Building the image of modern art : the rhetoric of two museums and the representation and canonization of modern art (1935-1975) : the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam and the Museum of Modern Art in New York Leigh, M.A.
Citation Leigh, M. A. (2008, December 9). Building the image of modern art : the rhetoric of two museums and the representation and canonization of modern art (1935-1975) : the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam and the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/13362
Version: Not Applicable (or Unknown) License: Leiden University Non-exclusive license Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/13362
Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable). Building the Image of Modern Art
The Rhetoric of Two Museums and the Representation and Canonization of Modern Art (1935-1975): The Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam and the Museum of Modern Art in New York
Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van Rector Magnificus prof. mr. P.F. van der Heijden, volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties te verdedigen op dinsdag 9 december 2008 klokke 13.45 uur
door
Mary Anna Leigh geboren te New York in 1958
Promotiecommissie:
Promotores: Prof. dr. C.J.M Zijlmans Prof. dr. C.A. van Eck Referent: Prof. dr. R. Zwijnenberg
Overige leden: Dr. M.R. Bouquet (Universiteit Utrecht) Prof. dr. T. van Haaften
Dit proefschrift kwam mede tot stand met steun van de Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO).
My ABC’s for D, E, F and G’s
Table of Contents
Preface I
Acknowledgments III
Introduction: Museums Build the Image of Modern Art 1
Studying Museums in their Shaping of the History of Modern Art 1 Rhetoric: The Art of Verbal and Visual Persuasion 3 A Comparative Study 5 Rhetoric As Analytical Model 8 Aspects of Rhetoric 9 Invention 10 Arrangement 11 Style 12 Memory 13 Delivery 14 Parameters of Research 14 Using the Rhetorical Approach in Comparing Two Stories of 17 Modern Art: Prize or Price of the Museums’ Rhetoric?
Chapter 1: The Rhetoric of Policymaking: Creating One’s Own Image 19
The Stedelijk Museum’s Goals and Ambitions: ‘a living center of visual art’ 24 The Museum of Modern Art’s Goals and Ambitions: 35 ‘The Greatest Museum of Modern Art in the World’
The Development of an organization: The Stedelijk Museum 45 The Development of an organization: The Museum of Modern Art 49
MoMA’s Publications 57 Books in the Stedelijk 60
Anniversary Exhibitions as prime examples of ethos-building exhibitions 61 Anniversaries in ‘het Stedelijk’ 63 Sandberg’s Grand Finale 68 The Stedelijk’s 75th 76
MoMA’s Anniversaries 84 MoMA’s 15th 91 MoMA’s 25th Master Celebration 94 Anniversaries of a Growing Museum 101
Chapter 2: Modern Matters: Defining and Defending Modern Art 104
The Museum of Modern Art’s ‘Modern’ 107 Exhibitions Defining and Defending Modern Art 111 Didactic Exhibitions Explain the ‘Modern’ 114 The Introductory Series to the Modern Arts 118 The Stedelijk Museum’s ‘Modern’ 129 Stedelijk’s Didactic Exhibitions 134
Modern Art as Part of Modern Living: A Sign of Progress 135 The Museum of Modern Art’s Positioning of Modern Art as Part of Modern Life and Living 136 Modern Design: Sign of the Modern 139 MoMA’s exemplary exhibition of Modern Art as Part of Modern Life 144 The Stedelijk Museum’s Positioning of Modern Art 149 as Part of Modern Life and Living Dutch Modern Interior Design During 152 the War An Exemplary Exhibition of Modern Art 156 in Modern Life in the Stedelijk
Modern Art of All Times, Ages and Cultures: The ‘Modern’ Quality 159 Children’s Art in the Museum of Modern Art 161 Children’s Art in the Stedelijk 164
Ancestors and Affinities: Older, Exotic 167 and Primitive in the Museum of Modern Art An Exemplary Exhibition of Timeless Modern Art 175 in MoMA
The Older, Exotic and ‘Primitive’ in the Stedelijk 177 An Exemplary Exhibition of Timeless Modern Art 179 in the Stedelijk
The Necessity to Define Declines 182
Chapter 3: The Making of Masters, Masterpieces and Movements: 184 the Representation of the History of Modern Art
Structuring the History of Modern Art 186 The Museum of Modern Art’s Historical Series in the Thirties 189 Early Historical Exhibitions in the Stedelijk 205
Historical Theme Exhibitions in the Stedelijk 213 in the Fifties and Sixties Historical Exhibitions in MoMA in the Fifties and Sixties 236
The Founding Fathers of Modern Art and other Classic Modern Masters 245 MoMA’s Founding Father: Cézanne 245 Van Gogh as the Founding Father in the Stedelijk 250
Monet as New Ancestor in the Stedelijk? 255 Monet’s Position in MoMA 256
Chapter 4: Adding the Contemporary to the Modern Canon: 260 the Positioning and Promoting of the Living Artist
Presenting Contemporary Heroes 262 Institutionalizing Pollock in the Museum of Modern Art 262 The Icon Appel in the Stedelijk 270
‘Inter’national Shows of New Art 275 The New American Painting Show: MoMA’s Claim to Fame 276 Sandberg’s nederlands bijdrage Show 286
The Artist’s Experiment 298 Controlled Experiment in MoMA 301 The Stedelijk’s Experimental Exhibitions 307 The Stedelijk’s Survey Show of Conceptual Artists 319 MoMA’s Experimental and Conceptual Art Shows 325
Conclusions and Outlook: The Prize and Price of Rhetoric 342
Bibliography 354
Biography 381
Samenvatting (Summary) 382
VOLUME II: List of Illustrations and Illustrations
Preface
The idea for this thesis was planted many years ago. Fascinated by the concept of a constructed art history and drawn to the powerful and intriguing museum phenomenon, I sought to understand and expose what stories museums of modern art told, why they told them and how they told them. From my background in economics, I had learned to view museums as sites of production, distribution and reception of art; institutions in which the meaning and value of art were produced and communicated. The difficulties and possibilities museums of modern art faced in these processes seemed all the more interesting and relevant, since there was so much controversy and uncertainty about matters concerning modern art. Furthermore, the economic, social and political conditions of these museums as organizations in society seemed to influence their courses. During my studies of art history - in which I specialized in modern art - I had delved into the creation of a modern movement and discovered the important role museums had in determining its success. In order to narrow down the subject, two museums of modern art from different countries (with different economic, social and political conditions) were selected. Countries which I knew well, being an American living in the Netherlands. This selection did not only limit my material, it also optimized my research by providing for a fruitful comparison: the selected museums – the Stedelijk Museum and the Museum of Modern Art - were the pioneers of modern art and they respected and influenced each other. Working through the various materials from the two Museums was an absorbing experience. I encountered an immense collection of documents and it became clear that it would not be possible to present all the Museums’ portrayals of modern art history. Besides, to retell the Museums’ stories in a historiography of the museums would not answer the questions concerning the why and how. To gain insight into the processes of meaning making through which the Museums as authorities presented their histories, rhetoric seemed to provide useful analytical tools. What is more, the wealth and beauty of the publications and exhibitions themselves made me want to expose these rich resources: to scrutinize these persuasive presentations in detail in search of how they were constructed. My approach departing from rhetoric thus grew from the material itself.
I
Rhetoric has opened a whole new exciting terrain and I am only beginning to cultivate the possibilities it has for studying the communicative role of museums in society. This book therefore should not be seen as a blooming bouquet of my research on the subject, but as the first blossoming flower.
II Acknowledgements
For the most part this dissertation was written in my spare time, next to teaching and raising a family. Although this did not leave much time for research, my teaching on subjects concerning art and museums in society did bring me into contact with many creative men and women in the field, who have fertilized my ideas on presentations of museums over the years. Needless to say, it would be impossible to thank them all personally here, but I am grateful for their inspiration. Doing research on the presentations of two Museums has meant spending many intense, exciting hours in their libraries and archives. I would like to thank Michelle Elligott and Michelle Harvey at the Museum of Modern Art Archives for their patience and assistance during my visits over the years. At the Stedelijk Museum Archives, I received a lot of help and support from Margreeth Soeting and Maurice Rummens, and recently from the librarian Michiel Nijhoff, for which I am very thankful. During the many years it took to write this book, there were periods of complete drought for my research: periods in which others needed to be nurtured. This accepting, and dealing with, responsibilities as they appeared, has taught me a lot. Thanks to the support of colleagues and the love and care of my family and many dear friends, I was always able to revitalize my endeavours and finally complete this book. I would particularly like to thank my mother and my father; my sister Kathy and brother-in-law Rick; and my friends Corry Donner and Jan Jacobs. A few people need special mentioning here and cannot be thanked enough. Without Marlein van Raalte this dissertation would not have been completed. Her friendship, moral support and actual help in reading and commenting on the text, has kept me going. I am greatly indebted to her. But most of all I want to thank my husband Fred and my children David and Emma for their continual loving support and for putting this project in the right perspective.
III
IV Introduction: Museums Build the Image of Modern Art
The history of modern art is a story created by various actors in the world of art. Artists, collectors, dealers, critics, galleries, international exhibitions and museums contributed to this construction. At different times in history, different players have been more or less decisive. During a large part of the 20th century, museums of modern art played a crucial role in determining the course of art history. As authoritative institutions they have shaped art history through their representation and canonization of modern art. These contributions were not only determined by what the museums collected (and of course by what they did not collect), but especially by how the collections were presented in semi-permanent presentations and temporary (and loan) exhibitions, and by their various publications. That museums have played a vital role seems to be generally acknowledged, but as to how and what they have contributed many questions still remain. To gain greater insight into the process of representation and canonization, this study focuses on the rhetorical aspects of this process. Modern art museums build the image of modern art: they provide the public with a visual and verbal story of modern art. This story is constructed by both conscious and unconscious effort on the part of the museum. Most often a museum consciously chooses its course of actions when outlining its policies, building its collections, and presenting the artworks in its exhibitions, but sometimes effects are created by unconscious actions on the part of the museums. Choices of content and form within museums sometimes follow traditional expectations. One can argue that every message a museum sends out – consciously or unconsciously – is part of the picture the museum creates. The form of a presentation, the linguistic means in a museum publication or other modes in which the museum’s story is communicated, are as much part of that message as is the content. It is important that a museum is aware of this, since the style of a verbal or visual presentation can reflect the content or add on to it and therefore strengthen it, but it can also weaken the message by contradicting it or distracting from it. Non-verbal, situational factors participate in the effectiveness of the message. The final message - the constructed story - the public receives is made up of both content and form: what is presented as well as how it is presented.
Studying Museums in their Shaping of the History of Modern Art In the last few decades the study of museums has become a vast and booming field of research. The great number of books published yearly on the topic of museums illustrates this
1 mounting interest. Within a period of only three years three colossal collections of museum studies appeared each displaying the widening and intensifying interest in and research on museums today (Preziosi and Farago 2004, Carbonell 2004 and Macdonald 2006). Perhaps there is no field of academic research which has grown so quickly and so strongly, attracting researchers from so many disciplines, as museum studies has. This at once testifies to the importance and the complexity of the museum concept and the fascination it holds for many. With the initiation of what has been acknowledged as “the new museology” in the late 1980’s, research of museums changed its focus from a study of museum methods (“the old museology”) to a more theoretical and humanistic discipline analyzing the role of museums in society (Vergo 1989). This change of focus has been explained as part of a larger critical (in both senses of the word) development during the same period in other academic disciplines which was defined as representational critique. This critical approach in many cultural and social disciplines raised questions about representation and the construction of meaning and knowledge (Macdonald 2006). According to Macdonald, in her introduction of A Companion to Museum Studies, museum studies has developed from both fields of the new museology and representational critique and has broadened its scope, methods and commitment. Besides the growing terrain and the expanding multi-disciplinary approaches of museum studies, a “renewed commitment” has been detected which attempts to aid the complex practical work of museums by the insights gained from academic research. My research can be seen as budding from the new museology and representational critique in its deconstructive approach of the museum’s presentations as representational constructions and yet distinctly as part of the new expanding field of museum studies in its use of verbal and visual rhetoric as a key to a better understanding of museums’ presentations and in its desire to contribute to the challenging museum practice of today. The acknowledgement of the museum of modern art as authoritative institution which shapes the image and the history of modern art serves as point of departure for this book. As Preziosi states: “The museum is one of the most brilliant and powerful genres of modern fiction, sharing with other forms of ideological practice – religion, science, entertainment, the academic disciplines – a variety of methods for the production and factualization of knowledge and its sociopolitical consequences”.1 Various studies have established the crucial position of the museum as an educational body of authority. These studies, which departed
1 Preziosi, “Collecting/Museums”, p. 407.
2 from Foucault’s concept of institutions and their power-knowledge relations, have contributed to a better understanding of the museum as an institution of power that produces knowledge (Crimp 1985, Hooper-Greenhill 1992, Bennett 1995, Preziosi 1995 and 2003). Besides the research on museums as producers of knowledge and narratives, numerous books have focused on exhibitions as constructions of meaning. Prompted by the growing multi-cultural community and aided by the representational critique of many disciplines, exhibitions have been exposed as constructors of political, social and cultural identity (Karp and Lavine 1991) and as “vehicles for the production and dissemination of knowledge” (Greenberg, Ferguson and Nairne 1996). My research focuses on a wide range of presentations of modern art museums of which the exhibitions are a crucial component. Exhibitions are indeed an important vehicle of communication between the museum and the audience, but there are other forms of communication that shape and transmit the museum’s stories and which have previously not received the necessary attention. They are to be found in all the verbal and visual presentations including for example: catalogs, bulletins, wall labels, as well as posters, pamphlets and press releases. These vehicles are included in my research. To deconstruct and analyze the museums’ constructions of modern art, I use rhetoric as a tool to expose how, with what means and for what purposes, the museums’ presentations were formulated. Previous studies have pointed to rhetoric as an approach to “museums as discourse” and exhibitions as “utterances within discourse” from the perspective of discourse analysis.2 Patin in his Discipline and Varnish. Rhetoric, Subjectivity, and Counter-memory in the Museum (1999) focuses on the rhetoric of the museum space and the power of framing devices for art history and aesthetics. I have taken the use of rhetoric further in actually analyzing the discourse the museums themselves have produced in their whole range of presentations, and providing a new reading of the two museums’ approaches to modern art and its history in order to expose their representational strategies and deepen our understanding of the construction and content of their stories.
Rhetoric: The Art of Verbal and Visual Persuasion The choice to use rhetoric as a model to investigate the presentation of the story of modern art by museums, is based on the insight that museums of art are communicators. The museum’s
2 For example Ferguson, “Exhibition Rhetorics, Material Speech and Utter Sense” and Bal, “The Discourse of the Museum”. Thomas Patin combines rhetoric and subjectivity to explain modernist domestic architecture, formalist art theory, and modernist museology, in Patin, Discipline and Varnish.
3 goals are to communicate their story and to persuade the public of the importance of their message. This is the case for all museums but for modern art museums the demand for persuasive communication is especially pertinent. One has to convince an audience of the greatness of works of art which for many initially are of “my child can do better” quality. In the slippery field of modern art, the public has to be guided, has to be persuaded because modern art is perceived to be difficult and controversial. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. The use of rhetoric is as old as our civilization. The theory of classical rhetoric was developed over centuries and the use of rhetoric as a meta-science is still developing. The range of rhetoric is wide and it includes practice, theory and meta-theory. The theory of classical rhetoric was first based on observation of effective speaking and writing, describing its means and merits. The theory became prescriptive – written down in systematic treatises - for those who wanted to learn the discipline of rhetoric and practice it. The meta-theory as a self-reflective feature of rhetoric analyzes aspects of the theory of rhetoric such as its status, goals and usefulness and is a growing field of study.3 For centuries, in some countries well into the 19th century, rhetoric was an important component of one’s academic education. It occupied a central place in the Greek and Roman curricula, in the medieval trivium, and flourished in Renaissance humanist education. From the 18th century on, rhetoric came under increasing attack and even though it was to be prevalent in the lives of most educated West-Europeans and Americans into the 19th century, it lost its central role in education. In the 20th century rhetoric often became associated with propaganda and advertising and its more pejorative senses – as “mere rhetoric”, decoration and deception – were emphasized. This view that rhetoric is a manipulative science that can distort ‘the truth’ was not new. Rhetoric has always been criticized; the ancient philosopher Plato was already convinced that rhetoric was superficial, deceptive, perverted the truth and steered human relations towards selfish manipulative behavior.4 Although rhetoric’s position had been deteriorating over the past centuries, in the late 20th century a renewed interest can be detected for the theory and practice of rhetoric. Once again rhetoric is entering the high school curricula through, for example, debating competitions. Towards the end of the 20th century rhetoric is welcomed back into the human sciences. As a meta-science - together with many other movements such as structuralism, poststructuralism and hermeneutics - rhetoric questions the objectivity of scientific discourse
3 For example Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives and Simons, Rhetoric in the Human Sciences. 4 Other influential, strong opponents to rhetoric were John Locke, Immanuel Kant and B. Croce. See Vickers, In Defense of Rhetoric.
4 and the concept of ‘reality’ and ‘truth’ in science. From various perspectives rhetoric approaches the discursive practices focusing on the concept of persuasion. Any form of discourse is persuasion and can be examined as such. In a time when the concept of ‘reality’ is questioned - in which reality is viewed as perception that has been constructed by means of communication – rhetoric, as the art of persuasion, gains importance. All perspectives on rhetoric, from ancient times until today, share the idea of rhetoric as effective expression and take into account the role of the rhetor, language, audiences, contexts and situations, and means of discovering and evaluating materials to be presented.5 In the late 20th and early 21st century the interest in the role of images in rhetoric is awakened. With the growing dominance of the image in our society, a new field of interest within rhetoric developed: visual rhetorics. Publications such as Hill and Helmer’s Defining Visual Rhetorics (2004) and Prelli’s, Rhetorics of Display (2006) show that the scope of rhetoric is being widened and the connection between visual images and persuasion is of special interest today.6
Rhetoric, then, can apply to any genre of inducing discourse. Given a rhetorical situation - a situation that asks for persuasion due to ambiguity and uncertainty - rhetorical creativity can aid successful persuasive communication, for instance. In the past rhetorical theory was most often used prescriptively as a set of guidelines for anyone who wanted to convince an audience in a certain situation. In my research it will be used as an instrument with which to analyze the communications of institutions in a rhetorical situation: two museums of modern art.
A Comparative Study Two museums of modern art have been selected to research the influence of museums on the creation of modern art’s history: the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam and the Museum of Modern Art in New York. A comparative method is chosen since comparison is particularly apt to generate information on the different mechanisms and instruments of representation and canonization. For the selection of the two museums it is essential that both are internationally acknowledged as influential and trend setting. And yet, in order to have a productive comparison, the two museums selected are also sufficiently dissimilar: especially through
5 For a clear introduction to the nature of rhetoric see Prelli, A Rhetoric of Science, pp. 11- 32. 6 For the roles of classical rhetoric in visual persuasion in the arts and architecture of early modern Europe, see Van Eck, Classical Rhetoric and the Visual Arts in Early Modern Europe.
5 their different goals and circumstances, their various strategies, means of persuasion and contributions to art history can be explained. The Museums’ contributions were determined by what they collected and how they presented art in their semi-permanent presentations, temporary exhibitions and publications. Furthermore, the physical space of the Museums had its effect on the development of modern art: the Museum of Modern Art’s ‘white cube’ and the Stedelijk Museum’s opening up the museum walls to the street. This study focuses on the whole range of the Museums’ presentations of modern art: the presentations of the collections, the temporary exhibitions along with their accompanying catalogs and through the other publications and communicative actions which convey the Museums’ programs. The stories as they were presented to the public are object of study here: the research material therefore consists of the publications available to the various audiences and the installation photographs of the exhibitions which show what the public had been confronted with. Since the objective of this research is to reveal the Museum’s stories as they were presented and to expose how the Museums communicated, I have chosen not to look for the story behind the scenes via, for example, interviews with living museum officials. The period of research runs from 1935 to 1975 because during this period museums seem to have had a particularly dominant role compared to the other actors in the field of modern art.7 Before 1935, the role of private collectors and art dealers, for example, was significant. Due to economic decline, especially in Europe, private collections were sold to or institutionalized into museums. In the forties and fifties the museums’ authority grew as educational institutions. The sixties provided new challenges and opportunities due to expanding democratization and the changing role of modern art in society. In the seventies and eighties the powerful position of the museums of modern art was starting to fade: the role of galleries and the art market grew and the living artists sought other ‘spaces’ to experiment. Furthermore, the concept of modernism as a progressive development was being confronted and the belief in the modernist museum - in which the knowledgeable museum dictated the true history of art - was starting to crumble and make way for the ‘post-museum’, in which the many histories of modern art were to be admitted.8 During the period of research the Stedelijk Museum became a significant voice in profiling modern art, especially under directorship of Willem Sandberg. It developed into a
7 For both Museums the period prior to 1935 is discussed whenever relevant to provide the necessary background information. A few pre1935 examples of exemplary exhibitions and publications are highlighted. 8 See Hooper-Greenhill, Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. Hooper-Greenhil speaks of ‘modernist museums’ and ‘post-museums’.
6 new type of museum: an open, living center in which art was created. Although it was comparatively small and ‘poor’, it was respected throughout the Western world for its daring and its creativity. In this same period, the Museum of Modern Art developed into what would be considered the archetype of a modern art museum with a ‘comprehensive’ collection of what was to be considered the canon of modern art. The two Museums respected and influenced each other. That these two Museums have played a crucial part in creating modern art history seems undisputed, but as to how they have fulfilled their roles, much is still unclear. Both Museums have been object of research in the past decades, but never in comparison to each other. Through this comparative study of the two museums, more becomes visible of each individual institution. Of the publications on the individual museums, a few need mentioning here. On the Museum of Modern Art, there are – of the many publications - two that come closest to my own research. Staniszewski’s The Power of Display: a History of Exhibition Installations at the Museum of Modern Art (1998) has contributed greatly to the surfacing of the “ephemeral” stories constructed by the Museum’s exhibitions. Her book has called attention to installation design as an aesthetic medium and historical category and has pointed to the influence of exhibition design on the interpretation and viewing of the works of art. My research analyzes the installation design of the exhibitions, from a rhetorical stance and considers it as part of the whole persuasive entity of an exhibition including its positioning in the museum space and museum history, and the verbal and visual presentation in the form of wall labels, catalogs, press releases, posters, pamphlets etc. Patin’s Discipline and Varnish: Rhetoric, Subjectivity, and Counter-Memory in the Museum (1999) argues the power of the Museum of Modern Art’s architectural and curatorial framing in modernist art history. In his discussion of the rhetoric of the Museum of Modern Art, the museum space and the arrangement of rooms and its relationship to modernist domestic architecture is prominent. He focuses on the rhetoric of domestic architecture, formalist criticism and art theory in relation to the ‘permanent’ display. Although there are similarities in our research, our use of rhetoric and focus of research are different. Patin’s approach to rhetoric is meta-theoretical and his focus is mainly on the museum space and theory. I use rhetoric as a ‘reading’, an analytical tool to expose the Museums’ positions, strategies and stories and focus on the whole range of museum presentations. Research concerning the Stedelijk Museum is not as abundant. On the Sandberg era in the Stedelijk, Roodenburg-Schadd’s excellent Expressie en ordening: Het verzamelbeleid van
7 Willem Sandberg voor het Stedelijk Museum 1945-1962 (2004) provides a comprehensive study of Sandberg’s collection policy for the Stedelijk. Not only does her book modify the ‘myth’ that Sandberg neglected the collection of the Stedelijk in favor of only exhibiting ‘new’ art, it also clarifies the role the Stedelijk’s second man, the art historian Hans Jaffé, had in collecting and exhibiting in the Stedelijk. My book presents a larger time-period of the Stedelijk and focuses on the presentation instead of the collection. My rhetorical approach dissects rather than modifies ‘the myth’ - analyzing the image of the Stedelijk itself and the image of modern art it created.
Rhetoric As Analytical Model In this study rhetoric is used to analyze the process of the creation of the stories of the two Museums: to expose and deconstruct the Museums’ authority and their stories of modern art. Aspects of rhetoric are used as entries into exposing the Museums’ communicative actions and their effectiveness. These entries can be seen as parts of an analytical approach focusing on rhetoric as a system of communication to be found in the Museums’ presentations and as a method to study the workings of the Museums as image-builders of what was and is to be valued as modern art: as creators of modern art history. This research uses rhetoric as an analytical model to expose themes of art history, such as the definitions of modern art, the positioning of the modern and contemporary masters – and master movements - and the conceptualizing of the historical development. This study’s use of rhetoric also goes beyond the traditional boundaries of rhetoric as verbal expression, for museums do not communicate solely with words. In this approach the museum’s displays and exhibitions are studied as forms of visual rhetoric for which the components of rhetorical theory are ‘translated’ to expose the workings of these visual presentations. In this way, a part of this research fits in the developing theory of Visual Rhetoric examining the visual images provided by the Museums such as charts, photographic displays, posters, catalog design, as communicative artifacts, and analyzing the communicative aspects of the visual displays.9 This study, however, also approaches Visual Rhetoric by analyzing exhibitions as visual stories and dissecting them as discourse. To analyze the rhetoric of the Museums, I go back to the base of classical rhetoric. This base developed by men as Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian is still very much alive in rhetoric today. For the outline and aspects of, and approaches to classical rhetoric, I have used
9 These two definitions of Visual Rhetoric are distinguished in Foss, “Framing the Study of Visual Rhetoric”, pp. 304-306.
8 Vickers’ In Defence of Rhetoric (1989) and Leeman and Braet’s Klassieke retorica (1987). Sloane’s Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (2001) and Lanham’s A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms (1991), I have primarily consulted for the definition of rhetorical terms.
Aspects of Rhetoric In order to persuade the public, the museum must reach them, win them over by convincing them of the museum’s authority (ethos), arouse their emotions (pathos) such as empathy and curiosity and guide their appreciation, teach them and encourage their understanding through convincing argument (logos). These ‘strategies’ are principal elements of classical rhetoric, the three types of persuasive means - ethos, pathos and logos - distinguished by Aristotle in classical antiquity and acknowledged by many authorities after him. Linked to the three persuasive means are the three duties of the orator (officia oratoris): to delight or to win someone over (delectare/conciliare), to arouse emotions (movere) and to teach (docere).10 The three persuasive strategies – ethos, pathos and logos - are the main entries into this research. By analyzing our Museums’ presentations – publications and exhibitions – through these means of persuasion, the Museums’ strategies and stories are identified and the different approaches of the two Museums (and their ‘duties’) are highlighted. My point of departure is therefore, that when exposing an audience to modern works of art through exhibitions and publications, a museum is in fact dealing with extreme rhetorical situations: situations of communication in which persuasive means are especially called for due to the uncertainty and ambiguity as how to appreciate and understand the works of art and the artists’ intentions. The rhetorical situation we are dealing with here – the communicative action of modern art museums - comes closest to being a form of ‘epideictic oratory’, which has praise as its general aim.11 And although my approach looks beyond the scope of this category, it has been taken as a starting point for approaching the museums’ persuasive actions. Important for this research are the five major categories or ‘canons’ of rhetoric: invention (inventio), arrangement (dispositio), style (elocutio), memory (memoria) and delivery (actio). As rhetoric itself, these categories have served both purposes of generating and of analyzing discourse. Especially the value and use of the first three - invention,
10 Leeman and Braet distinguish between conciliare, movere and docere/probare (p. 51), whereas Vickers lists Cicero’s officia oratoris as delectare, movere and docere. (pp. 35, 57). 11 In classic rhetorical theory three types of rhetorical situations were distinguished for which three types of oratory were assigned: judicial (forensic), deliberative (legislative and political) and epideitic (ceremonial or demonstrative) oratory. To each category certain purposes and appropriate topics were linked with which to succeed in the different categories.
9 arrangement and style - has been consistent over time, although there has been disagreement on the relative importance of each one; the categories memory and delivery have most often received less attention, but they will be relevant here.
Invention Invention has always been a central category in rhetoric. It deals with the content of the discourse: the coining of the best arguments to address the issues involved. Modern art has many different issues on which there is uncertainty and controversy. It is the museum’s task to impress the public, to convince them of the great importance of modern art and to induce a compassionate and admiring attitude towards modern art. To do this successfully the museum will have to identify the issues involved and find the appropriate arguments to convince its public. This can of course be done intuitively but traditional rhetorical theory also distinguishes a method for finding the issues involved: stasis analysis.12 It is a systematic way in which a communicator can find what the issues are in rhetorical situations. The issues usually involve one or more of the following problems with the related questions: problems of fact (Is it?); problems of definition (What is it?); problems of nature or quality (Of what sort is it?) and, problems of action (Is action appropriate in the given case?).13 In our case especially the first three problems are relevant. Once the important issues are identified, topics to support these issues have to be explored and screened for their appropriateness and persuasiveness. This finding of topics (topoi/loci) is called invention; it is the discovering of the best available arguments of persuasion. The use of topical invention is clearly connected to logos, the persuasive strategy built on argument, on the content of the discourse. To be effective the discourse must be reasonable. Only then can understanding and appreciation be achieved.14 Just like the coining of the relevant issues, discovering relevant topics or topoi (headings that identify lines of thought) can be done intuitively or systematically. The systematic approach involves the use of different classes of topics, most often divided in common or general topics and specific or particular topics. There are whole sets of common topics from which to work; lists of general collective concepts can be used to discover aspects of issues that would otherwise be overlooked. These general topics are dependent on one’s culture. There are also specific topics. These can either relate to a specific type of discourse,
12 Stasis is the Greek term. The equivalent in Latin is status and in English issue. 13 Prelli, A Rhetoric of Science, pp. 44-45. 14 Prelli, A Rhetoric of Science, pp. 27-28.
10 for example, epideictic rhetoric calls for certain relevant topics of praise, or they can relate to a certain subject or field of study: in our case, topics related to modern art and modern art history.15 As to how both classes of topics – the general and the specific topics - should be used in this case, depends on the nature of the audience which has to be persuaded and the aspirations the different museums have. If, for example, a general audience is to be reached, this will have to be done with fewer ‘technical’ field-specific topics, than when an audience consisting of specialists is being addressed. Or, for another example, if the goal of the museum is to also contribute to the core of art historical research – as was the case with the Museum of Modern Art - the topics will have to be appropriate to the field of modern art and to art history as academic discipline. In order for scholarly discipline – and in our case art history – to be convincing it must be credible, its argumentation should be in accordance with the conditions of the scientific community. In this book the topics selected by the two Museums will be identified, analyzed and compared, in relationship both to the Museums’ goals and the various audiences the Museums catered to.
Arrangement The second rhetorical category, arrangement, deals with how the message consisting of the selected topics, the arguments, is organized. Whereas in classical rhetoric arrangement referred to the order of an oration (spoken or written), it can now refer to the order of any form of discourse. In our case, not only the arrangement of the Museums’ publications are considered, but also the arrangement of the Museums’ exhibitions is studied as cases of visual rhetoric. The arrangement of an oration in the ancient tradition varies through the ages depending on the occasion and type of oratory. Most often though it consists of an introduction (exordium) followed by a body of argumentation (narratio, partitio, argumentatio: confirmatio and refutatio) and then a conclusion (peroratio).16 In order to be a convincing oration each part of it is connected to a particular persuasive appeal; in the introduction it is advantageous to establish one’s authority on the subject (ethos), in the main body of the discourse argumentation (logos) is necessary to build one’s case, and in a strong
15 In the case of scholarly discourse related topics could be relevant Prelli distinguishes three classes of topoi in scientific discussion: 1. problem-solution topics, 2. evaluative topics, and 3. exemplary topics. 16 Leeman and Braet, Klassieke retorica, pp. 91-97.
11 conclusion one uses emotional appeals (pathos) to win the audience over. The structure of the Museums’ written and visual presentations have been analyzed accordingly.
Style When using the category style (elocutio/lexis) to study the Museums’ presentations, the emphasis is not on what is being expressed but on how it is being expressed. Style is an essential aspect of rhetoric for it is the embodiment of thought in language. It is by no means mere decoration; there is no such thing as style-less language. The form in which discourse is communicated is as much part of the message as is the content. In my case both the style of the texts as well as the style of the visual settings in the museum presentations (catalogs, posters and exhibitions) have been studied. The Museums’ presentations are analyzed through two aspects of style traditionally distinguished in rhetoric: the so-called levels of style and qualities of style. Through the ages various levels of style have been distinguished which were deemed appropriate for the various types of oratory and for the different sections of a speech. Generally three levels of style were recognized: the grave (grande, sublime) style: a style of impressive words in a rich setting; the medium style (mesos): a picturesque style for pleasant historical writing; and the humile (subtile, humile) style: a simple style made up of regular words in simple constructions. 17 Needless to say, the spectrum of style types which can be recognized today is more diverse. These three style levels have served merely as a framework to help make a basic identification of the Museums’ own styles. More important for this research are the so-called four cardinal virtues of style: correct grammar (‘latinitas’), clarity of language (perspicuitas), ornament or splendor of language (ornatus), and appropriateness of language (decorum).18 Of these, especially the last three have been used for analyzing the style of the Museums’ presentations. It may be noted, however, that there are examples of the first value, the use of correct language, such as the Museum of Modern Art’s providing of the correct pronunciation of the difficult, foreign artists names in phonetics, and the Stedelijk Museum’s denying of the rules of correct spelling in Sandberg’s deliberate use of only small letters. The desire for clarity is evident for modern art presentations. In explaining or expressing thoughts on modern art - which by nature seems difficult, to some even
17Ibid., p. 100. In later antiquity the three traditional levels of style (genera dicendi) were adapted and added on to; in the second century ad seven types were distinguished. Ibid., pp. 100-101. 18 Ibid., pp. 101-117.
12 incomprehensible, and has often seemed to evoke complex and woolly language - the necessity for clarity is of real importance in order to reach one’s audience. The Museum of Modern Art seemed especially aware of the necessity of clarity, whereas the Stedelijk’s poetic language often mystified the message. Ornamentation, as a quality of style, is not superficial decoration. It is the choosing of effective language to adequately express one’s thoughts in order to reach the intended result of one’s message. The tools of ornamentation are tropes, figures of speech and composition. When studying the style of various museum publications, the use of these tools has been examined and juxtaposed to employment of the other qualities of style. This leads to the quality of decorum, which is not actually a separate quality of style but rather a prerequisite for the success of all the qualities of style. For it calls not only for the choice of an appropriate style to match one’s own intentions but for a style that will be fitting in the given context and for a selected audience or audiences. Sandberg’s poetic style of language, graphic design and installation techniques, for example, fit the image of Sandberg’s Stedelijk perfectly.
Memory The two last categories of rhetoric – memory and delivery – have not always received the same attention as the others due to the fact that they relate to the actual presenting of a speech and not to the written text. For my purpose however, they are of special interest for the analysis of the Museums’ presentations as forms of visual rhetoric. Memory could be interpreted not only as an aid to the rhetor but also as being concerned with the ways in which an audience remembers the message. This focusing on the public is of particular concern here. Ancient rhetoric explains how the memory works: more than words, sensory perceptions leave the sharpest imprint on our memories. Of the sensory perceptions, the visual perception is said to have the strongest impact.19 This, of course, is relevant for museum presentations. To help the memory, the concept of space (regio) is used. Within this space certain points, the loci, are selected in which images can be stored. The points or loci need to be noticeable and neatly arranged to function well. All the rhetor has to do is move around the space and touch on all the loci to recover the information stored there. This conceptual framework can be translated to the museum setting. Where ( in which loci) and how (with which visual aids) displays are made – or certain works of art are hung - in the
19 Ibid., p. 119.
13 museum are important for the imprint they make on the museum public. In the Museum of Modern Art where the historical component of modern art is important, its semi-permanent presentation of the historical development of modern art feeds the public’s memory, whereas the constant changing of the presentations in the Stedelijk underlines the desire to focus on the ever-changing present and future.
Delivery The last category of rhetoric is the delivery of the discourse, the actual presentation itself. Like style, delivery has to do with how the content of the discourse is presented. The meaning of the message and the effect of the message are partly determined by the way in which it is constructed. Here, delivery consists in the public presentations of the Museums’ ideas and works of art in publications, posters and exhibitions. These presentations have to project authority on the subject (ethos) in order to convince the public and appeal to the public’s emotions (pathos) to make them accept and admire modern art.
As in the case of this last example of delivery, each category of rhetoric is linked to the three strategies/means of persuasion: ethos, pathos and logos, and in the analysis of the presentations of the Stedelijk Museum and the Museum of Modern Art which lies ahead, the categories of rhetoric are used together with the persuasive means to analyze and expose the Museums’ strategies and discourse: the Museums’ rhetoric. The above explanation of the use of rhetoric as an approach to analyze the different modes of presentation of the two Museums should be seen as a framework. From this framework different entries have been chosen to study various examples of presentation and to expose a selection of stories and strategies. One of the intentions of this study is to show how the mechanism works by studying a variety of museum presentations from different rhetorical angles. In some examples the exhibition catalog is dissected as text, whereas in other examples it is analyzed more generally, focusing on its visual message, and again in others, the installation of the exhibition has been accentuated. Necessarily, the availability of the material has determined a number of the choices made.
Parameters of Research The body of this research is the Museums’ historical material itself. This corpus, representing different forms of presentations, consists of a great diversity of materials ranging from, for example, letters, press releases, posters, educational materials, bulletins, policy reports,
14 catalogs, wall labels to exhibition installations, which includes lighting, hanging and other elements of installation design.20 The rhetorical approach is used to bring out the wealth of this rich material, a lot of which is hidden in the Archives and Libraries of both Museums. The many exhibition catalogs, collection catalogs, Museum bulletins, journals and reports, as also the priceless installation photographs of exhibitions, which are never again to be experienced, are all of immense value for a better understanding of how the Museums functioned, how they presented themselves, what they had to tell and how they told it. I have tried to do justice to the material itself by calling attention to – and often analyzing at length - the visual and verbal wealth of the various forms of presentation and their persuasive strategies. This also accounts for the many citations of the Museums’ own ‘words’ in their various publications and the prolific use of visual materials. Although an attempt has been made to provide a representative picture of both Museums, this study is in no way exhaustive and is necessarily limited. It has not been the intention to cover all the Museums’ important presentations or discuss all the promoted masters and masterpieces; presentations of important artists such as Picasso and Matisse, for example, or exhibitions of ‘Bauhaus’ and ‘de Stijl’ have not been included in this analysis.21 The necessary selections have been made so as to especially highlight the differences between the two Museums and their communications in their efforts to build the image of modern art.
