Contemporary Art: Public and Institutional Perceptions Philip

Contemporary Art: Public and Institutional Perceptions

Philip Aubrey MacLeod

A Capstone in the Field of Museum Studies for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies

Harvard University Extension School

March 2021

Table of Contents

List of Figures ...... ii

Introduction ...... 1

What Is Contemporary Art? ...... 7

Contemporary Art and Audiences ...... 16

Fundamentals of Exhibition Design ...... 21

The Museum of Fine Arts Boston ...... 26

The Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston ...... 34

The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum ...... 39

Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 42

Works Cited ...... 48

List of Figures

Figure 1: Mark Dion, American, born 1961. Neukom Vivarium. design approved 2004; fabrication completed 2006. Artstor, library-artstor-org.ezp- prod1.hul.harvard.edu/asset/ASEATTLEIG_10312599207 ...... 14

Figure 2: Lord, Barry, and Maria Piacente. Manual of Museum Exhibitions, 2nd ed., Rowman &

Littlefield, 2014 ...... 24

Figure 3: Gallery View, Nishida Jun. MacLeod, Philip. Photograph of Nishida Jun Gallery at the

MFA Boston. 15 November 2020. Authors Personal Collection...... 28

Figure 4: Annotated Map of MFA. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Map. Museum of Fine Arts

Boston, https://d1nn9x4fgzyvn4.cloudfront.net/2020-11/mfa-map_2020-12.pdf . Accessed on 15

December 2020. Annotated by Philip Aubrey MacLeod...... 29

Introduction

Views about the nature of Contemporary Art vary greatly from individual to individual be it scholar or a person entering a museum for the first time. Academic attempts to pin down a notoriously nebulous subject can be full of art historical terminology and technical jargon. What

Contemporary Art is can be a contentious and tricky thing to define. The more casual viewer might be put off by the often confrontational and conceptual nature of Contemporary Art and form gut reactions. It is not uncommon for viewers to feel lost or overwhelmed when looking at many of today’s museum’s collections of Contemporary Art. While these two views of

Contemporary Art by no means represent the full spectrum of ideas on the subject, they do highlight an often-persistent problem in the world of Contemporary Art. It is important for museums to understand how the display and collection of works of Contemporary Art, a movement that is itself often hard to define, bridges the gap between academic knowledge and public reaction and interpretation.

The following research and investigations into museum exhibitions aims to provide a series of useful insights meant to guide museums in how they navigate the collection and display of Contemporary Art. Firstly, the research will define what is meant by Contemporary Art in the context of this project. Secondly, it will look at how exhibitions are put together and how audiences perceive Contemporary Art in a broad context. Finally, the project will analyze three specific museums and demonstrate how they treat their Contemporary Art collections with differing modes of interpretation. Through defining Contemporary Art and analyzing how this manifests in the three museums a more holistic approach to Contemporary Art exhibition will be brought forward, as well as a better way to engage audiences within this framework.

A museum has the power through its exhibition design, collecting practices, and other institutional functions to not only preserve and interpret art, but to impart new meaning into it or emphasize certain aspects to highlight meaning. The museum must use this to their advantage and take a proactive stance in the meaning produced in works of art, rather than being a passive vehicle for the Contemporary Art on display. By observing and analyzing how three current museums are collecting and interpreting Contemporary Art one can better understand how museums do and do not do this successfully. The answers provided will not only shed light on the state of Contemporary Art and Contemporary Art collecting as it exists today but will also create a context for better engaging with today’s social issues, as much of Contemporary Art does in one way or another.

While museums have changed and evolved over the years their mission statements show an indication that they exist to not only collect and preserve art, but to serve the public as well.

The Museum of Fine Arts Boston (MFA) states, “The Museum of Fine Arts houses and preserves preeminent collections and aspires to serve a wide variety of people through direct encounters with works of art (“Mission Statement”).” The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum

(ISG) adopted its current mission statement in 2014 which in part reads, “to engage local and global audiences in a sanctuary of beauty and the arts where deeply personal and communal adventures unfold (“Mission statement and Board of Trustees”).” According to the Institute of

Contemporary Art/Boston (ICA) its mission is in part, “public access to art, artists, and the creative process (“Strategic Plan: Radical Welcome”).” All three of these museums have provided a commitment to serving the public as well as the art they collect. The phrases

“engage,” “direct encounters,” and “public access” ring out in these statements. But how does the museum affect these public engagements with their collections of art beyond simply

providing access to them? Engaging with art, contemporary or otherwise, by either making or observing it, can often be viewed as entering a grand historical conversation. The project then for the museum must be to the best of the institutions ability to make sure that all the parties involved in this conversation, the art, the artist, the viewer, and the ghosts of history, have an equal footing. While seemingly a daunting task, it is one that most museums will find themselves already engaged in, a task that can be observed at work in different aspects of numerous museums to various degrees of success. Using three museums as case studies, each with wildly different methods for collecting or exhibiting Contemporary Art, this research will aim to establish a better understanding of how museums create meaning in their collections as well as how to better serve the public with these new meanings and interpretations.

As mentioned above, the MFA, ICA, and ISG are three museums with similar goals about serving the public. They are also ideologically different collecting and exhibiting institutions. With these three museums as case studies and guides, by observing what and how they collect as well as how they interpret it, it should become clear that where and how a work of art is displayed has an impact on the meaning that is imparted to it through the museum. This impact can not only work to help the public better understand and comprehend a work of art it can also work with the museum’s broader public goals. By making a statement of service to the public the museum should be committed to addressing contemporary and historical social injustices. In her book Curatorial Activism: Towards an Ethics of Curating curator and arts writer Maura Reilly observes:

Despite decades of postcolonial, feminist, anti-racist, and queer activism and theorizing,

the art world continues to exclude ‘Other’ artists—those who are women, of color, and

LGBTQ. Discrimination against these artists invades every aspect of the art world, from

gallery representation, auction-price differentials, and press coverage to inclusion in

permanent collections and solo exhibitions programs. In most mainstream museums,

visitors are still required to actively search out work by them. (17)

Issues like discrimination of artists within a collection, representation and better reflecting the actual make-up of the public at large, are ongoing projects that most museums are already publicly engaging with. The issue then is how they can not only work with the community proactively but also make sure their collections and exhibitions do not adhere to older models, so dependent on the western canonical view of art history. An institution can better address its stated goals by having a clearer understanding of how their own collections and exhibitions of

Contemporary Art are affected by the decisions of the museum. Not only is diversity and inclusion of collections a deliverable outcome from this analysis, but the museum will also be better poised to engage with current global trends and ideas, as well as gain a better understanding of its own voice and hopefully eliminate the notion of institutional neutrality.

All these issues are interconnected, diversity and inclusion are a global issue as well as a local one, the notions of social justice transcend borders. This interconnected nature is something that is not only integral to the practice of Contemporary Art but also should be a large factor in how the museum interprets its collection. By observing three collections, seeing where they succeed or struggle in these regards, it is possible to not only gain a better understanding of how these forces work within a collection but also provide concrete actionable steps that an art museum can take to develop its Contemporary Art collections more in line with the notions of the Contemporary. To improve on service to the public with a collection of Contemporary Art the museum must first better serve its own collection of Contemporary Art. Better internal practices with regards to exhibiting Contemporary Art will lead to better public appreciation of

Contemporary Art and a collection/exhibition that is more in line with the museums mission statement. These suggestions and guidelines will be based on observing three museums in the

Boston area.

The museums analyzed in this research were chosen for their differences in structure and institutional practices as well as for their shared commitment to display or collect Contemporary

Art. The MFA is a universal survey style museum in that it attempts to present to the public the broad historical narrative of a global art history. Containing more than 1,500 works from across the globe and with a focus on works produced since 1955, the collection of Contemporary Art at the MFA is mainly contained to its own wing (“Contemporary Art”). This positioning of

Contemporary Art within a broader global context and how it functions (for better or worse) will provide valuable insight into how Contemporary Art exhibition functions in a general sense.

The next institution to be observed is the Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston or ICA.

Established as the Boston Museum of Modern Art in 1936, the ICA has gone through numerous changes in both name and location while eventually landing today in its current location, a new building built in 2006 by Diller Scofidio + Renfro (“Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston

History”). As a museum dedicated to Contemporary Art, and has more recently become a collecting museum, it provides unique insight into how a singular focus in a sense effects the exhibition and interpretation of contemporary works of art.

The final museum to be looked at is the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum or ISG. While it is not a collecting institution as far as Contemporary Art is concerned, it is also in general another unique case study. The museum was begun as a home for Mrs. Gardner’s personal collection and upon her death she stipulated in her will that no objects in the museum were to be moved or changed (Hawley et al. 53). As she was dedicated to collecting and fostering the arts of

her time, the museum now finds ways to display and encourage Contemporary Art while in keeping with the spirit of her wishes. According to their website the ISG, “Today, we strive to continue Isabella’s legacy of cultivating talent and supporting artists. The Museum’s New Wing, with its openness and transparency, is a signal of the institution’s commitment to artistic practices of the present and to welcoming new audiences (“Contemporary Creativity”).” The ISG provides a valuable insight into how a museum with a unique goal and mission, and not a straightforward collecting practice for Contemporary Art can still engage with the art of today and the global and local social issues that often come with it.

