Page 52 - Studio International - May June 1975

of a specific class. The social values that attach to most works of art are imposed
on them from outside often long after they were made.
I have said that I think art galleries do not consider enough the needs and
behaviour of visitors. Perhaps if more were known about such needs it might be
possible to lay out and signpost collections so that members of the public could
consciously choose different ways of dealing with the collections on the basis of
their preferences, prior knowledge of art, time available, etc. A variety of
catalogues, labels and guides and other aids might offer a parallel or additional
choice of information. Meanwhile curators, like actors or politicians, work on the
basis of convention, experience and commitment but, unlike them, they cannot
easily feed off the response of the public because this is largely inaudible. In
practice those who are responsible for public galleries rely to a great degree on
opinion which is formed in quite a narrow circle — largely that which is close to
the sources of art. Indeed, a public gallery must face two ways : to the artists
living and dead as well as to the public. In so far as works of art are seen as a
means of communication, there is a duty to the artist to make that communication
possible — to know what it is that one is offering to the public.
Some art galleries were founded with additional aims in relation to living
Considering also that museums, by preserving
artists. They have sought to improve the standard of work by offering artists works of art and scientific material and presenting
good examples to emulate or to help them make a living by selecting and them to the public, help to disseminate a
presenting their work in a public place, so conferring status and educating a knowledge of the various cultures and thus
public. As far as I know, however, no major gallery has been founded or carried promote mutual understanding among nations.
on with the basic purpose of giving artists a living by means of buying their Considering in consequence that every effort
work. These intentions are, of course, typical of the nineteenth century. They should be made to encourage all sections of the
have not changed much but it is hard to say whether or not galleries carry them population, and especially the working classes, to
out adequately. On the other hand it is clear that many artists are not satisfied visit museums,
with such intentions or with the performance of them. In fact the most Considering that with the progress in the
trenchant criticisms of museums come from within the narrow circle of artists, industrial organization of the world, people
their associates and museum staff. For example : have more leisure, and that such leisure should
i) That if the gallery does create status for some it must exclude others.
2) That it tends to define or classify art in terms of ideology, medium and mode be used for the benefit and the cultural
advancement of all.
so, when effective, limits the freedom of artists.
Recognizing the new social conditions and
3) That an institution which seeks to collect, preserve and honour objects needs which the museums must take into account
rather than to foster artists directly is a dehumanizing force. in order to carry out their permanent educational
4) That it fossilizes art and, by taking it out of its social context, renders it mission and satisfy the cultural aspirations of
impotent.
5) That by presenting revolutionary or radical statements in a specialized, the workers.
official art enclave, it gives them a licence which trivializes them only to Unesco Pamphlet
facilitate authoritarianism, elsewhere.
6) Finally, there are some who think that all old and most current art should
be suppressed because it expresses wrong (eg bourgeois) ideas.
These are some of the objections I have heard or read in the last twenty years
(the ones that come to mind now). They demand a much longer discussion than
what follows.
and 2 are very old objections and were raised in relation to the salons and
academies before the art museum was well established. They also contain an
important degree of justice. Both arise directly from the fundamental fact that
an art museum does indeed select. It generally collects what it regards as
representative or of high quality in relation to the money at its disposal. In
practice, the factors of being representative and of quality are not independent.
A 'representative' work may be one which is believed to represent well an
important artist or trend, and a good one is likely to be the best available example
of a certain type.
Although it may be difficult or even meaningless to assert absolute degrees
of quality, no gallery has formed its collection by drawing lots. The notion of
relative quality is as prevalent among visitors as staff. A visitor to a gallery Pierre Bourdieu et al
or exhibition is more likely to speak in terms of what is 'good' or 'bad' than
what is 'large' or 'brightly-coloured' or even 'interesting'. Moreover I think that
most people define artists specifically as people who are merely 'better at art'
then they are themselves. Selection on the basis of quality therefore seems to be
inseparable from the concept of an art gallery and it is certainly true that the
choices museums make, whether of purchases or exhibitions, may affect the We must no longer regard the museum as just
expectations of artists and therefore the work they do. The museum may even an instrument for offering art to the public. The
distort what it seeks to represent, however 'good' its selection may be. museum has become more critical both of art
I do not understand the force of 3, for it appears to me obvious that certain and of itself, because it has become aware of
people seek to express themselves by making objects that they regard as 'art'. The its function outside daily life. It does indeed
kind of museum I have been discussing is based on the assumption that this is function outside the system, sets itself up in
possible and that it has actually been achieved. So it appears to be more opposition to the Establishment, yet continually
dehumanizing to reject their work than to collect it. This does not in principle shows itself to be an instrument of the system.
exclude the living presence of artists but clearly they cannot be collected in the Like art it is a place of freedom, but of freedom
same way that objects can. which stops at the museum door; and like art it
Both 4 and 5 depend on the idea that art has meaning only in its original is a cosmetic medium, not absolutely essential.
context, physical or historical. There is quite a large element of truth in This inner contradiction in the role of the
the view as applied, for example, to primarily religious objects. Even if this is museum — that it is the epitome of the system,
so, I cannot believe that galleries should ignore art works until they have in but at the same time relatively free to criticize it —
effect died of other causes. The existence of agricultural, industrial or war is important for the museum to today and for its
museums is not felt to dehumanize workers or soldiers nor take away the immediate future. To put it bluntly, the ideal
significance of their acts or products. Moreover, no-one has been able to show museum would be one that was closed by the
that the most vital works of a certain type are outside public galleries (unless authorities.
perhaps these are the private property of those most affected by them). Jan Leering et al

200