It is important to realize that there are some issues to consider when analyzing the Museums’ discourse from a rhetorical perspective: the consciousness of the Museums’ efforts, the awareness of - and interaction with - the multiple audiences of the Museums, and the political, economical and social parameters in which the Museums operated. In the beginning of the introduction, mention was made of the fact that museums act consciously and unconsciously and that both have their effect. As to how consciously or unconsciously each of our museums set up their communicative strategies to persuade their audiences is not always easy to distinguish, especially when the choices made were not explicitly stated in policy documents. For a certain part the Museums’ actions and messages they sent out – made up of both content and form - were determined by tradition of what was expected of museums in terms of their buildings, their exhibitions and their catalogs and by their given situations. Of special interest here is when the Museums consciously changed their
20 The use of television as a medium of presentation is not analyzed in this dissertation, due to the necessary limiting of the materials, but would be an interesting focus for further research of the rhetoric of museums. 21 A good analysis of Picasso’s position in the Stedelijk is in Jan van Adrichem’s De ontvangst van de moderne kunst in Nederland 1910-2000, 2001.
15 course. This goes for all policy changes pertaining to the Museums’ presentations. For example, when looking at the choice of museum building and spaces, the modernization of the 19th century Stedelijk by the whitewashing of the walls and the commissioning of the Appel murals and the building of the Sandberg wing are important, just as MoMA’s new housing and experimentation with exhibition installations and wall coloring. The same type of examples can be found for choices in exhibitions, displays and catalogs. As to how the two Museums announced their strategies and communicated these changes, there are definite differences. These differences in the explicitness in the spelling out of certain policies and choices is reflected in the rhetoric of the two Museums. The Museum of Modern Art was very aware of its task to persuade right from the start. In the early years of its existence, MoMA was dependent on its persuasive qualities for its actual existence. It had to create a large public interest for modern art in order to acquire the necessary funds. The focus on the different audiences the Museum had to reach is visible in the chosen rhetoric. Who are the audiences of the museums? In rhetorical theory, an audience has been defined as the ensemble of those whom the rhetor wants to influence by his argumentation.22 The ensemble can be a composite audience with differences in character, loyalties and functions, but it can also be a specific audience: a smaller, more uniform group. The Museums had to deal with multiple audiences such as: the concept of the universal audience (the objective, ideal audience) - the ‘general public’, and subgroups of artists, patrons, trustees, sponsors, subsidizers, students, school audiences, art historians, critics, children. These audiences were not the same for both Museums; they each had their own groups to accommodate. As will become clear in the following chapters, each audience required a different emphasis and for each audience the chosen communicative strategies would work differently. That caution was needed when approaching the general audience becomes clear when one realizes that argumentation considered persuasive for one audience could cause opposition in another. For example, Sandberg’s poetic explanations would seem to appeal to the artist and elite population, but would be considered highbrow to the more general public. The different political, social and economic situation in which both Museums operated obviously also explains their rhetorical discourse. For example, for the Stedelijk Museum the occupation of Holland during World War II, the democratization of society in the sixties, and the dependence on local government support, account for part of the Stedelijk’s rhetoric. As
22 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, p. 19. For an extensive explanation of ‘audience’, see the entry in Sloane’s Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, pp. 59-75.
16 for the Museum of Modern Art, America’s leadership politics and Cold War propaganda have influenced the Museum’s rhetoric, as has their dependence on trustees and patrons for financial support.
Using the Rhetorical Approach in Comparing Two Stories of Modern Art: Prize or Price of the Museums’ Rhetoric? For both Museums I attempt to deconstruct the images they built of themselves and the stories they created of modern art, which reflect their ideologies. This dissertation, therefore, is not a historiography of the Museums and their histories of modern art. As a deconstruction of the Museum’s constructed stories, it provides a new view through rhetoric – a rhetorical reading - with which I hope to contribute to a better understanding of the processes of ‘image- building’, representation and canonization of modern art. In the Museums’ attempts to persuade their audiences of the value and position of modern art in society, they had to deal with the paradox that the rhetoric of museums as traditional, historical, and authoritative bodies clashed with the character of modern art which by nature broke with tradition, history and authority. How did both museums of modern art deal with this paradoxical situation? What type of ‘orators’ were they? And, what was the prize for their persuasive communication or was there perhaps a price to be paid for their rhetoric? In the first chapter, The Rhetoric of Policymaking, an analysis is made – in which ethos has a predominant position - of how the two Museums created their own images by setting their goals and developing their policies and organizations to meet these goals. Their presentations reflect and underline the images. They approached their different audiences in appropriate styles. They boosted their authority by amplifying their qualities and due to the fitting decorum of each museum, they became persuasive institutions. Each museum displayed a different type of orator. A closer look is taken at the Museums’ Anniversary exhibitions as prime examples of ethos-building manifestations. As authorities on modern art, both Museums defined what was to be considered as such and defended it. They both presented modern art as progressive and revolutionary and provided for the appropriate metaphors. In defining and defending modern art, both promoted it as part of modern living and as an art which transcends boundaries of time and culture. Using logos and pathos to define and defend, the Museums hoped to win the public for ‘the modern’. Although their approaches were sometimes similar, their methods and arguments
17 often differed. In chapter 2, Modern Matters, these divergent styles of the Museums as educators come to the fore. The Museum of Modern Art considered it its primary duty to teach (docere), whereas the Stedelijk’s duty was seen to be to delight (delectare) and to arouse the public’s emotions (movere). In The Making of Masters, Masterpieces and Movements (Chapter 3) the ‘writing’ of the history of modern art is explored in the presentations of both Museums. The argumentation of the relevant topic of coining ‘founding fathers’ is scrutinized and the logos and methods of structuring the development of modern art with its masterpieces and movements are compared. The use of metaphors, antithesis, series and repetitions prove to be effective analytical and persuasive communicating devices. Here the Museum of Modern Art presenting itself as champion of modern art, acts as an ‘historical orator’ teaching its public the history of modern art using rhetorical devices effective in the sciences. The Stedelijk Museum, however, as a laudatory orator attempts to delight and move its public with diverse stories of modern art. The last chapter Adding the Contemporary to the Modern Canon considers the Museums’ positioning and promoting of the living artist through relevant persuasive means. How do both Museums deal with the artist’s presence and experiments? The Museums’ roles as orators are challenged and the call for a different use of the persuasive strategies in the Museums is apparent. The tables seem to turn for the two Museums. In the Conclusions and Outlook, The Prize and Price of Rhetoric, some wider observations are drawn from the results of this rhetorical analysis of two major actors in modern art history. What has been the benefit and detriment of the rhetoric of both Museums to their image and their stories? And finally, how has this all affected the Museums’ further development and their positions today?
18 Chapter 1: The Rhetoric of Policymaking: Creating One’s Own Image
The authority of both the Museum of Modern Art in New York and the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam during the period 1935 and 1975 was established by their individual positions in the art world. Their authority as influential, guiding institutions was acknowledged by the other actors in the field of art, their images however differed. Each of the authoritative images was backed by its own ethos: the honorable characteristics of each Museum were to help in winning the public’s trust. During this period, the Museum of Modern Art’s image was to become one of leadership, of authority based on excellence displaying the established decorum: an authoritative educational institution housed in a steadily expanding modern museum building which owned a representative collection of what was considered to be the masterpieces of modern art history – a history which was presented and explained in commanding exhibitions and scholarly publications by the Museum itself. The Stedelijk Museum’s image, on the other hand, was to be one of a different authority with its own fitting decorum: a living center for modern art in which the director’s and the artist’s input was dominant, housed in a grand old building that had been modernized and added on to with an exemplary exhibition hall, in which “spécialités de la maison” and new experimental art were presented in a way in which art appreciation dominated. Both museums liked to present themselves as laboratories; their experiments however were of a different nature. The Museum of Modern Art experimented with exhibition types and educational methods, the Stedelijk experimented in art. Both museums encouraged looking as the major component of art appreciation and education, but the Museum of Modern Art also stimulated knowledge as important aspect, whereas the Stedelijk did not - and even encouraged the public to forget whatever they had learned before entering the Museum.1 The authority of both museums was strengthened by the fact that the characteristics and styles of their presented policies fit their images perfectly, which made them convincing authoritative institutions for their different audiences. But, how were the Museums’ images created? What type of ‘orator’ were the Museums? And, how was their ethos established and strengthened?
1 Sandberg, “some reflections on the organization of a museum of contemporary art”. An English translation of the French article: ‘réflexions disparates sur l’organisation d’un musée d’art d’aujourd’hui’ from Art d’Aujourd’hui, 1950.
19 To answer these questions, first the rhetoric of the Museums’ goals and ambitions needs to be exposed by analyzing the policies of both Museums. Further insight into the establishment of the Museum’s images will be given by examining the development of both Museums’ organizations. Through the analysis of the goals and ambitions and of the organizations it will be possible to characterize each Museum as a certain type of orator which will help further analysis of the Museums’ stories of modern art and modern art history. A brief comparison of the position of the Museums’ publications will show how they fit and fed the Museums’ images. And finally, the anniversary exhibitions (and publications) of both Museums will be analyzed as prime examples of ethos-building presentations.
The Museums created their own images by presenting what they stood for in their feats and fictions. To meet their goals the Museums developed policies in which plans were set up on important museum issues, primarily: collections, exhibitions, publications and education. These policies became visible in the presentations of the Museums: the Museums’ physical space, their exhibitions and publications. They worked towards goals that were partly determined by their ideals but also by their practical possibilities. The goals the Museums explicitly voiced in policy statements were good indications of their plans and ambitions. These goals, however, were neither unambiguous nor static and were therefore bound to vary depending on circumstances in which they were written and on who was in charge at a certain point in time. Behind the policy proclaimed by the Museums, complex webs of personal and communal ideals and private and public interests were hidden. These ideals and interests come from different actors within the Museums’ organizations. The images of both Museums were for a large degree created by their directors. Especially in the Stedelijk, the directors determined the Museum’s image. The actors within the Museums were subject to a hierarchical order set by the structure of the organization and by the channels of funding. There were bound to be conflicting interests and perhaps opposing ideals between the different parties involved. Even within one person a conflict of interests could arise. When studying the policy statements in their different modes of expression – exhibitions, reports, articles, interviews etc. – it is necessary to take all this into consideration. What counts, however, is what was presented and how it was presented to the outside world. The portrayed policies disclosed ‘real’ motives, but also depicted the museums’ dreams as actual facts. Despite the fact that the web of ideals and interests is difficult to untangle and the
20 language is colored by propaganda and a lot of wishful thinking, the various policy statements together – over a period of time – have shaped the Museums images. The Museums’ goals helped determine the structure of the organization of the museum; the choice and growth of departments and the organizational hierarchy often reflected these goals. The Museum of Modern Art and the Stedelijk Museum are very different organizations: founded under different circumstances and based on different principles, structured differently with different lines of decision making and built on different methods of funding. All these factors explain the different methods of policymaking and the variety of forms in which the policies are presented. The strategies employed to reach their goals and build their images reflect these differences. Central in both Museums as instruments of policymaking were exhibitions. The amount of exhibitions held by the Museums already displayed their policies: the more exhibitions held in a year, the livelier the museum was to appear, as in the case of the Stedelijk Museum. The number of objects in a single exhibition was either to show the superiority of the museum as surveying institution as in the case of the Museum of Modern Art, which often boasted of hundreds of objects on display, or to present what the museum stood for: a concentrated, pleasant visit viewing no more than eighty or ninety works, as Sandberg stated: “all a visitor takes home from an exhibition with hundreds of items is a headache.”2 The choice of type of exhibitions and the messages relayed in them mirror the Museums’ intentions and desires. The self-congratulatory anniversary shows will obviously present the Museums’ positions as they want them presented. But, in less obvious ways, so will other types varying from one-picture exhibitions or one-man shows to historical survey shows, theme exhibitions or experimental shows of work made in situ. The balance between the different types of exhibitions displays the Museums’ intentions. The exhibition catalogs equally expose the Museums’ goals in many ways. Either explicitly formulated in the text or implicitly portrayed by, for example, its sheer size or lettering. Instruments through which the policies were displayed varied in both Museums. This had to do, as we shall see, with the diverse audiences which were to be reached. For example, in the Museums’ verbal presentations different types of publications were used. The Stedelijk Museum defended its policies in annual reports after the fact, which - although they were not confidential - were not written for the general public but for the local authority: the
2 W. Sandberg, ‘some reflections on the organization of a museum of contemporary art’. An English translation of the French article: ‘réflexions disparates sur l’organisation d’un musée d’art d’aujourd’hui’ from Art d’Aujourd’hui, Serie 2, no. 1, October 1950, printed in: Petersen and Brattinga, Sandberg, een documentaire/ a documentary, p. 115.
21 Municipality of Amsterdam. Only sporadically was a larger public informed by means of articles in magazines and newspapers, their catalogs and other museum publications such as the shared publication Museumjournaal of which the Stedelijk was the major contributor.3 Museumjournaal was published from 1955 on and was frequently used by the Stedelijk to present itself: its policies, collection and exhibitions. In Museumjournaal’s first years it clearly carried Sandberg’s image.4 From the early 1970’s on the Stedelijk also published a monthly Bulletin in which short commentary was given on the Museum’s exhibitions and activities. More often Sandberg promoted the image of the Stedelijk through articles published in other art journals - such as Art d’Aujourd’hui - and newspapers, and especially in his own artistic pamphlet nu (“now”) in 1959. The Museum of Modern Art presented itself verbally through many channels and consistently repeated its policies through the various media. For thirty years it used its own Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art, which was published from 1933 to 1963, at first as a membership privilege, later becoming a more public periodical. The Bulletin, however, was only one of the many publications the Museum of Modern Art published in which its own image was promoted: fundraising booklets, policy pamphlets, catalogs of the permanent collection and temporary exhibitions all helped to create the image of the Museum.5 The Museums had to be convincing to different audiences. The Museum of Modern Art was dependent on public support for its existence, so very early on it had mapped its various audiences. In 1933 the Museum differentiated between the following groups: the ‘400’, which was a small but powerful minority of professionals and amateurs – critics, collectors, scholars, dealers; the Social group, including the majority of the members of the Museum and from the standpoint of money and interest the most important group; the Action group, composed of business people who put what they saw into practice; the Students from universities, colleges, schools etc.; the Public, the largest group, which was chiefly inspired by a desire to “know what it is all about” (75% of “attendance”). Their eventual acceptance of modern art was considered a victory for the ‘400’ group, a reassurance to the Social group, and a condition of action by the Action group. Finally, the Museum’s own trustees and important committee members and patrons were an important audience.6
3 The magazine Museumjournaal was a joint venture of a number of Dutch museums with collections of modern art. The Stedelijk Museum was a major contributor, paying for approximately 40% of the costs. 4 Schumacher, Museumjournaal en de ontvangst, pp. 28-31. 5 A three-monthly MoMA newsletter was published from 1974 on. 6 Patrons were those contributors who donated a certain large sum of money.
22 This keen awareness of the differences between the audiences and the eager approach to persuade them all seems amazingly early and professional, especially compared to the Stedelijk Museum. For each audience, Barr and the curatorial staff seemed to use a different approach or other persuasive means. For the ‘400’ group, for example, the art historical value of their presentations and the Museum’s influence in scholarly matters were important, whereas for potential trustees, patrons and members the monetary value of modern art was a crucial persuasive value – as Barr said: “money talks”. To lure prospective financial backers, arguments in many of the Museum’s pamphlets and brochures, which were sometimes referred to by Barr as ‘a kind of salesman’s bibles’, discussed the monetary value of works of art as great investments. 7 As Barr said in preparation of a fundraising campaign: “the question of the increase in value in modern pictures is very important, especially if you as salesmen are going to talk over the desks of business men who may not be interested in modern pictures, but who are interested in an increase in value of 200,000 per cent, especially if this value is represented in a public institution.”8 The message was that money seemed to attract money. For some audiences emulation was an important persuasive condition: for the newly rich, higher learning and art were to be valued as expressions of Pecuniary Culture and therefore knowledge of modern art was important as an entry into the esteemed group.9 The Stedelijk Museum was not as systematic in mapping its audiences. This was of course partly due to the lack of necessity to do so – as a government organization - and the deficiency of a businesslike approach which in art matters was then simply ‘not done’. Despite the fact that The Stedelijk was not as motivated to distinguish between its audiences, it had to deal with various audiences just the same. Being a municipal museum, the Amsterdam City Council needed to be convinced that the Amsterdam public was being served. This meant that the general Amsterdam public was to be catered to, but also the Amsterdam schoolchildren and Amsterdam artist community. Within the Amsterdam artists, however, there were a different groups which were approached differently: some as only fellow citizens, others as welcome pioneers of international importance. The collectors whose important collections filled the Museum’s walls needed to be convinced that their works of art
7 For example in: Barr, The Public as Artist; Barr, A Museum for Modern Art in New York; Barr and Kuhn, Lectures on “A Museum of Modern Art in New York”. 8Barr gave the example of Seurat’s ‘La Grande Jatte’ of which the value increased 1500 per cent in the last five years and 200,000 per cent in the last forty years. In Barr and Kuhn, Lectures on “A Museum of Modern Art in New York”, p. 2. 9 See ‘Pecuniary Emulation’ and ‘higher learning as an expression of the Pecuniary Culture’ in Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, which Barr was very impressed by and which he felt that all his trustees should read.
23 were valued highly and that the Stedelijk was the best place for them. These collectors were different from those of the Museum of Modern Art because they represented a type of maecenas who was not dependent on the Museum exposure for his standing; emulation was not as important. Although the Stedelijk was to serve the Amsterdam community it was acknowledged as a nationally and internationally important museum. Nationally it had to serve the large public, artists and intellectuals. Its standing in the international art world became increasingly important and this specialized audience needed to be convinced of the Stedelijk’s innovative position.
First the development and the rhetoric of the individual Museum’s goals and ambitions will be outlined and compared. Then the structure and growth of both Museum organizations, which were partly determined by these goals and ambitions, will be discussed. Subsequently, the Museums’ publications will be characterized for both Museums. These analyses will position each Museum as a certain type of orator. This chapter concludes with a study of the Museums’ anniversary exhibitions (and their publications) as key examples of ethos-building presentations. These communications disclosed the Museums’ policies and helped to both create and confirm their images as authorities on modern art.
The Stedelijk Museum’s Goals and Ambitions: ‘a living center of visual art’
The Stedelijk Museum, the older of the two Museums, was founded in 1895 and was built to house more than modern art. It was a combined private and public enterprise initially founded to provide for three separate causes. First of all, to provide space for the collection of the Sophia Augusta Foundation, a collection - bequeathed by Mrs. Lopez Suasso - of 18th century art and artifacts presented in period rooms, which was to occupy a large section of the ground floor.10 Furthermore, the main section of the top floor was to house a second collection: the collection of the Vereeniging tot het Vormen van eener Openbare Verzameling van Hedendaagsche Kunst - also referred to as the VVHK for short. The VVHK was a private initiative of wealthy Amsterdam upper middle class, established in 1874 to provide for a
10 This was a bequest from Sophia Augusta Lopez Suasso who died in 1891 and bequeathed her collection to the city under the conditions that an admission of one guilder was to be paid separately for this ‘Suasso Museum’ as it was named. See for the early history of the Stedelijk Museum: Roodenburg- Schadd, Goed Modern Werk, and the booklet: Vellekoop, Het Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam., which was published by the Association of Friends of the Stedelijk Museum for the Museum’s 100th anniversary.
24 collection of mainly paintings by contemporary Dutch artists, which was eventually to be given to the City of Amsterdam.11 And finally, the Museum was to provide for exhibition space for various artists associations and the recurring exhibitions of Levende Meesters (Living Masters).12 During the following years the Stedelijk Museum became a boarding house for a variety of – mostly historical – collections including a medical pharmaceutical collection, a collection of clocks and other time instruments, and a collection of Asian Art.13 The Museum for Modern Design and the Nijkerk Collection of books were also stationed at the Stedelijk. It also provided space for numerous exhibitions organized by others including ‘older’ art exhibitions such as a Rembrandt and a Jan van Goyen exhibition. Frequently sections of the museum were rented out for parties and receptions. All in all, the Stedelijk Museum initial purpose was one of providing space for collections, exhibitions and celebrations of all kinds. Until the thirties, the Museum only sporadically initiated and organized its own exhibitions. Even though the Museum did not operate as a modern art museum with its own goals until later, it did have a reputation as the modern counterpart of the Rijksmuseum and as such was an example for the then still budding Museum of Modern Art.14 In the 1930’s the Stedelijk’s ambitions grew and a growing awareness of its position as a modern art museum was to stimulate new initiatives. Its true dedication to ‘modern’ art came after the Second World War under the directorship of Willem Sandberg. 15 Until then the goals formulated by the former directors of the Stedelijk Museum - C.W.H. Baard and D.C. Roëll - pertaining to modern art were connected to the actions of the VVHK, the acquiring of loans for the museum and the initiating of a number of national and international modern art exhibitions. Policy statements are to be found in the annual reports for the Municipality – which, of course, provide information after the fact – and in prefaces of exhibition catalogs of exhibitions organized by others but put on show in the Museum.
11 In 1949 the city council of Amsterdam acquired 217 artworks from the VVHK in celebration of its 75th anniversary. In 1962 the remaining 101 artworks were acquired and in 1978 the VVHK officially stopped its activities. 12 The Driejaarlijksche Tentoonstelling van werken van Levende Meesters was held every three years in Amsterdam. The two other cities which housed the exhibition, were Den Haag (the Hague) and Rotterdam. Both had permanent locations for the exhibition. 13 Het Medisch Pharmaceutisch Museum, Het Museum voor Tijdmeetkunde, and, het Museum van de Vrienden der Aziatische Kunst. 14 See Barr, A Museum of Modern Art in New York. R&P: 1930’s. MoMA Archives, NY. 15 The first ‘director’ of the Stedelijk was J.E. van Someren Brand. He was the first keeper (hoofdopzichter) of the Stedelijk Museum from 1895 until 1904. C.W.H. Baard, his assistant, took over in 1905 and acquired the newly created position of director in 1920. When Baard retired in 1936, D.C. Roëll became the second director of the Stedelijk Museum until the end of World War II. W.J.H.B. Sandberg who had joined the staff as curator in 1937 took over as director in 1945. After he retired in 1962, E. de Wilde became director of the Stedelijk.
25 Baard was the first to show interest in contemporary art and to present the Stedelijk as a living center for art, albeit a quiet and serene one. He felt the Museum should become “a center for contemporary art from the romantic period up until now”.16 As to what the character of the collection of ‘contemporary’ art should be, Baard diplomatically explained in the catalog of 40th anniversary exhibition in 1935, that the Museum should “extend hospitality to all movements in the field of the visual arts, leaving the ultimate judgment of their artistic value to the only safe judge of art: time.”17 This idea of ‘extending hospitality’, however, seems to still link the Stedelijk to the boarding house image it was trying to rid itself of. Baard promoted the internationally important loans of Ir. V.W. van Gogh, with his world-renowned collection of Van Goghs which entered the Museum in 1931 and P.A. Regnault’s collection of the Ecole de Paris, which kept the museum “up to date”.18 The Museum was to provide a well-lit, well-proportioned serene atmosphere – what Baard called the true definition of a museum – in which the public was invited to quietly enjoy the works of art.19 Clearly, the educational activities of the Stedelijk had yet to be developed. Although Baard was the first director of the Stedelijk to stick out his neck for the presentation of modern art in the Museum and to present it as a living museum, the Stedelijk still functioned predominantly as a Kunsthalle and as a storage house in which the various objects were conserved and displayed.20 Between 1936 and the outbreak of the War, Roëll’s goal as director was to strengthen the international position of the Stedelijk which he did by organizing a number of large exhibitions of modern art from European countries; exhibitions that put the Stedelijk Museum on the international map. To achieve his ambitions to bring the Museum up-to-date and to be able to house major international exhibitions, Roëll – supported and guided by Sandberg, who was then still curator - had a number of the Museum galleries modernized.21 This entailed
16 “een centrum van hedendaagse kunst van den tijd der romantiek tot op heden.” Monumentale Kunst, 40 jaar Stedelijk Museum te Amsterdam, catalog Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1935, p. 39. Roodenburg-Schadd also comments on Baard’s goal to make the Stedelijk an open, living institute. She quotes Baard’s own comments (in the magazine Verf en Kunst ) on a museum of contemporary art only being “a temporary refuge” (een doorgangshuis) with time as the only safe judge of real art. Baard made these comments in an article on modern art and museum policy in 1940, years after he had left the Museum. Roodenburg-Schadd, “De museumdirecteur als gastheer”, pp. 8-13. 17 Ibid., p.7. The Dutch text reads: “ (…) gastvrijheid biedt aan alle stromingen op het gebied der beeldende kunsten, de eindbeslissing omtrent hun artistieke waarde overlatend aan de eenig veiligen kunstrechter: de Tijd.” 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20The statement used at the opening of the Stedelijk Museum in 1895 by Burgomaster Vening Meinesz - “Het Stedelijk Museum een monument voor het heden en de toekomst” - was repeated by Baard in the 40-anniversary exhibition catalog Monumentale Kunst, 40 jaar Stedelijk Museum, 1935, p. 9. 21 For details of the modernization of the Museum building see the brochure Het Stedelijk Museum: Architectuur in dienst van de kunst, 2004.
26 changing to a lighter wall covering made of burlap, which enabled the hanging of the paintings to be constantly changed without leaving visible holes in the walls. The doorways were enlarged and the large heaters disappeared beneath the floorboards. A ‘modern’ awning was designed to filter the light from the glass ceiling and the dark walls in the stairwell were painted white.22 On the ground floor, Roëll had a storage room cleared out and painted white to install a temporary room for receptions and lectures. Attention was called to the needs of a Library which was not being built up systematically yet and was lacking essential standard works of art and catalogs. Attempts were made to set up exchanges of catalogues with other museums.23 As a municipal museum, the Stedelijk Museum operated accordingly. The appointed director was in charge but was restricted in his actions by the fact that the municipal government had the right to question or refuse any activity of which they felt that it did not serve the community properly. Furthermore, the director had to submit almost all requests for funding of acquisitions, exhibitions and all other museum activities to the alderman in charge, which slowed down all plans and actions the Museum tried to develop.24 The support of the alderman was crucial: he could defend the Museum’s case before the city council and safeguard controversial issues.25 The city council could initiate ideas and put pressure on the Museum to perform as in the case of promoting of public attendance to the Museum. Due to the growing influence of the Socialist Party, the SDAP, in the municipality in the thirties, the desire to promote contemporary art augmented. According to social- democratic ideas, art was to be enjoyed by a large public including the workers. Roëll as director of the Stedelijk was asked to propose plans on how to educate the “masses” and how to increase public attendance: “how to connect the masses and the Museum”.26 Temporary exhibitions were presented as a way of attracting the public and the frequency and importance of the exhibitions were to be augmented. Furthermore, a guide was hired in 1939 to give
22 See also Annual Report of the Stedelijk Museum, 1939. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. The yellow glass ceiling above the stairwell had been painted white before the awning was hung. The awning was designed by Sandberg’s friend, Johannes Itten (Bauhaus professor between 1919-1922). It disappeared during the War. 23 Nijhoff, 50 jaar Bibliotheek, p. 5. 24 Up until 1924 the Stedelijk Museum had no funds for acquisition, depending solely on bequests, gifts and loans for growth of the collection. 25 During Sandberg’s directorship his relationship with Alderman de Roos smoothed many paths Sandberg was to follow. 26 Minutes of meeting of the Municipal Council, October 21, 1937. Algemeen Verslag van het onderzoek der Gemeentebegroting 1938 in de afdelingen van de Gemeenteraad , Gemeenteblad afd. 1, p. 1780. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. One member of the Council commented that one would expect the new director of the Museum to present proposals which would connect museums with the masses. In Dutch: “Nu een nieuwe directeur benoemd is, mag echter verwacht worden, dat hij komt met voorstellen, die musea en massa verbinden”.
27 guided tours, which proved a success. This concept of educating the masses was then still a paternalistic idea in which the elite determined what was important and how the message was to be presented - the public was only to follow. As to what the masses were to be taught, it was made clear that according to the prevailing political ideas it was not the Museum’s task “to thrust upon the public the Government’s ideas concerning art. To provide a general characteristic was allowed.”27 This cautious approach to what was to be taught in the Stedelijk must have stifled any serious educational program. A new catalog of the Stedelijk’s collections was called for since the last one dated back to 1924. The plan was there, but the Museum was lacking manpower and funding. To build a steady group of visitors and supporters – to give the Museum financial and moral support - the goal was to initiate an association of ‘Friends of the Municipal Museums’.28 The task of connecting the Museum and the masses was be taken up gradually after the War. The desired goals were set, but many remained wishful thinking for decades. Besides the goal of educating the masses and increasing the Museum’s public, the contemporary Amsterdam artist needed to be supported and it was seen as the Stedelijk’s job to do so. Many different artists groups had established a position over the years in the Stedelijk and felt it was their right to have their recurring exhibitions there. And even though the desire and demand to support these groups was apparent, their automatic claim on the Stedelijk was to be questioned. In 1938 Sandberg, who had just joined the Stedelijk as curator, wrote a report on the issue in which he strongly opposed their exhibiting in the Stedelijk. He proposed to have them move to Museum Fodor, which eventually was to open its doors to many associations in 1949. The issue would remain a difficult one throughout the sixties. Disapproval due to the poor quality of some of the Artists Association exhibitions would eventually lead to the distancing of the Museum from the shows by means of a placard at the entrance of the exhibitions renouncing any responsibility for its content. The Second World War had a tremendous influence on the Stedelijk Museum. The Netherlands was an occupied country and the German Kultur Kammer was especially strict in Holland, because Germany considered its western neighbor as family. Contrary to the Museum of Modern Art, which was able to continue its activities and was even able to grow in importance during this period, the Stedelijk was curtailed in all its activities.
27 Minutes of the 166th meeting of the Commissie Bijstand concerning matters of art, held Thursday April 21, 1938. Chairman was Alderman E. Boekman. No. 35 K. 1938, p. 12. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 28 Ibid.
28 The Stedelijk’s goals and ambitions after the War were to focus on becoming a real modern art museum and no longer a conglomerate of collections and an exhibition hall.29 In 1944 already before the end of the War, the difficult position of the Stedelijk as modern art museum with the housing of all the different collections was pointed out: “The Stedelijk Museum at this moment consists of, except modern art and design, the Museum of the Friends of Asian Art, the Medical Pharmaceutical Museum, the Museum of Chronometry, and, the Period Rooms of the Suasso Foundation. Indeed an odd conglomerate!”.30 The ideas of constructing a new modern building for the new modern art museum never materialized, but the focus on modern art for the Stedelijk was accepted by the city council, which meant getting rid of a number of collections that did fit in a modern art museum. Sandberg’s goals were formulated right after the War in a number of reports for and correspondence with the municipal council. Already in 1946 Sandberg presented the position of the Stedelijk as: “one of the most important centers of living arts in the Netherlands” and he stressed that “the Museum aims at creating a larger and more intense interest for the living arts”.31 His aim was to present a “permanent survey of visual art from 1800 to the present” and “temporary exhibitions to accentuate various parts of it”.32 The aim of a permanent survey was geared towards presenting - for the first time -somewhat of a history of the development of modern art instead of hanging whatever was available, as Sandberg put it. This meant that a selection of works was to be made which entailed putting a greater number in storage. It was Sandberg’s ambition, however, to make all the objects accessible to the public, for whoever would want to study any individual work.33 This perhaps also stimulated Sandberg’s idea of constant change of the presentations. The Stedelijk was also to house a Collection of Applied arts and Interiors from 1800 to the present and a Print Collection 1800 to the present.34 For the development of the Design Collection, it was his goal to stimulate the participation of industry and commerce in order to influence industrial design positively. The Museum was to initiate exhibitions as, for example,
29 See for example Sandberg’s letter to the Amsterdam City Council, dd. June 20, 1949. No. S.M. 1276. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 30 Report ‘De Amsterdamsche Musea’, dd. May 15, 1944. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 31 Letter to the Amsterdam alderman of cultural affairs , dd. May 11, 1946. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. The Dutch text reads: “Het Stedelijk Museum is een der belangrijkste brandpunten van de levende kunst in Nederland. Het museum streeft ernaar een grootere en ook intensievere belangstelling voor de levende kunst te wekken.” 32 Ibid., in Dutch: “Een permanent overzicht van de beeldende kunst van 1800 tot heden” and “Tentoonstellingen om verschillende onderdelen daarvan te accentueren.” 33 Ideas he expressed often, as in for example a Travel Report of a trip to Denmark, Sweden and Switserland in 1946. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. Sandberg would eventually open the storage rooms to the public for study purposes. 34 See ‘Report Renewal Museum of Modern Art’ written by Sandberg in 1947. SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
29 its yearly exhibition of the 25 best books, which were to stimulate the publishing companies. Film was also to be incorporated in the Museum, according to Sandberg, because “this recreation medium of the masses can contribute greatly to the cultural development of our countrymen.”35 As for the relationship with the public, Sandberg set a number of goals: the museum should distinguish between exhibitions that were meant for artists and “a few intellectuals” and shows designed for a large public which were to be more educational. In these last exhibitions guided tours and guide booklets were to “facilitate the enjoyment of art”.36 This demonstrated that education in the Stedelijk did not mean acquiring knowledge of art history; education was geared towards art appreciation: ‘seeing’ and experiencing. Sandberg’s ideal for children was that there should be a room in the Museum in which they could “play with the art materials – under guidance” and installations for art appreciation in which a few paintings could be compared. These measures were to bridge the gap between child and museum.37 As the director of a leading Museum, Sandberg felt it was his responsibility to organize traveling exhibitions for the rest of the country, and saw great benefits in international traveling exhibitions. It was his goal to set up a Department of Circulating Exhibitions like the ones he admired in other museums such as the Victoria and Albert Museum in England and The Museum of Modern Art in New York. In the late forties he tried desperately, but in vain, to involve the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science in subsidizing a Department of Traveling Exhibition, which was to be directed by the Stedelijk. As part of his policy to serve the public, Sandberg requested a ‘Propaganda Department’ which would “be able to organize group visits, guided tours and lectures, and to write guidebooks and outlines.”38 He also suggested initiating a museum bulletin. Besides presenting his plans to the municipality, Sandberg’s goals and ideas on the function of the Stedelijk were presented in articles and in his own publication nu, all of which were publications that were read mainly by intellectuals and the international art world. In 1950 he wrote his ideas and ambitions in an important article which first appeared in the French art magazine Art d’Aujourd’hui, two years later in Dutch in the somewhat leftist intellectual weekly paper de Groene and, ten years later after Sandberg had implemented
35 Report written by Sandberg for the Alderman of the City Council, May 1946, ‘Ontwikkelingsmogelijkheden van de beeldende kunsten’, ad. 4 ‘Het publiek’, p. 5. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid., p. 4. 38 Ibid., p. 5.
30 many of his goals and had almost left the Stedelijk, an English translation was published in Delta. His goals for the Stedelijk as expressed in this article were to create a living museum, which - unlike a museum for old art – does not try to reconstruct the past in art history, but , as Sandberg stated, “the museum of contemporary art views the past through the eyes of 1950.”39 Inspired by the Bauhaus concept and the Museum of Modern Art, Sandberg wanted to incorporate all the visual arts in his Stedelijk: architecture, painting, sculpture, graphics, applied art, film and photography. For film, he wanted a film department with a projection room for viewing. Other arts, such as music, could be called upon in order to show parallels. It was the Stedelijk’s goal to provide “information on all these domains”. This was to be done in permanent exhibitions of “a limited number of - well-chosen – examples”; and befitting Sandberg’s ideas “it is preferable to start with the present and then move back into the past.” The temporary exhibitions were to “clarify different facets of the permanent exhibits.”40 Works not on display should be accessible for anyone interested, comparable to a library. Sandberg wanted the artists to be prominent in the Stedelijk: they were to be given room to experiment and they were to fulfill an educational role in the Museum: ‘explaining’ modern art to the larger public. In order for Sandberg to create his living museum the museum space was to be open and flexible. As for education in his Stedelijk, he stated: “never read what the art critics and historians / have written – except in very rare cases / you should read what artists themselves write / about art, like the diary of delacroix or the / letters of van gogh”. And, as he stated, above the entrance of the Stedelijk he wanted the following words inscribed: “those who enter / forget all you have learnt about art / those who leave: / start thinking about art now / try to look with your own eyes”.41 “A true museum is a work of art”, as Sandberg had said in 1950, and it was his goal to make the Stedelijk one. For Sandberg it was not to be an “impersonal museum”, which according to him was “a graveyard”: it was not the Stedelijk’s aim to provide an objective view of modern art – the Museum was to “bear the imprint of the man who organizes it”.42 This personal statement proclaiming the necessary subjectivity of ‘his’ Stedelijk as ‘director’s museum’ contrasts sharply with the Museum of Modern Art’s concept of the – more traditional – museum as objective educational institute.
39 W. Sandberg, ‘réflexions disparates sur l’organisation d’un musée d’art d’aujourd’hui’ as appeared in : Petersen and Brattinga, Sandberg, een documentaire/ a documentary, pp. 113-118. An English translation was included, which I used here. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid.
