Page 50 - Studio International - May June 1975

kinds of human reference which give meaning to architectural conventions, `What shape does such a museum have ? It can
therefore these cannot be disregarded when it is placed in a room. hardly be the familiar Baroque palace . . . we
The compromise that is reached between them also reflects ambiguities in the know only too well how such a setting overpowers
role of the museum itself : the incomplete fusion of the roles of the treasure both the spectator and the works of art. . . .
house of unique art works, of the supplier of aesthetic experiences and of the Nor can the new museum be housed in the pared
information resource. It must also confuse all but the most experienced gallery- down nineteenth century version of the palace — a
goers — those who carry in their heads a fairly accurate notion of chronology conventional building on the outside, on the
and the relationships of national schools or `isms'; who can find in a room or a inside a succession of bare rooms serving as a
sequence of rooms works which, separated for reasons of their date, size or "neutral" background for a variety of equally
subject matter, may have an interesting relationship, or who can find in the valid styles. In its architecture and its methods
cornucopia a single work which truly moves them or reveals a new insight. In of installation the living museum adapts to each
short, it is likely that the structure favours a small elite among the visitors. The period and style that it presents. It is shaped by
remainder must include a proportion who are confused or cannot find their what is in it. .
way as well as the probably far larger group who simply browse, hardly aware Alexander Doerner from Samuel Cauman,
that the curators have planned any relationships for them to find. At least these The Living Museum, 1958.
cannot be perplexed or misled.
Both the terms of the compromise I have described and my misgivings about
it assume that the layout of a gallery should have a purpose and a rhetoric: that it
is among the duties of a curator to say something about the things in his charge
by means of the manner in which he presents them to the public. Most
curators do believe this; they may also believe that there is a value in bringing
works together in quite large numbers precisely because this makes it possible
to present them in an art-historical relationship : that works of art gain meaning
and even quality from the context of other works of art. If this were not so, if the Although pictures are neither lit nor hung as
combination had no value and each work of art were a totally independent and intended by Wright, their arrangement
self-sufficient entity, then the value of an art museum would be reduced to preserves his original intention that they
matters of conservation and accessibility. should appear free in space. Looking across
However, accepting the art-historical assumption, there are problems. It can the open well more than one level is always
only work if we regard art objects as being to some degree examples representing visible and the juxtaposition of paintings seen
a range of other works regarded as similar. One may hang a group of examples at a distance becomes significant; many
of Impressionism to provide a context for Cezanne, an example of Cezanne to compartments of 'the chambered nautilus'
show one of the antecedents of Cubism, etc., even though those specific are revealed as soon as one looks inwards.
paintings may never have been studied by Cezanne and the Cubists respectively.
This is an awkward notion — how can a painting or sculpture which is unique,
an artist who is an individual, stand for other works and other artists ? Although
no two art works may be alike (leaving aside the question of multiples and
prints) and each is therefore a unique utterance, I believe that each arises out of
tradition, humanity, society and the life of an individual in such a way that it
does to a degree carry its context with it and to that degree it is also
representative. This is the essential element of 'style.' Such a view is supported
by the fact that many painters feel that each work is a complete expression of
themselves, even though they continue, of course, to produce distinct works.
If an art work does bring with it a part of its own context (including the means
by which it is to be comprehended) but only a part, and if this context is shared
by others, then works in association can be mutually enhancing and the museum
concept is justified. But certain juxtapositions could be more helpful than others.
What are they ? This a question that cannot ever be answered but, within the
limits of what is or could be available, must always be attempted. It affects
acquisition policy as well as displays, for to some extent, the desire to acquire —
the sense of gaps to be filled — is determined by actual or potential patterns of
display. A fundamentally historical layout will constantly draw the attention of
staff, trustees and visitors to missing chapters while a 'treasure at the centre of
every wall' layout may favour a policy concentrating on masterpieces or glamour.
Consider the following types of arrangement :
Linear : Ideally this should be one-sided only, as at the Guggenheim Museum, Accademia, Venice 1954.
where the visitor is virtually obliged to follow the route devised by the curator. Chronological sequence very frequently
Open plan : Hung in every direction with no specified route. This is not distorted by architectural considerations.
common among art museums although it seems to express best the multiplicity
of art. The upper floor of Mies Van der Rohe's Berlin Academy points in this
direction as does the extension to the Tate Gallery now under construction. The I 14th-early 15th century.
visitor can wander at will, the layout may imply no direction. II late 15th-early 16th century.
These are the extremes. The great majority of galleries comprise a set of III early 16th century.
architecturally distinct and varied room-spaces. The rooms may be sequential, IV late 15th century.
like those of the Louisiana Museum, or cross-connected like those of the V late 15th century.
National Gallery — to that extent they tend to one or other of the same VI 16th century.
VII early 16th century.
extremes. They also vary in the degree of variety and character given to the VIII 16th century.
spaces. At one pole you may find a whole gallery comprising a set of more or less IX 16th century.
identical cells, at the other the country house, open to the public, where the X 16th century.
spaces are determined by specific uses not appropriate to an art museum — XI 16th, 17th and 18th century.
bedroom, dining-room, etc. XII 18th century.
The fact that most art galleries are of this general type is probably a principal XIII 16th century.
reason for the similarity of hang described above. The variation of large and XIV 17th century.
small spaces, top- and side-lighting, axial and peripheral galleries, not to mention XV 18th century.
variations in air-conditioning capability, security and tied gifts can make any XVI 18th century.
XVII 18th century.
rigorous system difficult, ridiculous or impossible. All the same, it would be XVIII 18th century.
reasonable to expect that a room sequence that was fairly uniform and linear XIX 15th-early 16th century.
would favour a historical sequence. Strongly articulated spaces would favour a XX early 16th century.
division by schools or individual artists and highly characterized spaces would XXI late 15th century.
lead to an attempt to match the works to architecture. Very few of the larger XXIII 15th century.
existing museums and galleries (which have generally been adapted from older XXIV 16th century.

198