferver that would rival in quality, any great arts community anywhere.
But, you might say, all artists worth anything live or show in New York so why bother? As long as you believe this, it seems to be true. It becomes self fullfilling. An exciting and important arts community will develop anywhere if that place will but invest the same attention and sence of importance in it’s local community that everyone bestows on New York. Nothing wrong with New York mind you, I think it is a great place. But great art is happning every where at this point in history. Why not have a hundred such cities... or a thousand? ...Just a thought.