31 In 1959 Sandberg went a step further in his ambitions for a new concept of a modern art museum. He presented this new concept in a visionary publication positioning his Stedelijk as an artist’s experiment. In his carefully designed, artistic manifesto nu, written in French, Dutch, English and German, he described the ideal museum of modern art not as a museum – as Sandberg stated: “a museum is not the right key // to open the door to this XXth century for us”, but as a living center where “great artists” living now were “able to introduce us into the present // to prepare us for the future”.43 Sandberg portrayed his center as follows: “let us try to create surroundings // where the vanguard feels at home // wide // clear // on human scale // no large halls, pompous stairways, ceiling lights // doors like gates, uniformed officials // but a place where people dare to talk, laugh // and be themselves // a real centre for present life // generous // elastic // music’s home, home also for photography // painting and sculpture, for dance and movies // for experiment // and for everything that will brighten the features of the face our time (sic) // for every contribution to the form of the present // // the right place”.44 He concluded in an emotional appeal - both verbally as visually - by presenting this ideal center as one with no collection at all: “that place of today // where the future is a home // has no property // otherwise it will soon be a museum again // // that which it shows is borrowed // borrowed from other institutions, ethological (sic) collections // for which rent is paid // and when the object loose (sic) actuality // museums will gladly accept them // // enter this our XXth century // now // adjustment to the past = slow death // to the future = life”.45 (fig. 1) It is noteworthy that Sandberg makes his case for his living center of modern art which displays its authority by not having a collection in the same year as the Museum of Modern Art was promoting its authority by expanding in order to house its large permanent collections of valuable masterpieces. When Sandberg left the Stedelijk many of his goals were taken over by his successor, Edy de Wilde. As we shall see, De Wilde prolonged the concept of the director’s museum and kept its focus on the contemporary artist. Under De Wilde, the Stedelijk’s aim - as was advised by the Amsterdam advisory board - was to continue to contribute to society as a living center of the arts for not only the Amsterdam community but also nationally and internationally. As stipulated, the aim was to “maintain – and if possible increase - the impact
43 Sandberg, nu, p. 25. The French text is presented as his first language not only because it is the first text in the line of four languages, but because Sandberg only signed the French text – and not the translations - at the end of the booklet. (see photo) 44 Ibid., p. 31. 45 Ibid., p. 37.
32 of the Stedelijk in the international field of art”.46 The emphasis was kept on “contemporary art” and the goal was to “continually provide affiliation with the current developments in the field of visual arts and the related arts such as architecture , photography, industrial design, etc.” The Museum’s goal was also to encourage the understanding of this evolution so as to stimulate the active creativity of these arts.”47 In 1966, de Wilde presented his policy in Museumjournaal in which he declared his position on his living center of art. In many aspects his policy followed the set course, although he was to profile his own ideas. De Wilde agreed with Sandberg that a Museum should show the vision of its director. The artists - and especially what de Wilde called “outstanding figures” who were “creators of trends” followed by others - were to be given special attention in one-man shows.48 Group exhibitions were to inform the public on the trends in contemporary art. As for the development of the collection, he stated that the art historical approach was “not acceptable” for him: he preferred the “personal – and therefore subjective preference, which was of course dependent on one man.”49 As argument to defend his rejection of the art historical approach, he declared in a revealing statement: “We visit museums in order to gain personal experiences, not to learn anything”.50 The explicitly subjective approach to the collection was repeated in De Wilde’s catalog of the collection: “the homogeneity and continuity of a collection stem from the vision and the sense of quality of a single person.”, for, as he explained, “homogeneity of judgment is more convincing than a broad approach.”51 Research in the Stedelijk was not historical research but research concerned with the developing conditions of contemporary art and it was the Museum’s task to question and explain the results of this study to an as-large-a-possible public, that was according to De Wilde the Museum’s social function in the early 1970’s.52
46 See the letter by the advisory board ‘Amsterdamse Kunstraad’ to the Amsterdam Burgomaster and Aldermen, dd. December 6, 1963, nr. 446. SMA Archives, Amsterdam.This advice had been discussed with the parting director Sandberg before it was sent. 47 Ibid. p. 3. 48 De Wilde, “Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam”, p. 252. 49 Ibid., 252-257. The Dutch text reads: “ … de persoonlijke – dus subjectieve-voorkeur, die uiteraard gebonden is aan één man. De kunsthistorische opzet lijkt mij niet acceptabel.” 50 Ibid., 257. In Dutch: “We bezoeken musea om persoonlijke ervaringen op te doen, niet om wat dan ook te leren.” 51Introduction by De Wilde in : De collectie van het Stedelijk Museum 1963-1973, Het Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1974, n.p. 52 Ibid. 52 Ibid.
33 The exhibition policy remained geared towards what De Wilde described as “a decisive pointing out of the changing face of visual art”.53 The focus stayed on the living arts and the aim was to increase its international position by initiating and partaking in international circulating exhibitions. As de Wilde explained in an article he wrote for Art and Artists, “the museum of modern art is faced with two alternatives: It can either strive to fit in as part of the established order and be a public showroom of curiosities or it can highlight, and thereby promote, new trends in art.”54 It is clear that de Wilde promoted the Stedelijk as the latter alternative, presenting his museum as a ‘partner’ in the creation of new art, as he stated: “the museum has to function as the executor of the artist’s design and thereby implement the realization of what otherwise would never materialize. This implies that the museum is co-instrumental in realizing works of art.”55 The Stedelijk’s function was to change according to the needs of the contemporary artist, as De Wilde stated in Museumjournaal in 1970: the Museum had acted as “co-operator”, as “catalyst” and was now to function as “partner” and “accomplice”.56 The focus of the Stedelijk remained on the new under De Wilde: as Sandberg had done, he also promoted the Stedelijk as a “home for living art”. Although de Wilde acknowledged the importance of 19th century art, he advocated a museum of modern art without it: “Nineteenth century art constitutes a pinnacle in art history – it should be readily accessible to the general public for sure, but no longer domiciled in a museum of modern art.”57 By promoting this policy the crucial loss of the world famous Van Gogh collection – which had been the backbone of the Museum Collection since 1931 - was presented as a necessary rejuvenation of the Stedelijk. De Wilde defended his guiding principle of an ever- changing collection by contrasting the healthy vitality of the living museum with the stale, static historical museum - presenting his concept as a cure against “the process of sclerosis that is threatening the museum”.58 Art history was presented as not befitting a museum of living art: “The museum of present-day art goes in for the vital forces that shape the scene of today and tomorrow, not for art history”. This focus was not only to be witnessed in the collection, but also in the exhibitions and as mentioned above, in the catalogs.
53 In Dutch: “ (..) het tentoonstellingsbeleid gericht is op een slagvaardige signalering van het wisselende beeld van de plastische kunst”. 54 See typescript of an article by de Wilde “Notes on a Museum of Modern Art”, which was accompanied by a letter d.d. April 28, 1969 from Beeren sent to Mr. Colin Naylor for ‘Art and Artists’. found in files of de Wilde privé / 07. algemeen beleid. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 55 Ibid. 56 De Wilde, “Notities over de functie van het museum van hedendaagse kunst”, pp. 19-21. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid.
34 The policy of being a dynamic museum was displayed by the large number of exhibitions: as De Wilde stated: “It requires a great many exhibitions for the museum to meet its information goals.” The Stedelijk’s policy of informing the public was translated in organizing exhibitions which were now more like “productions”, as De Wilde explained, of artists working on the spot helped by museum personnel and facilities. According to De Wilde, the museum could not afford to take a step back to present “a comprehensive exhibition” which “could communicate a clear and conclusive picture of what is happening in the world of art” since “the moment one steps back far enough to be able to compose such a balanced picture, art itself has already moved ahead and set out to explore new avenues”.59 The Museum’s goal was to follow the artist and his art closely by providing space and opportunity for their development: the Museum as atelier. This strategy explains the low number of historical or theme exhibitions held in the Stedelijk in the later sixties and seventies. It also clarifies the role of the catalogs as celebrating and documenting the moment and not the positioning in art history as was the case in the Museum of Modern Art.
The Museum of Modern Art’s Goals and Ambitions: ‘The Greatest Museum of Modern Art in the World’
When the Museum of Modern Art was founded in 1929, it had nothing but ideals: there was no collection, no money and no building. But, as we shall see, starting from nothing has its advantages. The initial ideals came from three wealthy women, the three founding mothers of the Museum of Modern Art: A. Aldrich Rockefeller, L. Bliss, and M. Quinn Sullivan, who wanted to set up “a new gallery or museum in New York that would exhibit works of art of the modern school”.60 A. Conger Goodyear became the first president and formed a board of trustees with rich, influential men and women who were collectors of modern art and who came from academic, business and publishing circles. The first director of the Museum of Modern Art was a young art historian, Alfred H. Barr Jr. The Museum’s ultimate, long-term goal was set right from the beginning. In the very first published statement in 1929, A New Art Museum, the founding board of trustees confidently showed their ambitions: “the ultimate purpose will be to acquire, from time to time, either by gift or by purchase, the best modern works of art.” If this were to be consistently done, it was argued then, New York “could achieve perhaps the greatest museum
59 Ibid. 60 As quoted in Lynes, Good Old Modern, p. 9.
35 of modern art in the world”.61 These words were proudly recalled, many years later, in the Director’s Foreword of the catalog Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art 1929-1967 with a ring of confidence as to the Museum’s success.62 The drive to become the “greatest museum of modern art in the world” and therefore a leading authority on modern art steered the building of the Museum’s own image and its desired position as a ‘tastemaker’. The Museum would have to present itself very convincingly to its various audiences in order to achieve this goal. From the beginning in 1929, Barr had wanted to create a multi-departmental institute with not only painting and sculpture but including all the other visual arts– each with their own department: prints and drawings, architecture, commercial art (posters, advertising layout, packaging, etc.), industrial art (from furniture and fountain pens to automobiles), movies, theatre design (acts and costumes), photography and a library of books, photographs, slides and color reproductions.63 Barr had wanted to include this goal in the brochure A New Art Museum, the trustees, however, felt this plan to be far too ambitious considering the fact that the country was in a major crisis then. Moreover, their primary interest was painting, most of them being collectors of paintings. The “multi-departmental plan”, although officially held off for a while, was able to develop slowly following the growing interests and financial backing of the different trustees. The Museum’s official purpose – as an educational institution - was stated in the charter as “to encourage and develop the study of the modern arts and the application of such arts to manufacture and practical life, and furnishing popular instruction.”64. The educational emphasis was very much in line with the prevailing ideas of the function of museums in the United States in this period. The goal of “encouraging and developing the application of such arts to manufacture and practical life”, had come from Barr’s wish to eventually encompass all the different visual arts in the Museum’s program, and at the same time to enlarge its public with the rich
61 Barr, A New Art Museum, n.p. 62 See Foreword by the director Richard E. Oldenburg in Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art 1929-1967, A.H. Barr Jr. (New York 1977), p. ix. 63 As cited in an explanation of the 1929 multidepartmental plan that Barr wrote down for Goodyear’s publication, August 1941. AHB[AAA:3266; 68-80]. MoMA Archives, NY. 64 The wording of the application was according to Russell Lynes presumably by Sullivan (Lynes, Good Old Modern, p.15). However in Barr’s explanation of his 1929 multi-departmental plan in 1941 he writes: “The only evidence I can recall of interest in other possible departments was the wording of the charter which, unless I am mistaken, Mr. Sullivan changed at my suggestion and with the approval of the Trustees so that to the words “to encourage and develop the study of modern art” was added “and the application of such art to manufacture and the practical life”. See Barr, 1929 Multidepartmental plan for the Museum of Modern Art, pp.6-7. AHB[AAA:3266;68-80]. MoMA Archives, NY.
36 business community which would be necessary for the growing financial needs. This early awareness of and approach to the commercial community is noteworthy. In a Progress Report in 1933, Barr had reported under the heading ‘Contact with Business and the Business public’ that “the Museum has organized the display of its own works of art, and those of other museums, in office buildings and has included large department stores in the itineraries of its circulating exhibitions. The Museum gives to business any information on art which business is increasingly coming to feel it needs. This cooperation is developing a new audience for the Museum – the business man.”65 In the first years, the Museum had – besides its long-term goals – a temporarily set goal of survival. It had to show that it had sufficient grounds to build on by securing funds to outgrow its experimental status. This put immediate pressure on the Museum to acquire funds and gain public support. Persuasive fundraising brochures display the Museum’s strategies of appealing to the public and displaying its growing authority. In one of the numerous fund- raising brochures, the goal of the Museum was explained as follows: “The Museum of Modern Art was founded to determine whether or not there exists a sufficient public interest in modern art to justify the establishment of a permanent institution devoted to the collection, exhibition, and study of works of the modern school”.66 Sufficient public interest could of course be measured, for example, by public attendance, publication sales and membership numbers. The Museum needed to attract the public to its activities, which explains the very early Public Relations approach of the Museum and its eagerness and goal to reach its multiple audiences. In another early brochure, The Public As Artist (1932), Barr cleverly called on the public to support the Museum. In a persuasively constructed argument, he first attracted their attention with an emotional appeal by presenting the public’s role as a ‘lifesaving matter’. He pointed to the public’s responsibility: “art is the joint creation of artist and public”, and he warned: “Without an appreciative audience, the work of art is stillborn. The public must be ready, through a knowledge and understanding no less exacting than that of the artist, to inspire art and make it live.”67 To explain the weight of the responsibility and convince the public of its ‘duties’, he stated that “the more intelligent and widespread this reception, the more vital and significant art becomes. The public, therefore, shares equally with the artist the
65 The Museum of Modern Art Progress Report, p. 3. AHB, 9a.6. MoMA Archives, NY. 66 An Effort to Secure $ 3,250,000. R&P: 1930’s. MoMA Archives, NY. 67 Barr, The Public As Artist. R&P: 1930’s. MoMA Archives, NY.
37 exciting responsibility of carrying on the great tradition of living art”.68 Barr then built his argument by first stating the goals: “1. To bring about a sound and widespread understanding of modern art by impartial presentation; 2. To raise the level of art appreciation throughout the country; 3. To encourage living artists by exhibiting their work; 4. To promote international understanding through art.”69 The aim, as stated under 1), of being able to give an “impartial” presentation of modern art was both ambitious and naïve. Perhaps the emphasis on the presentation of an impartial picture was due to the fact that if the Museum was to be acknowledged as an authority it would have to show that it rose above any partiality and was therefore able to set “objective” standards in the selection of the modern canon. He then portrayed the Museum’s development towards achieving these goals and provided – verbal and visual - proof of the Museum’s success as center of an expanding reach into the world as the sun in a heliocentric worldview. (fig.2) To build the Museum’s authority, for example, the well-respected Metropolitan Museum was used. By quoting the radio speech made by the president of the Metropolitan Museum – who claimed that the Metropolitan and the Museum of Modern Art would form “another of the great art centers of the world” like Paris - the Museum of Modern Art was presented as the modern art institution which made a perfect partner for the Met: as a type of “Luxembourg”, which was the authority on modern art, formed an art center together with the Metropolitan Museum, the City’s “Louvre”. 70 By having the President of the Metropolitan – a respected authority - claim the association to the admired French institution and the partnership with the Metropolitan Museum, Barr promoted its reputation in the New York art scene amidst the rival modern art institutions. At the end – before supplying the practical information on how to become a member or contributor - he appealed directly to the public to contribute: “How well and how completely it can fulfill its national and international program must be determined, not alone by public interest, but by your financial support.”71 Despite the deepening Depression the number of new Museum members indeed grew steadily. Barr’s goals for the Museum collections were presented in policy reports. In 1933, in a policy report on the development of a semi-permanent collection made for the trustees, Barr presented a long-range plan for the building of a constantly changing collection, in which he presented his now famous torpedo diagrams. The collection was to be based on a metabolic
68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 At the same time it of course reflected the desire to copy this respected French institute. 71 Ibid.
38 principle of continual transformation, characterized by Barr as a torpedo: “its nose the ever advancing present, its tail the ever receding past of fifty to a hundred years ago.” As he explained: “If painting is taken as an example, the bulk of the collection, as indicated in the diagram, would be concentrated in the early years of the 20th century, tapering off into the 19th with a propeller representing “Background” collections”.72 (fig. 3) This image of a torpedo “moving through time with its nose in the ever advancing future and its tail in the ever receding past…” seems to be a somewhat strange and daring concept to use. Strange, because the actual body of a torpedo doesn’t change - as the collection was supposed to do - but remains the same shape and content as it moves through the water. Furthermore, the pictured shape with its tapering tail end is not according to the actual straight shape of torpedoes. Daring, because of its connotations to war and destruction. Despite its aggressive and destructive nature, the torpedo must have had a modern, efficient image in those days, which would have appealed to the trustees.73 It apparently offered a successful persuasive visualization of the collection plan, Barr’s strategic master plan. The first important body of works of art officially entered the Museum on its first anniversary in 1934; the Lillie Bliss bequest was the initial impulse for the building of an actual collection.74 Its rich selection of Post-Impressionist works and paintings by Picasso and Matisse became the core of the collection of painting and sculpture which had until then been made up of gifts. To this basis a second important collection was added in 1935.75 With the growth of the collection and the now somewhat stable financial position to back it up, the Museum was forced to decide how it was to develop: what the nature, the scope and the permanency of the collection was to be, how the exhibition program should be organized and what course to take in order to establish its desired national and international position. The first years had shown Barr’s successful directorship, but a number of influential trustees were beginning to doubt Barr’s capability to “manage” the Museum.76 A thorough report was made on how the Museum should develop. It is noteworthy that the report was written by an academic art historian. Following the conclusions of this substantial report, known as the
72 See Varnedoe, “The Evolving Torpedo”, pp. 12-73. 73 The president of the board of trustees at this time, Conger Goodyear, had a military background. 74 Lillie P. Bliss was one of the three founders of the Museum in 1929. She died in 1930 and bequeathed her collection of paintings by Daumier, Cézanne, Seurat , Gauguin, and others, on condition that within three years the museum was sufficiently endowed to ensure its viability. 75 This collection was from one of the other founding mothers of the Museum: Abby Aldrich Rockefeller. 76 Kantor, Alfred H. Barr Jr. and the Intellectual Origins, p. 358.
39 ‘Packard Report’ made under the authority of the Museum itself, plans for a new organization in a new building were made.77 After being housed in three different locations, a new modern building – a prime example of modern art itself - was erected in 1939, which marked the beginning of a new phase in the life of the Museum.78 Its ambitions were growing as could be witnessed by the grand opening of the new building on its 10th anniversary. Besides the proud presentations of the Museum’s accomplishments, this moment in the development of the new Museum was seized to sharpen its ambitions and adjust one’s goals. One address on the opening night for the trustees by the Harvard Professor Sachs – Museum trustee and expert on museums - was concerned with what he called “the serious problem which faces American museums” and “the specific problems of the Museum of Modern Art”.79 His ideas – which were published in the Museum of Modern Art Bulletin – spelled out a number of issues, which the Museum was struggling with and clarified the goals and image the Museum was striving for. Sachs pointed to the lack of good research in museums and the need to take the sciences as example: sciences that “insist on the continuance of a severe initial discipline” instead of what he referred to as “the sentimental” in the humanities. This academic focus and call for a scientific approach is significant and contrasts sharply with the Stedelijk Museum’s. As we shall see, not all trustees agreed on this scholarly emphasis. Sachs called for higher standards in museum scholarship and collecting. To achieve these he called for museums and universities to work together to educate an elite. As he stated: “ if you choose in this fashion to cooperate with the universities in training an elite you have it in your power to lead the world in the coming generation – in museum administration, museum collecting and museum scholarship.”80 On the Museum Collection he suggested creating a canon collection, a “choice permanent collection, of moderate size: - a collection
77 Mr. Artemas Packard, head of the Department of Art and Archeology at Dartmouth College was extended a year’s leave of absence for the express purpose of coming to the Museum as a research adviser to study the possible development of the Museum as a national institution, and more particularly, to recommend an extensive educational program for the Museum. The study was conducted in 1935-36; the report ‘A Report on the Development of the Museum of Modern Art’ was finalized in 1938, but preliminary suggestions were made to the Trustees in January 1936. R&P: 1930’s. MoMA Archives, NY. 78 The Museum’s first lodgings were in rented space on the 12th floor of the Heckscher Building, 730 Fifth Avenue at Fifty-seventh Street. In 1932 the Museum moved to a four gallery floor house at 11 West Fifty-third Street. In order to have the new museum building built, the Museum temporarily moved to Rockefeller Center at 14 West Forty-ninth Street in 1937. Finally in 1939, the new Museum building, designed by Philip L. Goodwin and Edward D. Stone, was completed together with a sculpture garden, designed by John McAndrew, at the back of the building on Fifty-fourth Street. 79 Sachs, “An address to the Trustees by Professor Paul J. Sachs of Harvard University”, p. 3. 80 Ibid., p. 7.
40 which may serve as a sort of stabilizer or measuring rod: - a sort of background of quality against which our important temporary exhibitions may be projected and evaluated.”81 The suggestion of a permanent core collection anticipated what was to be taken up in the 1950’s, but was as yet discarded. In 1942, in the first official catalog of the Collection, Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art, the goal of the Collection was still presented as changing: as “permanent as a stream is permanent – with a changing content”; on keeping the collection “modern” by changing it “gradually but completely”.82 However, to accommodate the growing desire for stability in these War years, Barr presented the Collection as a somewhat stable factor: “Yet even though the collection may seem transitory in comparison with those of other museums it takes on a certain air of permanence in relation to the Museum’s kaleidoscopic program of temporary and circulating exhibitions, film shows, concerts and lectures. It is one of the important functions of the Museum Collection to give a core, a spine, a background for study and comparison, a sense of relative stability and continuity to an institution dedicated to the changing art of our unstable world.”83 Sachs’ call for more and better art historical research by the Museum presented a position in a discussion which was to be continuous: what was considered to be the Museum’s educational role? It was clear from the start that the Museum’s educational goal was to be a guiding principle throughout its existence, and the Museum believed it could contribute to the many stages and levels of education. There were to be, however, apparent differences between the ideas of the director and a number of powerful trustees on just how educational the Museum should be.84 The trustees approach to the more scholarly aspects seems paradoxical. On the one hand, they did not want the Museum to be too academic, on the other hand, however, they were aware of the importance of scholarly catalogs for the value and status of the works of art. The dispute on the educational emphasis of the Museum’s goals was reflected in the differences of how the works were to be presented and labeled, the choice of exhibition subjects and the acquisition policies. In the mid-forties these issues were addressed and the initial Policy Statement of the Museum was officially modified to meet the criticism of the influential trustees. This is reflected in the chosen wording: the word “study” seemed too
81 Ibid., p. 11. 82 Barr, Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art, 1942, p. 10. 83 Ibid. 84 See for example the letter from Barr to the trustee Sam Lewisohn, June 22, 1944 in which he refers to Lewisohn’s remarks: “the Museum’s purpose isn’t just classifying and pigeonholing” and to make “the Museum more than an austere classroom”. AHB[AAA: 2170;698]. MoMA Archives, NY.
41 academic and a new concept of education was propagated in a restatement in 1944, which was published in many of the Museum’s publications thereafter: “the primary purpose of the Museum is to help people enjoy, understand and use the visual arts of our time”. As Barr explained, “Obviously these three activities – enjoying, understanding, using – should be thought of as interdependent. Each confirms, enriches and supports the others. Together they indicate the Museum’s primary function which is educational in the broadest, most creative and least academic sense”.85 Another function of the Museum was broadened in the restatement of the Museum’s goals in 1944: the practical aspect was broadened to “use” the visual arts not only in a practical sense but also in a spiritual way.86 Religious, moral and therapeutic aspects were connected to the arts in exhibitions, lectures and special programs. By also encouraging the religious and therapeutic aspects of modern art, the Museum seemed to try to imbed modern art as an essential link in all aspects of modern living. During the War the Museum had dedicated itself to participate where it could by putting on political propaganda shows but also by providing therapeutic art classes for War Veterans. The 1944 restatement of the definition of the Museum’s purpose was published in the second, more substantial collection catalog, Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art in 1948. Another important policy change, which now concerned the collection, was printed in the same publication. In 1947 the Museum of Modern Art had signed an agreement with the Whitney Museum of American Art and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Under this agreement works of art “which have passed from the category of modern to that of historic” were to be sold to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. As Barr explained: “In this way the Metropolitan will be assured of securing representative painting and sculpture by recent artists for its great survey of the art of the past while the Museum of Modern Art will live up to its name by keeping its collection modern.”87 This policy, however, was not to last long: after experiencing the loss of a number of very valuable works of art and the realization that the Museum’s most valuable works of art (post-impressionists) would have to soon leave the Museum, the policy was changed. Furthermore, the mounting aversion of only focusing the
85 Barr, The Museum Collection: A Brief Report, 1944. AHB[AAA:3260]. MoMA Archives, NY; and in Barr, “Chronicle of the Collection”, pp. 629-630. 86 This perhaps also in response to at least one of the trustee’s desire of emphasizing the “sensual and mystical pleasure”: See letter Barr to Sam Lewisohn, June 22, 1944. AHB[AAA: 2170;698]. MoMA Archives, NY. 87 A.H.Barr Jr., Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art, The Museum of Modern Art New York, 1948, p. 5.
42 acquisitions on the newer art and the growing hesitation of powerful trustees to give their works to the Museum, contributed to the ending of the Inter-Museum within a few years.88 In 1953 a radically new Collection Policy was announced by the board of trustees, a policy which provided for a Permanent Collection of Masterpieces of Modern Art and which would change the focus of the Museum from then on. In The Museum of Modern Art Bulletin the chairman of the board of trustees announced “An Important Change of Policy”. The Museum had decided that former policies did not benefit the public and that “it now believes it essential for the understanding and enjoyment of its entire collection to have permanently on public view masterpieces of the modern movement, beginning with the latter half of the nineteenth century.”89 That the new collection – the canon, which Sachs had called for already in 1939 - was to be exemplary was made clear: “It must be stressed that this permanent nucleus will be composed only of great masterworks. Combining thus under one roof the most representative collection of the significant movements and trends of today and a permanent core of the finest examples of the entire modern movement, the Museum believes that its contribution to the knowledge and enjoyment of modern art will be of ever-increasing importance.”90 A Committee named ‘The Policy Committee for the Museum’s Permanent Collection of Masterworks’ was installed to draw up a resolution which was presented years later in 1956.91 To stimulate gifts for the now definite Permanent Collection of Masterpieces, exhibitions were held such as Paintings from Private Collections in 1955 and Works of Art: Given or Promised in 1958, in which important patrons and donors of the Museum Collection were honored by displaying their gifts or their gifts-to-be. Their masterpieces were praised in superlatives, which added to the honor of the givers as well as to the Museum Collection: “The importance of these works of art to the Museum’s collection is very great. Their extraordinary quality is obvious. Their enormous value makes them, practically speaking,
88 Barr wrote in his ‘Chronicle of the Collection of Painting and Sculpture’, which was printed in Barr, Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art, 1929-1967, “(…)some older members of the Committee on the Museum Collections, encouraged by adverse newspaper criticism, vigorously questioned the validity of certain acquisitions, including paintings called “abstract expressionist”. Purchase was difficult. (Later, in 1952, a member of the Committee “reluctantly” resigned when a Rothko was acquired; another member had resigned when Giacometti’s Chariot was purchased in 1951; it was “not a work of art,” he wrote. Both men, however, remained on the Board of Trustees.) 89 Barr, “An Important Change in Policy”, p. 3-4. 90 Ibid., p. 3. 91 Barr, Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art: A Catalog, 1958, p. 6.
43 irreplaceable.”92 By naming exactly who gave what and which works of art were more valuable than others, the Museum created an atmosphere of competition: who gave the most and the best was to be recognized in the honors bestowed on them. Since the early fifties this major change in policy could be detected in many Museum presentations: series of exhibitions were initiated which presented individual ‘Masters’ ‘Master movements’, or centered on single ‘Masterpieces’. The Museum’s 1954 anniversary, which is discussed further on, focused completely on the ‘Masters of Modern Art’. Besides the now official goal of collecting a Permanent Masterpiece Collection which was to dominate the Museum’s image from then on, the ever-present educational goal of the Museum was constantly growing. To match the excellence of the Collections, the Museum strove to provide excellence in education; as expressed in the report ‘The Museum of Modern Art as an Educational Institution’: “In all its educational, as well as in its esthetic, objectives the Museum recognizes that its foremost responsibility is to set and to maintain standards of excellence.”93 By acknowledging the responsibility of ‘setting standards’, the Museum underscores its authority. Part of its educational role was providing materials for reference and research. Its increasing influence through publication of materials from the Museum collections in standard works of art history such as Gardner’s Art Through the Ages and Janson’s Key Monuments of the History of Art was carefully monitored. 94 The expanding Educational Program set its ambitions to broaden its services towards the international community, which meant increasing the Museum’s influence internationally.95 In 1952 the International Program had been initiated through a grant from a private Rockefeller foundation with the purpose “to create greater understanding between the United States and other nations through reciprocal presentations of significant achievements in visual
92 Press Release No. 71, Barr, ‘Works of Art: Given or Promised and the Philip L. Goodwin Collection’ , October 8-November 9, 1958, (Press Release No. 71, for Wednesday, October 8, 1958) R&P MoMA Archives, NY. 93 The Museum of Modern Art As An Educational Institution, 1960. R&P MoMA Archives, NY. 94 Ibid., pp. 12-13. Mention is made of the most recent edition of Gardner’s Art Through the Ages including in its section on twentieth-century art “thirteen plates from the Museum’s collection – twice as many as from any other single source” and Janson’s Key Monuments of the History of Art using for its forty-six plates illustrating twentieth-century paintings, sculpture and prints twenty plates from the Museum’s collection. 95 There was a strong desire to set up an International Study Center where foreign scholars could come to study at the Museum of Modern Art. In a confidential report “A Presentation to the Rockefeller Foundation proposing the establishment of an international center for study and research at the Museum of Modern Art”, October 21, 1960, mention is made of requests from “two of the most brilliant European museum directors – Georg Schmidt, of the Kunstmuseum in Basel, and W.J.H.B. Sandberg, of the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam” who both “wanted members of their staffs to study at the Museum of Modern Art”, having to be denied due to lack of space and funds. Museum Reports and Pamphlets, Box 5a, MoMA Archives, NY. This also demonstrates the great respect the Museum of Modern Art had for Sandberg.
44 arts.”96 Through this program many Museum exhibitions were to be presented throughout the world. A year later the International Council of the Museum of Modern Art was formed by the Museum’s Trustees “to help increase understanding and mutual respect among nations by fostering, in the field of modern art, cultural interchange between the U.S. and other countries.”97 The Council was to become the backbone of all international affairs of the Museum, including the sponsorship of the International Program of Exhibitions that started after the initial grant had expired.98 This nationwide organization – as it was described – also filled in for the lack of a government agency such as a ministry of culture in the organization of American representation at international exhibitions.99 The Museum profiled itself as an international institution with international influence by accompanying its important traveling exhibitions with extensive ‘Background Information’ on the history and importance of the Museum itself and on the International Council at the Museum of Modern Art, New York and The International Program of Exhibitions. This background information was provided in text form but also in visual displays in which the traveling exhibitions proudly covered the world map so as to demonstrate the Museum’s worldwide influence. (fig. 4) The aim of the Museum of Modern Art to be an example to the international art world was also to be accomplished by providing for international scholars to come and study at the Museum of Modern Art, which emphasizes once again its scholarly ambitions.
The Development of an Organization: The Stedelijk Museum
The organization of the Stedelijk Museum, a conglomerate of different collections and ‘museums’ itself, became part of a larger Municipal association in 1947, which consisted of four municipal Museums: the Stedelijk Museum, and the ‘small’ museums: Amsterdam Historical Museum, Museum Willet Holthuysen and Museum Fodor. The director of the Stedelijk was initially also director of the smaller museums. Each museum, however, had their own tasks and responsibilities. The Municipal Association (Gemeente Dienst) was responsible for the care of all the municipal collections. In the sixties the Rijksmuseum was to
96 ‘Background Information on the International Council at the Museum of Modern Art, New York and the International Program of Exhibitions’ circulated by The International Council at the Museum of Modern Art New York to accompany the Museum’s important international circulating exhibitions. R&P: Box 5. MoMA Archives, NY. 97 Kennan, International Exchange in the Arts. 98 After the initial grant ended in 1957, the International Council sponsored the program with continuing grants from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and from private individuals. 99 As is explained in: ‘Background Information on the International Council at the Museum of Modern Art, New York and the International Program of Exhibitions’. R&P: Box 5. MoMA Archives, NY.
45 eventually preside over the smaller museums with the historical collections, whereas Museum Fodor remained under the directorship op the Stedelijk Museum. In the 1930’s the organization consisted of five curatorial staff members : a director – first Baard, then Roëll in 1936; a curator – first J.Q. van Regteren Altena and from 1937 on, Sandberg – and three research assistants, of which the art historian, Hans Jaffé, was one (starting in 1935). There were no separate departments within the Museum. There was a research staff member for painting and sculpture and one for the Museum of Modern Applied Art which was housed in the Stedelijk and was later to become part of it. All issues concerning museum education, exhibitions and collecting, had to be discussed and decided with the municipal committees who raised questions concerning these issues and had their own ideas as how to the Museum’s tasks should be done. After the War when Sandberg became director, he had to get his staff back in order. Including himself, there were three of them: the director Sandberg, Hans Jaffé, as curator of painting and sculpture and Paula Augustin as research assistant for applied arts. Sandberg who was a graphic designer was to be responsible for most of the Museum’s typographical work: posters, catalogs, invitations etc. His authority as director of the Museum was based on his being an artist as well as a nobleman. Furthermore, he was well respected for his active participation in the resistance during the War. In 1948, to encourage public attendance, the planned Amsterdam Museum Circle for Modern Art (Amsterdamse Museumkring voor Moderne Kunst) was finally established. The Museumkring was to become responsible for the contact between Museum and public. The Museum organized special lectures and guided tours for this new group of contributors. A municipal school art committee and museum committee were installed to stimulate participation from schools in the vicinity; guided tours were also given to the Amsterdam school children.100 All tours were mostly given by artists, according to Sandberg’s wishes, who were to focus on art appreciation instead of art history. A year earlier a Reproduction Department had been opened to arouse interest for modern painting for a large public. This department fit the Museum’s aim to increase public participation, to support the contemporary artist and to augment the Museum’s collection. An exhibition was held to call attention to this new department and to promote the sale of reproductions: het museum thuis (the museum at home, 1948) in which framed reproductions were displayed in the Museum together with examples of art works in which artists
100 Jaffé was in the museum committee for the Stedelijk.
46 experimented with ways of reproducing their art works without the use of a machine. Fitting in the socialized approach of the Museum, the exhibition was to demonstrate the quality of the reproductions and of accessible multiples by living artists. As explained in the catalog of the exhibition “This way art becomes a public commodity instead of the private possession of a few, like it used to be.”101 Furthermore, “this exhibition served a social cause: the income from the sales of reproductions will be donated to an acquisition fund, which shall enrich the Museum Collection and improve the social position of the artist.”102 The collection received an important impulse when in 1949, after the VVHK was assured that – thanks to the expansion of the Museum space - the largest part of the collection would be on view for the public, it officially bequeathed its collection – consisting of 217 works of art - to the municipality of Amsterdam to be presented in the Stedelijk Museum. Slowly but surely a number of Sandberg’s plans were materialized: more room was created by the departure of the Medical-pharmaceutical, Asian Art and Clock collections in the late forties and early fifties and the reinstallation of remaining collections. To create Sandberg’s living museum, which was to present itself as a transparent, open center, the old Museum building was modernized, creating new light gallery space and opening up the Museum to the street by renewing its entrance with transparent glass door and walls.103 In 1951 the living aspect of the Stedelijk was also stimulated by the new auditorium and foyer in which many different groups could be entertained and in which Sandberg could realize his plan to add film to the Museum’s program. A year later the Dutch Film Museum was housed in the Stedelijk so that a real program of viewing could be materialized showing “a survey of the art of film of the last 50 years”.104 The auditorium was also used for conferences, lectures and also for music: museum concerts were given in which “the emphasis was on the development of modern music that runs parallel to modern painting such as is shown in the Collection.”, as Sandberg had outlined in his goals for the Museum.105 As part of his policy of openness and availability of art for all, new storage rooms were organized and made easily accessible through a system of racks which could be pulled out easily to view the hidden works of art. With the opening of the new Sandberg wing in 1954, the grand finale of Sandberg’s living center for the visual arts had started: in 1956 the Print Room was opened - which meant
101 het museum thuis, catalog Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1948. 102 Ibid. 103 The first (ground) floor was modernized by the architect Mart Stam and the second floor by Eschauzier. See Het Stedelijk Museum: Architectuur in dienst van kunst. 104 See Annual Report of the Municipality of 1952, p. 266. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 105 Ibid. The Museum concerts were held on two Sunday’s during the winter months.