The focus of how these observations will be made is looking to the past ten years in the history of the museums and seeing what Contemporary Art exhibitions they have had on display.

Within that ten-year window the focus will again narrow to observe which of these exhibitions produced published catalogs or other materials. Analyzing the material chosen to represent the exhibits on display by the museum itself will help to paint a picture of how the museums view and would like their collections to be viewed. In a good portion of these exhibition materials the artists also speak about their own works and collections, this gives further context to how the works were envisioned to be seen in most cases. Finally, external reviews and observations will provide a counter point to how the museum would like to be seen by contrasting it with how the public often sees the museum. All these observations will be contextualized within a theoretical background drawing from past art historical and museum studies scholars.

Using the methods stated above this research will outline the trajectory of Contemporary

Art and define it for the purposes of this work, speak to the broad movements in the field of exhibition design, analyze the three museums for the past ten-year period, and provide insights and recommendations for museums going forward. At a time in the world when art can be seen

as an afterthought or a luxury it is important for this work to not only speak to the power that

Contemporary Art can hold, but the power that is wielded by the museums themselves. Through the study and analyses of the Contemporary Art collections of these three museums it will become clear that museums are not neutral sites, and as such much do a bigger and better job of combating social injustice through exhibition programing and all related activities. In doing so perhaps some of the old ideas of how and why museums functioned might need to be shed, but as museum scholar Stephen Weil has said, “I will propose that the relationship between the museum and the public must be understood as a revolution in process, a revolution in the most fundamental sense of that term” (195). This revolution is happening whether museums like to admit it or not, and at an accelerated pace it seems recently, it is important now more than ever for museum to not be left behind in the past.

This revolutionary attitude is also often found within Contemporary Art. Before moving forward, it is of the utmost importance to figure out what exactly gives the art we define as contemporary this quality. It is impossible to understand how museums engage with

Contemporary Art without understand how Contemporary Art functions in the world, and what it is in fact that one is referring to when discussing Contemporary Art.

What Is Contemporary Art?

Contemporary Art is a difficult subject to define. For the most obvious of definitions, it can be a reference to art that is made during one’s own time. For in this sense all art has been contemporary. This notion becomes important when viewing the overall collecting history of a museum and how it engages with the art of its time but can unnecessarily historicize

Contemporary Art and cause it to lose some of its immediacy. It then becomes increasingly important that an attempt is made to try and define the art of today, when this research is taking

place, as a historical moment. In art historical terms this would mean much the same as defining

Modern, with a capital “m,” as a movement in the history of art rather than just a descriptor, of which it can confusingly be both. This Contemporary Art with a capital “c” is just as tricky and slippery and confusing to pin down but will provide valuable insight into why it is so important to the museums of today.

A bit of historical background is necessary to ground some of this conversation, the movement of art from Modern to Post-Modern and into what we will be defined as

Contemporary provides insight into how these terms become solidified. It is important to note that these terms are used as guideposts to help us easier study and discuss art in general. No one wakes up at the turn of the century and calls all the artists together and says, “All right we are doing modernism now!” These definitions and boundaries are fluid and should be viewed as such whenever there is a discussion regarding what to call the art of today. People are still making art in Baroque and Modern styles alongside people practicing Contemporary and Post-Modern art.

These terms are descriptive and not prescriptive, they help us to better communicate not to impose a neat and linear narrative on the trajectory of art history.

The most important part of tracing the history of Contemporary Art is looking backwards towards the prominent periods that gave birth to it. This means looking to the movement from

Modernism to Post-Modernism and how Contemporary Art defines itself in relation to, and in retaliation to, both historical periods. Modernism arose out of a desire to question and in some instances reject what had come before it, one of the most prominent art critics of his time,

Clement Greenberg defined modernism as an avant-garde culture that “uses art to call attention to art” (193). While a western and euro-centric view of Modernism, and particularly interested in

American Modernism, it is a valuable insight into how and why Post-Modernism responded to

these statements. When the Post-Modern came along, as they have become to be defined, objected to this formalist highbrow versus lowbrow cultural limitation that the previous definition seemed to put into place. Seeking to question those who had begun to question the history and canon of art, they began to try and revitalize the ambiguous, pluralistic, and amorphous nature of art that they felt had been lost (Doss 13). With both concepts in mind the nature of Contemporary Art can be understood, much as Modernism and Post-Modernism were, as both a reaction to and a reimaging of the Post-Modern and Modern ideals.

Then comes the moment when the contemporary shifts into Contemporary Art as a defined category. One of the other main challenges of defining this moment is the resistance of many scholars to define in historical terms an ongoing art movement. While some believe that it is too new and they are too close to the subject to properly define it, the notions of what has constituted Modernism and Post-Modernism have run dry in attempts to apply them to notions of contemporaneity, thus the need for new definitions when discussing the art of today (Smith, “Art to Come” 13). As stated above this notion is not to pin down and limit what is Contemporary, but rather as a tool to more accurately, and across broad global audiences, have discussions about what is happening in the art world today. This is incredibly important as the audience is not only globally and socially diverse, but as the art market takes on more and more aspects of the capitalist free market.

Both views of art historical periods can be seen as conversations with artists of the past and with the past itself. To understand the importance of Contemporary Art it is imperative now to place it and what defines it within this grand conversation. Thankfully, a precedent has been set and it is not necessary to start from scratch like a detective piecing together the clues to recreate this conversation. There are individuals who have begun this work for us. For the

purposes of this research, the art historian Terry Smith becomes a important voice to listen to.

Smith is the Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Contemporary Art History and Theory at the

University of Pittsburgh. He studies and researches, among other things, the Contemporary Art world, and the impacts it has on society and how society in turn impacts it (“Terry Smith”).

Smith begins his investigation to the definition of Contemporary Art with an important look into the contemporary moment. Smith contends that it is the global, ever changing nature of the world, the immediate moments that define the contemporary. Within this contemporary moment emerges a Contemporary Art (Smith, “What is Contemporary?” 5-6).

The joining factor in this wonderfully diverse and global collection of artists and art historians that defines the contemporary moment and makes up Contemporary Art is laid out by

Smith in three defining factors. Terry Smith himself states, “The immediate, the contemporaneous, and the cotemporal,” are the three defining factors that make up the

Contemporary Art and congeal it into a historical moment rather than simply the art of the time we exist in (“What is Contemporary?” 4). That the immediate is the first defining factor is not a coincidence. In this context the immediate nature of Contemporary Art is its use of ongoing social issues, world events, and the ever-changing notion of contemporary history. The modern world with its globalization, neo-liberal capitalism, and other material conditions are the immediate concerns of the artist (Smith, “What is Contemporary?” 7). While it is true that other areas of art historical context have seen artists addressing their times and the historical material conditions that it represents and presents to them, this contemporary moment positions artists from all across the globe within an ever-changing context. The events of the world seem to be unfolding at such a rapid pace, and constantly changing the contexts in which art is perceived, that the very immediate nature of the work of art becomes a defining characteristic. The artists

that come to be defined as Contemporary are responding to events that can change over the course of an hour or a day, the world is a shifting global community and the art that it produces will reflect that. The immediacy in Contemporary Art also leads to a plethora of art being created in a wide variety of contexts. With global communications at a point where people can have access to more and more every day, the art world tries to keep apace. The seemingly never- ending supply of content and creation is, for better or worse, an aspect of the Contemporary.

The second factor of the Contemporary is the contemporaneous. This notion takes the immediate concerns of the artist and places them within a broader contemporary context. The notion that the artist is not alone but part of a group or collective (whether literally or figuratively) becomes central to the work of art. Terry Smith directly addresses this notion by stating, “It circulates internationally through the activities of travelers, expatriates, the creation of new markets. It predominates in biennales. Local and internationalist values are in constant dialogue in this current—the debate is sometimes enabling, at other times disabling, but always unavoidable (“What is Contemporary?” 7).” The structures of the world, and the material conditions that have led to them, have become an intrinsic part of the works of art that define the

Contemporary. The contemporaneous nature of Contemporary Art is not only in its name, it is the way in which artists, whether they like it or not, are forced to be in conversation with each other. Now more than ever no work of art is seen to be simply standing by itself. A work of art in the Contemporary movement is seen to be part of a larger whole, a part of a market, a part of a collective, a part of a political ideology, all these parts working together or separately come to define the aura around a contemporary work of art.

The final defined aspect of the Contemporary is what Smith refers to as the “cotemporal.”

This notion is in some respects a synthesis of the first two, as well a means of putting

Contemporary Art within the broader historical concepts of art history. As defined by Smith the cotemporal is the nature of Contemporary Art to exist within conversations that exist in multiple histories, timelines, and places as well as concepts of time. The artists of the Contemporary period are working while not only addressing their immediate concerns but placing themselves within broader contexts. An artist might be addressing the nature of ecological decline that is specific to our time but be in contact with a rich history of people working with art that addresses ecological problems today as well as in the past. The core concept of this term though, is the nature of different concepts of time. As illustrated later in this research with the Mark Dion piece

Neukom Vivarium time is not a static concept. Different cultures have differing concepts of time.

There also exists the contrast between human concepts of time and scientific notions of time. For example, ecological time scales are monumental compared to the measurements of human lives.