47 the beginning of a new department - followed by the opening of a library for modern art including a reading room in 1957. The library and reading room were to display the same open, living quality as the rest of the Museum. When profiling and promoting the new library in Museumjournaal , the open and less scholarly – more popular – approach was underlined.106 The collection of publications focused on the artists and not on the history of - or theory - of art. This concentration on the artist can also be detected by the very early initiation of a type of ‘oral’ documentation program in which interviews with artists were taped.107 The open restaurant area decorated Appel’s mural and the large terrace opened in 1958. A year later, a Photographic Department - which studied the history and present developments of photography as a visual art expression - was established under the responsibility of the Library. The modernizing of the Museum was paralleled with the experimentation of new ways of informing the public: the Stedelijk was the first museum to use wireless audio guides as a stimulus to appreciate the art on view. (fig. 5, 6) This device – of which a Dutch, English, French and German version could be used - was proudly presented at the 17th International Conference of Art History, which was being held in the Stedelijk Museum in 1952. 108 Furthermore, the Stedelijk together with a few other Dutch museums, started publishing a museum bulletin ‘Museumjournaal’ in 1955; the very first issue contained an article by Sandberg explaining his new wing.109 Museumjournaal was seen as an informative magazine for the already interested public and the foreign art museums and institutions. It was to be used to motivate the public to visit the Museum exhibitions; it had an informative, contemplative - and later, an educational function.110 Also in 1955 an Educational Department was established to stimulate the educational activities of the Museum. This department produced the Museum’s first didactic exhibitions especially designed for school children, such as Het Portret (The Portrait 1955-1956) and Het Stilleven (The Still Life 1956). These didactic exhibitions were discontinued already after two years, due to the departure of the head of the department.111
106 See Nijhoff, 50 jaar Bibliotheek, p. 9; and, Kloet, “De Bibliotheek”, p. 149. 107 Information from Michiel Nijhoff, the Stedelijk Museum. 108 This device consisted of 20 audio guides which could present programs to accompany the exhibitions in different languages. The idea for the device had come from E.R. Meyer of the Centraal Museum in Utrecht and was developed by Philips in Eindhoven. It was abandoned after a number of years. See letter from Meyer to Sandberg, dd. February 20, 1952. (doss. 2616) SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 109 The other two museums to participate then were: Van Abbe Museum in Eindhoven and the National Kröller Müller Museum in Otterloo. Both had important collections of modern art. 110 Its educational role seemed to be augmented when the Stedelijk Museum’s own Educational Department was not functioning up to par. 111 See ‘Annual Report of the Municipality of 1957’, p. 343. SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
48 In the late sixties early seventies, now under De Wilde who became director in 1963, the Educational Department was rejuvenated and changed to – as in the case of many museums in the Netherlands – the Communications Department. This department seems to finally give the Museum, the “Propaganda Department” which Sandberg had envisioned in the 1940’s. The three curatorial departments remained: Painting and Sculpture, Applied Arts and the Print Room; and the number of curators in the different departments increased. To catch up on the necessary research for the Museum, a curator for research was appointed. During de Wilde’s reign the Film Museum was to leave the Stedelijk Museum due to problems of space and De Wilde’s own priorities within his Museum. Despite the increase of personnel, the Stedelijk would remain understaffed compared to the Museum of Modern Art. The development of the Stedelijk Museum’s organization had never caught up with the goals and ambitions of its directors and the international reputation it had acquired. The national and international importance of the Stedelijk during the period 1935 until 1975 did not translate into the growth of the staff and organization to sustain its position. As Sandberg had pointed out already in 1946, the Stedelijk’s organization in no way was giving him the possibilities of fulfilling the goals and tasks of what he considered necessary for the development of a modern art museum. Already in 1946, the differences between the organizations of the Stedelijk Museum and the Museum of Modern Art were large: as Sandberg argued for in a plea for more staff – which at that time consisted of only two members: “It is of extreme importance that if the Museum is really going to be able to fulfill its desired role, more staff members will have to lighten the burden of the Director. I may conclude in saying that the staff of the Rijksmuseum consists of 27 members and the staff of the Museum of Modern Art in New York has more than 30 …”112 The differences between the size and wealth of the organizations of the two Museums were only to become greater.
The Development of an Organization: The Museum of Modern Art
In contrast to the Stedelijk Museum, the organization of the Museum of Modern Art was able to grow according to its goals and ambitions. In the first years of the existence of the Museum of Modern Art, an organization was created step by step so as to establish an institute that was
112 See a letter from Sandberg to the Alderman of Cultural Affairs of the Municipality of Amsterdam, dd. February 13, 1946, S.M. 85/1946. SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
49 to become a leading authority on modern art by acquiring and exhibiting works of art and through its publications and its educational programs. The Museum’s organization structure, with its formal lines of decision-making on policy and museum activities, started out with its founding Board of Trustees, director and – within a year - an Advisory Committee, made up of a ‘younger’ group from which future trustees and staff members might be drawn.113 The trustees’ idea behind creating this Advisory Committee was to ensure the attachment of a good many collectors and prominent men and women in the art field such as curators, critics and artists. It was to become an influential voice in the Museum with its critical advisory role and with eventually its own (limited) responsibilities of a number of acquisitions and exhibitions.114 It was responsible for important early initiatives such as the educational project under Victor d’Amico in 1937, which was to expand rapidly in size and importance and become the Department of Education, and a series of exhibitions which were to become trend setting in design: Objects of Daily Household Use.115 The organizational structure of the Museum grew steadily according to the Museum’s goals with various new programs, departments, numerous committees and subcommittees each with their own tasks and responsibilities. By 1941 five curatorial departments had been established for painting and sculpture (1929), architecture, film (1935), industrial art, photography (1940).116 In 1949 the Print Room opened and together with the collection of drawings formed the Department of Drawings and Prints in 1960.117 Even though film and design were promoted as important modern art forms in which America had achieved superiority and which were popular with the larger public, the Painting and Sculpture Department would always remain the largest and most prominent. In accordance to what the Museum saw as its ultimate goal, to become the greatest museum of modern art in the world - as a mother institute with a national (and later
113 The Advisory Committee was in function between 1930 and 1945. 114 The Advisory Committee seemed to function as the Museum’s conscience: reminding the Museum of its responsibilities and functions, its dedication to education and disapproving of any actions which were not in line with its true purpose for example in the case of the showing of the exhibition of Early Italian Masterpieces in 1940 of which the Advisory Committee did not approve. See Early Museum History: Administrative Records: 1930’s-1950’s, Series I Museum Matters, Box 7, Filing unit 12a: Advisory Committee recommendations. A Digest of recommendations and suggestions of the Advisory Committee of the Museum of Modern Art, Nov.1938 – May 1941. MoMA Archives, NY. 115 See Annual Report to Members in Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 5, no.1 (January 1938): p. 4. The Advisory Committee also made important acquisitions for the Museum such as, for example in 1937, when it bought Mondrian’s Composition in White, Black and Red (1936). 116 The number of departments was to vary constantly by either the addition of new departments or the combining of existing ones such as Architecture and Industrial Art in 1937. Now Architecture and Design. 117 For the growth of the different departments see Barr, Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art 1929-1967.
50 international) supportive function to other museums of modern art, universities and other educational institutions – it developed certain functions and departments to expand its influence and to further its growth. Barr described it - in a type of ‘survival of the fittest rhetoric - as the Museum developing “naturally without a premeditated plan, … like a creature in a Darwinian system of evolution … reacting to supply and demand, seizing opportunities, developing new capacities for service or competition”. 118 As examples of “natural” growth, Barr gave the establishment of the Department of Circulating Exhibitions in 1933 and the division of executive responsibility between finance and management on one hand, and art and scholarship on the other with the creation of the position of an executive director also in 1933. The establishment of the Department of Circulating Exhibitions was a crucial step in the development of the Museum as authority and tastemaker, spreading its influence throughout the rest of the country and beyond its borders not only to museums but also to other educational institutions as universities and colleges and commercial and community buildings.119 To underline the importance of the Circulating Exhibitions, two issues of the Museum’s bulletin were to be devoted to its special position and development.120 The Museum – being a privately funded institution - was a real business from the start with targets being frequently set for income and public attendance. Very early on sharp analyses were made in order to get a better understanding of the Museum’s financial possibilities and insight into the Museum’s audience in which not only “high” museum attendance was valued, but also a understanding of the different groups this attendance was made of. 121 To cater to the Members who were an important group for the Museum, special conditions were created including eventually their own space in the Museum: the Members Lounge in the Penthouse of the new Museum.
118 This ‘survival of the fittest’ rhetoric was presented in a description of the origins, development and partial realization of the 1929 multi-departmental plan to Goodyear for his book on the first ten years of the Museum’s existence. “1929 Multidepartmental Plan for the Museum of Modern Art: Its Origins, Development, and Partial Realization.”, A.H.B.,Jr., Greensboro , August 1941, p. 1 , AHB[AAA:3266;68-80] MoMA Archives, NY. 119 A variety of institutions were to apply for circulating exhibitions such as art associations, art clubs and societies, colleges, department stores, museums, schools, libraries, international exhibitions (for example the New York World’s Fair and Golden Gate International Exposition), community centers and art galleries. Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 7, no. 5 (September 1940): p. 10. 120 D. C, “Circulating Exhibitions”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 7, no. 5 (September 1940) and Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 21, no. 3-4 (Summer 1954). 121 See Barr, Present Status and Future Direction of the Museum of Modern Art (confidential report for trustees only). August 6, 1933. AHB[AAA: 3266;121-135] MoMA Archives, NY.
51 The business attitude in the Museum was already apparent early on and felt by some as a threat to anything “which does not …(directly or indirectly) pay for itself”.122 Money inevitably was to determine the course the Museum would take; within the Board of Trustees, the power that the different individuals had in Museum affairs, seemed to depend on how much they contributed to the budget and to the collections.123 Once in the saddle these individuals were ready to steer the Museum towards their field of interest. Also the pressure of balancing budgets and searching for funds to back the increasing desire to grow would determine changes in the organization and the staff. In the 1930’s the Museum already applied a true business approach to the functioning of the organization in distinguishing its “production” and “distribution” activities. This was institutionalized in a division of staff responsibility between Director - responsible for artistic “production” - and an Executive Director - responsible for “distribution” and general administration. According to Alan Blackburn, Jr., Executive Director at that time, “the Museum “produces” art knowledge, criticism, scholarship, understanding, taste. …This preparation or “production” work is the stuff of which the Museum’s prestige is made. … Once the product is made, the next job is its distribution. An exhibition in the galleries is distribution. Circulation of exhibitions, catalogs, memberships, publicity, radio are all distribution.” 124 It is interesting to note that not only the curatorial staff had a scholarly approach towards the aspect of “quality” of the museum “product” early on but that the administrative head backed this approach too: “A proper balance between production and distribution can be obtained in the Museum only by emphasis on the former. More time and planning and money must be given to production. … Consider the Museum entirely as a business. If the product is good its duplication and distribution can be endless”. Blackburn also felt that an exhibition should not be considered first for its “popular” appeal but that it first should be judged on its intrinsic merits.125 Barr consistently pursued this demand for quality of the art in the museum and of the scholarship produced by the staff. He saw it as his task to set and
122 Personal letter from Lincoln Kirstein (member of Advisory Committee) to Barr. Not dated but probably written in 1933 or 1934. AHB[AAA: 2165;411]. MoMA Archives, NY. 123 For example Walt Disney was one of the first sponsors of the Museum Film Library and one of the first to donate his films. He became a trustee in 1944. See Editorial, ‘New Trustees’ in: “Museum Notes”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 11, no. 4 (February-March 1944): p. 11. 124 From Barr, Present Status and Future Direction of the Museum of Modern Art.(confidential report for trustees only). August 6, 1933. AHB[AAA:3266;121-135]. MoMA Archives, NY. Not the final revised version but one I found in Barr Papers with commentary by Barr and Blackburn. The whole business approach seems surprisingly early, especially compared to European standards (Stedelijk). 125 Ibid., p. 3.
52 maintain standards for the Museum. According to Barr, “by alert study and constant revision of judgments in many fields”, he could help guide the different departments in maintaining standards of quality both of material and work.” Standards were to be protected against internal and external pressures of various kinds.126 As to what was understood as the intrinsic merits and the standards of quality is unclear. Barr considered research necessary to guarantee quality of museum products and felt early on that from within the Museum – the powerful trustees – the interest in and support for research in the Museum was inadequate.127 That the distribution side was taken equally seriously early on in the Museum’s history is reflected by the growth of separate departments such as the Department for Circulating Exhibitions (1933), Education Department (1937), Publications Department (1934), Publicity Department (1933) - the first of its kind in any museum – and a Membership Department (1932), which initiated out-of-town committees to expand its scope, its public and its influence, and by various projects undertaken by the Museum staff: exhibitions in high schools (1932), the radio program, Art in America (1934-1935), the World’s Fair project (1936) and the School Project and Docent service (1936). The early awareness of the importance of communication and exposure is reflected in the establishment of a separate publicity department. Barr stated the importance of publicity for the Museum in the progress reports: “The Museum of Modern Art receives more publicity than any other Museum in the world. Because of its many departments, the Museum’s news appears in practically every section of the newspaper from real estate to editorial.”128 The emphasis on the ‘many departments’ providing news for ‘every section of the newspaper’ was perhaps at the same time a way to promote his multi-departmental plans for the critical trustees who had yet to be convinced of the desirability of a number of departments. The importance placed on the high amount of publicity showed the desire to become as visible as possible for a large public in order to underline its active participation in the cultural development of the country, which then again would encourage new supporters to donate artworks and money to the Museum. The Public Relations approach had been stimulated from
126 See AHB[AAA: 2166;0675]. MoMA Archives, NY. Notes on the Director’s Role in the Museum (not dated but probably 1938: Barr comments on his being in the Museum for nine years.) 127 In a letter to prof. Charles Morey, Barr responds to Morey’s article in the Museum News, September 15, 1934 on “Research and Art Museums”: “I think the chief fault lies with trustees who have no interest or sympathy in research or even in decent accuracy. Certainly American museum life as it exists at present provided more handicaps than it does opportunities for research.” See AHB[AAA: 2165;444]. MoMA Archives, NY. 128 The Museum of Modern Art Progress Report October 1932- October 1933. AHB, 9a;6. MoMA Archives NY.
53 the start by calling in the help of professionals from this newly developed ‘science’.129 This new science proved that public appreciation could be increased by a deliberate propagandizing effort. The Museum learned that in order to gain public support it would have to change public opinion on modern art. One of the important media to do this was the press. The Museum learned to use the press, not only by passing news on to it but also by actively ‘creating news’ so as to increase press coverage and the therefore visibility for a large public. Many of the insights Public Relations counsel provided, can be recognized in many of the Museum’s activities, as shall become evident further on.130 The strong emphasis of the Museum on education and providing a body of scholarly publications for national and international distribution would determine the important position of the Publications Department, which besides publishing catalogs, brochures and books also organized exhibitions on the publications themselves. What the Museum considered to be important publications would be re-issued – with accompanying press coverage - many times so as to keep their influence alive.131 The Museum also ‘advertised’ its own catalogs and exhibitions by often quoting from them and referring to them in their other publications and wall labels in exhibitions.132 In the very first ‘survey’ on modern art published by the Museum to accompany a circulating exhibition, A Brief Survey of Modern Painting in 1934, the Museum’s own publications were promoted as “a concise library of modern art”: “These books constitute a concise library of modern art. The critical and historical introductions, notes by the artists, biographies and bibliographies contain information not readily accessible elsewhere.”133
129 The Museum of Modern Art called in the help of Edward L. Bernays who, already in 1923, wrote one of the first accounts of the importance of Public Relations for any public entity. Bernays, Crystallizing Public Opinion, 1934 (with preface to new edition); Bernays, Propaganda, New York, 1928 (5th printing 1936). 130 Crystallizing Public Opinion focuses on how to reach the public through understanding how public opinion works. According to Bernays the basic elements of human nature, desires, instincts and innate tendencies, determine how humans form their opinions. To change public opinion it is therefore necessary to tap into these elements. For example a basic human instinct is curiosity. To catch public attention one should help create curiosity. Bernays gives the example of how contests enhance curiosity and are therefore useful tactic to use. As we shall see in for example the Machine Art exhibition in 1934 the use of contests was applied to arouse curiosity and ‘create’ publicity for the show. According to Bernays, man is basically a herd animal and is susceptible to leadership. Man is ‘suggestible’ and shall want to identify with and imitate leadership. The leadership the Museum of Modern Art claims to possess in its collections, presentations and publications of modern art. 131 See the example of Press Release ‘Three Famous Museum of Modern Art Books to be Issued in Paperback’, Press Release: June 5, 1974, No. 46. PI [3146;764]. MoMA Archives, NY. 132 Example: In catalog Modern Masters: From European and American Collections, 1940, as a form of advertising. Sachs one of the first trustees of the Museum and at that time honorary trustee was quoted not as trustee but as “Prof. Paul J. Sachs, Associate Director Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University: The Catalogs are the best appraisal of modern art in English thus far produced by an American institution.” 133 Barr, A Brief Survey of Modern Painting, p. 23.
54 The Museum’s Library had been opened in 1932; first for members only but very soon for the general public. The Museum saw its library as an important tool in educating the public on modern art issues. The Library starred in a special issue of The Museum of Modern Art Bulletin in which the Museum provided the reader with an annotated bibliography and recommended reading list in which its own catalogs and publications – such as Barr’s Cubism and Abstract Art - were presented as important scholarly books on modern art sandwiched in between European authorities such as Julius Meier-Graefe and Herbert Read .134 (fig.7) The Library served also as a memory of the Museum’s own history. Already in the forties, the Library was collecting all the Museum’s own early Reports, Studies and Papers it could get its hands on.135 A museum shop, installed in the thirties, contributed in its own way to the distribution of the museum product by the sale of catalogs, posters, postcards and other educational material. In the new 1939 building the sales desk was set up like a counter in a department store. (fig. 8)
By 1945 the Museum of Modern Art had already grown into an important institution. It was, however, not functioning according to standards set by the museum itself – by influential trustees - or according to expectations of an increasingly critical public. The Museum was under pressure now due to growing criticism about its program and its inability to adequately deal with its lack of direction. 136 The War years had colored the Museum’s activities considerably by diverting its program to war-related exhibitions and services.137 Furthermore, the Museum had not been able to balance its budget for three consecutive years. Critics continually attacked the Museum for neglecting American art, especially abstract art and for either not being “modern” enough or being too experimental.138 The Museum responded by numerous elaborate reports by different committees on acquisitions,
134 See Beaumont Newhall, ‘The Library – Some Books on Modern Art’ in: “The Library – with a Reading List on Modern Art”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 3, no. 6 (May 1936); pp. 2-8, an issue of the Bulletin completely dedicated to the Library. The Library was founded in 1932. 135 Under the heading of ‘Museumiana’, the Library called on all Members, Trustees and Founders to provide the Library with any papers “published or unpublished, printed or manuscript” concerning the Museum’s own history. See Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 11, no. 5 (April 1944): p. 18. 136 According to H.R. Messer who wrote a dissertation on the history of the Museum of Modern Art, the Museum was never able to establish a clear policy due to its conflicting search for quality and a commitment to education. Messer, MOMA: Museum in Search of an Image. 137 The World War II years had meant a cut in budget and a diversion of the Museum’s program towards war- related exhibitions and services. But the War – and the years prior to it – had also caused an influx of important artists, artworks, scholars etc giving the Museum new opportunities for growth. 138 There was a persistent controversy over the role of American art in the Museum. A separate department for American Art was even considered.
55 exhibitions and the relationships with the living artists and by drastic changes in management and organization. Between 1940-1945 museum staff and authorities wrote more than a dozen reports on the different issues.139 Barr had been director of the Museum until 1943; he had then been demoted by a few leading Trustees, who did not agree with his course, to an advisory directorship, Director of Research. In 1947, he took the position of Director of Museum Collections, responsible for Art and Scholarship aspects of all the curatorial departments and with special responsibilities for Painting and sculpture. René d’Harnoncourt became general Director of the Museum.140 The collection was now divided in five curatorial visual art departments: Painting, Sculpture and Graphic Arts, Architecture, Film, Industrial Design and Photography. There were six Program departments: Museum exhibitions, Publications, Circulating Exhibitions, Docents, Educational Programs, and the Library. Furthermore, there were the service departments as the Membership department and Publicity department, as mentioned above. Each department had its own staff. It is interesting to note that in an organization chart of 1943, Education is positioned under the Executive branch instead of, as it was previously, under the direct line of Art and Scholarship (the Director).141 It is obvious that each department was responsible for its own products but it is important to note that when it came to the actual content of the publications, wall labels, or other descriptive matter, it seems that everything passed through Barr’s hands. This was the case for materials produced for in the Museum but also explicitly the case for the circulating exhibitions where after being approved by the Director of Circulating Exhibitions, all descriptive materials had to be Okayed by the Director of Museum Collections (Barr).142 Although Barr had been demoted, his influence in all museum matters cannot be overestimated. All the departments together colored the Museum’s program but the trustees actually ran the Museum together with the director and executive head. Before issues were discussed by the full board, they first passed through the Executive Committee, a small group including members of the Board. Some very important issues as for example the demotion of Barr in
139 Reports on Exhibition policy include analyses by for example, Meyer Schapiro (1944) as member of the Advisory Committee. 140 D’Harnoncourt was director until he retired in 1968. 141 See Messer, MOMA: Museum in Search of an Image, pp.168-170. 142 See a memo from Barr and Soby, to McCray, August 6, 1947. Re: Labels for circulating exhibitions. AHB[AAA: 2172;343]. MoMA Archives, NY.
56 1943 didn’t even reach the full Board. 143 The trustees of the Museum of Modern Art seem to have been more active than in the case of other museums by participating in and dominating various important committees. Through these committees, the trustees exerted their influence within the Museum even further than the board by not only deciding on the general policies but also making qualitative decisions on all museum matters through these committees.144 MoMA’s organization was to grow steadily and was to provide for an authoritative ‘objective’ voice of art history according to its goals and ambitions. In contrast to the Stedelijk Museum who’s organization contributed to contemporary art matters through the ‘subjective’ accent of its director.
MoMA’s Publications
Befitting an authoritative educational institution the Museum of Modern Art’s publications were an extremely important component of the Museum’s activities and were presented as such. As often announced the Museum felt that it “has exerted perhaps its greatest influence through its publications”.145 As early as 1936, Barr boasted that the Museum’s catalogs “have become the chief reference books on modern art published in this country. They are frequently ordered by college libraries to be used as text books, and are perhaps the Museum’s most direct educational activity.”146 Catalogs of publications and order forms with checklists were issued in which the Museum’s books and catalogs were advertised. As evidence of the scholarly value of the publications, Sachs, who had been a trustee from the beginning, was quoted on the order form as an objective, academic authority instead of a biased Museum official: “Prof. Paul J. Sachs of Harvard University has called the Museum
143 Especially influential individuals on the Board in this period were, Stephen Clark, Sam Lewisohn, Nelson Rockefeller, Conger Goodyear and Philip Goodwin. All were collectors of modern art and were also contributors to the Museum and its collection although eventually Clark, Lewisohn and Conger Goodyear were to bequeath the best of their collection to other museums. Clark’s position was exceptionally strong during the forties: taking on the role of President and Chairman of the Board - during the absence of Nelson Rockefeller and John Hay Whitney in the War years – as well as all his committee work and his powerful position due to his financial support to the Museum. 144 Also concerning the collections, the trustees were influential. Barr provides an interesting list of available masterpieces which were not acquired – or acquired much later, and were therefore much more expensive – due to lack of support in the Acquisition Committee. See Barr, Notes on Museum Policy, Fall 1944. Barr Papers: Writings: chronicles. Series 9a – 30, MoMA Archives, NY. Furthermore, Barr’s Notes on Special Showing of Collection for Trustees, Jan. 1945, show that the trustees very opinionated opinions were not always easy to deal with. As an example of one recorded reaction to a painting: “Mrs. Warren would like to put foot through and collect insurance. Mr. Soby got mad.”. Barr Papers: Writings: chronicles. Series 9a – 28A, MoMA Archives, NY. 145 As for example announced in Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 22, no. 1-2 (Fall-Winter 1954): p. 18. 146 Barr, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1936, p. 22. Report made by Barr. R&P: 1930’s. MoMA Archives, NY.
57 books “the best appraisals of modern art thus far produced by an American institution.”147 It was the same Sachs who had pointed out that “the particular activity that has given the Museum of Modern Art its influence and its national and international reputation is the production of its Catalogs.”148 The Museum was very aware of the publications’ power to spread the Museum’s influence and actively promoted its collection and research through its catalogs. After the War, many Museum catalogs were sent to European libraries and scholars “who would otherwise have to do without because of post-war conditions”.149 For example, Will Grohmann, professor at the University of Dresden, was sent a whole list of catalogs, not in the last place because at the time he was writing “an important book on 20th century art”.150 The director of Museum Publications Monroe Wheeler, promoted the Publications Program continuously. In the background information he provided on the Publications Program in 1956, he presented an impressive picture of the magnitude, the breadth and the international influence of the Museum’s publications: “Last year 89,494 people living in cities as diverse as New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Rome and Rio de Janeiro bought books published by The Museum of Modern Art in New York. In New York it might have been Masters of Modern Art , the major publication issued by The Museum in commemoration of its 25th Anniversary; in Rome, Architettura Americana d’Oggi, the Italian translation of Built in U.S.A: Post-War Architecture; in Tokyo the translation into Japanese of What is Modern Design? And in Rio Que es la pintura moderna?.”151 The many different types of publications served different purposes, as he explained: “its wide variety of publications ranges from paper-backed pamphlets intended for laymen seeking an introduction to the subject, to
147 Order form ‘Publications, The Museum of Modern Art’, 1942. R&P, Box 11. MoMA Archives, NY. 148 Sachs, “An address to the Trustees by Professor Paul J. Sachs of Harvard University” in Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 6, no. 5 (July 1939): p. 9. 149 Letter from Barr to the Librarian Karpel, dd. August 6, 1947. The letter contains whole lists of catalogs to be sent to various libraries and scholars with an explanation of why the scholars and libraries are important. Included in the letter is a list of catalogs to be sent to Prof. dr. Heinrich Campendonk for his library of the Rijksacademie van Beeldende Kunsten in Amsterdam. As Barr explained: “From two sources I hear that the Dutch are unable to buy books because of exchange problems. Campendonk, the new head of the most important art school in Holland, has written asking whether his library can have some of our publications. I think we should send them.” AHB[AAA: 2171;610] MoMA Archives, NY. 150 Ibid. Barr explained to Karpel the desire to send Grohmann the catalogs as follows: “Dr. Grohmann is professor at the University of Dresden which is in the Russian zone … . Grohmann is not only organizing exhibitions and giving courses but is preparing an important book on 20th century art”. In a letter from Barr to Grohmann dd. August 6, 1947, in which he wrote that the Museum is sending the catalogs, Barr stated: “… I am delighted to know that you are active and preparing a book on 20th century art to be published in Stuttgart. Won’t you let me know if we can help you. Please note the catalog of the Museum of Modern Art Collection which I enclose … . We could provide you with a few photographs if you need to have them for publication in your book.” AHB[AAA: 2171;659] MoMA Archives, NY. 151 ‘Background Information: Publications Program of The Museum of Modern Art, New York’ dd. 2/6/56, PI, [3151;0222-0228]. MoMA Archives, NY.
58 comprehensive monographs representing the definitive treatment of a particular artist or school.”152 Most of the publications were catalogs relating to the Museum’s own exhibitions and collections, and could “be of use to scholars and laymen long after the exhibition has been dismantled and the objects dispersed to their owners. With this long-range purpose in view, the Museum has consistently attempted to make the catalogs of its exhibitions of more than ephemeral interest.”153 Wheeler described the catalogs’ authority as scholarly books: “Many of them, thanks to their scholarly introductory texts, the unusual fullness with which the items in the exhibition are documented, the specially prepared and critically annotated bibliographies, and the many reproductions of high quality, have become essential source material for the artists or types of art with which they deal.”154 In this way, Wheeler emphasized the Museum’s function as academic institution with a publications program comparable to that of a university press: “The Museum’s function in the publishing field is somewhat analogous to that of the university press, … in that its primary concern is with making a significant contribution to art education and scholarship in areas related to its own activities … .”155 The content of the publications was not the only concern though; the Museum prided itself in publishing books which “have been widely exhibited in countries all over the world and awarded many special prizes for design and typography …”, and which “have won worldwide renown and have undoubtedly influenced art book publishing not only in the United States but also abroad.”156 By stressing the large contribution of its scholarly and broadly educational publications to the world and its leadership qualities in design as well as in all levels of education, the Museum emphasized its image of authoritative leader. To further underline the authority and influence of the Museum publications and therefore the Museum as educational institution, Wheeler directed an impressive retrospective exhibition in 1960 in which the publications themselves starred. There had been two previous exhibitions on the Museum’s publications, but these had focused on the making of them instead of on their authoritative position.157 In this 1960 Museum of Modern Art Publications: Retrospective Exhibition, the installation focused on the authority of the publications by presenting the books as valuable objects: either represented by their jackets
152 Ibid., p. 1. 153 Ibid. 154 Ibid. 155 Ibid. 156 Ibid., p. 7. 157 In 1934 the exhibition The Making of a Museum Publication was held in which the making of the catalog for the exhibition of the Lillie P. Bliss Collection (1934) was displayed. In 1948 the exhibition Museum of Modern Art Publications was on display in the Young People’s Gallery of the Museum.
59 hanging on walls or displayed in showcases. Series of book and catalog covers were neatly arranged, presented in frame-like settings and hung on the walls in the same fashion as paintings. The publications themselves were installed spaciously in a lively arrangement in a well-lighted wall showcase as in an expensive department store window. The ‘masterpiece’ of the exhibition was an imposing, high-rise of books in a showcase in the middle of the room which one could walk around and admire from all sides. (fig. 9) This installation encouraged respect and admiration from the public: by stacking the books like a skyscraper the sheer amount of them was emphasized. It was the quantity and breadth that made the argument: the overwhelming number of publications and the diversity of the titles displaying the Museum’s broad subject matter. The accompanying wall label stressed the great importance of the many publications and their world-wide influence and called upon the public to contribute to the Museum’s 30th Anniversary Fund to help the Museum meet “the demand for museum publications”.
Books in the Stedelijk
The publications in the Stedelijk Museum fulfilled a very different role than in the Museum of Modern Art. The catalogs of the temporary exhibitions were always considered an important product of the Stedelijk although sales were continually low. They seemed to function like calling cards, which were to be distributed internationally. They were to be seen as “more than a guide to an exhibition … . Their goal is, to strengthen and document the memory of the exhibition”. 158 They were not presented as scholarly contributions to art history as in the case of the Museum of Modern Art. During Sandberg’s reign their appearance was very often dominated by Sandberg’s unique graphic design, providing not only a memory of the exhibition but also of the Stedelijk itself. Under De Wilde the design changed but the concept remained. From a survey on the functioning of the Stedelijk Museum conducted in 1968, it was clear that the sales of the Stedelijk Museum catalogs was very low.159 Exhibitions of publications in the Stedelijk Museum were not of the Museum’s own publications. A long tradition of exhibitions of publications concerned books by artists and the yearly exhibition of the ‘50 best designed books’. The Stedelijk’s own publications mostly concerned the catalogs of the temporary exhibitions; they were, as discussed earlier,
158 Letter from Sandberg to the Amsterdam Alderman of Cultural Affairs , dd. November 19, 1947, no. S.M. 2123, SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 159 A survey conducted by Intomart stated that the percentage of visitors who bought a catalog was extremely low: 8 % of Dutch visitors in April and 4% in August; Of foreigners 9% in April and 6% in August bought a catalog. See SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
60 considered to be important in order to keep the art institutions throughout the world informed of the Stedelijk’s program.160 They were not presented as scholarly contributions, but as statements, as reminders of the exhibition and as documentation for the artists. Furthermore, especially during the Sandberg era, their artistic design was what made them Stedelijk catalogs. The Stedelijk catalogs were artistic expressions, reflections of what the Stedelijk stood for: contemporary, experimental statements on concepts concerning modern artists, art and society. In the annual reports for the city council special notice was made of the fact that the “director was responsible for the design of the catalogs and posters and that if occasionally they were designed by others – the director checked their final appearance”161. As stated: the number of subscriptions for the posters and catalogs, shows the appreciation of their designs nationally and internationally.162 The catalogs fit the image of the Stedelijk as living center of art. The posters seemed to have a special position in the Stedelijk. Not only were they to be seen as persuasive promotion material for the current exhibitions, but as artistic expressions of the Stedelijk as work of art. It is telling that the one exhibition in the Stedelijk which did show its own catalogs was the ‘Sandberg’ exhibition in 1975. This exhibition was held as a tribute to Sandberg for receiving the Eramus prize. It presented Sandberg as creator of the Stedelijk: designer of many catalogs, posters, and other publications and of the new wing. (fig. 10) The catalogs were celebrated for their design.
Anniversary Exhibitions as prime examples of ethos-building exhibitions
The building of the Museum’s own image is done by presenting itself as an accomplished authority on modern art matters. As has become clear from the above analysis of the Museums’ goals and organizations, the Museum of Modern Art presented itself as an authority on art historical matters and focused on history , whereas the Stedelijk’s authority was on matters of living art and focused on the present and the future. The Museum of Modern Art can thus be analyzed as a ‘historical’ orator, using persuasive strategies to present a convincing history of art.163 The Stedelijk Museum seems best studied as a laudatory orator,
160 As is expressed in a letter from Sandberg to the Amsterdam Alderman for cultural affairs, d.d. January 4, 1962, no. 31700. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 161Annual Report 1959 for the City Council of Amsterdam, pp. 17,18. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 162 Ibid. 163 Cicero stated that history’s immortality was best trusted to the orator. See Cicero, De Oratore II.ix.36.
61 focusing on the present and future. The Museum of Modern Art’s ethos as leading authority was presented predominantly as knowledgeable (in art historical matters), stable and trustworthy, whereas the Stedelijk’s was presented as knowledgeable (in living art matters), creative and daring. Anniversary exhibitions prove to be excellent opportunities to display and boost the Museums’ ethos by showing their policies and showing off their achievements. Anniversary exhibitions are often celebrations of achievements and moments of looking ahead to the future. Because of the celebratory character of this type of exhibition, media and public interest are guaranteed. The strategic use of the anniversary occasions differed greatly between the two Museums. This can be explained by a number of factors. First of all, the use of anniversary exhibitions seems to be tied to the identity of each Museum. The Stedelijk Museum housed many anniversary exhibitions of various art and artist associations, which had established a strong relationship with the Museum or the Municipality, but very few of the Museum itself. This indeed reflects the makeup of the organization as a hybrid warehouse in the first decennia of its existence. After 1945 its identity as a modern art museum strengthened and the Museum itself became a center worth celebrating. Although the identity of the Museum of Modern Art developed with the establishment and growth of its collection, its status as the modern art museum – first in New York, then in the U.S. and finally as a leading modern art museum of the world - staged every anniversary as a ‘State of the Arts’ and tapped their promotional possibilities. Furthermore, due to the structure of financial dependency of both Museums the expectations of anniversary celebrations differed. The Museum of Modern Art had to exploit its centenary opportunities to please its trustees and other financial backers and secure support for future plans by convincing them of its excellence and growing influence. It had to impress patrons and donors, so as to acquire desired works of art for the collection. The Stedelijk Museum had mostly to cater to municipal expectations to secure its funds. Within the municipality, however, competition of other cultural organizations was a factor to reckon with. Moreover, as the ambitions of the Stedelijk grew, the desired increase of funding had to be validated by the visibility of the importance of the Museum, nationally and internationally. To ensure its collections which were often on loan, the Stedelijk had to please these major collectors and try to hold on to their collections. Later the Stedelijk was dependent on the
Cicero linked historiography and panegyric as examples of epideictic oratory. See: Sloane, Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, under: ‘History’ p. 344.
62 respect of the international art world: it was the international art institutions which had to be convinced of the Stedelijk’s reputation as trendsetter in modern museum matters. As we shall see, the difference in strategic use of the anniversary celebrations accounts for some of the differences in the visual and verbal language used by both Museums.
Anniversaries in ‘het Stedelijk’
The Anniversaries in the Stedelijk Museum between 1935 and 1975 were sporadic and ‘flexible’ in what they celebrated. All, as shall become evident, celebrate and position the Stedelijk as living art center and present the Museum as the vision of its director and the artists. The first noteworthy anniversary celebration in the Stedelijk Museum was the 40th anniversary exhibition Monumentale Kunst in 1935, still under the directorship of Baard. This anniversary exhibition indeed displayed with pride the history of the Museum and its desired image of a lively contemporary art museum. The choice to show ‘monumental’ art for this anniversary exhibition, Baard presented as emphasizing the Museum’s contemporary focus: as Baard stated in his Voorwoord (preface) of the catalog: “It seemed a good idea to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Stedelijk Museum with an exhibition of monumental art, a feat which could not have been done forty years ago. … .The Dutch monumental art is therefore a product of the last few years.”164 The catalog and poster of the exhibition were designed by Sandberg, who in 1935 was a member of the Committee of the Museum of Modern Applied Art, but not yet officially employed by the Museum. The young graphic designer Sandberg was asked to design the catalog by the older, departing director Baard. The design displays a modern, lively concept: a dynamic composition of diagonals of different letters and patterns, with bright red highlights and gray accents creating space on an otherwise neutral beige cover. Compared to other catalogs of important exhibitions during the same period, the design of the catalog and poster is a definite statement of contemporaneity. (fig. 11, 12) In both his preface as in his introduction – Baard wrote them both ! - he stressed the contemporary image of the Museum: the only word in the whole text which was printed in bold letters was “hedendaagsche” (contemporary) in his description of “hedendaagsche kunst” (contemporary art). Besides the emphasis of this anniversary exhibition on the Stedelijk as a lively contemporary art museum, it was also clearly meant as a tribute to the important individuals
164 In the Preface by Baard in Monumentale Kunst: 40 jaar Stedelijk Museum te Amsterdam, catalog Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1935, p. 13.
63 who had made the Stedelijk so successful, not in the last place himself. Remarkably the introduction of the catalog does not contain illustrations of works of art of the different collections, but a photo gallery of the most prominent people of the Stedelijk with the largest photograph of Baard himself: on the very first page of the catalog, opposite the titelpage, a full-scale close-up in profile.165 (fig. 13) The forty years of the Stedelijk had also been his forty years at the Stedelijk: it was Baard’s last year in the Museum after having worked there from the beginning.166 Here perhaps lies the beginning of the Stedelijk’s concept of being a director’s museum. In his introduction he praised the important individuals who contributed to the building and the collections of the Museum. He applauded the internationally important loans of Ir. V.W. van Gogh’s “world-renowned collection” of Van Goghs, for which the Museum had created more space, and P.A. Regnault’s collection of Ecole de Paris, which kept the museum “up to date”.167 He praised the Museum building for its well-lit, well-proportioned galleries in which all the different collections presented a lively diversity. In a concluding statement, Baard applauded the Museum: “So the Stedelijk Museum stands at present, full of life, due to the wealth of its blossoming content and the constantly changing art manifestations, in the center of the Amsterdam art scene and is after four decennia still as strongly the testimony of the late burgomaster Vening Meinesz: The Stedelijk Museum a monument of the present and the future!”.168 Although presented as a lively museum, his metaphor of the Stedelijk Museum as ‘a monument for the present and the future’ seems to paradoxically reflect the yet passive character of the Stedelijk in museum matters. The anniversary in the year 1945 was a totally different one. The opening Post-War year of the Stedelijk Museum, was at once the celebration of the end of the World War II and the Museum’s 50th anniversary. Occupation during the War had had a strong impact on the Dutch art world with the installation of the oppressive KulturKamer. The ‘artists resistance’ had played a major role and gave those involved a lot of goodwill after the War. Not only the artists were praised, Sandberg himself had gained a lot of respect and authority because of his involvement in the resistance.
165 The other prominent contributors were: Mrs. Lopez Suasso, Van Someren Brand (the Museum’s first curator), C.P. van Eeghen and his heirs P. and J.H. van Eeghen. 166 Baard had been Van Someren Brand’s assistent first before becoming hoofdopzichter (chief inspector) and finally, director in 1920. 167 Monumentale Kunst: 40 jaar Stedelijk Museum te Amsterdam, p. 7. 168 Ibid., p. 9. In Dutch: “Zoo staat thans door den rijkdom van zijn bloeienden inhoud en door steeds wisselende kunstmanifestaties het Stedelijk Museum, vol levenskracht, in het brandpunt van het Amsterdamsche Kunstleven en geldt na vier decennia nog onverzwakt het getuigenis van wijlen burgemeester Vening Meinesz: Het Stedelijk Museum een monument voor het heden en de toekomst!”.
64 Due to the fact that the celebration of freedom for a previously occupied city must have been an overwhelming sentiment, it is obvious that a 50th anniversary celebration would seem less prominent to display. The desire to catch up for lost time and to take the opportunity to honor modern art and artists dominates the re-opening months of the anniversary year. Besides a number of war-related exhibitions, in which tribute was made to military and resistance artists, the Stedelijk presented two group shows and three one-man shows in this anniversary year including the large Vincent van Gogh exhibition. All these exhibitions together display the Museum’s priorities in this anniversary year. The War-related exhibitions were important to honor the courageous artists who had fought in the resistance. One of the one-man shows specifically honored one hero: the printer-painter H.N. Werkman who had been shot during the War. The other one-man show was an exhibition of Braque’s latest work to show the Museum’s immediate desire to catch up on international modern art matters. 169 The Van Gogh exhibition was presented as the 50th anniversary celebration exhibition. Viewing it as an anniversary show, it is worth noting that there is no mention of the Stedelijk Museum anniversary at all in the catalog, not on the cover nor in the text within. There are no proud words from a Museum official.170 The absence of any mention of the 50th anniversary seems somewhat surprising since the 40th anniversary exhibition catalog Monumentale Kunst has on its cover an eye-catching ‘40 jaar’ . Although the Van Gogh catalog has no words of pride specifically about the Museum, it does portray a pride-filled exhibition; the importance of this documentary exhibition is stressed and, for the first time, photographs of the show are included in the catalog. The photo of the entrance to the exhibition shows a festive line-up of tall sunflowers in pots guiding the visitor into the exhibition. (fig. 14) The flowers seem to celebrate the end of the war period and at the same time emphasize the living atmosphere of the Museum. Two other photographs show installation views of two different rooms. The three views together present the exhibition as an innovative, lively and educational show.171 Although not an official anniversary, Sandberg created one by presenting his Stedelijk Museum in the opening show of the Museum’s new wing in 1954, nine years later. This new Museum wing was of great importance for the Stedelijk’s authority as modern art museum: it
169 The Braque exhibition showed his latest works from the period 1939-1944, for which Sandberg wrote to the government (Departement van Onderwijs, Kunsten en Wetenschappen) to ensure gasoline for the transport of the artworks to Holland. See letter G.M. 221/1945 dated 26 september 1945 to Mr. H.J. Reinink, Secretaris Generaal van het Departement van Onderwijs, Kunsten en Wetenschappen from Sandberg, SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 170 The catalog was compiled by Dr. W. Munsterberger. The introduction was written by Jaffé. The reason perhaps for the absence of a preface from the director was the fact that Sandberg was officially established in office on September 1, 1945 and the exhibition opened on September 14. 171 This exhibition shall be discussed further on in Chapter 3.
65 personified Sandberg’s open, living museum. It had been planned to open in the summer of 1954, but had to be delayed until September. As a progenitor of the new open, living Museum, Sandberg presented an open, living exhibition. He filled the summer with an exhibition in which he presented his policy of openness: ‘wonen & wonen’ (living & living), together with an international poster exhibition which was hung on flagpoles outside the Museum. (fig. 15) Both exhibitions had to do with opening up the Museum to the street and having the public participate. For the exhibition ‘wonen &wonen’ Sandberg had an elevated deck built around the outside of the old Stedelijk building, which made it physically possible to look into the Museum without entering the building itself. Sandberg persuaded the public to participate by calling on the human emotion of what he called “an uncontrollable desire to look into other people’s houses”.172 He also activated the public by having them participate in a survey of which type of living was the most appealing to them.173 Besides displaying Sandberg’s policy of openness, these two exhibitions also presented other visual arts belonging to his ideal Museum than the ones that were to star in his real opening exhibition. The Museum’s actual celebratory exhibition was titled 9 jaar stedelijk museum Amsterdam 1945-’54 (nine years stedelijk museum Amsterdam 1945-’54) and showed the Stedelijk’s acquisitions of the period 1945-1954 in which he was director of the Stedelijk. The exhibition was installed in the new wing and was designed in an a-symmetrical pattern of moveable panels. This a-symmetrical setting emphasized the liveliness of the Stedelijk: the display reflected Sandberg’s concept and policy of the Stedelijk as living art center. The installation started with Allebé’s Museum bezoek (1870, Museum visit) demonstrating the old-fashioned concept of the museum and ended with the newer, more experimental works of art, showing the ultimate goal of the Museum – living art in the Museum. The invitation for the opening showed a print De ark van Noach by Jan Luyken.174 (fig. 16) This had been picked because, strangely enough, Sandberg’s new wing showed a clear resemblance to the Ark in the print; even though it was meant to be humorous the association could be quickly made: the Stedelijk as safe-haven for artists and modern art. The catalog that accompanied the exhibition, 9 jaar stedelijk museum 1945-‘54, was the first real catalog to primarily promote the Stedelijk Museum itself. So, although the exhibition was to show examples of the Museum’s acquisitions over the past nine years, the ‘memory’ of the exhibition was to be about the Stedelijk itself. The catalog’s message was to
172 See caption with photograph by Eva Besnyo in Sandberg, “er is wonen en wonen” Goed Wonen, pp. 115-116. 173 Ibid. The content of the exhibition shall be discussed in Chapter 2 when dealing with ‘what is modern art?’. 174 Jan Luyken (1649-1712) had a street named after him that crosses the Van Baerlestraat which is the street the new wing was on.
66 convey the immense growth of the Museum in the nine years of Sandberg’s reign: growth in size, but also in ambition and authority. The obvious Sandberg design – and rough brown paper - for the cover demonstrated the growth by two number 9’s of which the second one, spilling over the front page, had grown twice the size of the first, which was ‘left behind’ on the back. (fig. 17) Although Sandberg often wrote in French, the use of the bilingual text here - Dutch and French – underscored the growth and strong position of the Stedelijk. The choice to include part of the text in French showed the desire to promote the Stedelijk Museum internationally.175 The function of the Museum –as well as other sections of text - was spelled out in typical Sandberg style: direct statements summed up like an artistic or political manifesto in lower-case letters. Almost like a doctrine, the duties and responsibilities of a museum of contemporary art were listed, such as: “the museum of contemporary art takes its point of departure in the present to then go back step for step into the past.”, and, “The museum limits itself to the visual arts: architecture, painting, sculpture, prints, applied arts, photography and film…”176 The statements presented the Stedelijk as a broad center of living art, housing all the different kinds of visual art expressions just like the Museum of Modern Art. In the catalog special attention was given to the incorporation of the Film museum in the Stedelijk and its showings in the new auditorium. For the most part the catalog was filled with statements and statistics – as arguments - on the growth and rejuvenation of the building, the increase of the Stedelijk personnel, the increasing number of visitors, and number of guided tours. Often Sandberg used graphic design to visualize the growth, which enhanced its clarity and persuasiveness. (fig. 18) Sandberg also used photographs to present his well organized, living center of art: photographs included ones of the auditorium, empty and full (of children!), two pictures of Appel’s ‘coffeebar’, two pictures of the depots with the ingenious system of racks which could be pulled out, and two installation photographs of outspoken examples of exhibitions using innovative and lively display methods. (fig. 19) The use of photographs makes the image of the Museum come alive and therefore presents Sandberg’s message more persuasively. So, although this exhibition was not an official anniversary, Sandberg made it a celebratory museum milestone by praising the Museum’s own achievements and presenting it with the image it wanted to portray of itself.
175 Not everything was translated into French: certain sections on the organization of the Museum were only presented in Dutch. 176 Text titled ‘functie’ (function) by Sandberg in 9 jaar stedelijk museum Amsterdam 1945-’54.
67 The first real anniversary celebration after 1935 worth noting was its 65th anniversary in 1960, which entailed an exhibition and large publication; it was Sandberg’s grand finale! After that the Stedelijk only celebrated its 75th anniversary in 1970 with a week of celebrations, an anniversary pamphlet (jubileum krant) and a catalog of ‘choices from the collection’.
Sandberg’s Grand Finale
Sandberg saw the 65th anniversary as the first real one in 25 years.177 The celebrations started with the opening of the Exhibition Pioniers in February 1961, which was accompanied by a – for the Stedelijk - exceptionally large and luxuriously illustrated book kunst van heden in het stedelijk (Contemporary Art in the Stedelijk) written by Jaffé with an introduction by Sandberg. The English edition was titled Pioneers of Modern Art in the Museum of the City of Amsterdam. The publication showed strong resemblances to the Museum of Modern Art publication Masters of Modern Art in size and scope, which is discussed further on. Masters of Modern Art had been published as a special anniversary book in 1954 and seems to have acted as an example for the Stedelijk.178 This Stedelijk catalog was the most prestigious publication the Museum had ever produced and therefore it is of special interest for a detailed analysis as an ethos-building publication. If Sandberg had had his way, the Dutch edition of the Stedelijk catalog would have been titled differently. Sandberg had wanted the book to be titled ‘Pioniers der XXe eeuw’ and ‘Pioneers of the XXth century’ in English without ‘art’ in the title, because, as he put it: “Pioneers are living creatures, milestones are dead”, indicating once again Sandberg’s focus on the artist instead of the art. 179 So, although the chosen Dutch title kunst van heden in het
177 In a handwritten invitation - on Museum stationary - to the Amsterdam artists and other artists from acknowledged associations for a get together on the evening of the official opening of the anniversary exhibition, Sandberg writes “het museum heeft al 25 jaar niet gejubeld, dus vieren we meteen het zilveren jubilieum van dit herdenkingsloze tijdperk”(the museum has not celebrated for 25 years, therefore at the same time we celebrate the Silver anniversary of this without-a-memorial era). Dossier Jubileumboek 1961, SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 178 From a memo with the heading Gedenkboek 60 Jaren found in the Archives of the Stedelijk Museum in the files concerning the Jubileum publication, mention is made of not being able to publish a gedenkboek the way they had hoped for after information had been acquired about the Museum of Modern Art edition. This seems to indicate that the MoMA publication was used as a kind of example. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 179 See letter in Stedelijk Museum Archives From Sandberg to Bernard S. Myers of McCraw-Hill Book Company, dated March 21, 1961. Meulenhoff objected to the proposed Dutch title: ‘Wij, die in Nederland in meer of mindere mate op de hoogte zijn van wat met het Stedelijk Museum wordt bedoeld, hebben naar ik meen de naar avonturenboeken of populair-wetenschappelijke verhandelingen riekende titel niet nodig.’ The suggestion was made for ‘kunst van heden in het stedelijk museum’ See letter dated November 30, 1960, from D.J. Bloemena, J.M. Meulenhoff to Sandberg. SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
68 stedelijk seemed to center on ‘art’, the Museum and its publication primarily honoured the ‘artists’. The Dutch publication was to be followed by four foreign editions.180 Although Jaffé was responsible for most of the text, the book is very much a ‘Sandberg’ product: typographically, the selective use of the brown paper (for text and as background page for some illustrations), his own poetic style in the introduction and section on ‘the museum as a tool’, the ‘reverse’ approach to history – working from the present to the past -, and the large amount of attention given to the reproduction of the artworks as equal in importance to the text and not as mere illustrations to it.181 This major publication is a personification of Sandberg’s Stedelijk: Sandberg’s concept of ‘viewing the development of modern art through the eyes of the present’ dictated the organization of the book in which the history of modern art is told in four chapters starting with the present and moving back in time.182 The choice of presenting all the visual arts in what seemed an arbitrary order displayed the works of art as equals without masterpieces dominating the development of art. For example, the first works of art to be shown in the book were: ‘photography, chair, tapestry and film’ as Sandberg announced. It also presented Sandberg’s ideal Museum which was to show all the different forms of visual art, including (besides painting, sculpture, graphic art and design) architecture, film and photography - as expressions of a period and not as a collection of masterpieces. As the promotion on the flap of the dustcover of the English edition stated: “This book brings to the general public a host of little-known works by famous modern artists of all countries. In its flashback type of text and broad coverage of all the arts in the modern world, Pioneers of Modern Art casts a new and revealing light on the development of the modern movement and the role played by its great pioneers.” As Sandberg wanted his Museum to be ‘a work of art’, so this publication was to be also. The lay-out was lively and excitingly different on every page, a-symmetrical like his exhibition installations: the vitality of the art of the present also characterized this work of art.
180 In Italy by Alberto Mondadori in Milan, in Germany by Verlag M. Dumont Schauberg in Cologne, in France by Editions des Deux Mondes in Paris, and, by McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. in New York (U.S.). 181 About being typically ‘Sandberg’: The art historian Lionello Venturi wrote in a personal note to Sandberg (April 3, 1961): “Votre livre est unique, orginal, Sandberg 100/100 !” SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 182 Very early on Sandberg showed interest in the reversed approach to history as witnessed by a letter to hr. Nikerk concerning a course for the personnel of the VVV (tourist information office) in Amsterdam, dated October 6, 1940. Sandberg describes his ideas on the content and structure of the proposed course, combining art history, architecture and history of the city of Amsterdam. Concerning the overall structure of the course he states that it would be better to start in the present and step by step work back to the Middle Ages: “het zou nog beter zijn in het heden te beginnen en stap voor stap terug te gaan naar de middeleeuwen – ik vrees echter dat de meeste docenten zich moeilijk daarop zullen kunnen instellen.”. See folder Reklame en Publiciteit 07.355.6 , SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
69 Sandberg’s introduction opens up with an epigraph by Henri Bergson. The use of an epigraph here is to set the tone of his poetic statement, and at the same time intensify and authorize Sandberg’s own message.183 As a philosophic authority on art and culture, Bergson seemed to prescribe the image of the Stedelijk Museum which Sandberg had created as – in Bergson’s wording: “a work of genius, which starts by confusing, shall create step by step by its presence alone, a conception of art and artistic atmosphere which allows them to understand it.”184 The Bergson text is presented in Sandberg style: no capital letters and in verse form, which makes Bergson’s text refer directly to Sandberg’s. Sandberg then started his own text in the same characteristic poem-like style of breaking up his sentences and shaping them into stanzas. He departed from his own person by saying with a sympathetic humility that the public could relate to: “it is not easy / to introduce this book / which looks so momentous”. As he continued: “there is so much to say / so much has slipped my memory / during the long years / that I have concerned myself with / the relations between art and society”. 185 The text then takes a sudden turn and states a number of ‘arguments’ most assertively on the difference between ‘great artists’ and others, giving us the definition of ‘great’ and ‘true’ art and the duty of the Museum in ‘confronting’ the public with it ‘again and again’. Sandberg’s arguments often remain assertions: conclusions based not on premises but on personal statements, which he seems to transform into stipulative definitions, which he then uses to control the argument. They seem so convincing due to the poetic yet straightforward style Sandberg chooses. This style identifies Sandberg as artist, making him an authority on artistic matters. Sandberg shows himself to be a master of style: his texts are full of various figures of speech – a variety of tropes put in different schemes. Here in his explanation of what true art is, and who the great artists are, and the position of the Stedelijk regarding them, Sandberg with very few words builds his powerful ‘argument’. He guides his reader into his world by identifying himself with the public, using ‘we’ opposed to ‘they’ meaning the artists. He presents himself as the perfect mediator who can relate to both the artists and the public. By means of a set of rhetorical questions he placed his two types of artists in opposing positions, which he provided with clear-cut definitions of great art and artists.
183 See for the effect of the use of epigraphs: Katriel and Sanders, “The Meta-Communicative Role of Epigraphs in Scientific Text Construction”, pp. 183-194. 184 In French: “une oeuvre géniale, / que commence par déconcerter / pourra créer peu a peu / par sa seule présence / une conception de l’art / et une atmosphere artistique / qui permettront de la comprendre. From Bergson, Les Deux Sources, 1932. 185 Sandberg and Jaffé, kunst van heden in het stedelijk.
70 He placed the Stedelijk in the front lines of duty, fighting a revolution: a revolution of ‘true’ artists going back to Van Gogh who “depicts the equality and fraternity, which are the roots of freedom”. In the margin he put ‘liberté, egalité, fraternité’ which emphasized the accepted and respectable concept of revolution, not only in art but also in life (referring also to the ‘revolution’, the resistance against the oppressor during the war: “New life, often wild, is seen of course in youth and in art”.186 The concept of the vitality of the Museum – binding Sandberg’s ‘true’ modern art and the ‘living’ museum -is described in an article written by V.W. van Gogh devoted to Sandberg, immediately following Sandberg’s introduction in the Dutch edition of the anniversary publication.187 In this piece of ethos-centered prose, the character of Sandberg is boosted by attributing to him the same ‘vitality’, which Sandberg himself propagated in art. This vitality he displayed, according to V.W. van Gogh, not only by making “his museum one of the most well-known of our continent”, but also by his role during the war.188 The description of Sandberg’s heroic role in the resistance increases the respectability of his person, which builds on to the ethical appeal of his ideas: making him a respectable authority. Furthermore, by also focusing on his creativity as curator and typographer with a definite style of his own, Sandberg is qualified as an ‘artist’, which makes him at once more knowledgeable about art as an ‘insider’ and makes his artistic texts perhaps more acceptable. The omission of this article on Sandberg, by the nephew of the Van Gogh, in the English edition is definitely a missed opportunity to emphasize the position of the Stedelijk Museum under Sandberg as an exceptional one in Europe, as it was stated in the article in the original Dutch publication. Before the different periods of art are discussed and visualized, a section ‘contemporary art in the collection’ promotes the Stedelijk’s reverse approach to art history. The reader is reminded that this method had already been voiced seven years ago in the Stedelijk’s catalog 9 jaar stedelijk museum. The Stedelijk approach is authorized by an
186 Ibid. 187 In the English edition the article by V.W. van Gogh is left out. In a letter - dated May 25, 1961- from the publisher Bernard S. Myers, editor-in-chief of Art Department of McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., to D.W. Bloemena from J.M. Meulenhoff, the Dutch publisher, critical notes are given on the material: ‘As for the material of Ing. Van Gogh, which I have spent a whole evening reading and trying to put into usable form, I must confess that it does not read very well at all and has a tendency to ramble on without really making the points that should be made. It is really not up to the standards of the rest of the book. Morever (sic), since Mr. Sandberg was not too keen on having it included in any case, and since it can certainly be argued that the American public would not be too much interested in the internal history of a foreign museum, I would be inclined to drop these few pages entirely so that people can go directly from the Sandberg introduction into the book proper.’ SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 188 See article ‘W.J.H.B. Sandberg, directeur van het Stedelijk’ by V.W. van Gogh in Sandberg and Jaffé, kunst van heden in het stedelijk.
71 epigraph of the internationally renowned art historian L. Venturi in which the importance of contemporary art for viewing of art history is professed.189 In Jaffé’s final remarks in the last chapter on the oldest art in the Stedelijk, he highlights the contrast of atmosphere between a museum visit then and now and the change in the whole domain of the visual arts but concludes and claims that a museum visit in 1960 serves the same purpose as it did in 1870: “Visual art has, however, always been for man a path towards a knowledge, a contemplation of himself and of the world around him. That was the reason for a museum visit as Allebé recorded it in 1870, and it is also the reason for it today”.190 The reproduction of Allebé’s painting is – as befitting the reverse approach to history - the end of kunst van heden in het stedelijk’s chapter on art from 1907 to 1870 as the beginning of the section in the book on the Stedelijk Museum itself. On the blank, brown- papered title page is printed – besides as accompanying text to the painting: a museum in 1870 - ‘the museum as a tool’ (translated from the Dutch ‘gebruiksvoorwerp’ which seems to have a slightly different meaning.)191 (fig. 20) It is clear that the visual difference between the museum then and now in the exhibition is also emphasized here: by contrasting the museum of 1870 to Sandberg’s model museum of 1961, attention is called to Sandberg’s spectacular feat. The next page opens with the announcement: “may we now present the museum to you”, followed by a graphically playful list of seemingly bland facts and figures. Most of the information pertains to the building and the Museum’s activities. Remarkably so, no mention is made of the Museum’s collections themselves. Next to the list however – in larger bold lettering - the different arts, which the Museum displays, are named. The list ends with a question as to the identity of the Stedelijk: “is it a beehive? a museum? or very simply a meetingplace (sic) for the young and the old?”192 The answer, after having read the impressive list above, having to be of course: all three. In this presentation of the Museum in the English edition the position of the Stedelijk seems once again, as in the omission of the article on Sandberg, to be deflated – this time by ‘slight’ differences in translation. ‘May we now present the museum to you’ is the translation of ‘mogen we thans het stedelijk aan u voorstellen’. By omitting the Museum’s nickname: 'het Stedelijk', the familiarizing effect with
189 See at the beginning of the section ‘contemporary art in the collection’ in Sandberg and Jaffé, Pioneers of Modern Art: “S’il est vrai que toute histoire/ est l’interprétation actuelle du / passé, la conscience de l’art actuel/ est la base de toute histoire de l’art du passé.” 190 See last page of section ‘d around van gogh 1907-1870’ of Sandberg and Jaffé, Pioneers of Modern Art. 191 “A tool” would preferably be translated by ‘gereedschap’ which clearly has the aspect of ‘with which to make or fix something’. ‘Gebruiksvoorwerp’ seems more neutral. In a number of cases the translation seems dubious or incorrect.
72 the Museum seems lost. Furthermore, in the listing of facts and figures, the Dutch edition reads: “een nieuwe vleugel (6700 m 3) waarin veel museumervaring is verwerkt.” The translation in the English edition is: “a new wing (6700 m 3) in which much experience has been gained”. The Dutch statement clearly points to the fact that a lot of museum experience has shaped the new wing which points to Sandberg’s widely respected ideas on lighting and display techniques. The English translation seems to indicate that a lot has been experienced in the new wing, which is clearly a more neutral statement regarding the importance of the new wing. The facts and figures are followed by a photographic reportage of the museum and its activities. Starting – under the caption of ‘advertising’ (in Dutch ‘propaganda’) - with close- ups of a few of Sandberg’s exhibition-posters, a photograph of posters posted outside the Museum directing the public in and a photograph of people in the Museum being directed via a modern signpost to the various exhibitions within, the page is actually dominated by a large photograph of a long line-up of people waiting to enter the new wing of the Stedelijk for the exhibition Wij mensen. (fig. 21) The caption accompanying this picture reads: ‘succes’ (in the English edition ‘success’). Ironically, this line-up of success is caused by a Museum of Modern Art success: The Family of Man exhibition traveled around the world as “the greatest photographic exhibition of all time” as announced in its catalog. The next pages of the photographic reportage in kunst van heden in het stedelijk show a view of the 1895 brick building and interior shots of the museum galleries and stairway contrasting the period 1895-1940 to the period 1945-1960: the earlier period shows a darker and more traditional display, the post-war period installation views are lighter and more innovative, showing for example the prominent Cobra show of 1949, in which the living artist played such a prominent role. The following photographs show the Museum as ‘beehive’: crowded, busy rooms of people viewing, listening, talking and making art and a full auditorium, reading room and museum shop. A prominent place is reserved for the artists: a photograph of Appel in front of his mural and pictures of artists “exchanging ideas” with children. A number of photographs are cleverly printed so as to invite the viewer of the book in. By opening up the ‘frame’ of the photographs, the viewer is able to participate in the activities going on and made to feel part of the museum experience. (fig. 22, 23) . The narrative in the photographic display of kunst van heden in het stedelijk is more playful, almost poetic – sometimes humorous - with a lively lay-out providing an impression of the Museum as a successful living center of art. The liveliness is enhanced, for example, by the opening of the frames of the pictures. The last page of photographs included a somewhat
73 humorous setup of three pictures of the auditorium, of which two were empty and one full. The two empty auditorium pictures are taken from opposite angles with the picture of the full auditorium in the middle.(fig. 24) The last picture – which is also the last picture of the whole display - is a shot of the empty chairs of the auditorium beckoning us to enter and fill them.193 The labels in the Stedelijk publication are only mere captions: mostly one or two word statements, names or dates. The new wing receives a good deal of photographic attention; besides showing a photograph of the exterior on the garden side and a number of various installation views, its importance is emphasized by three pictures showing the exhibition of Picasso’s Guernica – an internationally celebrated masterpiece. Although it is not from the own collection, the fact that it visited the Stedelijk Museum shows the reputation of the Museum as internationally important. The publication ends with some museum data on personnel and public attendance, clearly and aesthetically displayed in Sandberg-graphics.194 (fig. 25) The lists of exhibitions from the period 1945 to 1960 – divided in one-man shows and group shows –, which fill the last pages of the anniversary publication, are not present in the English edition, once again diminishing the presence and importance of the Stedelijk in the foreign editions. 195 For the Dutch public, however, kunst van heden in the stedelijk, presented the Stedelijk Museum as a lively, innovative institution with a broad collection and a full exhibition schedule and promoted the important position of Sandberg in the international art world. The anniversary exhibition was put on show in the ‘modern’ wing of the Stedelijk, as remarked in the press. It consisted of “the100 most prominent art works from the
193 See photograph numbers 421, 422 and 431 in Sandberg and Jaffé, kunst van heden in het stedelijk (np). The last picture is # 444. 194 Sandberg had written on the importance of statistical image already in 1929 in a brochure titled Het verleden in Egyptische reliefs, het heden in statistisch beeld - as quoted in Petersen and Brattinga, Sandberg een documentaire/ a documentary, p.17: “The culture of the twentieth century, too, does not seek to remain exclusieve to a small group of intellectuals, it seeks a clear, generally intelligible means of expression, which it has found in the statistical image. Museums accommodate the culture of the past. The statistical image seeks to make us aware of the present and to point out the posibilities (sic) of the future. Because it can present us with an outline, free from confusing coincidental details, of the world today. It attempts to couple the exactness of science to the inspiration of art, and to unite the lucid simplicity of both”. 195 In the English edition the role of the Stedelijk Museum is downplayed so as it seems to make the book more saleable for the American public that “would not be too much interested in the internal history of a foreign museum”. See note 182. I don’t know how the sales of the American edition turned out in the 1960’s, but the market value of the book in New York in 1999 seems to have decreased sharply (I bought my copy in New York for $ 12.50) whereas at the same time in the U.S. a number of Stedelijk catalogs were being sold for many times more and the Dutch edition kunst van heden in het stedelijk was going for almost ten times the quoted price in Amsterdam.
74 collection”.196 The entrance to the exhibition is said to have been marked by works representing the beginning and the end of the presented collection with a composition by Appel on one side and Allebé’s Museumbezoek on the other: the huge contrast in style provides for a lively, exciting introduction.197 The choice of Allebé’s work displays not only the change in art itself – by contrasting it with the explosive, colorful Appel – but also comments on the change in museum ‘atmosphere’ between the old-fashioned dark and ‘elite’ museum room , and the modern, light and open showcase of the new wing of the Stedelijk connected to the everyday life on the street. The new wing seems in a way to have become the ‘honorary’ gallery of the Museum instead of the ‘Ere-zaal’ on the first floor, which of course displays much more the atmosphere of the 1895 Stedelijk. The opening festivities of the Pioniers exhibition demonstrated the importance of the artists’ presence for the Stedelijk as a living center of the arts. The festivities were held from noon until midnight and besides the official opening ceremonies early in the afternoon with officials primarily honoring Sandberg and his Museum, a party was held in the evening for a larger group, now especially for the Amsterdam artists. As voiced in a handwritten invitation written by Sandberg, Amsterdam artists were invited to attend ‘a cozy get-together with the artists with whom we know to be united and without whom the museum would not exist.’198 The photographs taken during the party indeed display a ‘cozy’ relaxed atmosphere with food, drink and rock-and-roll dancing. Sandberg stars in the show: standing on a small platform quaintly decorated by two Dutch flags with a handwritten sign on the front or turning the large wheel of a Dutch street organ. (fig. 26). The Stedelijk was Sandberg and Sandberg was the Stedelijk; this anniversary seems in many ways a Sandberg celebration. In his own words he frequently associated the 65th anniversary of the Museum with retirement; Sandberg himself was up for retirement two years later.199 This seems at once to identify Sandberg with the Museum and give the
196 See press release February 3, 1961 ‘Jubileumtentoonstelling t.g.v. het 65-jarig bestaan 18.2 – 13.3’. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 197 Unfortunately there are no installation photographs of this exhibition. 198 The invitation states: “op het programma staat in elk geval een gezellige samenkomst met de kunstenaars met wie we ons verbonden weten en zonder wie het museum niet zou bestaan”. Handwritten Invitation from the Archives of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam. 199 Mention of association with retirement can be found, for example, in a caption for an aerial photograph of the Museum to be sent to all Dutch newspapers. See letter from Sandberg to Van Noortwijk , K.L.M. Aerocarto N.V., February 3, 1961, in which he provides for the following text: “midden op deze foto: het gebouwencomplex van het Stedelijk Museum te Amsterdam dat op 18 februari zijn 65e verjaardag viert: de pensioengerechtigde leeftijd, maar het blijft in functie, want het verjongt zich steeds …”. Also in his New Year’s cards and invitations for the opening of the exhibition does he refer to the Museum reaching retirement age but continuing in office. See for New Years cards the letter with attachment to the translator: J. Brockway, dated 25 November 1960, s.m. 24641. SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
75 Museum a human appeal and respectability people can relate to. The February issue of Museumjournaal is almost entirely devoted to the Stedelijk Museum’s anniversary.200 In the congratulations section of the issue, the comments by the artists, museum directors, critics and art historians show the identification of the Museum with Sandberg. In the photo reportage the characteristic portrait of Sandberg – cigarette hanging out of his mouth while on the phone - takes a prominent place in the reportage as only portrait. Sandberg also features in the series of photographs of the Museum publications. Here we see pages of a few catalogs and other publications with his typography – his work as an artist – centrally displayed, and not - as is frequently the case with the Museum of Modern Art - a display of a large stack or a full shelf of books: the Stedelijk’s catalogs are presented as artworks, MoMA’s as academic contributions.
The Stedelijk’s 75th
One would expect a 75th anniversary to be grander than a 65th. But in the case of the Stedelijk this was only partially so. The Stedelijk organized a whole week of festivities in and around the Museum. Activities ranging from music, mime and dance in the Museum galleries, concerts and films in the auditorium, music and ‘free coffee’ in the restaurant to discussions on museum policy in the new wing and art manifestations outside the Museum. The collections – although arranged throughout the Museum – seem almost to become secondary during the celebrations as if merely background for spectacle, as illustrated by the photograph of the entrance. (fig. 27) The 75th anniversary celebrations emphasized the Stedelijk’s image as forum: as platform for the artists and the art discourse. It also attempted to be a celebration for all the diverse audiences it had to serve, ranging from the international elite to the Amsterdam community. To analyze the goal and ethos-building effect of this anniversary, the various celebrations are discussed individually. The celebrations started on September 14th , which was the actual date of the Museum’s opening in 1895. In this way it was a real celebration of the Museum itself. The official date had not been honored in previous anniversary celebrations.201 For a whole week
200 See Museumjournaal 6, no. 8 (February 1961): an article on the Stedelijk Museum by V.W. van Gogh, an article on the acquisition and presentation of Municipal art works before 1895, two sections of congratulations: Museum en Sandberg gelukgewenst and Gelukwensen, a photo reportage of the Museum by Eva Besnyo and a review of the anniversary publication kunst van heden in the stedelijk by D. Dooijes. It is remarkable that the title of the book is misquoted as “Moderne kunst in het Stedelijk Museum” (p. 189). 201 The opening party of the Pioniers exhibition in February 1961, which took place about half year later than the actual anniversary date, was the only celebration moment.
76 jubilee events took place during the day and continued on in the evenings, filling the Museum with a broad public now including visitors who were otherwise very rarely seen in the Museum. The municipal character of the Stedelijk was emphasized by catering to the Amsterdam public: the Museum was opened in the evenings to allow the working community to participate and free busses brought residents back and forth from the community centers in the city. Apparently many senior citizens took advantage of the free transportation and the evening openings proved popular which indicated to the Museum that – as a survey by Intomart had shown – the working community could be attracted to the Museum in the evenings.202 The photographs of the various manifestations and get-togethers show the very informal atmosphere: crowded rooms with artists performing, people eating and drinking in very close proximity to the artworks; dancers equipped with pointy umbrellas perform right in front of Barnett Newman’s Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue III and in one of the painting galleries soup and lemonade are passed around on a tray announced by a banner held out above the beverages with a silly text pertaining to them. (fig. 28, 29) The demonstration of the various activities displayed the Stedelijk’s aim to highlight its openness and participation in the creation of art, art in which the boundary lines between the various forms of expression were fading. No formal receptions or hours of memorable speeches: this was to be a celebration of art manifestations for everybody. The manifestations were to take place inside and outside the Museum as dictated by the development of art itself and the Museum presented its role as to accommodate and communicate: as announced in the Jubileumkrant (Jubilee newspaper). The choice of the newspaper format emphasizes the desired casual up-to-date atmosphere. Guides were positioned all over the Museum in order to answer any questions or provide explanations and the administrators of the Museum were said to be available to be of any service.203 On the last day of celebrations an “extra” exhibition – as it was announced - Binnen en buiten het Kader was opened. Not as the anniversary exhibition but, as it seems, as a statement in line with the manifestations: as a ‘state of the arts’ as in the newest developments in Dutch art, and in line with the positioning of the Museum itself in the art process. Arranged in a sequence of eight rooms on the ground floor, the artists of the exhibition lead the visitor
202 See article ‘het ‘stedelijk’ na 75 jaar’ by Rini Dippel in Museumjournaal 15, no.5 (November 1970): pp. 268- 269. 203 See frontpage of Jubileumkrant: “zijn er op vele plaatsen gidsen in het museum, die uw vragen zullen beantwoorden of uitleg geven zitten de organisatoren van het museum niet thuis, maar op het museum om u van dienst te zijn”.
77 through their created ‘environments’ and ‘situations’ and finally via a staircase through a window of the Museum to a small temporary building outside the Museum building itself constructed by an artists group ICW. – in which artists invited the public to discuss matters concerning “the conflict man – neo-capitalist consumer-society”.204 (fig. 30) This was the endpoint of the exhibition and the visitor left the show through this temporary set up, ending up on the sidewalk outside the Museum. By leading the visitor out of the Museum building itself, the artists at the same time used and discarded the Museum. This exhibition was a perfect example of the Museum’s participation in the artists’ experiments: now the artists experiment contained a reflecting on the institution museum itself. This exhibition of young Dutch artists was presented by the curators of the show, Gijs van Tuyl and Coosje Kapteyn, in the accompanying catalog as continuing from a line of the Atelier series in which young Dutch artists were given the opportunity to experiment in the Stedelijk and as a continuation of the type of Stedelijk exhibition, such as Dylaby in 1962 and Op Losse Schroeven in 1969 (both exhibitions are discussed in Chapter 4), in which the Museum had drawn attention to the tendency of artists to experiment outside the traditional framework of the museum and of art itself.205 This show represents the type of exhibition, which put the Stedelijk on the world map: strengthening the Museum’s image as ‘experimental’. The Museum presented itself in the role of the discoverer and partner: after the ‘initial discovering’ of new tendencies in art, the Museum catered to the artists in their experiments with new forms of expression and with their relations with the Museum itself, and with the public by providing space and support. On the one hand the Stedelijk displays the subordinate function of the Museum in relation to the artists and their experiments – as de Wilde saw it, ‘the function of the museum following naturally the development in art’.206 But, on the other hand, the Museum reveals itself as ‘the signifier’ by presenting itself as the one who ‘points out’ new developments in art and gives these new art expressions their status by taking them under her wing: by organizing exhibitions, providing opportunity and space, the Museum institutionalizes the same art, which is actually trying to break away from the museum environment.
204 Van Tuyl, “Binnen en buiten het kader, environments en situaties van jonge Nederlanders”, pp. 238-239. 205 See introduction by Coosje Kapteyn and Gijs van Tuyl in catalog Binnen en buiten het kader, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1970. 206 See De Wilde, “Notities over de functie van het museum van hedendaagse kunst”, pp. 19–24 of the supplement, in which De Wilde explains his ideas on the relationship between artists, museum and public (p. 20).