The cotemporal nature of art history can be summed up thusly:

These artists seek to arrest the immediate, to grasp the changing nature of time, place,

media, and mood today. They make visible our sense that these fundamental, familiar

constituents of being are becoming, each day, steadily stranger. They raise questions as to

the nature of temporality these days, the possibilities of placemaking vis-à-vis

dislocation, about what it is to be immersed in mediated interactivity and about the

fraught exchanges between affect and effect. Within the world’s turnings and life’s

frictions, they seek sustainable flows of survival, cooperation, and growth. (Smith, “What

is Contemporary?” 8)

With these three fundamental aspects of Contemporary Art in mind, it is then beneficial to look at what structural and physical aspects make up a cohesive Contemporary Art. The first step is understanding that a cohesive concept of Contemporary Art does not necessarily make it a

cohesive stylistic movement. Arthur Danto, art critic and philosopher says “it designates less a period than what happens after there are no more periods in some master narrative of art, and less a style of making art than a style of using styles (10). This concept of “style of using styles” refers to not only the diverse kinds of physical practices of art that is created today, but also relates back to the cotemporal nature described above. The styles that are used become wrapped up in the conversations across space and time that is so important to Contemporary Art. The stylistic notions of Contemporary Art become less about the styles themselves and more about investigating what meaning the styles have been imparted with over time. As such artists of the

Contemporary moment tend to use multiple styles and methods of working over the course of their careers, while not unique to this moment it does take on a new significance.

The other physical joining factor for the moment of Contemporary Art is the fusion of the conceptual notions of the immediate and the contemporaneous into a focus on the global, diverse, and technology driven aspects of art making. The styles become the mediums through which the message is sent, as well as the channels through which the art is sent and received.

None of these factors are again prescriptive but simply notions to be held into consideration when thinking about what makes up Contemporary Art. To understand what makes a good

Contemporary Art collection and exhibition practice the foundational notion of what

Contemporary Art is and can be is of paramount importance. One must make a start at the beginning of this contemporary moment to understand how to better serve it. And what better beginning than structuring a definition of what is being discussed.

Seeing how these concepts work in unison in a piece of art will be helpful in illustrating just what is meant by defining Contemporary Art in this manner. One such work of art that will help make these connections is Mark Dion’s Neukom Vivarium (2006). Mark Dion is a

Contemporary Artist who works primarily within the mediums of installation and sculpture.

Neukom Vivarium is a site-specific installation located within the Olympic Sculpture park in

Seattle Washington (see figure one).

Figure 1: Mark Dion, American, born 1961. Neukom Vivarium. design approved 2004; fabrication completed 2006. Artstor, library-artstor-org.ezp- prod1.hul.harvard.edu/asset/ASEATTLEIG_10312599207

The work consists of a naturally fallen western hemlock tree that the artist has placed into a small, enclosed vivarium that has been constructed specifically for the piece. The vivarium consists of a climate-controlled environment that is made from glass, concrete, and steel among other materials and attempts to recreate the natural environment found around the fallen tree in

the forest. Visitors are given magnifying glasses to observe the growing ecosystem on the preserved ecosystem. (Erickson 59)

Mark Dion himself stated in an interview with Art21 that, “It is a memento mori—an appreciation of decay as a process and as a tool for discourse.” This notion gets to the core of why this piece becomes such a good example of the three aspects of the Contemporary that Terry

Smith discusses. Dion is on the surface engaging with the notion of the immediate by addressing ideas of climate change, humanities effects on nature, and ecological collapse/preservation. All these ideas are, whether one admits it or not, immediate concerns to the public at large and part of the larger discourse Dion mentions. The contemporaneous spirit of this work is in the use of multiple forms and styles that intersect with technology in a way that blurs the boundaries between the two. The science experiment of keeping the tree in a semi-living state is pushed up against its sculptural and installation art aspects. The ability to use decay in an artificial environment as an artistic process and a conceptual mode is integral to this work. The cotemporal nature is wrapped up in the concept of the “memento mori.” By emphasizing the decay of the tree and reminding the viewer of their own mortality this work highlights a varying array of concepts of time. The ecological time of the tree, the human time of the viewer, the progress of science to create a space where this is possible, and individual concepts of time among others. This work exists as an illustration of a truly Contemporary piece.

Discussion about what Contemporary Art is in the academic sense are enlightening as to how museums think about the subject internally, but this is only a part of the equation. One of the other major factors must be the audience. A museum is nothing more than an expensive storage facility if the public cannot observe its collections. To truly fulfill the stated missions of the museums an understanding and engagement with how their audiences interact with their art

on display is essential. As this research has looked at how Contemporary Art is thought about conceptually and more broadly, it is beneficial to apply the same lenses to how a general audience is seen to perceive Contemporary Art.

Contemporary Art and Audiences

Contemporary Art like any visual culture relies on having an audience to perceive it for it to reach its full potential. Whether this audience is a broad global audience, or a niche community, the ideas being contained within the work of art only find purpose when engaged with by an audience of some sort. An important aspect then of thinking about Contemporary Art is how the art is perceived by its audience and who this audience is intended to be. Many of the museums today are explicit in their attempts to reach an audience and engage with them but find themselves a little more nebulous when it comes to defining that audience. The mission statements of a museum are a good place to see this play out.

All three of the museums studied in this capstone project make some mention of an audience or allude to a viewer to be engaged with. The MFA states at the beginning of their mission statement that they attempt, “to serve a wide variety of people through direct encounters with works of art” and continue on later in the statement to say, “The Museum has obligations to the people of Boston and New England, across the nation and abroad. It celebrates diverse cultures and welcomes new and broader constituencies.” (“Mission Statement”) The ICA on the other hand has a more concise mission statement and therefore a more ambiguous mention of an audience, the ICA proclaims, “The Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston strives to share the pleasures of reflection, inspiration, provocation, and imagination that Contemporary Art offers through public access to art, artists, and the creative process.” (“Strategic Plan”) And finally the

ISG states plainly, “to engage local and global audiences in a sanctuary of beauty and the arts

where deeply personal and communal adventures unfold.” (“Mission Statement & Board of

Trustees”) What all of these have in common is an attempt to establish and perhaps center an audience that will be engaging with these works of art.

At the outset, the museum must grapple with the question that often beleaguers

Contemporary Art, “is this art?” An audience’s initial reaction to whether a work of any medium is in fact art is a very real problem for museum exhibition designers and curators. In 2014

Martin Trondle, Volker Kirchberg, and Wolfgang Tschacher conducted a study that addressed this very question. They created a questionnaire to interrogate the audience reactions to a piece by Neyko Solakov in the St. Gallen Fine Arts Museum. The work in question is entitled “A

Label Level, 2009” and consists of the artist using markers to tag the walls of the museum with small messages and insights, with no didactic materials to distinguish them as works of art let alone a cohesive work. Visitors were asked a series of biographical and background questions and then to decide whether the work was art or not. The study concluded that:

To sum up, we may state that, besides age, the preference for art forms and the

expectations towards the museum visit in general, and more specifically the artwork itself

(content/ topic; technique; composition; beauty), its art historical importance, its

placement and presentation, as well as the emotional response instigated in the beholder,

are the driving factors for the judgement of museum visitors. These are the essential

factors that implicitly influence the museum visitors’ opinion as to whether something

should be considered art or not. It is noteworthy that the prior informing of visitors

(informed/not-informed) had no influence on the evaluation of ‘A Label Level, 2009’ as

art or non-art. Surprisingly, this pedagogic instruction even had a negative influence on

experiencing the artwork. (Trondle et al. 328)

This study while pertaining to a particular piece can be extrapolated to draw some conclusions about the power the museum holds with regards to establishing the important first step as to whether or not a viewer will regard something as art or not.

The biggest conclusion to draw from the study is that the museum has immense resources in its power to set the viewer up for success when it comes to interacting with Contemporary Art.

The placement and presentation being of utmost important as well as the emotional connection to the piece are just two factors that should be considered when a museum is curating and designing an exhibit. In his article in Collecting the New, Howard N Fox curator of Contemporary Art at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art sites an American Association of Museums study from

2001 that finds that museums are trusted sources of objective information by the public at large

(Fox 16). While this may seem like a blessing for the museum, to be trusted as a source of objective knowledge, this also puts a great amount of pressure on the museum to live up to this notion. This is also complicated when it comes to Contemporary Art, how are they to present art that is not cemented in a historical narrative yet, art that is itself questioning the very nature of objective truths and historicity, these questions must be accounted for when putting on

Contemporary Art exhibits.

Considering the audience for Contemporary Art becomes of the utmost importance for museums because of these factors. The mission statements reinforce the audience in the mind of the museum and the audience in turn looks to the museum for certain indicators or clues to help better understand the works on display. Mentioned in some of the mission statements in one form or another is the need to reach an increasingly diverse audience. Museums historically have had a difficult time representing a diverse, global history of art, let alone Contemporary Art which is wholly concerned with notions of diversity and global exchange, part of the contemporaneous of

Contemporary. In her book Curatorial Activism Maura Reilly as mentioned earlier in the introduction outlines ways in which art museums can address this. In this work she mentions specifically a way to attack contemporary notions head on. She states “with careful juxtaposition of works, then, curators are able to draw attention to important differences in the artist’ treatment of similar themes. In so doing, they offer a fresh and expanded definition of artistic production for a transnational age” (Reilly 31). This passage begins to explain how the museum can highlight differences in a way that emphasizes a shared sense of community without diminishing the fact that differences do exist. There is no need to point to a shared sense of self which often has the implication that the shared sense is a western sensibility, instead the museum can point out how beautifully diverse cultures can be and at the same time pull apart at the very notion of a shared western ideal. With notions of contemporary global exchange taken up by Reilly and others, there are still other ideas to address.