78 As befitting the image of a museum as forum and living center, the last evening was reserved for an open discussion with the self-reflective topic: ‘the function of a modern art museum’. This evening, as it seems, was presented as the beginning of the implementation of a new policy for the Stedelijk, for, as De Wilde concluded at the end of the opening article of the Jubileumkrant in reference to the discussion evening, museum policy must not remain theory, it must be acted out.207 De Wilde, hoping to make the Stedelijk a “Home for Everybody” (Huis voor allen) announced a new course in the development of The Stedelijk, not only, as he said, because there was a new political situation, but also because there was a new artistic situation: no longer was there one “clear line in the artistic development”, many different art forms exist along side each other. To be informed about the large variety of artists and their art works in order to determine the Museum’s course, he wanted to open up the channels between the Museum, the artists and the public. He stated that although he was of the opinion that the Museum people were to remain responsible for Museum policy, he would like to come to shared conclusions with artists and public.208 This “first discussion evening” was supposed to be the beginning of better communications. Oddly enough he spoke of a “first discussion evening between artists and public” in which, he hoped “that both parties will ask a lot and will learn a lot from each other’s thoughts”. By speaking only of ‘they’ instead of ‘we’, he left out the Museum as discussion partner, which seems to undermine his new policy almost immediately. In the Museum’s statement handed out before the discussion the same duality was apparent. For, on the one hand, they – as in director and staff – see the role of the Museum as one of mediator between two parties namely contemporary art and the public, ‘whose communication can be improved’, thereby placing the Museum outside the direct line of fire and, on the other hand , as one of the three parties from which, through discussion new fields of activity will develop.209 The evening turned out to be a flop. Beforehand the Amsterdam artists associations (the SAK) and the BBK and BBK 69 had officially announced – in open letters to De Wilde -
207 With reference to the discussion evening, De Wilde says that it is perhaps not the answer but that one should actively implement one’s museum policy with one’s own tools and never pursue a museum policy in theory. The actual quote: “Maar je moet een museum-beleid nooit in theorie voeren. Je moet het doen. Met je eigen middelen”. The last sentence of the opening article in the Jubileumkrant for the 75th anniversary of the Stedelijk Museum: ‘Iedereen kan bij ons iets ontdekken’. 208 Ibid. 209 See the statement ‘De Funktie van het Museum van Moderne Kunst’ issued by the Museum on the evening of September 18, 1970 in the Library of the Stedelijk Museum. The statement was given by the director and staff of the Museum with, as the statement read, regard to museum policy of the near future. “Het heeft betrekking op het beleid voor de naaste toekomst”. SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
79 that they would not take part in the discussion and, according to Dippel, the people who did show up did not take their chance to voice their opinions.210 The absence of the artists can be understood in the line of previous protests. The Museum had been under attack for being an elitist, closed institution. A year before the Stedelijk had been ‘liberated’ by BBK members who on September 9th 1969 declared that the Museum was from then on to be a ‘center of debate’ (diskussiecentrum).211 To end the protests and sit-ins, the police was called in, and lawsuits started against individuals, which resulted in the protesters announcing the Stedelijk Museum to be a “Police Museum” positioning it as an authoritarian, anti-democratic institute. The Museum’s choice – a year later - of organizing a discussion evening displays the desire to present the Stedelijk as an open platform, a democratic institute: a ‘center of debate’ but now on the Museum’s own conditions. The 75th anniversary celebrations culminating in the evening of debate show the paradoxical position in which the Stedelijk found itself during the late sixties early seventies. On the one hand, the Stedelijk was a municipal museum financed by the community and therefore expected to serve the community and function as a municipal institution. During the wave of democratization in the sixties and seventies this also meant that the Museum was under pressure to grant the public and the artists active participation as other municipal institutions, such as schools and universities, were expected to do. But, on the other hand, the Stedelijk wanted to uphold its international position and when it came to decisions on policy the acknowledged guideline was ‘quality’ to meet international standards instead of consensus to please the Amsterdam artist community. Although De Wilde presented the new Museum’s policy as an open one, he himself did not believe in democratic choices concerning art.212 His policy was dictated by his vision, as he later stated himself, and he did not believe that a good collection could be assembled based on compromise.213 The Jubileumkrant, which also presented the face of the anniversary celebrations, showed this paradox in which the Stedelijk operated. The Museum’s popular insider’s name is used for the headline of the front page: ‘t Stedelijk 75 jaar’, at once giving the newspaper an open, familiar profile. The caption for the opening article by De Wilde is a quote: ‘Iedereen
210 See Dippel, “het ‘stedelijk’ na 75 jaar”, p. 268. 211 Desjardijn, Voer voor Miljoenen. De Aktie BBK en Sonsbeek buiten de perken, pp. 14-15. 212 See De Wilde, “Notities over de functie van het Museum van hedendaagse kunst”, pp. 23 –24 of the supplement, in which de Wilde explains his ideas on the relationship between artists, museum and public. This statement is much more straightforward concerning the possible role of artists and artists associations in determining the course of a contemporary art museum – read: het Stedelijk. 213 As De Wilde explains in the introduction of the acquisitions catalog The Stedelijk Museum Collection 1963- 1973 and in an interview with De Wilde in the catalog 20 jaar verzamelen , aanwinsten Stedelijk museum Amsterdam 1963-1984, pp. 14-15.
80 kan bij ons iets ontdekken’, meaning as much as ‘Everybody can discover something in our Museum’ emphasizing once again the accessible atmosphere. In the article itself De Wilde stressed that he wanted the Stedelijk to be a “home for all”: a place where “all groups of artists” and “all groups of people” can express and exchange their ideas. In the same article he points out, however, that the Stedelijk and her collection are well known throughout the world and the Museum’s exhibitions program is watched carefully by the international art world, emphasizing the high standard and trend-setting quality of the Stedelijk, which has to be kept up in order to keep the foreigners coming to their Museum. This ‘other’ Stedelijk – the Stedelijk of international appeal – is also accentuated by the Chronicle of the Stedelijk 1874- 1970 on the same page, which lists ‘the’ highlights of the Museum’s history. Here the Stedelijk of ‘international appeal’, of trend-setting exhibitions and of big international names is presented. There is absolutely no mention of the local importance of the Museum as exhibition space for many Amsterdam artist groups and other local art associations, which actually dominated in the first half of the Stedelijk’s existence. The publication Keuze uit de Verzameling van het Stedelijk Museum, which was presented during the anniversary week, comes no way near the grandeur of Sandberg’s kunst van heden in het stedelijk and misses a clear profile.214 Although the date of appearance of this publication during the anniversary week suggests a relationship to the Museum’s 75th anniversary, and, although it does include an introductory section on the history of the building, collections and policy of the Stedelijk under the heading Stedelijk Museum 1895- 1970, there is no mention whatsoever of this important milestone. Even though it is perhaps very un-Dutch to boast of one’s own achievements, a few words of praise or pride pertaining to the Museum’s 75th birthday would have been expected and seems – as in the case of the English edition of kunst van heden in het stedelijk (Pioneers of Modern Art) - a missed opportunity to profile the importance of the Stedelijk internationally. Keuze uit de Verzameling van het Stedelijk Museum is a four-language guide, which was said to precede ‘a more detailed publication’ that had yet to be published. It was very
214 Perhaps the idea was to have Keuze uit de Verzameling van het Stedelijk also function as a sort of ‘highlights of the collections’ guide, like the previous one in 1967: the Museum’s visiting card for the growing number of tourists (which would of course have suited the anniversary aspect of the publication well). In that case it would have been better to have had the selection dictated by what the Museum wanted to represent in the catalog instead of having the selection restricted by the available room in the exhibition. For, although the “spécialités de la maison” are present in the guide, “many works, including several of considerable importance” are not in the catalog section because they are not in the exhibition due to lack of space. If the Museum had wanted to have the guide to have a more general function less emphasis would have had to be put on the relationship with the summer exhibition. This guide also displays that the Stedelijk put less emphasis on “masterpieces”.
81 much like a previous guide from 1967, which was already then awaiting ‘a more detailed catalog’ – a catalog which seems always to have been in preparation but was never finished.215 The format of both publications are the same and reveal their function as guides. Both are handy – literally easy to hold - booklets with bright blue covers with on the front a large white S and a darker blue M. The 1970 guide was considerably ‘fatter’ though: 1146 catalog numbers versus 94 choices, four languages instead of three, and now including, as mentioned above, a brief history of the Stedelijk and its collections. As de Wilde explained, this publication was to viewed as a “guide”: “a general survey of this summer’s exhibition of the museum’s own collections” 216 The connection to the summer exhibition is further stressed in the explanation of the plan and the intentions of the show itself. Strangely enough the guide appeared just in time to see the summer exhibition make way for the new fall season of temporary exhibitions, therefore making its immediate function obsolete. Perhaps since the concept of the summer show of the collections was to be continued, the guide was meant to cover future summer exhibitions. In that case it would have been more accurate to leave out ‘this summer’ and ‘this summer exhibition’.217 Furthermore, even though the general concept – “to highlight the connection of the works assembled in any one room” - remained the same for years, the specific plan for the succession of the galleries eventually changed. The concept of creating ‘obvious contrasts’ between the rooms emphasizing the idea of plurality of forms of 20th century art, as explained in the Foreword, was changed three years later to the concept of emphasizing ‘continuity’ in the relationship between the galleries.218 The article in the guide Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 1895-1970 is practically the first general essay about the history of the Museum ever to appear in a Stedelijk publication. This gives the guide a more general appeal. The article provides specific information about the Museum’s history, the development of its collections and history of its exhibitions. Just as in the Chronicle of the Stedelijk 1874-1970 in the Jubileumkrant, however, it leaves out the warehouse history of the Museum and the many artists associations that held their frequent exhibitions. The striking variety of early exhibitions on applied arts, for example, with guidelines for ‘better’- more modern - housing and appliances, photography, architecture, Primitive art, Children’s art , Folk art, theatre, as listed at the beginning of this chapter and of which the importance shall be discussed in the following
215 In both Forewords mention is made of a more detailed catalog being in preparation. 216 See the Foreword of Keuze uit de Verzameling van het Stedelijk Museum. 217 Ibid. 218 See an interview with De Wilde by Gijs van Tuyl for Museumjournaal 18, no. 3, (July 1973): pp. 117-119.
82 chapter, does not seem to be the profile that the Stedelijk wanted to give of its early history. It emphasized only the international importance of a few early exhibition and then only those that include big names such as in the 1911 Moderne Kunst Kring (Circle of Modern Art) exhibition with Picasso, Braque and Cézanne and a Russian exhibition including Kandinsky, Lissitsky and Malewitch in 1923.219 Other important early exhibitions were left out such as, for example, the 1905 Van Gogh exhibition, exhibitions including work by Mondrian already in 1909 and a retrospective in 1922, and expressionist exhibitions organized by De Onafhankelijken (the Independents) in the 1920’s.220 It is clear that the Museum’s exhibitions are what the Museum considered to be its forte and not the collection of ‘masterpieces’. The exhibitions are promoted as the activity that put the Stedelijk on the international map. They are presented as the core of the Stedelijk’s policy. The international orientation of the exhibition policy is portrayed as having a real Stedelijk tradition: starting almost immediately under Baard, culminating in the creation of “an international forum” with important exhibitions under the guidance of Roëll in the four years before the war, “brought to a climax” by Sandberg in the Post-War period, and continued up to the present by De Wilde.221 The article was written by Cor Blok, who at this time was already an acknowledged critic of modern art in the Netherlands and a museum man himself. It seems sloppy and un-scholarly that he is not acknowledged as author nor mentioned at all as having contributed to the publication, not even in the back where the translators are listed. By omitting this authority, the value of the text is deflated and therefore less persuasive. Equally casual and inaccurate is the listing of the Museum publications: instead of listing the correct titles of the foreign editions of kunst van heden in the stedelijk a direct translation is given in four languages as if it was a four-language publication as the guide itself.222 Furthermore, no Stedelijk catalogs are listed as museum publications, as if their importance disappeared after the exhibitions were over. This is of course a striking difference between the Stedelijk Museum and the Museum of Modern Art that in most cases listed its catalogs along with its other publications consistently. The translations in the guide also lack
219 The date given for the Moderne Kunst Kring exhibition differs between the Dutch article and the translations. The Dutch text gives the year 1917, the English, French and German ‘translation’ date the exhibition year to 1911, which is the correct date. All versions date the Russian exhibition in 1922. The list of exhibitions provided by the Stedelijk Museum lists it in 1923. 220 On important exhibitions of German artists organized by De Onafhankelijken, Zijlmans, “Duitse tentoonstellingen in Nederlandse musea en kunstenaarsverenigingen.”, pp. 287-293. 221 See ‘Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 1895-1970’ in Keuze uit de Verzameling van het Stedelijk Museum. 222 Perhaps the foreign editions are not mentioned because they were not for sale in the Museum itself, yet it still seems strange in a guide that presents the international scope of the Stedelijk to make no mention of them.
83 accuracy. The English translation of Blok’s article, for example, sometimes omits important facts – such as the listing of the noteworthy 1938 Abstracte Kunst (Abstract Art) exhibition – or includes ‘facts’ not provided in the Dutch article, which are sometimes even false.223 In a number of ways, as illustrated above, Keuze uit de Verzameling van het Stedelijk seems to strike out. Its identity seems mixed up as an anniversary publication, as a guide to the 1970 summer exhibition, as a general ‘highlights’ catalog of the collections, and as a stand-in for the awaited scholarly catalog with the necessary art-historical data. This demonstrates once again the lack of attention given to more scholarly presentations and surveys of art history in the Stedelijk.
The 75th anniversary publications and celebrations show that the Stedelijk’s ethos was based on contemporary matters. The presentations together strengthened the image of the Stedelijk as a living museum – as a forum for all, in which the artists were to lead the way and determine the Museum’s function. As in all the other anniversaries in the Stedelijk between 1935 and 1975, it bore the stamp of the director and therefore built the Museum’s ethos on the director’s authoritative persona. All the anniversary exhibitions not only acknowledged the Stedelijk’s ethos, but also strengthened it.
MoMA’s Anniversaries
Contrary to the Stedelijk Museum, the Museum of Modern celebrated every 5th year anniversary until 1964. In this year and after it, the ‘anniversary aspect’ was no longer prominent until its 50th anniversary in 1979. The development of the Museum’s goals, policies and positioning can be traced in the consecutive anniversary shows. The first three: Modern Works of Art (1934), Art in Our Time (1939) and Art in Progress (1944) are described by the Museum as survey shows of the living arts and cross section of the Museum’s own activities. The first one centers on a desired museum collection of excellent examples of modern art. The last two especially focus on the cross section of the Museum’s activities, displaying its expanding fields. Each anniversary show displays the Museum’s physical growth and its increasing importance and influence. The language in the various
223 For example, added on to the remark of Sandberg introducing exhibitions of photography to the Stedelijk, which in itself is false - for there had been photography shows in the Stedelijk already from 1908 on - but an accurate translation, the English version says: “a museum novelty”, which indicates that prior to Sandberg photography had not been introduced in museums. As mentioned earlier, MoMA had incorporated photography in exhibitions already in the early thirties.
84 communications of these first three anniversary exhibitions shows this concept of growth – both physical as in terms of progress - either explaining its “small stature” as befitting its first years, or, its “coming of age” and its finally “reaching maturity”. The Museum’s 25th anniversary in 1954 shall be analyzed in detail, since this celebration was presented as a major one, promoting the Museum as international leader. In the consecutive anniversary exhibitions the development of the Museum establishing its place can be perceived as an amplification, a climax towards power: first in the city, then in the Nation and finally internationally. As we shall see, the Museum’s own amplification was both vertical and horizontal: qualitative and quantitative.
The Museum’s ideal plan for the 5th anniversary show Modern Works of Art (1934) as voiced in the Museum’s Bulletin one month prior to the exhibition, was “to suggest what an ideal permanent collection for a museum of modern art in New York should contain”.224 Now that the Museum had received its first important collections from which to build, its course had to be set out. The focus was definitely on the single artworks as examples of art of “such importance and quality as to be worthy of a place in the Permanent Collection of the Museum”.225 The exhibition was to show painting, sculpture, photography, the graphic arts, architectural, industrial and commercial arts, and as stated, “possibly, primitive art”. As to what exactly was meant by primitive art here is unclear. Strangely enough, film is not mentioned even though the Film Library was already ‘under construction’ and was to be established a year later. In a statement issued on the day before the public opening, Barr explained that the “ideal plan” could not be realized. Due to limited space many of the arts, which did fit in the ideal plan and of which collections were being built - and here motion pictures together with the graphic arts, prints, drawings, photography and theatre art are mentioned - were finally not included: only painting, sculpture, architecture and industrial arts were shown. No further mention is made of including primitive art, neither in the statement, press releases, nor in the catalog. The exhibition took up all the gallery space. Each collection was exhibited separately and each work of art was given ample attention so as to emphasize their individual importance for the ideal Museum collection. All but three of four pictures were from New York collections: besides the Museum’s own they came from private collectors and dealers. By
224 See Editorial, “Museum Activities”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 2, no. 1 (October 1934): pp. 3-4. 225 Press release for the Fifth Anniversary Exhibition: ‘For release Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning’, November 17, or 18, 1934, p. 1. CUR, Exh.# 37. MoMA Archives, NY.
85 presenting them as ideal for an ideal collection, the Museum hoped to encourage gifts. To put them in the spotlights, the names of all the individual collectors and dealers were listed extensively in the press release and on the very first pages of the catalog. The paintings were of primary importance and were presented in Barr’s fashion: symmetrically, spaciously and slightly under eye-level. (fig. 31) The sculptures were presented in a separate room, in a line up against the wall on different individual pedestals. In the photographs of the installation views of the show no special displays are to be seen of the ‘excluded arts’ or the various services the Museum was developing such as the circulating exhibitions. In the next two anniversary shows, as we shall see, the Museum itself is the center of attention: not only its growing collections, but also its services and departments were presented in the exhibitions. On the dustcover of the 1934 catalog Modern Works of Art a reproduction of Cézanne’s The Card Players (1892) was displayed. This painting, which was owned by Stephen C. Clark - one of the Museum’s important trustees then - was a painting the Museum hoped to acquire for its collection and was therefore verbally and visually presented as a cornerstone of an ideal collection.226 The catalog, edited by Barr, did not only describe the Museum’s idea of a desired collection in a number of fields but was also a statement of triumph in reaching its first goal: survival. In the introductory section of the catalog 1929-1934, the Museum’s President, Conger Goodyear, explained that a fifth anniversary is “a landmark in the life of a public institution” for “ in five years the value of a museum should be proved or disproved”227 He then listed “the principal proofs of the Museum’s value”, which included - besides numbers of exhibitions, circulating exhibitions, attendance, memberships, museum publications and the securing of the necessary endowment fund for the Bliss bequest for the Museum’s Permanent Collection - “the wide publicity given to the Museum’s activities both in this country and abroad”, illustrating the focus of the Museum on the importance of publicity discussed earlier. The catalog and exhibition reflected the position and policy the Museum upheld: during its first five years it had taken its place within New York city alongside major Museums such as the Metropolitan Museum and the Whitney Museum, claiming its own terrain and staking out its course for future developments.228
226 Throughout the years, Clark’s painting, together with others owned by him, was given a lot of attention by including it in a number of important ‘masterpiece’ exhibitions and by presenting it as a cornerstone of an ideal collection. It was, however, despite all the attention to be given to the Metropolitan Museum. 227 Fifth Anniversary Exhibition Catalog, Modern Works of Art, p. 9. 228 As emphasized in ‘Statement By Mr. Alfred H. Barr, Jr., Director, Regarding the Fifth Anniversary Exhibition of The Museum of Modern Art”, November 19, 1934.
86 In statements issued to the press prior to the opening of this 5th anniversary exhibition Modern Works of Art and published in The Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art, the success of having met one’s initial targets is emphasized: the “stated purposes of the Trustees at the beginning of our activities … to conduct a series of temporary exhibitions, to acquire a building for a permanent home, and to establish a permanent collection” were all achieved.229 The success of the Museum’s exhibitions in the first five years is proven by “the attendance of nearly one million persons” and the “great deal of favourable comment”. Instead of denying any failures and weak points, the criticism of a number of “failures” among the 35 exhibitions was smoothed over by welcoming “a reasonable amount of healthy controversy”. The “failures” were presented as valuable: “to those who have understood that certain of these exhibitions were in reality laboratory experiments, even the failures that enjoyed the heartiest condemnation of the critics had a value” (my italics).230 With a statement like this, anyone would of course want to belong to those ‘who got the message’, which cleverly turns the potential critics into accomplices. Furthermore, the message itself is revealing with its links to science: by presenting exhibitions as ‘laboratory experiments’, the idea is projected that the Museum – through experimentation - is consciously working towards ‘the best results’. This would seem to inspire confidence in the Museum’s abilities and actions on its path to ‘maturity’. The concept of growth towards perfection therefore was experimentation of methods of exhibiting and learning from one’s mistakes. Although the Museum of Modern Art on the Museum’s next anniversary, its tenth in 1939, pronounced that it had ‘come of age’, it still presented itself - and now more directly – as a laboratory.231 In its newly constructed building, which was a clear example of ‘modern’ art itself, the opening exhibition – and at the same time the Museum’s anniversary exhibition which was celebrated earlier to coincide with the New York World’s Fair - Art in Our Time was to give an idea of the different kinds of living visual arts the Museum was concerned with in different display methods. As the Packard Report had suggested: “The official opening of the new building will offer a magnificent opportunity to publicize those aspects of the
229 A four-page press release, including statement by Conger Goodyear, for release Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning, November 17, or 18, 1934. A ‘Statement by Mr. Alfred H. Barr , Jr., Director, regarding the fifth anniversary exhibition of the Museum of Modern Art.’ November 19, 1934. And, A. Conger Goodyear, “1929- 1934”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 2, no. 3 (December 1934): pp. 2-3. 230 Ibid. 231 In Preface of the exhibition catalog Art in Our Time, p.11, written by the President A. Conger Goodyear.
87 museum’s program and purposes which differentiate it from other art museums and emphasize its character as a national institution.”232 The public was encouraged to ‘participate’ in judging the Museum’s experiments in order to establish a more permanent face for the new Museum after the exhibition was over. As Barr concluded his introduction ‘The Plan of the Exhibition’ in the exhibition catalog, he called on the public to contribute by responding to the installations of the different exhibitions: “The Museum of Modern Art is a laboratory: in its experiments the public is invited to participate.”233 Besides being “a laboratory”, it also presented itself as a ‘department store’ from which the public could buy its goods and services: the elaborate sales desk in the front lobby of the new building displayed the Museum’s publications and other materials. (fig. 8) Furthermore, a section in the catalog of the exhibition was reserved at the end for ‘Advertisements’ for acquiring the services and objects offered by the Museum, listing programs and exhibitions to be rented (including the rental fees) from the Department of Circulating Exhibitions and the Film Library, and publications, portfolios, postcards and other reproductions (including their prices) to be bought from the sales desk. This 10th anniversary show Art of Our Time, was to show the Museum’s national importance. As mentioned above, the Museum followed the advice of the Packard Report, which suggested presenting “a comprehensive resumé every five or ten years to illustrate the most significant new developments in all the visual arts.”234 Its new building featured on the cover of the clothbound catalog and on the first photograph inside; it was presented as an icon of modernism – a prime example of ‘art in our time’. The organization of the Museum, as was explained by Barr, is reflected in the exhibition set-up, allotting the three main curatorial departments – Painting and Sculpture, Architecture and Industrial Art, and the Film Library – the most space. Graphic Arts and Photography, which did not yet formally have separate departments, were presented in smaller exhibitions. Theatre Art and Commercial Art were not yet represented even though the Museum had worked in these fields and were planning to be more active in them in the near future.235 Most of the exhibitions focused on accomplishments of American art which fit into the New York World’s Fair atmosphere and showed the Museum’s national leadership in the modern arts. The Architecture and Industrial Art Department’s choice of the Houses and Housing exhibition for the opening show –
232 ‘A Report on the Development of the Museum of Modern Art’, by Artemas Packard in 1936-1937 (typescript) pp. 78, 114. R&P: 1930’s. MoMA Archives, NY. 233 Barr, Art in Our Time, p. 15. 234‘A Report on the Development of the Museum of Modern Art’, 1936-1937, p. 114. R&P: 1930’s. MoMA Archives, NY. 235 Barr Jr., “The plan of the exhibition” in Barr, Art in Our Time, p. 13.
88 prepared in collaboration with the United States Housing Authority – reflects, for example, this position the Museum claims as institution of national importance. As stated in the catalog, the Museum feels “privileged to help” in what the Museum describes as “a national architectural emergency”.236 The Department of Painting and Sculpture presented European and American Art together as equals with their own fortes, which in itself was a statement concerning the growing value of American modern art. The exhibition even started with American Art: a small collection of American Popular Art lent by Mrs. John D. Rockefeller, Jr.(one of the founding mothers of the Museum), which presented what were to become icons of American popular art in the Museum, such as John Kane’s Self Portrait (1929) and a large carved ‘Eagle’ that would become a frequently used symbol of America and of freedom during the early forties.(fig. 32) This section was shown first - separately - to focus on American achievement, but in the catalog the different American artists were “linked” to European masters of popular art “who have found in themselves a kind of common pictorial language” (Kane’s “masterpiece” was linked to Rousseau’s The Sleeping Gypsy!) which put American art on the same level as the European.237 After the American Popular Art section, the 19th century art was divided into a European section and an American one. The 20th century art was shown together due to “the general homogeneity of international contemporary art”, which seemed to declare the equality of both. The exhibition of Painting ended with Paintings by Children – American children - most of them from the WPA Federal Art Project! The explanation for the inclusion of these children’s paintings was their use of “that innocence of eye and imaginative freedom desired by so many artists of our period.”238 A number of the paintings were to be compared to paintings by great masters as Matisse, according to the catalog.239 Besides Painting and Architecture and Industrial Design exhibitions, there was a 20th century Sculpture and Constructions exhibition displayed indoor and for the first time in what the Museum called its “outdoor gallery”, which was the beginning of the Museum’s Sculpture Garden. Film was allotted an important position in the 10th anniversary exhibition: not only did the Film Library show its Cycle of Seventy Films, but it also had two special exhibitions on two contrasting aspects of film history. The one exhibition was concerned with an early pioneer producer of popular films and the other showed an avant-garde project of a film made
236 Ibid., p. 14. 237 Miller, “American Popular Art” in Barr, Art in Our Time, p. 17. 238 Barr, ‘The plan of the exhibition’ in Barr, Art in Our Time, p. 14. 239 Barr, Art in Our Time, pp. 204, 206.
89 entirely of animated abstract designs. By choosing such opposite examples, the Museum showed that it spanned the whole spectrum of film history. Whereas the previous fifth anniversary (1934) communications had positioned the Museum of Modern Art securely in the New York City art scene, the tenth anniversary in the new building was to establish the Museum’s national importance and standing. The opening night of the Art in Our Time exhibition was also the inauguration of the new building. A public relations expert had been hired – and paid - by Nelson Rockefeller (the Museum’s second President after Goodyear) in order to meet the professional standard for this special occasion. A radio show broadcasting an address by President Roosevelt from the White House was to be the climax of the opening night, a glamorous opening night, which was the talk of the town, exuded a Hollywood atmosphere. Roosevelt’s speech was to be printed the next day in a leading national newspaper the Herald Tribune on May 11, 1939. The speech underscored the national importance of the Museum as ‘the standard’ to follow. It focused on two elements: the importance of freedom, individuality and democracy for the arts, and , the task of the Museum of Modern Art as national institution to bridge “the gap between the artists and American industry, and the American public” and to raise the standards of American taste. The address emphasized the importance of the ‘traveling exhibitions’ in order to achieve these goals in communities all over the U.S. As excellent examples, so it seems, housing exhibitions were mentioned. “The great social art”, as Roosevelt called housing, was democratic and connected artists, industry and public, while raising the standards of American taste, just as photography, the printed book, the illustration, the advertisement, the poster, the theatre and the moving picture, which he praised for these qualities. Roosevelt concluded his speech with the presentation of The Museum of Modern Art as national leader in the fine arts, upholding the highest standards, which were to be followed throughout the country: “I trust that the fine example which this institution is affording will be widely copied and that the good work will continue until the influence of the best and the noblest in the fine arts permeates every community in the land.”240 Roosevelt’s message served its purpose of building the image of the Museum of Modern Art as respectable national authority.
240 Roosevelt’s address on The Museum of Modern Art, as printed in the Herald Tribune on May 11, 1939. Research Resources, MW. MoMA Archives, NY.
90
MoMA’s 15th
Five years later in 1944, with MoMA’s 15th anniversary exhibition Art in Progress, not only the national position of the Museum is clearly displayed, but also the growing confidence in its international leadership. The exhibition was announced as “the largest in the history of the Museum”, which for the first time represented all departments of the Museum “simultaneously in a single exhibition”. In this exhibition all curatorial departments of the Museum were represented together with two important services of the Museum: the Department of Circulating exhibitions and the Educational Program. The exhibit of the Circulating Exhibitions presented this department as an influential and authoritative instrument of the Museum. Positioned on the ground floor, the public was immediately confronted with this impressive visual display of facts and figures, contrasting - by light and dark backgrounds, letters and numbers – the first year of the traveling exhibitions 1931-1932 with the thirteenth year 1943-44, indicating the tremendous growth of the activities of this Department. (fig. 33) The display included a shelf connected to it with what seems like information on the circulating exhibitions themselves. The catalog explains the success of this “unique service to this and other countries” reaching, as the display shows, 235 cities.241 One of the reasons of its success is the fact that the exhibitions made for circulation provide “authoritative information on subjects treated in the exhibitions”. Through the ‘authoritative’ Circulating Exhibitions the Museum of Modern Art was now extending its influence internationally as well as nationally. The second service, which is highlighted here, is the Educational Program. In a lively display on the third floor the exhibition Modern Art for Young People shows the development of the program’s activities. Large panels of photographs and collages of photographs and texts of the various activities show the Museum as a busy educational center, in which the children, young adults and teachers participate in ‘new’ teaching techniques developed by the Museum, displaying once again the Museum as laboratory of museum methods. (fig. 34) Included were displays of the educational services during war time in which the Museum served the Nation . The concept of presenting the different exhibitions of the various departments and services as being one large show seems somewhat artificial. In actuality the different sections had their own identity, directed by different individuals. But by calling it ‘one’ show the emphasis on the multi-disciplined concept of modern art was stressed as entailing all the
241 Catalog Art in Progress and Press Release for exhibition. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY.
91 visual arts. The exhibition recaptured, as one critic discovered, the original idea upon which it was founded, meaning of course Barr’s ‘multi-departmental plan’ in which indeed these various arts were to be included.242 It seems ironical that the preparations for this triumphant multi-departmental show, in which the Museum proudly portrays its achievements, were in full swing while its creator Barr was being demoted in the organization by some of the same trustees who had not been so eager to venture past the ‘regular’ Painting and Sculpture department in the early years of the Museum’s development. All of MoMA’s anniversary exhibitions are self-congratulatory, accompanied by words of pride and facts and figures, but Art in Progress, more than the others, seems to have built the Museum’s image on statistics. Besides the example given above of the Department of Circulating exhibitions, the Film Library also showed an explanatory wall design in the main hall of the Museum, which not only showed pictures of film stills, but put the Library’s impressive statistics themselves on parade: “ The Film Library has acquired 17,730, 848 feet of film which would take approximately 3,300 hours to run, or 408 eight-hour days of continuous projection”. (fig. 35) The catalog and press releases are also filled with what the Museum themselves called “a few statistics” of the Museum prosperous growth and accomplishments.243 By focusing a lot of attention on all the facts and figures of ‘success’ in visual and verbal argumentation, the Museum could counter the fact that it was actually financially and organizationally in a slump. With Art in Progress the Museum promoted the concept of the ‘living museum’: the Museum as a “center of artistic life” providing room for new developments in art and feeding the world community through its services. This ‘living’ aspect was accentuated wherever possible by the Museum. The title of the exhibition and catalog, Art in Progress, stresses the ‘living’ aspect, implying both contemporary and active, alive. The Design and Architecture exhibitions, ‘Design for Use’ and ‘Built in U.S.A.’, revealed the emphasis on the practical use of art: art for everyday living. In the various statements in the exhibition catalog and press releases, the chosen wording emphasizes these qualities as does the installation design of the different exhibitions. For example, in the explanation of how the Museum is to be viewed in the year 1944, the statement makes clear that - as opposed to “being a complacent repository of established values” – the Museum is rather to been seen as “a center of artistic life to
242 Editorial ‘Press Comment on Art in Progress Exhibition’ of Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 12, no. 1 (August 1944): p. 14. The quote is from Maude Riley in The Art Digest. 243 Press Release ‘Fifteenth Anniversary Exhibition Is Largest In History Of Museum Of Modern Art’, For Release Wednesday, May 24, 1944, p. 2. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY.
92 indicate the inspiration of the vigorous protagonists of the living arts and to clarify the beliefs and sensibilities which animate them” (my italics) .244 The Painting and Sculpture section of the exhibition seems to have been selected according to the same ‘vigor’ of the artists as indicated by its director, the curator James Thrall Soby: “Wherever possible the leaders of the 20th century art have been represented by the most forceful examples available. Though tenderness may be no less commendable than strength, calm than passion, grace than impact, it seems useful in these times of growing conservatism to reaffirm the vigor, daring and revolutionary fervor of those who led painting from the brilliant topsoil of Impressionism to rougher – and deeper - ground”.245 The installation of, for example, the sculpture section was now much more lively than in 1939, instead of lining the objects along the wall they were now dispersed throughout gallery. To emphasize the ‘impact, passion and strength’ of some of the works, the Museum created a dramatic effect through installation: Lehmbruck’s Kneeling Woman (1911) - which had been presented as the strong symbol of freedom in these War years - together with the surrounding sculptures is presented in an almost religious setting in a darkened room and highlighted by spotlights. (fig. 36) In Design for Use, the design section of the exhibition, the word ‘progress’ refers also to the concept of improvement: mechanical and material progress enables the creation of tools for “better living”. Within this display a large wall rack holding photographs of interiors, objects and paintings points to the relationship the shapes in modern paintings and in objects we use daily. (fig. 37, 38)This display seemed to anticipate the next anniversary exhibition, five years later, Modern Art in Your Life (1949).
After three anniversary shows starring the Museum of Modern Art itself, shows in which the Museum paraded its range of collections and activities and pronounced its national and growing international importance, the 20th anniversary was set up to meet a different cause. The Museum decided on a series of two educational exhibitions to “demonstrate, persistent doubters to the contrary, that modern art, like the art of any period, is both rooted in tradition and truly pertinent to its own time”, as stated in the catalog of the ‘Modern Art in Your Life’ exhibition. Since both exhibitions ‘Timeless Aspects of Modern Art’ and ‘Modern Art in Your Life’ set out to explain and defend modern art they shall be discussed in the chapter 2.
244 The foreword in the catalog Art in Progress quoted in the press release ‘Fifteenth Anniversary Exhibition is Largest in History of Museum of Modern Art’. For Release Wednesday, May 24, 1944, p. 1. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 245 See catalog Art in Progress. Also quoted in the Press release (see previous note).
93
MoMA’s 25th Master Celebration
The Museum of Modern Art’s 25th anniversary in 1954 was of course expected to be a big one. This anniversary show mirrored and promoted the image of the Museum ‘come of age’ as a world leader in the field of modern art. During the whole year there were to be anniversary exhibitions of all the different departments of the Museum. The opening show, however, was a large (400 paintings!) exhibition of only paintings from the Museum’s own collection. The exhibition titled Paintings from the Museum Collection, was said to provide “a really comprehensive review of the pictorial art of our time.” That this format was chosen for the opening anniversary exhibition showed the dominance of the Painting and Sculpture Department with the growing importance of a historical survey of a core collection of masterworks, which had increasingly been in the foreground since the ‘Masterpiece’ policy had been initiated in 1952, in which the Museum decided to no longer pass on works that had become “classic” but that a “highly selective permanent collection of masterworks both by twentieth-century artists and their great nineteenth-century forerunners, particularly in painting”.246 This anniversary exhibition was to be a declaration of the Museum of Modern Art’s growing dominance in the field which was being constructed on a firm foundation of the desired canon collection and by the expansion of its influence internationally – created by the new International Program of the Museum - requiring a further growth of the institution. The show was presented as ‘a report’ on the Collection of Paintings, as Burden, the Museum’s President at this time stated: “a report which clearly outlines the solid foundation which has been built up in the past generation”. 247 The use of the concept ‘report’ demonstrated the Museum’s control over the process of developing an exemplary collection. The development of the desired collection was dependent on the constant flow of gifts and funding from wealthy trustees and patrons. Therefore, in and around this anniversary exhibition, special attention was given to those who had made – and were to make – the acquisitions possible. This was done by acknowledging their input generously in the publications and the exhibition. In addition, as announced at the opening ceremonies, there was to be a special exhibition at the end of the anniversary year Paintings From Private Collections, in which masterpieces of New York Collectors (of which a number were these important trustees and patrons of the
246 J.H. Whitney’s “Foreword: The Collection of the Museum of Modern Art”. In: Masters of Modern Art, p. 7. 247 Ibid., p. 25.
94 Museum) were to be shown to the public. This exhibition of mostly late 19th century masters was to supplement the major show ‘Paintings from the Museum Collection’ which was lacking a number of these important early masters. By visualizing this fulfillment of the collection, the Museum hoped to encourage gifts of these desired masterpieces. In order to ensure and increase the future participation of these vital donors, the Museum’s authoritative image had to be firmly acknowledged. Barr, who was primarily responsible for the foundation of the growing collection was described by Burden as “that dedicated and courageous scholar, who is generally recognized as one of the world’s greatest authorities on modern art”.248 These credentials would seem to be quite adequate to install confidence that this ‘solid foundation’ was indeed a reliable representation of the beginning of a core collection of modern art to which they could safely contribute. Furthermore, the opening ceremonies exceeded the previous one’s in grandeur and in national and international importance, displaying the Museum’s high position not only in the art world but also in the international community. A program of talks was recorded and broadcast over the radio that evening. Every speech highlighted a different aspect of the character of modern art and the growth, function and position of the Museum. The choice of the main speaker, Secretary- General of the United Nations, Dag Hammarskjold, reflected the Museum’s ambitious international position. The program was opened by a “special message” from the President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Politics was prevalent in both of their speeches, which in this period of Cold War focused on freedom of America versus “tyranny” of the Soviet regime. An explicit parallel was drawn between the freedom of the arts and the freedoms of America so as to create a moral basis for the first. As is stated in the conclusion of Eisenhower’s speech – which was of course, together with the other speeches, published in the Museum of Modern Art Bulletin and distributed to the Press: “Let us therefore on this meaningful anniversary of a great museum of art in America make a new resolve. Let us resolve that this precious freedom of the arts, these precious freedoms of America, will, day by day, year by year, become even stronger, ever brighter in our land.”249 The show Paintings from the Museum Collection was installed by Barr, then Director of Museum Collections, and Dorothy Miller, Curator of the same Department. It took up all three gallery floors of the Museum, showing approximately 400 paintings from its Collection, “which”, as is stated in a press release, “is generally considered the most comprehensive in
248 Ibid., p. 26. 249 Speech by Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Freedom of the Arts”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 22, no. 1-2 (Fall-Winter 1954): p. 3.
95 the world”.250 “Ranging from famous 19th century masterpieces that mark the beginning of modern art to recent work by young American and European artists” the collection was hung roughly chronologically with the late 19th century art – as the first modern works - on the first floor together with very early 20th century paintings, expressionist, realist and fantastic paintings since 1910 on the second floor, and on the third floor, as it seems, the climax of the show: cubist and abstract paintings up until the recent period both European and American.251 (fig. 39) The introduction of this section was Picasso’s masterpiece Demoiselles d’Avignon (1907) which was presented as the first cubist painting and the conclusion was Recent American Abstract Painting as the final outcome of the development of modern art so far. (fig. 40) Also by Barr, the show was presented as a report to the public: Barr called it - in a press release - a “question-raising report to the public, to the expert, and to the Museum’s own Trustees and staff”.252 The questions were spelled out as to ‘which works to keep, which to discard and which are missing’ in order to create a permanent nucleus of masterpieces. By consulting the public, Barr encouraged participation. By conferring with the trustees Barr explained that the Museum thinks they know who the great painters in the 19th century were but that they are a “little less certain” when it comes to picking “the champions of early 20th century painting” and even more uncertain about the contemporary period: “in the exorable light of the future most of our guesses will have been wrong. Yet for a time we can love and enjoy even our mistakes.”253 This did not mean that the Museum refrained from choosing their champions: the artists of whom the Museum thought of as ‘masters’ were given a separate gallery or a separate wall or two, which meant that other artists were either hung together or left out completely.254 Both the argument of quantity – the number of paintings of masters that were selected – as the argument of quality of the designated wall or room, explained the hierarchy of the masters to the public. Besides this opening exhibition, which was accompanied by the exhibition American Prints of the Twentieth Century, there were other anniversary celebrations throughout the year displaying the accomplishments of the Museum of Modern Art: it was the year of Modern
250 See Press Release No. 88: ‘Paintings from the Museum Collection opens Museum of Modern Art’s 25th Anniversary Year Celebration’. For Release: Sunday October 17, 1954, p. 1. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 251 See Press Release No. 84, For Release Monday October 4, 1954, p. 1. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 252 See press release No. 88: ‘Paintings from the Museum Collection opens Museum of Modern Art’s 25th Anniversary Year Celebration’. For Release: Sunday October 17, 1954, p. 4. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 253 Ibid., p.3. In the section: “Commenting on the exhibition, Alfred H. Barr, Jr., Director of Collections, says” 254 Ibid.
96 Masterprints of Europe, which complemented the American show and was described as “a dramatic and almost complete survey of graphic art from 1880 to 1954”, and the famous The Family of Man that was advertised as “the greatest photographic exhibition of all time”.255 ‘The New Decade: 22 European Painters and Sculptors’ was to show the Museum’s participation in the newest developments of art, and there were exhibitions on design, architecture, museum education and film showings. The last exhibition of the anniversary year was the ‘Paintings from Private Collections’ show, mentioned above, which had been announced at the beginning of the Museum’s anniversary. It was held at the end of the year in the summer of 1955. The preceding announcement, it seems, had paid off: six gifts of “great distinction” were given to the Museum “while the show was being assembled , or shortly after it opened”, as Barr proclaimed and were proudly presented on the Museum walls and in The Museum of Modern Art Bulletin.256 For the first time the pages of an entire volume of the Museum’s Bulletin were ‘hung, with paintings. The whole exhibition including a catalog was actually recorded in the Bulletin: all the walls hung with the master paintings had been photographed, presenting a paper exhibition. (fig. 41, 42) By showing the paintings on the Museum’s walls and fitting them into an art historical sequence, they seemed secured as Museum of Modern Art pieces: the paper exhibition would keep the memory of these paintings as part of a core Museum Collection alive. The major anniversary publication centered on the Museum Collections of the different departments of The Museum of Modern Art. This prestigious book was titled Masters of Modern Art. In this publication the Museum honored what it called the masters of modern art, who were the same as the Museum’s own masters. Actually, the Museum seems to honor ‘its masterpieces’, instead of its masters in this anniversary publication. As stated by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees John Hay Whitney in the Foreword: The Collection of The Museum of Modern Art: “intended as a tribute to the art of our time, it deals with many branches of contemporary visual art produced in forty countries over the past seventy-five years” and although such a “vast subject cannot be treated exhaustively in any one volume, … it conveys an idea of the variety, excellence of achievement, and vigor of modern art.”257 And, as he continued: “That it was possible to select the illustrations for this book entirely
255 The Family of Man traveled throughout the world becoming one of the Museum’s most successful exhibitions. 256 Barr’s ‘Introduction’ in: “The Museum of Modern Art, Paintings from Private Collections. Six Important Gifts. A 25th Anniversary Exhibition”, in Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 22, no. 4 (Summer 1955): p. 4. 257 See “Foreword: The Collections of the Museum of Modern Art” by John Hay Whitney, Chairman of the Board of Trustees in Barr, Masters of Modern Art, p. 7.
97 from the Museum’s collection is a matter of considerable pride to us”: in other words, the Museum’s masterpieces represent the art of our time. The contents of the Museum’s book is structured according to the different departments and their collections. Collections, some of which as compared to “most of the world’s great art museums”, are - as boasted – “unsurpassed”.258 The history of modern art told in Masters of Modern Art seems to follow the Museum’s masterpieces like stepping stones through history which, especially in the ‘Paintings, Sculpture, Drawings, Prints’ section, are described in qualifications such as ‘epoch making’ or ‘the most important work’ or ‘pivotal in importance in the oeuvre of the artist’ or ‘perhaps the greatest piece of cubist sculpture’. So, although the title of the Museum’s book focuses on ‘masters’ – artists -, the content centers on the ‘masterpieces’ – artworks. The book Masters of Modern Art is very much a celebration of the Museum itself: its works of art and its departments, staff, trustees and its patrons. Both the Foreword, the Preface and some of the sections on the Departments are examples of ethos-centered prose, this time not building the character of a person, but of an institution. For example, the Museum Library is presented as “more than just a collection of reference books. It has become a world center for bibliographic research in the Museum’s field.”259 By presenting the Museum as the authority on all aspects of modern art, its actions and stories then would seem more acceptable, believable: the Museum would seem to become more knowledgeable and its story more representational of what modern art is all about. The Museum congratulated itself on becoming a world leader in modern art. By bringing fame to the Museum as authoritative institution, fame was also brought to those who initiated and strengthened that institution: the Museum’s trustees, patrons and donors.260 This in itself would seem to attract more potential contributors. The different sections in the book on the various collections, written by the directors of the Departments, celebrate the accomplishments of each department, sometimes describing the history of the own Department, sometimes providing a ‘history’ of the field of its collection. The section on ‘Painting, Sculpture, Drawing, Print Collections’ takes up by far the most space in the book. It leaves out the history of its Department and focuses directly on the
258 Ibid.: “Twenty-five years is a short period in the history of most of the world’s great art museums. Yet within that time the Museum of Modern Art has assembled great collections, some of them unsurpassed, in a variety of fields, including painting, sculpture, prints, motion pictures, well-designed furniture and utensils, posters and photography”. 259 See Preface by René D’Harnoncourt, Director of the Museum, in Barr, Masters of Modern Art, p. 8. 260 As stated by Quintillian: “Children bring fame to their parents, cities to their founders, laws to their proposers, arts to their inventors, and institutions to those who initiated them …”. Quintillian, The Orator’s Education, Book 3.7 (Russell, p. 111).
98 works of art. These masterpieces, which are presented by large and colorful reproductions - and by their place in the line of history – present a history of modern painting and sculpture as a history of highlights. A noteworthy aspect underlining the Museum’s authority is that the ‘evidence’ which creates the described history primarily comes from the Museum’s own catalogs and publications: quotes from Department catalogs and staff are used as the major sources of information.261 Of the one hundred and twenty publications in the Bibliography, seven are not Museum publications. The Film Department is the only other department that attempts a historical review of its field, albeit much shorter and incomplete. First, in a short introduction mention is made of the Museum of Modern Art Library having “the greatest film collection in the world” before admitting that its collection has the ‘obvious gaps’.262 The sections on the other Departments focus mostly on their own development and importance including mention of memorable exhibitions such as International Exhibition of Modern Architecture and Machine Art.263 Not only does Masters of Modern Art celebrate the Museum’s greatness, the greatness of American democracy is presented as a necessary condition to achieve such a position. As in the many opening speeches, the freedom of America’s democratic society is honored as the perfect state in which the arts can and will flourish. This political aspect is accentuated in the Foreword of the catalog, which positions the book as an instrument of U.S. propaganda as well as a marketing tool of the Museum itself. Masters of Modern Art was to be promoted worldwide: editions in French, German, Spanish and Swedish were to follow the original publication.264 Hundreds of copies were sent over seas to individuals in universities and museums, to dealers, critics and famous artists.
261 Barr, Masters of Modern Art, p. 10. At the end of Barr’s ‘Introduction’ to the publication, he informs the reader that “the small numbers” in the text “refer to the Bibliography, page 237, mostly selected from the Museum’s own publications”. In the case of the Department of Painting and Sculpture, catalogs by, for example, Barr, Soby, Sweeney and Lieberman are quoted. 262 See Barr, Masters of Modern Art, p. 199. 263 Ibid. The section on Photography is comparatively meager: in only one page of text, Steichen applauds the fact that the Museum is “unique among art museums in the extent of its recognition of photography” (page 183). He lets the 15-page series of photographic artworks display this recognition. Johnson, in his portrait of the ‘Architecture and Design Collections’, explains the growth of the collections – also in relationship to the Museum’s exhibitions – mentioning shows as Machine Art, Good Design, and, Useful Objects under $5, (pp. 214-216). 264 Masters of Modern Art was published in 1954 by the Museum of Modern Art. A second edition was printed in 1955 and a 3rd revised edition in 1958. According to a letter from W.S. Hall from the Amsterdam office of European representatives for American book publishers to Barr, dated September 30, 1954, the catalog proved a great success at the Frankfurt Book Fair. AHB[AAA: 3151; 1074]. MoMA Archives, NY. In 1955 a Spanish and French edition were published followed by a German and a Swedish edition in 1956. In a memo from Marie Alexander to Alfred Barr ,dated April 1, 1955 mention is made of possible Italian and Japanese editions: “Italian and Japanese editions are still happy fire”. AHB[AAA: 3151;982]. MoMA Archives, NY.
99 Hundreds more were to be sent as review copies to every continent, so as to reach places outside the mainstream countries, at least that was a proposed strategy. According to Porter McCray, Director of the Department of Circulating Exhibitions and International Program, the distribution of Masters of Modern Art would not only make the Museum’s collections better known, the book would “generally enhance the prestige of the United States and its culture throughout the world” and therefore a “special effort” should be made “to see that a certain number reach those areas where our operations are little known, or where the United States is unfavourably regarded”.265 The whole Fall-Winter edition 1954-‘55 of The Museum of Modern Art Bulletin was devoted to the anniversary ceremonies including the transcript of all the speeches and a photographic history of the Museum and its many activities between 1929 and 1954.266 The photographs are arranged in chronological order emphasizing the development of the wide variety of departments, collections, exhibitions, and activities such as educational projects and symposia and are accompanied by short labels providing information. Many labels are fortified by numbers and superlatives to show off the accomplishments of the Museum. For example, the caption accompanying the photograph of the Library states: “The Library, now grown to 15,000 volumes, 10,000 clippings, 20,000 lantern slides and 50,000 photographs, continues to fulfill an important function for people who want to know and see more of modern art, and is now the largest and most complete in its field.” 267 The Museum of Modern Art Bulletin display documented the Museum history like a textbook in which a ‘straightforward’ chronological story was built by ‘facts’ and figures. The 25th anniversary really established the Museum’s new position as an internationally renown institution which had decided to provide a definitive history in the different fields of modern art by creating permanent core collections, which from now on could only increase, and exhibiting them in their own permanent department quarters. This anniversary was like a new beginning; like a green light for a bigger and better future. The
265 See a memorandum for the Coordination Committee, dated November 24, 1954, Re: Distribution of review copies of Masters of Modern Art abroad. McCray proposes a “carefully thought-out basis for apportioning the available copies”. He lists a proposal of distribution in percentages providing for example: the Far East with 10% of the copies, U.S.S.R. and the Iron Curtain countries with 3%, the Near East with 6% and Africa with 1%. AHB[AAA: 3151;911,912]. MoMA Archives, NY. 266 It seems surprising that the photographs of the opening ceremonies showing large crowds in the Museum Gardens listening to the speeches – now in the Photographic Archives - were not included in the anniversary issue of the Bulletin. 267 D’Harnoncourt, “The Museum 1929-1954”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 22, no. 1-2 (Fall-Winter 1954): p. 21.
100 next anniversary shows were all geared towards this growth of collections and services and towards the ever needed expansions of the Museum’s building and funds.
Anniversaries of a Growing Museum
The 30th anniversary in 1959 is a well-known example of visualizing the necessity and goals of growth: Toward the New Museum of Modern Art was actually a campaign to raise a required fund of 25,000.000 dollars for the construction of a new wing and the expansion of the Museum’s services. In order to convince the Members of the Museum and the public to donate these considerable funds, the image of the Museum would have to be strong and appealing; the need would have to be acute; and the plans would have to be clear and attainable. The evidence of the need and of the Museum’s strong position was provided in the exhibition and the accompanying booklet. A wall label in the exhibition written by Barr supplied - in a feat of brevity and clarity - reasons why one should donate funds. The necessity of more space was presented by Barr through easy arithmetic: “Thirty years ago when the Museum was a few weeks old its collection comprised one sculpture, one drawing, and eight prints. Today (not counting the Film Library) there are over 16,000 works of art in the collections. The Museum opened its present building in 1939. Today the Museum’s galleries are just the same size as they were then, 20 years ago, but the Museum Collections are eight times as large”.268 The Museum’s impeccable reputation was summed up as: “In most departments the Museum Collections are unrivalled in quality and comprehensiveness. No other art museum can match its collections of photography, films, well-designed furniture and utensils of the 20th century. The modern painting and sculpture collections are the most representative in the world and include an unsurpassed number of key masterpieces.” It would seem hard to beat qualifications such as these. The exhibition Toward The New Museum consisted of three installations: a display of the model of the new wing and existing buildings so as to visualize the new situation, a ‘Special installation’ of 12 masterpiece paintings and sculptures which had been recently acquired or promised to indicate future growth of the Collection and, a ‘Special installation’ of a selection of paintings, sculpture, drawings, prints, photographs and design objects indicating the quality and quantity of works of art in Museum Collections which will become
268 Wall label by Barr ‘The Museum Collections – a bid for space’, November 16, 1959. AHB[AAA: 3260] MoMA Archives, NY.
101 accessible in the new Museum. Barr called attention to the desperate need of more space for the Collections by cramming the walls with paintings, styled three or four deep, so as to visualize their critical situation; as he described dramatically in the accompanying wall label which urged the public to help: “they are suffocating for lack of space – space for exhibition and space for storage.”269 (fig. 43) Barr painted the grim picture: “On many walls dozens of pictures are hung where usually – and properly – there are only three. Yet with all this congestion many important pictures, even major masters and whole schools, are omitted.” And, appealing directly to the public, he asks: “And how will the Museum find space for newly acquired works such as the magnificent 42-foot Monet mural now temporarily shown on the ground floor?”270 The answer is to be found in the booklet Toward the New Museum of Modern Art, which Barr draws the public’s attention to at the end of the wall label text. The booklet provides a clear picture of the strong reputation of the Museum with its “worldwide prestige” and influence, evidence for the necessity of more space in clear-cut language and straightforward graphs and, a vision of how it could be accomplished. (fig. 44, 45) As for the answer to the question concerning Monet’s mural, the booklet displays it in a spacious three-dimensional setting giving it air to breathe. (p. 46) The 30th anniversary campaign continued during the following years and booklets and reports were published to attract funding by presenting the Museum’s growing position and ambitions. Publications such as Today and Tomorrow, A Problem Created by Success, The Museum of Modern Art Builds and The Museum of Modern Art As an Educational Institution provided the Museum’s desired picture of an ever expanding “world center for the visual arts of our time”.271 The next anniversary in 1964 could proudly present the new Museum in its new and enlarged spaces: seven simultaneous exhibitions of the different departments were presented together as Art in a Changing World: 1884-1964 to celebrate the opening of the new Museum on its anniversary. In what was called “an unrivaled review of the art of our time”, the new galleries were opened in which the different departments could now permanently display their core collections. The new galleries were named after influential trustees and patrons - men and women in the Museum’s own history: once again is demonstrated that institutions bring fame to those who initiated them.
269 Ibid. 270 Ibid. 271 Today and Tomorrow, the Museum of Modern Art, 1960.
102 The anniversary exhibitions of both the Stedelijk Museum and the Museum of Modern Art proved indeed to be ethos-building. Studying the decorum of both Museums’ anniversary exhibitions has provided a clearer view of just why their images and their authority were often so persuasive. For both Museums their styles suited the subjects, their audiences and the specific occasions. With their ethos established, the Museums were acknowledged as authorities in modern art matters. How were they to explain modern art to the public?
103 Chapter 2: Modern Matters: Defining and Defending Modern Art
The field of modern art is a slippery one. The public’s need for steady paths of definition of character, quality and value of modern art cannot be ignored. For the public to be able to appreciate and understand modern art, the Museums had to approach the core issues involved: ‘what is ‘modern’ art?’, ‘what are its characteristics?’, and ‘why should the public value modern art?’. As authorities in the art world both the Museum of Modern Art and the Stedelijk Museum defined what was to be considered ‘modern art’ by what they presented as such. Both Museums had broad perceptions of modern art as including various art forms. Modern art was not only painting, sculpture and the graphic arts, but a wider spectrum of visual arts including architecture, design, film and photography. The definitions of modern art provided by the Museums - during the period of research - were not static and developed over the years making room for new concepts such as ‘classic modern’, ‘modernism’ and ‘the modern movement’, shifting the emphasis of modern to a historical concept and separating it from the contemporary, living art. Furthermore, each period helped to shape the definition of modern art: the Second World War, the Cold War period thereafter, and the sixties, had their impact on what were to be considered the true characteristics of modern art. For example, the Second World War had a tremendous influence on what the Museums defined and defended as ‘modern’. Freedom was to be emphasized as prime characteristic of what was truly modern: freedom from rules and repression: freedom of expression. The Museums were faced with a major paradox: how could they as authorities - built on tradition and history – define and defend modern art which by nature broke with tradition and history, and revolted against authority? The necessity of the two Museums to define their fields differed greatly due to their different goals, funding and audiences, which determined how explicitly or implicitly definitions were provided and what type of definition was given.1 The Museum of Modern Art, which saw itself as an authoritative educational institution, was set on defining modern art and yet wanted to present itself as an objective universal authority with no favorites: rising above a parochial partisan view. This was a second paradox the Museum of Modern Art had to deal with. In the Museum’s different approaches, the Museum’s struggle is apparent. On
1 Lanham distinguishes the following types of definition: stipulative, prescriptive, descriptive, classificatory (either ‘essential’ or ‘descriptive’, lexical, negative or likeness/difference). See Lanham, A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, p. 47.
104 the one hand the message was that there were, simultaneously, many different modes of expression in which the modern artists expressed themselves: in a number of exhibitions the emphasis was put on the broad variety of individual choices of artists. But, on the other hand, a classification was given of the modern styles as the logical and almost ‘correct’ reaction to the character of the different periods with the definition of the characteristics of modern art. The Museum’s strong educational role presented itself explicitly in the many exhibitions and publications on the issue of the definition of modern art. The Stedelijk Museum had not explicitly displayed an interest in explaining the modern aspect of art. Perhaps due to the function it fulfilled before the war, as a warehouse for many different collections, the concentration on what was to be considered modern art was simply not as relevant. After all, it was only after 1945 that the Stedelijk could really profile itself as a modern art museum. Until the War the focus of the Stedelijk Museum had been on conservation and less on presentation and education, so that the questions of definition were not as prevalent. In the few exhibitions with an explicit educational approach, the goal was to ‘educate’ the masses in the paternalistic, moralistic sense: in showing and prescribing what the masses were to consider as good and bad modern art especially in the case of the applied arts. After the War the Stedelijk as municipal living art center on the one hand presented a broad picture of modern art, but as international avant-garde institution - especially under Sandberg – it clearly propagated what was to be considered true modern art, providing implicitly prescriptive definitions of modern art and definitive characteristics. Implicitly, because Sandberg was opposed to providing explanations for his public. He did not want the public to “look at art through the eyes of others”.2 When defining the ‘modern’ both Museums used topics of quantity and quality: both the stable, essential and traditional characteristics as well as the unique, original and revolutionary characteristics of modern art are used.3 As we shall see, there is an obvious difference between the two Museums in their approach to and style in defining modern art. The Museum of Modern Art sought to provide ‘clear’ definitions – using different types - with understandable arguments which were built into most of their exhibitions and publications on the topic. The Museum wanted to reach a large public and convert it to modern art. It attempted to ‘normalize’ modern art, yet upheld its special value. Clarity of
2 Sandberg often declared that the way to look at modern art in his museum was to use one’s own eyes and forget about what one has ever read or heard about it. See Sandberg, “réflexions disparates sur l’organisation d’un musée d’art d’aujourd’hui”. This article appeared two years later in Dutch and in English in 1962. Sandberg also expressed this idea in for example a speech for the opening of the Picasso Matisse exhibition in 1946. See handwritten notes in dossier Picasso Matisse exhibition 1946, SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 3 See Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetorc: A Treatise on Argumentation, pp. 83-93.
105 argument and style was to facilitate understanding of the ‘difficult’ art for the audience. The Museum’s style of language was often the plain, humile style which made the text comprehensible for all audiences. By qualifying modern art as ‘difficult’, which was done frequently, its value was underlined. For if something is presented as rare or difficult its value is increased.4 Which characteristics were emphasized in the Museum’s definitions of modern art depended on which audience was to be reached and for which goal the definition was provided. The Museum of Modern Art’s many educational exhibitions approached the question ‘what is modern art’ directly, other more general exhibitions also supplied definitions, albeit more implicitly. Through figures of reasoning and figures of definition the answers are provided. For example, the listing of many characteristics of modern art was used as an answer (systrophe) or the repetition of the same concepts in different wording helped to define the modern (exergasia). Often the strategies of contrast and comparison are used to clarify the argumentation. Visuality of argumentation was especially prevalent in the publications and exhibitions: providing charts, graphs, maps, diagrams etc. helped to support the argumentation. The Stedelijk Museum’s definitions of modern art were not as explicit, and therefore not as easily identified. The Museum held very few exhibitions which were specifically claimed to be educational. The few, which were installed in the fifties, were small and designed for youngsters and did not deal explicitly with the issue of what was to be considered modern. In contrast to most of the Stedelijk’s presentations the style of these didactic exhibitions was plain. Most of the exhibitions which brought the Stedelijk’s definitions forward in prescriptively were presented in the grand style. This style which was prevalent in the Stedelijk’s presentations often clouded and mystified the message. The Stedelijk did not try to normalize modern art like the Museum of Modern Art did. It promoted the idea that modern art was by definition difficult otherwise it was not good modern art. The defining of modern art was often connected to the defending of it. Through understanding the nature and the sources of modern art, the public was to accept the ‘difficult’ art. But the public was also encouraged to empathize with, to feel for and to admire the modern artists and their work. Through figures of pathos and amplification the defending of modern art and the modern artist can be perceived. In defense of what the Museums considered to be modern art, convincing strategies can be detected – especially in the case of
4 Ibid., p. 91.
106 the Museum of Modern Art - in which to satisfy the Museums’ financers, critics, artists and the ‘general’ public: modern art’s value to society had to be convincingly presented. Besides, for example, the topic of praise of modern art and the modern artist as ‘honorable’, the topics of ‘worthy’ and ‘advantageous’ were used to defend modern art against the many prejudices and persuade the public of modern art’s significance for society.
In both Museums modern art was defined and defended as a progressive or advanced art expression which was sometimes associated with politically and socially progressive and/or as an avant-garde art quality breaking with the traditions within the development of art. Besides this constant revolutionary quality of modern art, two approaches can be distinguished in both museums with which the position and character of modern art was strengthened: modern as an aesthetic style of modern living (a style of progress) and modern as a quality found in all ages and cultures. These two approaches contributed strongly to the defining and defending of modern art. By comparing the same themes in both Museums, their different communicative strategies come to the fore. Before studying a number of revealing exhibitions and publications within the two themes: ‘Modern Art as Part of Modern Living’ and ‘Modern Art of All Times and Cultures’, the Museums’ definitions of modern art shall be discussed in publications and educational exhibitions which dealt explicitly with the definition and general concepts of modern art. Due to the fact that the Museum of Modern Art was much more explicit and conscious of its endeavors, and that it was much more active in the field of educating its public on ‘modern issues’, the analysis of this Museum will be more extensive than that of the Stedelijk in the first part of this chapter.
The Museum of Modern Art’s ‘Modern’
The choice of the name ‘The Museum of Modern Art’ was the beginning of the controversy and never-ending discussion of the meaning and realm of modern art within the Museum. The word ‘modern’ was chosen instead of ‘living’ or ‘contemporary’. In defending its name, Barr explained the value of the word “modern” in likenesses and differences: the name suggested “the progressive, original, and challenging rather than the safe and academic which would naturally be included in the neutrality of the term ‘contemporary’”5. In the first few
5 A. Barr Jr., to P. Sachs, October 5, 1929 (Barr Papers) AHB[AAA: 2171;213-223] MoMA Archives, NY. Barr confirms this in his Confidential Notes on “Modern Art” and the American Public (page 4 = frame 216) as a
107 experimental years the Museum was predominantly focused on temporary loan exhibitions and the need to show its colors was not as strong as when the Museum started building its collection and plans were made for a more permanent position of the Museum. Once the Museum started to grow, the desire to define its program for its trustees and public increased. The careful and more general approach to the modern was to make way for a persuasive educating presentation of what modern was as the authority and ambitions of the Museum grew. The Museum of Modern Art voiced what it considered to be ‘modern’ through a number of museum officials – directors, trustees, curators etc. – and used diverse channels to do so: its Bulletin, its exhibitions and exhibition catalogs that dealt explicitly with the issue, and, a variety of publications, such books on modern art, collection catalogs, publicity folders, reports and funding brochures. From the start the Museum had always been aware of the widespread influence its catalogs and books had, reaching more people throughout the world than the exhibitions themselves and prolonging their impact over decennia and centuries. In the Museum of Modern Art’s early years Barr was primarily responsible for defining what the Museum was to accept as ‘modern’ art; he himself was the author of most of the texts for the catalogs, wall labels, and other materials such as reports and fundraising brochures. Even if he hadn’t written them himself, he was responsible for their content. Barr was a true academic: an art historian who had studied at Princeton and Harvard and who had taught one of the first courses in modern art in the United States.6 Barr’s approach to modern art was systematic: he made many charts on the development of modern art and he compiled a ‘Ism’ Dictionary’ for himself in which he tried to register all the movements within modern art (idea he shared with Panofsky).7 This methodical approach will become apparent in his explanatory exhibitions. It can also be found in his reports, pamphlets and brochures. In early fundraising brochures the issue of defining modern art, was specifically approached. “Modern art” was explained in a descriptive definition as “a relative, elastic term that serves conveniently to designate painting, sculpture, architecture, and the lesser visual arts, original and progressive in character, produced especially within the last three decades reaction to a Statement by the Institute of Contemporary Art, formerly the Institute of Modern Art. Boston, February 17, 1948: “ “Modern art” has rarely been a neutral phrase “simply denoting the art of the times.” For three centuries “modern” has been a term, which involved the more challenging, original and not yet accepted movements in philosophy, theology and the arts. Even in science, economics and technology the word modern is scarcely a neutral term. That is why we used the word when the Museum of Modern Art was named.” 6 Barr taught at Vassar College and Wellesley College. 7 See Glossary from Barr Papers, AHB[AAA: 3260] and Correspondence between Barr and Panofsky. AHB[AAA: 2165;470] MoMA Archives, NY.
108 but including also ‘pioneer ancestors’ of the 19th century.” 8 In a 1933 policy report on the permanent collection, Barr tried to elucidate the frequently questioned meaning of modern by providing three distinct points on its defining that could “prove useful”. These three points define different characteristics of modern art as being a quality not bound to time, but with certain “styles and forms which are sympathetic to contemporary taste”, and – when written in caps and quotes – “Modern Art” was defined as a “popular phrase” which “connotes contemporary or recent art, which seems “advanced” or “difficult”.9 The same distinction between “modern art” and “Modern art” is presented to the public in the Museum’s Bulletin six months later with a strong emphasis on the “elasticity” and “variability” of both meanings of modern art. Under the caption ‘Modern and “Modern” Barr explained his ideas on the different uses of modern. He described the changing connotation the word modern had during the past centuries.10 About the chronological placing of modern art, Barr stated that, “Today one may begin the history of modern art with David’s dictatorship in 1792, the Delacroix-Constable Salon of 1824, Courbet’s one man revolt of 1855, or the First Impressionist Exhibition of 1874 – or if one wishes one may start with Caravaggio or even with Giotto… The term modern art, chronologically speaking, is then so elastic that it can scarcely be defined.”11 As for the colloquialism “Modern Art”, Barr said it “is often no mere question of academic chronology”, but, “is recurrently a matter for debate…a problem not of periods but of prejudices”.12 There is, therefore, no finite definition of modern art possible, according to Barr in 1934, it is to remain a variable term evidenced by how it has been approached in the past and by the immense variety of its appearances: “The truth is that modern art cannot be defined with any degree of finality either in time or in
8 An Effort to Secure $ 3,250,000 for the Museum of Modern Art, 1931, p. 5, and, Barr, A Museum of Modern Art in New York, 1934. R&P: 1930’s. MoMA Archives, NY. 9 1. Modern art may be said to have begun historically toward the end of the 13th century, the end of the 16th century or the end of the 18th, depending on terminology; 2. “Modern Art”(in caps or quotes) is a popular phrase, which connotes contemporary or recent art, which seems “advanced” or “difficult”. (For some reason “Modern Art” is pronounced with the accent on “Art”, while “modern art” usually keeps the accent on modern; 3. Art of the past, which seems “Modern”. For the past 500 years Europeans have been more or less retrospective in their appreciation of art, choosing certain phases of past art for special admiration. The last hundred years have seen a great increase in variety, and a great acceleration of change in taste. Artists, collectors, critics have ransacked the past, not only of Europe but of the whole world, for styles and forms which are sympathetic to contemporary taste. A lively and conscious interaction has been established between modern art and whatever resembles it in Medieval or Baroque, Egyptian or Cretan, Chinese or Mayan, Benin or Papuan. It is one function of our Museum to exhibit these discoveries and resurrections of the “Modern” art of the past.” Barr, Report on Loan Exhibitions,, Spring 1933. AHB, 9a;7a. MoMA Archives, NY. 10 Barr consulted his friend Erwin Panofsky on the meaning of the concept modern. In a letter Panofsky corrects and adds a few notes. In response to the idea of crediting him for his ideas, Panofsky replies that “these data can be found in many books and articles (of for example Julius von Schlosser)”. See AHB[AAA: 2165;470] MoMA Archives, NY. 11 Barr, “Modern and ‘Modern’”, pp. 2-3. 12 Ibid.
109 character and any attempt to do so implies a blind faith, insufficient knowledge, or an academic lack of realism.”13 So, although Barr did not provide a prescriptive definition, he did acknowledge definite characteristics such as progressive, original, challenging, difficult and advanced. That this was the standpoint of the Museum then can be taken from the fact that in the same year in which this article from the Museum’s Bulletin appeared, it was reprinted for a broader public in the popular magazine Art Digest, in a Spanish translation in Gaceta de Arte and a year later it appeared in the magazine Design.14 It was clear that the term ‘modern’ and its definition were ambiguous. The use of the neutral term ‘contemporary’ was to be suggested to the Museum in 1936 as a strategy to avoid any criticism of being partial to certain types of art or to certain countries. The Museum was warned about the controversy the use of the word ‘modern’ would produce; about it being “a serious stumbling block” for the general public and possibly evidence of the Museum favoring a particular modern school of expression. The use of the word “modern” therefore was to be discouraged in favor of terms as “present-day” or “contemporary” according to the Packard Report.15 This advice was very much in line with the demand on museums to predominantly perform as neutral educational institutions presenting an objective state of the arts. That the Museum was to struggle permanently with its aspirations to ‘impartiality’ on the one hand, and its guiding understanding and knowledge of vanguard creativity for an unknowing public on the other, shall become evident with the continual shifting of the meaning given to ‘modern’. Practical reasons, such as value of collections and the desire to lure trustees into donating their collections, also contributed to the defining of what the Museum propagated as modern art.16 In the forties the topic of what was to be considered modern became more and more an issue with the growing diversity of expressions and styles of artists and the increasing assertiveness of American artist groups stimulated by the federal art projects of the Roosevelt administration from 1933 - 1943. Starting with attacks such as in a pamphlet designed by Ad Reinhardt in 1940 “How Modern Is the Museum of Modern Art?” and culminating at the end of the forties with direct attacks on the Museum through a number of articles and books,
13 Ibid, p. 3. 14Barr, “Modern & ‘Modern.’ ” Art Digest 8, no. 19 (August 1934): p. 6; Barr, “Moderno y ‘moderno’ ” Gaceta de Arte 3, no. 27 (June 1934): p. 1; and, Barr, “Modern and ‘Modern’ ” Design 36, no. 8 (February 1935): p. 26. 15 Packard, A Report on the Development of the Museum of Modern Art. The report was finalized in 1938, but preliminary suggestions were made to the trustees in January 1936. R&P: 1930’s. MoMA Archives, NY. 16 See for an explanation of the changing ideas of what was to be considered the terrain of modern art for the Museum: Kirk Varnedoe’s article in the Museum’s own series: Studies in Modern Art: Varnedoe, “The Evolving Torpedo: Changing Ideas of the Collection of Painting and Sculpture of The Museum of Modern Art”, pp.12-73.
110 critics and worried trustees forced the Museum to reflect once again on what exactly was to be understood as Modern art. In the Collection catalogs the changing idea of ‘modern’ is apparent. In the first collection catalog, Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art (1942), the emphasis of modern as new, contemporary, is evident by stating that the collection shall have to change “gradually but completely” so as to stay “modern”: fifty years was given as time span of a modern collection.17 “Academic” and “decadent” art was to be avoided: the modern art the Museum supported contained “fresh ideas” and “new forms”. 18 In 1948 updated version of the catalog the collection is called modern in “two senses of the word”: modern in time - with most of the collection dating from the last twenty-five years - and modern in character – as the “more original and advanced art of our time” or, in other words, avant- garde. 19 However, it is then still clearly stated that modern art does not remain modern forever but becomes historic and eventually leaves the Museum so that the Museum can remain a museum of modern art. With the radical change of policy in the early fifties – providing for the creation of a permanent collection of modern masterworks and halting the departure of the ‘classic’ moderns to the Metropolitan Museum -, modern became to mean ‘of the modern movement’ which was said to begin in approximately 1880.
Exhibitions Defining and Defending Modern Art
In the Museum of Modern Art, exhibitions and publications in the thirties and early forties were the most important instruments in defining and structuring the Museums program since the Museum collection was only just developing. In these early years, The Museum of Modern Art depended on its exhibitions to present its program and promote its ideas; both the loan exhibitions and the growing number of circulating exhibitions present the Museum’s concept of modern art. During the period up until about 1950, a proportionally large number of exhibitions in the Museum of Modern Art were installed dealing explicitly with the concept ‘modern’: defining its meaning, presenting its scope, explaining its sources, listing its masters, describing its characteristics and providing ways of ‘understanding’ it. 20 The large number of
17 Barr, Painting & Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art, 1942, pp.10–11. 18 Ibid., p.11. 19 Barr, Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art, 1948, p.10. 20 A list of exhibitions and accompanying catalogs until 1972 was included in a “Brief Chronology of the Museum of Modern Art, Including a list of exhibitions 1929-1972”, in Lynes, Good Old Modern, pp. 446-468.