One such idea is the cotemporal that has been mentioned before, the focus on different concepts of time, this too has implications for a diversity of audience. One way to enter this discourse is to take a brief look at feminist art and how it pertains to Contemporary Art. It can often be easy for museums to relegate feminist art to a period in the 60’s and 70’s when it came into popular conception as a mode of art production in its own right, this though has the problem of historicizing it and confining it to the past. In an article Rachel Haynes and Courtney Pederson state, ““Feminist art” can become a historicizing category, a genre or period; framed as a singular movement locked into a fixed historical moment, rather than a dynamic set of strategies that are still potentially highly productive. This highlights the tension between archiving and valorizing feminist artwork of previous generations on the one hand and continuing the ongoing feminist work that is still required today” (204). This quote gets to the nature of the problem with

presenting feminist art, and Contemporary Art at large, regarding creating historical contexts in museum exhibition. In addressing this notion scholar Giovanna Zapperi in her paper Woman’s

Reappearance: Rethinking the Archive in Contemporary Art—Feminist Perspectives describes how a feminist temporality can be seen in contemporary feminist art. Feminist art by engaging with the past and the present, reimagining and shifting both, creates a new anachronical history, by refusing to belong to either the suspension of time allows for history to be told while still leaving room for the work that needs to be done (26). Zapperi through her papers and the examples she provides goes on to assert that this notion of feminist temporality undergirds all of feminist art, and more broadly is an integral part of what makes up Contemporary Art today. By focusing on this notion, the museum can better represent women and feminist art without the need to put on “feminist exhibitions” as such and run the risk of tokenizing women who create art.

This notion of rethinking temporal relations regarding Contemporary Art applies to audience reception in the way that the museum uses its position and opportunities to create context around Contemporary Art. If the audience is looking for the museum to be a sort of authority figure on what is Contemporary Art than as has been shown by these two small examples it must represent what undergirds Contemporary Art itself. The global and the feminist are but two of these aspects that are integral to Contemporary Art as defined by Terry Smith and how it is being viewed in this project. By approaching Contemporary Art in this manner, the audience will broaden and become more diverse as more diverse modes of thinking and art making are represented.

Now that what Contemporary Art is, and how a general audience perceives it have been analyzed by this research, it is important to turn to how these ideas manifest within an exhibition.

To do this the nature of designing a museum exhibit is important to discuss. The way a museum exhibition is created will give this research insight into how museums think about their own collections, as well as how to integrate the ideas about Contemporary Art that have been discussed thus far.

Fundamentals of Exhibition Design

This brief survey of exhibit design will help to answer the questions of how museums integrate different modes of interpretation into their collections and provide a foundation for what is analyzed in each of the three museums. The exhibition of Contemporary Art is the common denominator between all these museums, while two are collecting museums, the ISG is not, thus the exhibits become a strong point of comparison. An introduction to the fundamentals of exhibit design is then a necessary stop on the way to better analyzing these museums.

Exhibitions exist as a core function of any museum. To display the collections of art and artifacts to the public is paramount to achieving the stated goals of almost any museum’s mission statement. The exhibition functions of art museums also often go beyond just simply fulfilling a social contract with the community at large, they become a vital way for the museum to communicate its values and ideals to the public as well. Often within a museum setting the main goals for the institution are the collecting and preservation of works of art, and the research opportunities that these activities provide. The museum exhibit can then be a synthesis of these three values and present them to the public. The work that goes into putting on an exhibit, whether permanent or rotating (though this research sticks to rotating exhibits), is a cross section of all the cumulative work that occurs in any given art museum. (Lord and Piacente 7-11)

The first steps along the way to creating an art museum exhibit are research and content development. As most museums have become business-oriented institutions, the origins of an exhibit can be driven by two factors, or more commonly a combination of both. The first is more research-based ideas, an exhibition that arises from within the museum and in response to its own collections as well as curatorial staff interests (Lord and Piacente 23). The second is a market-based origin, an external origin that arises from current public trends and observing the interests of the community (Lord and Piacente 24). The art museum world often finds itself at a crossroads of both purposes, designing exhibits that satisfy a monetary market-driven interest while maintaining a sense of academic integrity and loyalty to the collection. This paper will not delve into which, or if, one style is more beneficial than the other, rather it is beneficial to note that it is in the mind of the exhibition designers when they are making choices of what to display.

Once a direction is chosen, the task is then to plan and execute the exhibition to the best of the museum’s ability. This begins with the research phase of exhibition design. As most museums function on a long timescale, the planning and research for exhibitions is often done far ahead of the time to when it should be installed. This calls for both a research policy, and research plan for the museum. The curators often have the task of coming up with ideas and doing more general research topics, while the specifics are relegated to others as the plans move forward. The research policy that they follow is simply the written down arrangement of how these rolls play out and the financial and personnel arrangements that are to be used to best achieve the museums goals. (Lord and Piacente 24-26)

As soon as the research and content development are under way the next phase involves starting the design process. The design process includes lighting design, interior design, graphic design, and multimedia design. Much like the research phase these tasks in a larger museum are

often handled by their own departments but under the purview of the head of the curatorial department or whoever is nominally in charge of the exhibit. The general iterative process is to design a concept for the space, further detail the design into schematics, and then finalize the drawing into buildable schematics. For an art museum these can often be complicated by works of art that are either large or unwieldy or made from difficult to display materials. (Lord and

Piacente 293-296)

Within the walls of a museum and without, this type of intensive planning and design work is crucial to being aware of how the final exhibition will interact and be interpreted by the public. As stated by one of the world’s leading museum planners Barry Lord, “to understand the museum exhibition, therefore, it is necessary to see it not merely as a core function of museums, but also as a powerful means of communication with the museum’s public. Just as with any other communications medium, we need to appreciate the specific type of communication that is unique to museums exhibitions” (10). In figure two below an illustration of the general types of communication according to Lord can be shown.

Figure 2: Lord, Barry, and Maria Piacente. Manual of Museum Exhibitions, 2nd ed., Rowman &

Littlefield, 2014

This table illustrates a broader concept of visitor apprehension, with the art museum relegated

(with a note that it is not limited to) to the notion of aesthetic contemplation. With art museum exhibits for Contemporary Art, it is interesting to note how all these other functions can be integrated into a design. Exhibits are often thematically linked presentations of a wide variety of artists working in various mediums, this becomes a comprehensive communication. Some artists work with the museum itself, and curation in general, as a medium such as the RISD Raid the Ice 24

Box series (Putnam 18). This type of specimen analysis can be linked to the discovery mode of communication. Interaction and Participatory communication can also become vital to

Contemporary Art collections. Some works of art May ask for viewers to stand in specific places or write on slips of paper, performance art often call for live participatory communication, both of these aspects of Contemporary Art fall under the final two styles of communication according to Lord (Lord and Piacente 16-18).

This notion of pure aesthetic apprehension on the part of the visitor as opposed to a more learning-oriented version is not new to the museum studies discourse. Two early American museum scholars, John Cotton Dana and Benjamin Ives Gilman were having much this same conversation early in beginning of the twentieth century. Gilman argued that art museums existed in contrast to other types of museums and should be focused solely on allowing visitors to have access to beauty and transcendental types of aesthetic apprehension (Gilman 7). On the other side was Dana, an advocate for making learning and community engagement an integral part of the art museum experience, the purpose of museums was not solely the aesthetic experience but to engage and educate museumgoers as to how art functions in their day to day lives (Dana 230).

While the art museums of the world continued to develop, they also developed alongside the galleries that often-favored Contemporary Art. These galleries began to adopt the purer aesthetic mode of appreciation, the “art for art’s sake” model. White bare walls and plenty of space in between the works of art became the norm. According to art historian Carol Duncan:

Nowhere does the triumph of the aesthetic museum reveal itself more dramatically than

in the history of art gallery design. Although fashions in wall colors, ceiling heights,

lighting, and other details have over the years varied with changing museological trends,

installation design has consistently and increasingly sought to isolate objects for the

concentrated gaze of the aesthetic adept and to suppress as irrelevant other meanings the

objects might have. (17)

While this is a more modern trend, it harkens back to an old vision of the museum, the museum as temple. The place where the aura of the work takes over and the voice of the institution is lost.

A place to become closer to a pure aesthetic experience, not a place for learning.

Much of the tension that exists in Contemporary Art exhibition design arises from these ideas. The ideas present, both conceptual and practical, in Contemporary Art are often at odds with this purely aesthetic notion. The notions discussed early of the immediate concerns and the contemporaneous nature of Contemporary Art strive to engage and educate the viewer. A large portion of Contemporary Art is not meant to be passive viewing. Contemporary Art is often confrontational and thought-provoking and should be treated as such in the design of their exhibitions. This is not to say that art of the past do not carry their own messages, this is only to say that if Contemporary Art has this nature as a defining characteristic, a unifying characteristic, then it should be present in the design ideas of the museums that it inhabits.

The Museum of Fine Arts Boston

The first institution that will be examined by this capstone is an old and stalwart museum in the Boston area, the Museum of Fine Arts Boston. While the history of the MFA is long and complex there are a few important points to make that pertain directly to the question of how and why they collect Contemporary Art. The first that will become apparent quite quickly is the long history of collecting Asian, and in particular Japanese art within the MFA. According to the

MFA website that introduces its collection of Asian art, “the MFA houses the finest collection of

Japanese art outside Japan” (“Art of Asia”). Mainly the result of the efforts of Edward Sylvester

Morse, Ernest Fenollosa, and William Sturgis Bigelow in the nineteenth century, the collection arose out of their personal collections amassed on travel both alone and together. Early on in their collection they discussed the idea of the MFA being the eventual home of their items and in

1890, through gift and purchase, the MFA acquired their works and made a new wing to house them. This historically significant collection has become a huge draw for the MFA over the years and will relate directly to the discussion of Contemporary Art (Rogers 10).

The Contemporary Art collection at the MFA has a history dating back to the 1970s but since 1992 it has taken on a new significance toward collecting art that has been created since

1955. Containing more than 1,500 works of all media and types, including performance art archives, the collection of the MFA is set up in an encyclopedic style in keeping with the collecting tradition of the rest of the MFA. The main collection of the MFA is housed in the

Linde Family wing and changes frequently, it is split into dedicated locations for craft and decorative arts, film and new media, a large-scale installation wing, and a gallery for special exhibitions in Contemporary Art. (“Contemporary Art”)

The MFA uses its universal survey style to attempt to historicize the Contemporary Art in its collection by also placing Contemporary pieces alongside the museums works of various cultural provenance. In figure three we see a display of works by the artist Nishida Jun, a

Japanese Contemporary Artist who worked with ceramics.

Figure 3: Gallery View, Nishida Jun. MacLeod, Philip. Photograph of Nishida Jun Gallery at the

MFA Boston. 15 November 2020. Authors Personal Collection.

This work is placed at the end of a second-floor wing in the MFA and acts as a transitional space into a wing that houses rotating Contemporary Art exhibits. As illustrated in the map shown in figure four this space acts as a liminal buffer between the stone sculptures of the Asian past, and the Contemporary Art of today.

Figure 4: Annotated Map of MFA. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Map. Museum of Fine Arts

Boston, https://d1nn9x4fgzyvn4.cloudfront.net/2020-11/mfa-map_2020-12.pdf . Accessed on 15

December 2020. Annotated by Philip Aubrey MacLeod.

By positioning this space in such a way, the MFA is leaning on its universal survey style to create direct correlations and a through line from the past to now. This is an example of the MFA making connections with the past with regards to Contemporary Art.

Over the ten-year period that is being analyzed in this capstone, the MFA has had several exhibits of Contemporary Art and has engaged with their permanent collection as well. A number of these exhibits have directly and indirectly addressed the museums previously mentioned history with Asian art. One great example of this concept but into exhibition practice was the show Takashi Murakami: Lineage of Eccentrics A Collaboration with Nobuo Tsuji and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. The MFA PR description of the exhibit reads as follows:

Contemporary works by Takashi Murakami, one of the most imaginative and important

artists working today, are juxtaposed with treasures from the MFA’s renowned collection

of Japanese art. The exhibition reveals how Murakami’s contemporary vision is richly

inflected by a dynamic conversation with the historical past, framed by a creative

dialogue with the great Japanese art historian, Professor Nobuo Tsuji. Together,

Murakami and Professor Tsuji have chosen the objects on view in the exhibition,

including paintings and sculpture created by the artist in direct response to Japanese

masterpieces from the MFA’s collection, such as Soga Shōhaku’s 35-foot-long Dragon

and Clouds (1763) and Minister Kibi’s Adventures in China (12th century). (“Takashi

Murakami)

The exhibit is a kind of retrospective of Murakami’s career as an artist. An artist working within and beyond the scope of Pop Art, he has often cited the book Lineage of Eccentrics (1970) as a source of inspiration and a guide to how he interacts with historical narratives (Morse 23). The exhibition functions as a longform visual conversation between the three parties, the artists, and

the scholars. This historical conversation ties directly into the cotemporal notion of

Contemporary Art and does so in a way that benefits both the art and the institution. With an artist so openly dedicated to studying the past and bringing it to the Contemporary moment, this sort of historicizing works in a positive light. Murakami himself in the exhibitions artist statement says, “I have been studying Japanese postwar culture, including anime and manga, as well as earlier Japanese art . . . I have been contemplating how such a bizarre and eccentric artistic ecosystem came to be, and exploring its relationship to the present” (Morse 20) These notions of past and present and integral to how the MFA functions in its collecting of

Contemporary Art.

Another example of this attachment to the past in action can be found in the exhibit titled

Fresh Ink: Ten Takes on Chinese Tradition. The exhibition is the culmination of an artist in residence program where the MFA selected artists to come and study historically significant

Chinese works in their collections and offer interpretations of these works in the artists own

Contemporary style (“Fresh Ink: Ten Takes on Chinese Tradition”). This is a direct predecessor to the style of exhibition seen in the Murakami exhibit, although seven years prior. The commitment on the part of the MFA to continue to connect Contemporary Art to their historic collections finds its way into almost all aspects of the exhibition process. The exhibition catalog for this endeavor continually uses words like “engaging,” “direct response,” “dialogue,” and other notions of conversations and investigations (Sheng 11-13).

Historical conversations regarding the nature of art were also combined with more broad ideas of how people engage with art, this adds another layer to the complexity of the exhibition.

Again, according to the exhibition catalog, the MFA took a bold step into what it dubs “the speculative,” instead of selecting works to be in conversation with their collection they had

works commissioned specifically for this exhibition “after a lengthy process of contemplation and observation” (Sheng 15). This exhibition positions the museum as the nexus of the conversation between past and present, the old meets the new and gives birth to the present.

Though by no means a radical position, in fact, it harkens back to older iterations of the art museum as places to study “the great masters,” this aspect of the exhibition turns a critical eye on the MFA’s own historicizing nature. This is a time-honored tradition in museums, it can be seen in many universal survey style museums today with students drawing in its halls, but ultimately does not serve the Contemporary moment as well by tying it too directly to the past, and losing the immediacy that is so crucial to Contemporary Art.

Keeping in line with the theme of MFA exhibitions drawing on the institutions history of having an impressive collection of Asian art and relating it to Contemporary Art practices is the exhibition In the Wake: Japanese Photographers Respond to 3/11. This exhibition in the spring/summer of 2015 showcased contemporary Japanese photographers working in various styles within the medium responding to the horrific nuclear disaster and earthquake at

Fukushima on March 11, 2011 (“In the Wake”). The exhibition catalog produced in conjunction with the exhibit contains the photographs displayed alongside the artist’s own words. In the

Director’s Foreword Malcom Rogers, the then Ann and Graham Gund Director of the MFA, states, “drawing on the MFA’s long engagement with the art of Japan and with the medium of photography, In the Wake invites viewers and readers to experience the power of art to record and reflect on historic events by creating images that express emotions beyond words” (Morse et al 7). This notion has the effect of historicizing an immediate and ongoing disaster and relegating it to the recent past. In contrast to this notion the exhibition catalog goes on to emphasize in the prologue, written in collaboration by William and Helen Pounds Senior Curator of Japanese Art

Anne Nishimura Morse and Estrellita and Yousuf Karsh Chair in the department of Photography

Anne Havinga, that the photographers and the medium of photography in general were chosen to capture the immediacy of the moment and to highlight larger conceptual issues related to the disaster (Morse and Havinga 12). This tension between adhering to the historical precedents set by the MFA’s universal survey style and collecting practices and its desire to remain relevant in a contemporary world was not lost on some. In an issue of the Winnipeg arts and culture magazine Border Crossings, critic Kyo Maclear notes:

It is not that the other works are lacking on their own terms. But the overall atmosphere

of refinement and restraint (while offering a reflective contrast to the storm of news

images that surrounded 3/11) feels a bit too smooth and uniform. I cannot shake the

feeling that many of the images risk being absorbed within the decorative and decorous

visual grammar pervading the rest of the museum's collection of Japanese art. (A

reminder that what might possess potency when encountered individually is sometimes

blunted en masse.) The risk of showing art with such a lovely, high technical finish is that

it places what is already geographically and digestibly distant in an even more remote

frame-verging on what the historian Edward T Linenthal has termed the "comfortable

horrible." (92)

This tension functions, as Maclear points out so astutely, often to undercut the immediate and contemporaneous notion of Contemporary Art within the MFA.

In contrast to the heavily Asian art collection inspired exhibitions of Contemporary Art mentioned up until this point, the MFA has also striven to represent broader movements in the world of Contemporary Art. One such exhibition put on by the MFA was Crafted: Objects in

Flux. The exhibit in the words of the MFA, “explores this moment of “flux” in the field, focusing

on contemporary craft-based artists who bridge cutting-edge concepts and traditional skills as they embrace and explore the increasingly blurred boundaries between art, craft, and design”

(“Crafted: Objects in Flux”). The exhibition catalog created alongside this exhibit continues to emphasize this point, the Contemporary nature of the process, materials, and practice of craft arts. The catalog uses the vast array of artists working in many varied styles to drive home the point that these objects are tools for conceptual and referential frameworks that bridge boundaries of art, design, and craft (Zilber 15). This notion of “blurring boundaries” is even picked up on in a Boston Magazine notice for the premiere of the exhibition (“Best of the Day”).

The exhibition catalog continues to go over the works on display and provide insight into the artists practices. It takes care to position each artist within a conceptual model, a living practice, and sometimes a historical context, with all three of these modes of analysis working in conjunction. The effect, when viewed with the exhibit at the MFA, has an outcome of capturing the three notions of the Contemporary better than any of the exhibits mentioned thus far. It could be seen as an outlier in the MFA practice, but it should also be seen as an example to follow.

The Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston

The ICA in Boston has a history dating back to 1936 when the museum began as the

Boston Museum of Modern Art, a then sister institution to the MoMA in New York City. In

1948 when it discontinued its relationship with the New York MoMA it changed its name to the

Institute of Contemporary Art and began the life that we know of the institution today. Originally located in Boston’s Back Bay neighborhood it moved to its current location in 2006 with a new building built by architects Diller Scofidio + Renfro. With the advent of the new Building the

ICA also established its own collecting program. Throughout the 75 years of its life the ICA has attempted to bring new and exciting artists and the work they make to the Boston area and attract

a global and local audience. Through exhibitions and public programming, the ICA has attempted to broaden the reach of Contemporary Art. (“The Institute of Contemporary

Art/Boston History”)

Over the course of the time reviewed in this research, the ICA has put on many exhibition and changed its permanent collection on display to reflect changing times and ideas. The ICA has two main modes of exhibition style for the large rotating exhibits it puts on. The first is a survey of a particular style or idea. These include exhibitions like Art in the Age of the Internet:

1989 to Today and When Home Won’t Let You Stay: Migration Through Contemporary Art. The other style is a focus on a singular artists either in a career retrospective or choosing to look at a particular theme in their work, or perhaps both. By looking at how both types of exhibitions play into the notions of what is Contemporary Art it becomes apparent how the ICA through a more focused attitude serves and molds the art it displays.

Art in the Age of the Internet: 1989 to Today was the first comprehensive institutional exhibition in the United States the strove to address the vast array or artworks across generations and styles and create a survey of how the advent of the internet has affected art making today

(Respini 11). With a globally diverse and intergenerational range of artists the exhibition, and its subsequent catalog, attempt to not only address how art has been created around and within the confines of the internet but also how the internet has changed how people perceive works created in other mediums (Respini 11). The exhibition catalog as well as the show is divided into sections that tackle different aspects of art and the internet. The grand aim of the program is broken down into manageable chunks and each is given its due. The language on display is one of change and immediacy working in tandem, like the definition of Contemporary Art that has been outlined in this research earlier.

One such example is in a section on moving to the “post-internet” or art that is created during a time that people are expected to be internet-aware more readily. In this section towards the end the author, Omar Kholeif a writer, curator, and cultural historian, Kholeif says of “post- internet” art, “a history that is still being authored, and which, in this age of expediency, requires constant revision and appraisal. (Respini 104). Another reviewer, Jessica Citronberg of Boston

Magazine, observes, “this is not a binary distinction of good and bad. The show aims to show the varied views of our relationship with technology and how artists have explored those ideas through diverse mediums since 1989.” What both Respini and Citronberg are trying to illuminate is the constantly changing identities, ideas, and questions that arise when working with a medium and subject that is in a constant state of fluidity. This language of flux and change is present throughout the catalog and finds itself quickly as a thematic element in the exhibition.

What can work conceptually for the institution can often sometimes be lost on the public and quickly work to the detriment of the show. This attitude of change and an exhibition that poses questions, many times open-ended, can be seen as relying too much on the transient nature of its subject. As Cadence Kinsey, a critic for The Sculpture Journal in London put it, “However, while the artworks included in the exhibition and the catalogue have much to say about urgent topics such as surveillance or the representations of race (as well as the intersections between the two), what any of this means for thinking about art – what it is, how it is exhibited, and what its critical function might be – remains an open question or, as Jones puts it in the subtitle of her essay, an ‘enduring promise’ (111).” This “enduring promise” or “open-ended” question might prove interesting and valuable to academics and art-historians, but it might also have the effect of seeming too nebulous for the public at large. This exhibition approaches a convenient

synthesized version of Contemporary Art as defined by this research, but it does not stick the landing, it tries to do too much.

When Home Won’t Let You Stay: Migration through Contemporary Art has a similar structure to Art in the Age of the Internet. An exhibition organized around a thematic issue that is relevant to the world today. Combining works by twenty artists made since the year 2000, the exhibition strives to explore how Contemporary Art is responding to today’s crises or migration, displacement, and immigration (“When Home Won’t Let You Stay”). The exhibition as well as the catalog is divided into sections about each artist and how they have chosen to respond to the crises presented to them by the world today regarding migration. The language throughout the catalog as it describes the works, follows a similar pattern. It addresses the immediate concerns of the artists, the contemporaneous nature of their work, and often how they work more generally. These notions do a good job of defining the art in the context of the Contemporary, but it seems to lack a sense of communication with past.

While it could be seen as taking a similar curatorial trajectory as the Art in the Age of the

Internet exhibition, by its design it actually wraps the more elusive nature of the works back around into the cotemporal aspect of the Contemporary. By purposefully allowing these different stories to comingle in the space and compare how different cultures and circumstances have distinct concepts of time it allows the audience to think about their own place in space and time.

By contrasting these concepts of time and allowing for the audience to reflect on their own the exhibition brings a needed breath of life to a subject that can on the surface appear to viewers as a commonly understood albeit tragic problem. Pamela Reynolds reporting for WBUR says, “Not only does this present a challenge in presenting a fresh perspective, but there is also the question of what a museum can tell us about a subject that we read and hear about daily . . . From the

perspective of artists included in the exhibition, it seems that state of not knowing may continue, long after a migrant has reached his or her final destination” (Reynolds). Whereas in the Art in the Age of the Internet exhibition there were too many open-ended questions posed, here the same aspect forces the audience to see ongoing stories rather than closed narratives, which in turn invites them to reflect on their own continuing stories and their place within a greater context.

The two solo retrospective shows that occurred at the ICA during this time period,

Charles LeDray: workworkworkworkwork and Mark Dion: Misadventures of a 21st-Century

Naturalist both strive to put their respective artists in the context of exemplars of Contemporary

Art. By its nature, the retrospective style of exhibition, does a better job of combining all three aspects found in the art of the Contemporary. Because it is not only acknowledging how these artists have engaged with the issues of today and beyond, but how they have progressed throughout the years and their careers, this style has more of a sense of the cotemporal that the others lack. The Mark Dion exhibit is modeled around different investigative modes of his career and combines older works with a brand-new piece built specifically for this exhibition (“Mark

Dion”). The exhibition catalog combines multiple authors discussing his work as well as conversations with the artist himself. All these aspects bring to the fore the three aspects of the contemporary. They address his immediate concerns with the natural world, his contemporaneous working habits, and his cotemporal discussion with peers and artists past and present. In one of the essays by Ruth Erickson she states very succinctly, “Dion’s maneuvering within institutions and among disciplines has come to define his oeuvre” (20). This simple notion is at the crux of how his work, and a retrospective of it, is a true example of the Contemporary.

Dion moves from style and within different institutional frameworks and the exhibition

highlights these movements. These movements are the immediate and contemporaneous nature of the Contemporary. The cotemporal element is the conversations that are highlighted both by the artist and through the exhibition of his work.

The Charles LeDray exhibition creates a similar atmosphere to the Mark Dion retrospective. From the opening lines of Adam D. Weinberg’s essay in the exhibition catalog we see LeDray’s works placed in the Contemporary context, ‘the works’ evocation and complication of diverse notions of time—from scientific and nostalgic to systematic and entropic—are key to their enduring significance and art historical relevance” (7). This quote immediately places the work of Ledray into a cotemporal, immediate, and contemporaneous context. It shows that the exhibition is looking to solidify his position as an artist of the Contemporary moment. The works in the exhibition are then described and written about in detail within the catalog and each is given context surrounding its nature. The authors describe the materials and process, and ground these in traditions new and old. Another important description of his work is from Jen Mergel’s essay where she states, “LeDray’s work is not the object itself, but our experience of the object— how we approach, discover, and interpret the details he composes” (23). What these insights into

Ledray’s work, which are found throughout the exhibition catalog, have in common is creating the Contemporary context for his work. The work is not the object itself; it is the immediate experience and concerns that he is channeling through the work. The discovery and interpretations are the contemporaneous and cotemporal, the viewer is invited into the grand art historical conversation that is possessed and pushed forward by Contemporary Art.

The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum

As noted previously the ISG is a unique institution when it comes to not only

Contemporary Art but also how they operate in general. With the stipulations left by Mrs.

Gardner in her will, that the collection was not to be moved or changed, the museum had to find new and unique ways to incorporate Contemporary Art. The ISG renovated the grounds and added a new wing to house Contemporary Art among other things. In 2002 the ISG embarked on a plan to expand the museum with an expansion designed by Renzo Piano (“New Meets Old”).

With the new wing and renovations completed the ISG started several programs to incorporate

Contemporary Art into their exhibition practices. According to the ISG website regarding the new space:

Today, we strive to continue Isabella’s legacy of cultivating talent and supporting artists.

The Museum’s New Wing, with its openness and transparency, is a signal of the

institution’s commitment to artistic practices of the present and to welcoming new

audiences. The New Wing’s modern exhibition space and performance hall host a steady

stream of Contemporary Artworks, music, dance, and more. The acclaimed Artist-in-

Residence Program invites artists to live and work at the Museum, taking advantage of

everything the Gardner has to offer, and frequently creating new works in response.

(“Contemporary Creativity”)

This entire program sums up the ISG response to Contemporary Art. They strive to mimic Mrs.

Gardner’s desire to collect and encourage the artists of her time. Through public exhibitions, public art, residency programs, and concerts the ISG has entered a new conversation with its already historical precedents.

While the time frame provided does not provide many traditional exhibition catalogs there are interesting exhibitions to look at. Two of these exhibitions are in conjunction with the

Artist-in-Residence program. The first concerns artist Luisa Lambri an Italian artist working in both film and video. Her stay at the Gardner produced an artist’s book rather than a traditional

exhibition catalog. She used photography of the architecture of the ISG and juxtaposed it with journal entries from the architect William T. Sears (“Luisa Lambri”). The works were also shown as part of an exhibition in the new wing to commemorate it’s opening to the public, with the photographs being changed to reflect the changing of the seasons as it stayed open (“Luisa

Lambri”). This style of engaging in a space while relying on the historic nature of the grounds, does a decent job of combining the three aspects of Contemporary Art. It addresses the artists immediate concerns, works in a minimalist contemporaneous fashion, and has the cotemporal conversation, the ecological timescale of the seasons and the human timescale of inhabiting a place, at its core.

Another artist in residence that produced an artist book as part of their program was multi-disciplinary artist Su-Mei Tse. The artist book Notes was published in conjunction with her residency program but her inclusion in the sound art showcase Listen Hear: The Art of Sound is a fantastic example of how the ISG deals in unique ways with Contemporary Art. The exhibition was in multiple parts of the museum, not limited to the new wing. Because the exhibition was comprised of sound pieces the ISG had the unique opportunity of installing new works in the old wing without breaking any of the guidelines laid out by Mrs. Gardner. While Su-Mei Tse’s work was displayed in the new wing in a very straight forward gallery setting, white walls and minimalist displays. Some of the other works in the exhibition created unique situations in the old wing. Moritz Fehr’s piece Undertone played sounds that evoked the scene present in

Vermeer’s painting Concert, which was famously stolen from the ISG in 1990. Another installation, Lee Mingweis’ Small Conversation transforms the courtyard using small speakers and a soundscape composed of insect sounds and other subtle nature noises. These pieces, and the others involved in the Listen Hear program, in an incredibly unique way invoke the sense of

the Contemporary. They are each concerned with immediate problems, the impermanence of art and nature. Each piece reflects contemporaneous attitudes towards practice and material, sound as art. Finally, because of their use of the Gardner space they have multiple cotemporal conversations existing in them at once. This combination of space and practice creates a totally unique Contemporary experience. (“Listen Hear”)

The Gardner museum by its nature and restrictions influences Contemporary Art that it instills in it some of the qualities found present in Contemporary Art from within itself. What this means is that the almost historical house nature of the ISG creates a sense of contemporality in any art that is on display in there. The other two aspects of the Contemporary are present in the works depending on the artist and the display. Most of the works that end up in the new wing loose some of this magic but retain some of it by proximity. By working within the limitations of the space provided to them the ISG has created a unique environment for the exhibition of

Contemporary Art.

Conclusions and Recommendations

What is plain to see by observing these three museums is that each approach to exhibition has a different effect on how the Contemporary Art is perceived. The MFA creates a historical linear narrative with its collection. The ICA deals with the immediate and contemporaneous concerns of Contemporary Art across a field of diverse artists and critics. The ISG creates a synthesis of these two ideas by combining the historicizing nature of its architecture and design with a focus on working with living Contemporary Artists to use the space to address ideas of the

Contemporary. These simple comparisons provide a lot of insight into how the museum not only functions as a meaning making institution, but also how they can better serve their audience through engaging more fully with Contemporary Art.

The first recommendation that pertains mostly to the MFA is the reevaluation of the universal survey style. While it functions for the MFA as a core value in how it interprets art it undercuts some of the power of Contemporary Art. In his introduction to the MFA catalog on their Contemporary Art collection Edward Saywell says, “encyclopedic collections open

Contemporary Art to encounters with history in ways that can bridge past and present, stretch across geography and cultures, and provide ever-richer insights into the challenges and conditions of life today” (16). While perhaps under ideal circumstances and without audiences bringing their own biases into the museum this might be the case, the weight of history can work against this notion, with Contemporary Art. By historicizing art in this manner, it has the effect of loosing some of its power of the present. This is the immediacy that is mentioned by Terry

Smith and defines one of the aspects of Contemporary Art. An art that is so concerned with the immediate moment, whether it be a social issue or a personal struggle of the artist, does not benefit from being put into a linear historic narrative. This narrative also effects the reach of the global and diverse creators of Contemporary Art. The narrative of the MFA is so heavily reliant on a white euro-centric model that it removes some of the power of the diversity of artists and thought within the Contemporary Art world. By opening its permanent collection to being restructured the MFA could go a long way to improving how it relates to Contemporary Art.

One such way to create a synthesis between the historical narrative and the Contemporary

Art collection without unnecessarily relying on a linear historical narrative is creating connections based around the Terry Smith definition of Contemporary Art. In writing about the

Tate Modern in London Smith states:

The affinities highlighted are usually those between artworks that, unexpectedly and

without regard for actual historical time, seem, to a contemporary observer, to share a

similar mode in their pursuit of a topic, or to pursue a closely related topic in dissimilar

ways. Curators are fascinated by what seems to be a conversation among artworks, one

that they might conduct in our absence. (“What is Contemporary” 60)

By allowing for free-flowing interactions between artworks based more around the defined aspects of the Contemporary connections can be made that do not imply traditional linear historical narratives. For example, a work of art that has immediate ecological concerns like a

Mark Dion piece can be shown in relation to say traditional landscape works. This connection of thematic development does not imply landscape art evolved into current Contemporary installation practices but rather highlights both artists concerns, and how their different concepts of time show up across their works. This type of more free and open display of artworks, outside of the traditional universal survey style can open the MFA to a new and broader understanding of their Contemporary Art collection. This new understanding is not only an internal stance but will translate to the audience as well.

The ideas of the Contemporary are also squarely focused on creating a diverse and socially inclusive conversation. This is represented well in each of the museums commitment to having a diverse range of artists represented in their collections and exhibitions. Each of these museums also supplements their Contemporary Art collections with public facing social programs. The MFA includes a number of community programs that not only interface with their historic collections, but also Contemporary Art practices, one such example is a home school initiative called “Artful Adventures” and in particular one program that examines the new

Basquiat exhibition at the MFA (“Artful Adventures”). The ICA also has many public programs that function in conjunction with their exhibitions, but one ongoing practice of note is the “Art

Lab” project. This consists of a permanent space within the building for art making and classes

that directly put the viewer in connection with Contemporary Art ideas and art making (“Art

Lab”). The ISG has its own collection of community engagement programs, among them open studios focused on art making and interaction, community salons, public works of art, and a history of working with local artists and art spaces (“Community Efforts”). Each of these museums makes a concerted effort to create an atmosphere of social inclusion, and makes it apparent in their publications, but how this shows up in the space is sometimes lost.

The ICA addresses this issue head on by having a diverse and global range of artists represented in their collection, the MFA and the ISG unfortunately have a tougher time reflecting this in their collection. The MFA is often at the mercy of its universal survey style. For instance, the wing of the Americas in the newly built addition includes a basement and three floors. The linear narrative leads them to place the art of the Americas collection in historical collections that has the progression of moving from the past to the more contemporary from the bottom up. This places the museum’s collection of first nations art in the basement section. Much like with the previously mentioned Nishida Jun pieces, a contemporary work placed within the historic contextual collection, the art of the indigenous American’s contains contemporary works that respond to older art and artifacts. This has the perhaps unintended consequence of burying the immediacy of these works in the past, they have lost some of the potent message by unfortunately hiding them in a basement. This type of issue could be rectified again by readdressing the need for the museum to strictly adhere to the universal survey style. The ISG faces a similar issue but by the virtue of being unable to alter their historic collection, they address this in the cast of diverse artists they attempt to bring into the new space.

While all three museums attempt to address social issues in their exhibitions and strive to remain relevant in constantly changing times all of them could do a better job of taking more

proactive stands for the ideas they are representing. The museums tend to try and present ideas and artists intentions as “asking questions.” The failure of the museums comes in the form of trying to retain an air of neutrality. This unfortunately has the effect of undercutting some of the more powerful statements that the artists make with their works. None of the museums seem to do more than what is expected of them when it comes to addressing the issues of the day. This even seeps into how the museums gather funds for some of their projects. The “Art Lab” initiative mentioned earlier for example is funded and presented by Bank of America. By allowing for large corporations to finance inclusion initiatives, corporations that are so very responsible for the problems they want to address, they present as being more concerned with continuing to exist rather than taking a stand. Taking a stand is hard especially in such dire financial times for a museum but it is also more necessary than ever. When you are looking to artists to compel viewers by taking bold stances on today’s issues, the museum should be expected to do the same.

In creating a descriptive rather than a prescriptive definition of the Contemporary in art, museums can better engage with their own collections and collecting practices as well. As now it stands the definition of the contemporary in art is something that is seen as ongoing and almost unending. This has the problem of creating open ended collecting policies when it comes to

Contemporary Art. This can be mitigated by focusing the collections on the Contemporary moment rather than just art made in one’s own time. This focus will than translate to a more holistic approach to exhibition design by having another section of the museum focus on the three aspects of the Contemporary. By figuring out how best to collect this art museums will also put an emphasis on how this art is displayed in a manner that reflects institutional best practices.

What this then supposes is that the museums must not only look to making public programs areas of social inclusion but also the collections they exhibit. By using a more forceful voice in the context and meaning that museums create around Contemporary Art, they can become more adept at being wholly socially inclusive spaces. The task is no small one, and it must ingrain itself in a holistic way into the very fabric of all aspects of the museum. The museums studied here are on their way but often overlook the collections themselves and how they speak when it comes to the message of social inclusion.

This research also recommends that the museums continually practice a sort of self- reflection. Much in the same way that the exhibition planning and research takes the form of a scheduled task, the museum should in the same way have a scheduled review of their

Contemporary Art collections and exhibitions. This review could take the form of public feedback observations, surveys, and conversations within the museum and without. What is most important is that the museum recognize the role it plays in creating meaning in its works of art and how this in turn plays a role in how the public views the works, and lastly this can impact the inclusion measures that museums strive to implement. As the notion of social inclusion becomes more and more important to museums it is now more than ever of the utmost importance to not undercut these efforts with a collection that looks back on the past. With the notions of what

Contemporary Art is as laid out in the beginning of this capstone, and how important this work is to the times the museum finds itself it, it is even more important that these messages are as strong as possible. A museum should constantly look to improve itself and include this is the exhibition design process, and ultimately the very fabric of how the museum operates.

Works Cited

“Art of Asia.” Museum of Fine Arts Boston, https://www.mfa.org/collections/asia. Accessed 20

October 2020.

“Artful Adventures.” Museum of Fine Arts Boston, https://www.mfa.org/event/home-school-

programs/artful-adventures-home-school-writing-the-future-basquiat-and-the-

hip?event=64926. Accessed 20 October 2020.

“Art Lab.” The Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston, https://www.icaboston.org/learning/art-

lab. Accessed 20 October 2020.

“Best of the Day: “Crafted: Objects in Flux” Opens – August 25, 2015.” Boston Magazine,

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/arts-entertainment/2015/08/25/best-of-the-day-crafted-

objects-in-flux-opens-at-mfa/. Accessed 20 October 2020.

Citronberg, Jessica. “Art and the Internet Collide at the ICA’s New Exhibit.”

BostonMagazine.com, https://www.bostonmagazine.com/arts-

entertainment/2018/02/02/art-internet-ica-boston . Accessed on 15 December 2020.

“Community Efforts.” The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum,

https://www.gardnermuseum.org/about/community-efforts. Accessed 20 October 2020.

“Contemporary Art.” Museum of Fine Arts Boston,

https://www.mfa.org/collections/contemporary-art. Accessed 20 October 2020.

“Contemporary Creativity.” The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum,

https://www.gardnermuseum.org/experience/contemporary-art. Accessed 20 October

2020.

“Crafted: Objects in Flux.” The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,

https://www.mfa.org/exhibitions/crafted. Accessed 20 October 2020.

Dana, John Cotton, and William A. Peniston. The New Museum : Selected Writings. Newark

Museum Association ; American Association of Museums, 1999.

Danto, Arthur C. After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History. Princeton

University Press, 1997.

Dion, Mark. Interview with Art21. Art21.com, https://art21.org/read/mark-dion-neukom-

vivarium . Accessed on 15 December 2020.

Doss, Erika. Twentieth-Century American Art. Oxford University Press, 2002.

Duncan, Carol. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. Routledge, 1995.

Erickson, Ruth. Mark Dion: Misadventures of a 21st-Century Naturalist. Yale University Press,

2017.

Fox, Howard N. “The Right to Be Wrong.” Collecting the New: Museums and Contemporary

Art, edited by Bruce Altshuler, Princeton University Press, 2005, 15-27.

“Fresh Ink: Ten Takes on Chinese Tradition.” The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,

https://www.mfa.org/news/press-releases/11-20-2010. Accessed 20 October 2020.

Gilman, Benjamin Ives. Museum Ideals. Riverside Press, 1918.

Greenberg, Clement. “Modernist Painting.” Art & Literature, no. 4, Spring 1965, pp. 193-201.

Haynes, Rachael, and Pedersen, Courtney. “Acting out: Performing Feminisms in the

Contemporary Art Museum.” Journal of Australian Studies, vol. 40, no. 2, 2016, pp.

203–214.

“Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston History.” The Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston,

https://www.icaboston.org/about/history. Accessed 20 October 2020.

“In the Wake.” The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, https://www.mfa.org/exhibitions/in-the-wake.

Accessed 20 October 2020.

Kinsey, Cadence. “Art in the Age of the Internet, 1989 to Today.” The Sculpture Journal, Vol.

29, no. 1, 2020, pp. 109-121.

“Listen Hear: The Art of Sound.” The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum,

https://www.gardnermuseum.org/calendar/exhibition/listen-hear. Accessed 20 October

2020.

Lord, Barry, and Maria Piacente. Manual of Museum Exhibitions. 2nd ed., Rowman & Littlefield,

2014.

“Luisa Lambri.” The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum,

https://www.gardnermuseum.org/experience/contemporary-art/artists/lambri-luisa.

Accessed 20 October 2020.

MacLear, Kyo. “In the Wake: Japanese Photographers Respond to 3/11.” Border Crossings, vol

34, no. 4, 2015, pp. 91.

“Mark Dion: Misadventures of a 21st-Century Naturalist.” The Institute of Contemporary

Art/Boston, https://www.icaboston.org/exhibitions/mark-dion-misadventures-21st-

century-naturalist. Accessed 20 October 2020.

“Mission Statement.” Museum of Fine Arts Boston, https://www.mfa.org/about/mission-

statement. Accessed 20 October 2020.

“Mission Statement and Board of Trustees.” Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum,

https://www.gardnermuseum.org/organization/board-mission. Accessed 20 October 2020.

Morse, Anne Nishimura, and Anne E. Havinga. In the Wake: Japanese Photographers Respond

to 3/11. MFA Publications, 2015.

Morse, Nishimura, editor. Takashi Murakami Lineage of Eccentrics: A Collaboration with

Nobuo Tsuji and The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. MFA Publications, 2018.

Putnam, James. Art and Artifact: The Museum as Medium. 2nd ed., Thames & Hudson, 2009.

Reilly, Maura. Curatorial Activism: Towards an Ethics of Curating. Thames & Hudson, 2018.

Respini, Eva, editor. Art in the Age of the Internet: 1989 to Today. Yale University Press, 2018.

Reynolds, Pamela. “At the ICA, ‘When Home Won’t Let You Stay’ Explores the Migration

Experience.” WBUR.org, https://www.wbur.org/artery/2019/10/17/ica-when-home-wont-

let-you-stay-migration-experience. Accessed 20 October 2020.

Rogers, Malcolm. Introduction. The MFA Handbook: A Guide to the Collections of the Museum

of Fine Arts, Boston, by Gilian Shallcross, 2009, MFA Publications, 2009.

Saywell, Edward, et al. Contemporary Art. First ed., MFA Publications, Museum of Fine Arts,

Boston, 2015.

Sheng, Hao. Fresh Ink: Ten Takes on Chinese Tradition. MFA Publications, 2010.

Smith, Terry. Art to Come: Histories of Contemporary Art. Duke University Press, 2019.

---. What is Contemporary Art?. The University of Chicago Press, 2009.

“Strategic Plan: Radical Welcome.” The Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston,

https://www.icaboston.org/sites/default/files/ICA_StrategicPlan_final.pdf. Accessed 20

October 2020.

“Takashi Murakami.” The Museum of Fine Arts Boston,

https://www.mfa.org/exhibitions/takashi-murakami. Accessed 20 October 2020.

“Terry Smith.” The University of Pittsburgh, https://www.haa.pitt.edu/people/terry-smith.

Accessed 20 October 2020.

Tröndle, Martin, et al. “Is This Art? An Experimental Study on Visitors’ Judgement of

Contemporary Art.” Cultural Sociology, vol. 8, no. 3, 2014, pp. 310–332.

Wall text for Plate: Bismillah, by Wasmaa Chorbachi, The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

Weil, Stephen E. Making Museums Matter. Smithsonian Books, 2002.

Weinberg, Adam D., “Time and Again: The Early Work of Charles LeDray.” Charles LeDray:

workworkworkworkwork, Skira Rizzoli Publications Inc., 2010.

“When Home Won’t Let You Stay.” The Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston,

https://www.icaboston.org/exhibitions/when-home-won%E2%80%99t-let-you-stay-

migration-through-contemporary-art. Accessed 20 October 2020.

Zapperi, Giovanna. “Woman's Reappearance: Rethinking the Archive in Contemporary Art—

Feminist Perspectives.” Feminist Review, vol. 105, no. 105, 2013, pp. 21–47.

Zilber, Emily. Crafted: Objects in Flux. MFA Publications, 2015.