111 exhibitions with the word ‘modern’ in the title is revealing. These explanatory exhibitions – including the ones that were made as circulating exhibitions - were predominantly educational and geared towards the ‘general public’. Besides these educational exhibitions there were a number of exhibitions in which also specifically attempts were made to narrow down the characteristics of modern art and provide a definition. The position of MoMA’s very first exhibitions and catalogs on what was to be considered modern art was precautious: broad and inclusive.21Especially in the first shows on American modern art, the words ‘living’ and ‘contemporary’ were deemed more appropriate – and used more often – since, by having to incorporate the ideas and desires of the trustees, artists were included who were not always considered ‘modern’ by the staff. The Museum then had to present its selection, for example, as follows: “In its second exhibition the Museum of Modern Art presents paintings by nineteen living Americans who it is believed are fairly representative of the principal tendencies in contemporary American painting. No particular school or manner is intentionally favored. Included are artists who are so ‘conservative’ that they are out of fashion and so ‘advanced’ that they are not yet generally accepted. The selection is deliberately eclectic.”22 The use of “out of fashion” here is interesting for it seems to indicate to the public that ‘progressive or advanced’ - the opposite of conservative – was to be considered ‘in fashion’ and therefore perhaps hopefully attractive for a large public. The notion that modern art was difficult and ‘subject to misunderstanding’ was introduced early on which had everything to do with the characterization of modern as ‘revolutionary’ and ‘advanced’: ahead of its time. Modern artists were presented as
A chronological list of exhibitions shown at the Museum itself – not including national or international exhibitions organized by the Museum – was provided by the Museum as a working document (http://library.moma.org/links/MoMAExhibitions.htm). This list does not provide information on publications connected to the exhibitions. 21 For example, in 1930, in the catalog of the Museum’s third exhibition Painting in Paris, Barr cautiously explained: “ten years ago it might have been possible to generalize about modern art. In fact even at present there are some who are courageous – or blind – enough to declare that modern art has one dominant characteristic such as the belief in pure self-expressions, or an exclusive interest in form, or contempt for natural appearances. But the truth is that for several years strong artistic movements have militated specifically against individual self-expression; others have ignored entirely the problem of formal organization; while still others have maintained that the precise imitation of realistic detail is decidedly worthy of the artist’s effort”. Catalog Painting in Paris, p. 11. 22 The procedure of choosing the painters was explained in the foreword of the catalog Paintings By Nineteen Living Americans (1929). It was obvious that the trustees had had a great say in the selection. This was to trigger critical reactions on the subjectivity of the selection and the suspicion of the trustee involvement for reasons of personal gain: monetary and status.
112 ‘pioneers’, with modern art as a result of their innovations, and dealers and collectors of modern art were called courageous and daring. In the fifth anniversary exhibition catalog Modern Works of Art, - also published in 1934 and described by the Museum Librarian as a compressed summary of modern art- the characteristics of modern such as “difficult and advanced” were stressed and the emphasis was once again put on the necessity to try to “understand” Modern art by reading about it and by experiencing the works of art themselves, experience presented here as “the front door to understanding”.23 During the 1930’s and 1940’s, the different Museum officials continually attempted to clarify the various definitions of ‘modern art’ set out initially by Barr, ranging from lexical or classificatory to negative and likeness/difference types.24 In the large exhibition Modern Drawing in 1944, which was presented as “the first general international survey to be undertaken in America of the particular aspects of modern art revealed by draftsmanship”, the different meanings of the word ‘modern’ were once again explicitly defined for its public.25 Certain common characteristics of the modern artists were underlined, such as great conviction, unpopular and anti-academic. It was, however, emphasized that modern art was “part of universal tradition” and it was this aspect that the exhibition stressed in its display. The arrangement enhanced the ‘links with the past’ in juxtaposition with the ‘many-faceted creative effort’ of the moderns, as was commented on in
23 See Newhall, ‘The Library – Some Books on Modern Art’, in: “The Library – with a reading list on modern art”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 3, no. 6 (May 1936): p. 6. 24 In, for example, the exhibition catalog Modern Painters and Sculptors As Illustrators (1936), the director of the exhibition, Monroe Wheeler, is quite explicit on the meaning of ‘modern’. In the very first sentence of the catalog, he distinguished two ‘current meanings’, which determined the scope of his catalog. The first is “lexicographical, and very simple: ‘of the present and recent times.’”, which Wheeler restricted to the first third of the 20th century (with a few 19th century exceptions). The second meaning of modern was less simple according to Wheeler, which he described – as Barr had done earlier – as “Modern with a capital M; Modern, as one says Renaissance or Elizabethan or Baroque”. He defined “Modern” artists as the opposite of “commercial and academic practitioners of art”. Furthermore, the ‘Modern’ artist was to be distinguished by the fact that he neither imitated the work of previous masters nor early work of himself. 24 For, according to Wheeler in his definition, the truly Modern artist never stops at one innovation but is continually searching for new paths: the Modern artist shows “a life-long willingness to innovate, a relative freedom from aesthetic habits, good as well as bad, and some instinctive fear of ruts, and disdain for what is easy.” See Wheeler, Modern Painters and Sculptors, p. 8. 25Here Wheeler, the director of the exhibition, together with the art historian John Rewald provided once again two different definitions of ‘modern’. The first considered the lexicographical meaning: “the word modern, in strict usage, is a matter of time, not of style. In a consideration of history it is the present tense, that is all.” Modern was also identified as “a descriptive or qualitative adjective” which was “plural” in its meaning. Although the differences between the modern movements were stressed, the modern artists were said to have in common “great conviction, and endured unpopularity in their day” and “they all refused to submit to the traditions of the academies”. Wheeler, Modern Drawings, pp. 10-11.
113 the press.26 To underline the great variety in modern art, the installation of the drawings mirrored this variety by using different background colors for the various modern movements.
Didactic Exhibitions Explain the ‘Modern’
In order to defend modern art in these early years the emphasis was put on presenting the difficult art as comprehensible: didactic exhibitions and catalogs not only defined modern art but also provided a guide to understanding it. In the first didactic circulating exhibition on modern painting A Brief Survey of Modern Painting in Color reproductions in 1932 and the catalog that was to accompany it from 1934, A Brief Survey of Modern Painting, the public was approached in a common sense mode using rational arguments to convince it of the necessity to try to ‘understand’ modern art: “Art changes gradually. Even radical innovations develop step by step. Much modern art may seem queer and unintelligible to us simply because we may not have followed these successive steps. As a result we are easily shocked by what seems a startling and unreasonable novelty. But we may recall that Fulton and the Wright Brothers were considered fools during their pioneer experiments with the steamboat and airplane.”27 By using ‘us’ and ‘we’ the public is made to feel at ease and encouraged to not feel inferior about not understanding and about feeling shocked. The fact that the public would be shocked was presented as a reasonable reaction because the necessary “successive steps” had to be followed so as to comprehend such “novelty”. The use of identification by Barr with his public is a rhetorical tool in the process of educating this public.28 In the logical argument of comparing the necessary experimental stages of modern art to those of modern ‘science’, Barr enhanced the respectability of and encouraged confidence in modern art. Remarkably, he used both the topic of tradition in art (“Art changes gradually”) and the topic of creative novelty (“radical innovations”) to build his argument. Barr continued: “We dislike pictures which we do not understand and often condemn them as ‘radical’ or ‘bolshevik’. Fifty years ago there were young revolutionaries in painting just as there are today. In Paris, the art capital of the world, there were Degas, Renoir, Monet,
26 See “Press Comment on Modern Drawings Exhibition”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 11, no. 5 (April 1944): pp. 19-20. 27 Barr, A Brief Survey of Modern Painting, p. 1. 28 See Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives.
114 Cézanne, the group, which was already known as the Impressionists. They are all dead now and are revered by living ‘radicals’ as well as by the rest of the world as highly respectable pioneer ancestors. But in their day they themselves looked back to the rebels and innovators of a previous generation among whom were Corot and Daumier.”29 Here progressive is presented as a political quality by the use of “radical” and especially, “bolshevik”. The political connotation is neither contradicted nor separated from artistically progressive. As discussed further on in this chapter, this was to come later when politics needed to be separated from art to survive, to subsequently be incorporated in a new political role. The message of the catalog, however, was very clear: rebels, revolutionaries and radicals in time become respectable pioneer ancestors. As true innovators they make progressive, radical art, which through understanding becomes acceptable. Throughout the catalog the guidance to ‘understanding ’ is accomplished - besides by presenting an art historical context - by acquainting the public with the foreign artists and by explaining the art historical jargon necessary to become knowledgeable. The introduction of each foreign artist is accompanied by providing the correct pronunciation of the artist’s name in phonetics which reduced the ‘strangeness’ of these modern artists and would make the public feel more at ease, and also emphasized the necessity of being ‘knowledgeable’ so as to be one of the in crowd.30 Barr was aware of the desire of certain groups to emulate others whom they admired, in this case knowledge was presented as the way into the desired class.31 The art historical jargon was defined by the listing of various terms which “are used almost interchangeably by the general public when referring to the novel, strange or often misunderstood aspects of modern art”: Impressionistic, Futuristic, Expressionistic Modernistic, Cubistic.32 Modernistic was not to be confused with modern, as explained: “Modernistic refers particularly to certain superficial decorative fashions in commercial, industrial and architectural arts of the past decade”.33 This distinction would be made over and over again in a number of exhibitions on architecture and in an exhibition on Bauhaus in
29 Barr, A Brief Survey of Modern Painting, p. 2. 30 In the catalog A Brief Survey of Modern Painting (1934) the artists are presented by a few paragraphs each starting with their last names in large, bold print followed by the pronunciation for example: “MANET, pronounced “Manay”; painted in Paris from 1855 to 1883” (p. 3), and, “Munch. The Norwegian, Edvard Munch, (pronounced “Moonkh”) has been painting … ” (p. 13). This is not the only catalog in which the pronunciation is provided so explicitly. Also in Slide show of What is Modern Painting? See CE, II. 1, 121 (2): MoMA Archives, NY. 31 As mentioned previously Barr encouraged his trustees to read Thorstein Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) in which matters of emulation are discussed. 32 Ibid., p. 15-16. 33 Ibid., p. 16.
115 1938. By then public was expected to be knowledgeable on the matter as a remark in the Museum’s Bulletin stated: the term ‘modernistic’ is often misunderstood and is “carelessly used by nearly everyone (except, of course, members of the Museum of Modern Art)” (my italics).34 At the end of the catalog, A Brief Survey of Modern Painting, in the section on Variety of Contemporary Painting, Barr made an emotional plea: “Modern painting may seem confusing but it must be remembered that the whole history of art as well as much scientific and psychological knowledge is available to the contemporary painter. (…) To enjoy the work of these artists it is well to forget prejudices, both modern and old-fashioned. Give the picture, itself, a chance to live!”35 This approach to explaining modern painting was repeated years later. The exhibition An Introduction of Modern Painting was first presented in the Museum in 1941 before circulating throughout the country. It seems in many ways a repetition of the Brief Survey of Modern Painting exhibition and publication of the early thirties. The set up is almost identical and many of the same texts are used. The same emphasis is put on the revolutionary aspect of modern painting: modern art as an art breaking with ‘academic’ rules and revolting against former art expressions.36 A number of the didactic, explanatory exhibitions were made by and for a young public and displayed in the Young People’s Gallery, such as We Like Modern Art (1941), an exhibition which was arranged by a jury of high school students illustrating the qualities in modern art which particularly appealed to them. (fig. 47) This photograph was often used in Museum publications and demonstrates the active participation of the youngsters involved. Other similar exhibitions for the Young People’s Gallery were Understanding Modern Art (1941,1942 and 1943) and Favorites in Modern Art (1943) combined learning, appreciation and creative participation. To create understanding of modern art the Museum experimented with different types of approaches for the different audiences. Occasionally an experimental exhibition would be presented to a very select group – Barr’s 400 group - in the Members’ Room. The exhibition
34 See the issue on the Bauhaus exhibition: McAndrew, ‘ “Modernistic” and “Streamlined”’, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 5, no. 6 (December 1938): p. 2. 35 Ibid., p. 18. 36 Some of the very simplistic comparisons with pioneer experiments of Fulton and the Wright Brothers were now left out. Noteworthy is the explanation – in An Introduction to Modern Painting - of artists revolting against Impressionism in which the anti-academic quality of modern art is stressed: “Although ridiculed at first, the work of the Impressionists slowly gained recognition. Ultimately, however, it developed an academy of its own against which the painters of the 20th century, especially the Fauves and the Cubists, rose in revolt.” See: text of label ‘IMPRESSIONISM’ of the Exhibition An Introduction to Modern Painting. MoMA Archives, NY.
116 A Visual Analysis of a Cubist Painting was organized by Sidney Janis of the Advisory Committee together with Frederick Kiesler (artist, designer and architect) to accompany the big Picasso exhibition in 1939-1940.37 It was an especially designed exhibit which attempted to analyze Picasso’s “Seated Man” (1911) solely with visual means. The emphasis on visuality fit in the educational programs which were being developed and presented a conclusive explanation in a compact, persuasive display. Presented as a scientific experiment, it was to be “an investigation into the realism Picasso used as a point of departure for his construction of form and for the handling of plastic elements in this painting”.38 (fig. 48) Following the exhibit’s design the visitor dissects the figures in the painting, which are literally summed up in a list of formal components, each component is then highlighted – by outlining the contours - in its own mini reproduction and then led into the composite, conclusive reproduction displaying the outlined figures clearly. Although this exhibit was designed for the Members’ Room of the Museum, it circulated as a traveling show to smaller museums and universities around the country for a few years afterward. Most of the explanatory exhibitions on the definition of modern art were designed to reach a large general public not yet knowledgeable about modern art. They often included publications and some of them were accompanied by slideshows set up by the Educational services. A special series of exhibitions and booklets was developed which approached the question directly: What is modern art? This question was posed and answered for the public in four different presentations of the Introductory Series to the Modern Arts: What is Modern Architecture? (1942), What is Modern Painting? (1943), What is Modern Design? (1950), and, What is Modern Interior Design? (1953).39 In the exhibitions and publications of this Series, the Museum defines modern art according to its own ideology in persuasive presentations.
37 The exhibition Picasso: Forty Years of His Art was shown from 15 November 1939 to 7 January 1940. 38 As described in a short text “Analysis of a Picasso” in Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 6, no. 6 (January 1940): p. 8 39 What is Modern Sculpture? written by Robert Goldwater was published in 1969 and even though it mentions its place in the Series in the Acknowledgements, it is of a different approach and format. It is much less didactic and more of a historical survey. The format is larger and glossier. There was a slideshow ‘What is Modern Sculpture?’ in 1946 distributed by the Educational Department which was more in line with the Series, but there was no exhibition.
117 The Introductory Series to the Modern Arts
The booklet What is Modern Architecture? was the first in the series and was based on a circulating exhibition designed in 1938.40 The cover of the booklet What is Modern Architecture? with its design resembling a modern painting links modern architecture immediately to modern art. (fig. 49) The book is an example of clarity of definition and persuasive argumentation based on comparison, which also defends modern architecture as a solid and serious art and grounds it into the tradition of architectural history. To facilitate the introduction to modern architecture, the reader first met the person behind the modern buildings: the ‘modern architect. By humanizing the art in question the Museum made it easier for the public to sympathize with the modern creations. To build the ethos of the modern architect, he is presented as a modern scientist, a psychologist and an artist. The modern architect is first compared to “a modern scientist” who “does not rely on guesswork, nor on the acceptance of what someone else may have thought, but on analysis, test and proof.”41 Like the modern scientist, “the modern architect studies his problems in an analytic spirit. Not content with secondhand solutions, nor with habitual repetition of old forms and technics, he works out many new ones, testing them and proving their value.”42 This stress on the analogy to science underlined the art’s credibility and the architect’s authority and reliability. Besides having scientific knowledge the modern architect also had to be “a psychologist” who had “the human insight necessary to construct an architectural environment which will be psychologically pleasing”.43 And finally, the modern architect was presented as “an artist”. It is stressed that it is the architect’s creativity which makes a building beautiful: “Science can guarantee the durability and practical usefulness of a building, but only the creative imagination of the architect can give it beauty.”44 The definition of modern – in which the Museum’s ideology is apparent - is explained by contrasting it to contemporary. To distinguish the modern architect from the contemporary architect – as the booklet stated: “ninety-nine per cent of the buildings built today are not modern” –, the modern architect is endowed with positive qualities such as “fresh and vigorous” whereas most contemporary architects are portrayed as being weak imitators of the past “borrowing past styles from their libraries” with minds “like magpies’ nests full of stolen
40 The booklet was first published in 1942 and a second revised edition was printed in 1946. 41 What is Modern Architecture?, p. 5. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. The requirements are based on Vitruvius’ firmitas, utilitas and venustas.
118 trimmings” who make buildings that “ape the work of times and places not our own”.45 The modern architect is presented as strong and progressive: “the modern architect is not homesick for the past and its buildings, but welcomes the stimulating challenge of the present we all live in, and welcomes also our efficient new ways of building.”46 After establishing the honorability of the modern architect in the introduction, modern architecture is characterized in part 1. The qualities of modern architecture are equaled to those of ancient architecture providing the modern with a traditional base. The opening page is filled by a statement quoting the authority on classical architecture Vitruvius: “2000 years ago the roman architect Vitruvius said: Architecture should meet three requirements utility, strength, beauty”.47 (fig. 50) On the opposite page the reader is drawn in to the argument that these requirements are the same for the modern period: “Let us consider these three ancient touchstones for they are still valid today.” Each touchstone is explained with characteristics, examples and illustrations so that the reader can distinguish them in the exemplary ‘examples’ provided in part II, which is presented as visible proof of the quality of modern architecture.
The second booklet in the Introductory Series, What is Modern Painting? became a classic. It was first published in 1943, revised and reprinted many times with the last revision made in 1966 and the last reprint in 1980.48 The exhibition What is Modern Painting? was shown in 1945, first in the Museum and then as circulating exhibition. A slideshow with the same title was offered by the Educational services from 1945 on. This trio provided a solid educational package with a repetitive message presenting the Museum’s concept of modern painting. Barr was responsible for the ‘booklet’ What is Modern Painting?.49 It was intended, as Barr wrote in the preface, “to undermine prejudice, disturb indifference and awaken interest so that some greater understanding and love of the more adventurous paintings of our day may follow.”50 Described as “an explanatory picture-book with concise, simple text designed to introduce modern painting to the student and layman”, it aimed at reaching a wide audience.51 Once again - as in his earlier publication and exhibition A Brief Survey of Modern
45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid., p. 6. 48 For this research I have compared the first edition of 1943 and the last revised edition of 1966, reprinted in 1980. 49 Barr had been working on an actual history of modern art for Harvard University press for sometime then but decided to write this booklet first. He never got around to actually finishing his proposed survey on modern art. Russell was finally asked to write it in the seventies. 50 Barr, What is Modern Painting?, 1943, p. 2. 51 See Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 11, no. 2 (October-November 1943): p. 19.
119 Painting – an appeal to the readers is made to open their minds and hearts to modern art so as to enrich their lives and perhaps help them ‘understand our modern world’. What is Modern Painting? is a prime example of sound rhetoric: a structured address to win the audience for modern art through argument and emotional appeal.52 Throughout the text, Barr argues frequently by asking questions (ratiocinatio) which he sometimes immediately answers himself (anthypophora). His style is plain, yet never simplistic. In the introduction Barr draws his readers in by addressing them directly with questions and instructions, appealing to them to use their “eyes and heart and head”.53 He activates his reader by directing them to distinguish and choose.54 In a quasi dialogue he first sympathizes with his readers for not understanding the pictures he asks them to look at and then he provides simple answers to their expected questions: “What is modern painting? Stop reading a few minutes, turn the pages of this booklet and look at the pictures …What is your first impression? Bewildering variety? Yes, that is true. The variety of modern art reflects the complexity of modern life …When you look at pictures in this booklet you may be upset because you can’t understand them all at first glance …”.55 Barr prepares his readers by giving them “important” instructions: “it is important not to choose too quickly …, “it is important not to fool yourself”.56 He then tackles the various hurdles the public encounters on its path to understanding modern art. He explains that one has to ‘learn’ how to understand pictures, by comparing the art of painting with “a language which you have to learn to read.”57 He compares the wide variety of pictures with the variety of texts: “some pictures are easy, like a primer, and some are hard with long words and complex ideas; and some are prose, others are poetry, and others still are like algebra or geometry. But”, as he reassures his reader, “one thing is easy, there are no foreign languages in painting …for painting is a kind of visual Esperanto.”58 Barr subsequently entices the reader to join him in the adventure of modern art. The use of ‘you’ in the text makes way for the use of ‘we’ and ‘us’ - luring the reader to join him
52 What is Modern Painting? has been acknowledged as an example of excellent explanatory and persuasive writing and was discussed as an example of using ‘contrast’ to provide a convincing argument. Blair and Gerber, Better Reading 1: Factual Prose: introduction to explanatory and persuasive writing, pp. 422-431. 53 Barr, What is Modern Painting?, p. 3. 54 In a review in 1944 by John D. Morse in the Magazine of Art, Barr’s approach is applauded for making people feel at ease and for encouraging people to step beyond their prejudices: “The result of this frank approach is that the reader is quite willing – even eager – to find out what else there is that other people see and he doesn’t.” John D. Morse, “New Books”, Magazine of Art 37, no. 5 (May 1944): p. 198. AHB[AAA:3151;0744] MoMA Archives, NY. 55 Barr, What is Modern Painting?, 1943, p. 3. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid.
120 in the difficult yet adventurous quest to understand modern art. Modern art is once again – as in the first of the Introductory Series - compared to modern science, which explains its difficult nature and enhances its desirability: “The greatest modern artists are pioneers just as are modern scientists, inventors and explorers. This makes modern art both more difficult and often more exciting than the art we are already used to.” 59 As if to tackle the last hurdle, Barr confronts the expected prejudice that modern painting doesn’t contribute anything to day-to-day life: “Perhaps you feel that these pictures have little to do with our everyday lives”. After first admitting this weaker point, that this is partly true (some art doesn’t because it has “the power to lift us out of humdrum ruts”), he makes an even stronger case for modern art’s contribution by arguing the various functions of modern art (paromologia). He provides both practical and spiritual purposes which benefit humanity. Modern Art, as explained by Barr, exposes the “crucial problems of our civilization” and helps people understand them , but more importantly the modern work of art acts as a spiritual symbol: “a visible symbol of the human spirit in its search for truth, freedom and perfection”.60 The first chapter of the booklet is called ‘Contrasts’. Barr used the technique of contrasting to explain the difference between ‘modern’ and ‘contemporary’ and the different expressions of modern art.61 He showed the differences between two paintings of the same genre.(fig. 51) He not only used the familiar classic genres of landscape and portraiture but also genres emphasizing the contemporary world, such as war pictures and ‘portraits of buildings’, to present a direct confrontation of different approaches to the same subject. Through comparison he portrayed the “modern” style as the style, which showed “more imagination, the greater will to select, control, arrange and organize”.62 To stimulate participation and acceptance of the reader, Barr challenged the reader to choose between the
59 The examples of ‘scientist, inventors and explorers’ used change in the different editions: in 1943, Fulton, Holland and the Wright Brothers are listed whereas in 1974, Galileo and Columbus replace Fulton and Holland. 60 Barr, What is Modern Painting?, 1943, p. 3. 61 Contrasting had been used often in earlier shows. As early as 1931 in the German Painting and Sculpture exhibition, a sequence of sculptured heads was lined up with at both ends the contrast between ‘abstract’ and ‘realistic’. Working towards the middle, gradations of abstraction and realism were shown with in the center a sculpture, which contained ‘equal’ elements of abstract and realistic forms. In 1940 a circulating exhibition was first shown called 20 Twentieth Century Paintings in which contrasts and comparisons to similar subjects - the classic genres still life, portraits, and landscapes – was the objective of the show. In another circulating exhibition Contrasts in Pictorial Representation (1941), the viewer is encouraged to compare three French paintings by Segonzac, Pierre Roy and Braque, which all three show different approaches to the genre still life. 62 Barr, What is Modern Painting?, 1943, p. 4.
121 more traditional and the modern painting: “Which means more to you? This is a free country and you can take your choice or, perhaps, find much to like in both.”63 In the following chapters -some with catchy titles such as: “The Constructors”, “Mystery and Magic” and “Allegory and Prophecy”- Barr presented the different expressions and movements of modern art . He explained the artists’ interests, the problems they tackle and the steps that they take with clear logic, teaching his reader to appreciate what he sees and confronting him directly with the expected reactions which Barr then countered with an immediate response.64 When discussing Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, for example, he confronted his reader with an expected prejudice reaction and immediately defied it:
“ ‘How could anyone paint such an ugly picture? Look at those awful faces! Do you call that art? Why, a Child could do better than that..’ But stop a moment: aren’t we confusing the issue again? And haven’t we heard the one about the child before, on page 16 to be precise? If these were real women with faces like that – especially the two at the right – no one could stand looking at them. But they are not real faces: they are areas on a painted canvas – one of the most important pioneering canvases of modern art and one of the most stirring after you understand what Picasso was about”.65
In this booklet, Barr not only tried to convince his readers to give modern art a chance by encouraging understanding, but also by building the image of the modern artist as an important contributor to society and the modern work of art as a functional symbol of modern life. As Barr stated, the modern artist like all great artists is the “sensitive antennae of society” – an image which Sandberg later was also to use frequently. Barr presented the modern artist as one who can expose “the crucial problems of our civilization” and help the public to understand these problems through his art.66 Furthermore, the modern artist is admirable because of his adventurous, pioneering spirit and because the artist is original and progressive, he often faces neglect and is therefore in need of “courageous and generous
63 Ibid., p. 7. 64 The section ‘Motion and Commotion’ was added later editions. 65 Barr, What is Modern Painting?, 1943, p. 26. 66 Ibid., p. 3.
122 admirers, and buyers, of his art”.67 Which reader would not like to be identified as ‘a courageous and generous admirer’? In the final chapter of the booklet, Conclusion: Truth, Freedom, Perfection, Barr picked up the three crucial concepts with which he had ended his introduction, bringing his argument full circle. He presented ‘truth, freedom, perfection’ as the modern artist’s equivalent of the famous dicta ‘liberty, equality, fraternity’ and – perhaps even more meaningful to the average American - ‘faith, hope and charity’. This made the modern artist all the more respectable. The modern work of art is to be seen as a symbol of the striving for truth, freedom and perfection: qualities everyone could relate to but no one could fully attain. These universally respected qualities were carefully explained by Barr and tied together to form a unity. His argument was clever: the authorities he called on and examples he used are accessible and convincing.68 The modern artist tells the truth through the work of art. In order to work the artist needs freedom; freedom is presented by Barr as the necessary foundation for truth. By using President Roosevelt’s words – which had been broadcast upon the opening of MoMA’s new building in 1939 – of ‘liberty in politics resulting in liberty in the arts’ and the importance of ‘individuality’ in the arts, these conditions and qualities of modern art are prescribed. Once again Barr uses contrast, now to explain the ‘right and wrong’ attitude towards modern art by presenting the opposing ‘wrong’ attitude of Hitler which has deprived artists from their freedom.69 Barr also promotes modern art as beneficial to all, arguing that the modern work of art provides us with the freedom which we lack in day-to-day life. Why should anyone be concerned with the artist’s freedom, Barr asks and answers, starting with a rhetorical question: “Because the artist gives us pleasure or tells us the truth? Yes, but more than this: his freedom as we find it expressed in his work of art is a symbol, an embodiment of the freedom which we all want but which we can never really find in every day life with its schedules, regulations and compromises.” 70 Perfection is tied into the artist’s dictum as a quality which the modern artist strives to achieve, yet should never reach, for art which is “too” perfect loses
67 Ibid., pp. 38-39. 68 For example, Barr used the heroic anecdote – or “legend” as Barr called it - of Picasso being visited by a German agent after Picasso painted his ‘Guernica’, asking Picasso to come to Berlin. After Picasso refused him, the agent walked out of the studio and noticed a photograph of the Guernica “and, forgetting the Luftwaffe’s role in the picture said: “Ah, Monsieur Picasso, so it was you who did that.” “No, Herr Abetz,” replied Picasso, “you did”. See Barr, What is Modern Painting?, 1943, p. 38. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid., pp. 38-39.
123 its symbolic meaning and is no longer art.71 The trio ‘truth, freedom, perfection’ is presented as our dream: a dream which can never be fully attained yet is brought closer to us through the modern artist and his work of art. In the revised editions of What is Modern Painting? the mid-century period and the 1960’s were added.72 Discussing the developments of the Post War period, the focus was now only on American Painting. Presented under the headings of contrasting terms: ‘Pleasure and Pain’, ‘Activity and Serenity’ and ‘Violence and Anxiety’, abstraction in general and abstract expressionist painters were presented as dominant in the mid-century period: “looking around one, it was clear that abstract painting was the dominant, characteristic art of the mid- century”.73 Barr supported this conclusion by presenting abstraction as the logical answer for ‘old talent’ as well: “Old talent, too, for Matisse, leader of the oldest generation of French artists, in his last years did his most abstract work.”74 The Conclusion of the revised booklet was now divided in two sections. In the first section, ‘Which Are the Great Paintings?’, Barr defended the importance of modern paintings for their formal qualities instead of for example their political or social content. Barr stated that most of what he called “the great paintings of the past hundreds years” had a very limited explicit meaning in relation to the state of world; “almost their whole interest lies in what we can see before us, and what we see is above all a beauty of form and color with little obvious interest in human emotion or character and even less in religion, politics, economics, psychology or the historical and mythological past of the human race.”75 The fact that the question “Which Are the Great Paintings?” had become prominent in the later editions of the booklet was very much in line with the Museum’s approach: focusing on the Masterpieces instead of the artists themselves and with the Museum’s revised Collection Policy of 1953. In the second section of the Conclusion, the message intensified its ‘political’ facet in the defending of a free society in which the modern work of art acts as ‘a symbol of the human spirit in its search for truth, for freedom, for perfection’. In the earlier editions Hitler was the opposing figure and Nazi Germany, the enemy. Now – in later editions of the booklet - Stalin and Khrushchev are the oppressors and Communism is the threat to truth and
71 Ibid., p. 39. The example Barr gives is Mondrian who he claimed came” in sight of perfection by limiting his problem to the subtle adjustment of rectangles”, but did not achieve it. “An “abstract” painter who passed beyond Mondrian into geometry would indeed find perfection, but he would leave art behind him.” 72 The section ‘Motion and Commotion’ which was added later also featured Duchamp and the Italian Futurists. 73 Barr, What is Modern Painting?, 1980, p. 42. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid., p. 45.
124 freedom, those qualities prominent in the formalistic modern art of the Western countries.76 To reassure the public that the contemporary American artists who had recently been associated with Communism during the McCarthy period were not indeed politically inclined, Barr presented them as victims who have “had to suffer occasional persecution” by “self- styled patriotic organizations and misguided congressmen, instigated by bitterly jealous academic artists”.77 By presenting the modern artist as victim of the jealousy of the academic artist, the public was encouraged to sympathize with modern art and reject academic art. Both Roosevelt’s authoritative words, which were also quoted in earlier editions and President Eisenhower’s speech – held at the 25th Anniversary of the Museum in 1954– were used to underline the importance of freedom for modern art. As in almost all the Museum catalogs and books, a reading list was included in the booklet. This extensive booklist provided titles of books for general reading and for reading on movements and artists discussed in the book. Needless to say, many of the titles referred to the Museum’s own catalogs. The What is Modern Painting? Exhibition (1945) was an example of a new experiment in the Museum’s visual education: the word-and-picture combination was seen as effective teaching method. Although almost every single painting which had been used to answer the question ‘What is Modern painting?’ was from the Museum’s own collection, the exhibition used reproductions for its exhibition. The exhibition was compiled of 13 panels with ‘informative’ text, photographs and color reproductions showing “the important trends in art during the past 75 years: realism…impressionism…expressionism…cubism…surrealism…magic realism…and other phases of modern painting.”78 Just as the booklet, it was not to be viewed as a survey or history of modern art and in this respect differs from the historical survey shows the Museum was so well known for. The paintings were selected according to the different ideas they expressed. In the booklet the argument was based primarily on contrast and comparison. The exhibition worked along the same comparative lines but omitted the first series of examples of
76 In this passage the Soviets are presented as even earlier suppressors of modern art than the Nazis by opposing art of ‘Western decadence, bourgeois and more interestingly, ‘formalist”. Even in a 1980 reprint of a 1966 edition, Barr states: “Even today paintings by these great expatriates are hidden away in museum storerooms (though “formalist” works by the foreigners Matisse and Picasso have gradually emerged from prison since the death of Stalin in 1953).” Barr, What is Modern Painting?, in the edition of 1980, p. 47. 77 Ibid., p. 47. 78 A flyer-type announcement with on the cover Van Gogh’s The Starry Night (1889) offered this exhibition of “a subject of lasting interest” for sale for $ 60. A few copies of the exhibition could be rented. See CE, II.1.120(1). MoMA Archives, NY. The same text can be found in the press release for the showing of the Exhibition at the Museum itself in 1944. See CE, II.1.120. MoMA Archives, NY.
125 direct contrast between two paintings. The confronting, conversational approach of the book is no longer used, the viewer of the exhibition is stimulated to compare the pictures but the tone of the written information is presented in a more ‘objective’ and distant manner. The strong ‘pathos’ strategies of the booklet are not as apparent here. The public visiting the Museum exhibition is not motivated as much to feel for the artist but is stimulated to learn. The first panel of the exhibition, titled Variety in Expression, sets the tone. Three different ‘approaches’ to the ‘complex and confusing world we live in’ are presented. Centrally based on the panel and larger than the other two reproductions – emphasizing its importance -, is the formal approach represented by the reproduction of Braque’s Still Life 1928: ‘Shapes and Colors for their own sake’. In three diagrams different aspects of the painting are demonstrated to emphasize the content of shapes and colors: Lines (straight and curved), Values (light and dark) and Textures (rough and smooth). The other two approaches, which emphasize subject matter, are both represented by ‘Moods’: A Mood Evoked by the Outside World and A Mood Evoked by the Dream World.79 In the explanation of Realism on the second panel – with its emphasis on selecting and arranging facts -, the difference between what makes a skillfully good picture and a good painting is explained by the necessity of ‘an interesting composition of shapes and textures’ as in the Braque Still Life on the first panel, emphasizing once again the formal qualities. On this panel the technique of direct comparison is used by choosing paintings with the same subject matter: Three different ‘Pictures of Games’ by American artists, reproduced in the same format, are positioned in a row ending with the one emphasizing the “abstract pattern in ordinary objects” and focusing on the lines and surfaces in the painting. 80 (fig. 52) The subject Analysis of Form and Space was the only one to take up two panels, underlining its importance. (fig. 53) As in the part of the first panel describing the formal qualities of the Braque Still Life, diagrams are used to visualize the formal and compositional answers to the questions posed by the artists – in this case Seurat and Cézanne. In one instance the exhibition text becomes somewhat defensive and seems to anticipate possible critical responses from the public. The second panel Cubism and Abstraction presents the development of Cubism towards its “logical conclusion” in the
79 Hopper’s House by the Railroad (1925) representing the first and Tanguy’s The Witness (1940), the second. See photograph of the panel. CE, II.1.120(1), MoMA Archives, NY. 80 See photograph of panel 2, CE, II.1.120(1), MoMA Archives, NY. The painting, which is used - in both the booklet What is Modern Painting? and the exhibition - to explain the difference between clever trickery and real artistry was first attributed to William M. Harnett, with the title Old Scraps (1879-80) . In later revised editions of the booklet What is Modern Painting? the work is attributed to an American artist John F. Peto (1854-1907), Old Time Letter Rack (1894). As late as 1956, the work still seems to have been attributed to Harnett for in a Remimeo dated 2/27/56, panel 2 had not yet changed.
126 paintings of Mondrian in which - as stated in the text - “no trace of nature is left in this composition of straight lines and pure colors. Such pictures may look simple but actually they are planned and designed with the precision of an expert engineer”.81 Here the comparison to the “expert engineer” is once again used to persuade the public of the authority and respectability of the modern artist. In the publicity of the Museum, the publication What is Modern Painting? and a slide show What is Modern Painting? were offered in conjunction with the circulating exhibition. Besides the slides, the slide show consisted of a written lecture to accompany the pictures.82 The definition provided by all three presentations of ‘What is Modern Painting?’ was a descriptive explanation opening up the world of modern painting for a large public. The modern aspect of painting is presented as a response to the complexity of the modern world. The changes in modern painting are described as a development of form and subject, one movement growing out of the other.
The third and the fourth in the Introductory Series were the publications What is Modern Design? (1950) and What is Modern Interior Design? (1953). Both were written by Edgar Kaufmann, Jr. (director of the Good Design project) and defined and defended modern design as a modern art form with great clarity. As he explained in the introduction of the latter, the two booklets were companions and the second was to supplement the first. In the first booklet What is Modern Design? home furnishings are selected to explain the concept. By choosing this type of design which is easy for everybody to relate to, the concept is literally brought closer to home and demonstrates clearly the position of modern art in modern life. The booklet presents a series of simple questions - “What is Design?”, “What is Modern Design?”, and “What is Good Design?” - and provides direct answers in the form of definitions, characteristics and ‘precepts’. For example, the section ‘What is Modern Design’ first answers the question by providing a descriptive definition in italics (Modern design is the planning and making of objects suited to our way of life, our abilities, our ideals). Subsequently, Kaufmann provides a prescriptive definition in the form of a list which evokes the image of the ten commandments; “Twelve Precepts of Modern Design” are presented in a numbered list from 1 through 12, all starting with the phrase: “Modern design
81 Ibid., Panel 7. 82 The Slide show and exhibition were developed to be reproduced in quantity for rental or purchase by schools, colleges, libraries, clubs, small museums, and other community organizations as explained in Press Release. CE, II.1.120(1). MoMA Archives, NY.
127 should”. 83 This list is followed by paragraphs containing characteristics and statements on the position of modern design in modern life, as stated: “Modern life demands modern design”.84 Here modern design is defended as part of “democratic life”, intended “to implement the lives of free individuals”, who with modern design can “create an atmosphere of ‘the good life’.85 Kaufmann provides examples of bad modern design such as the superficial ‘streamlining’ and examples of good modern design which have to live up to the “requirements of beauty” listed by the respected medieval authority, Thomas Aquinas: “integrity, clarity, harmony”.86 The other chapters of the booklet ‘Furniture’, ‘Textiles’, ‘Pottery’, ‘Glass’, ‘Lamps’ and ‘Metal Ware’ are presented in the form of an exhibition of examples of good modern design: a visual display of large photographs with accompanying ‘wall labels’ fill the remaining pages of the book. (fig. 54) The companion and supplement to What is Modern Design? followed three years later in 1953. This booklet What is Modern Interior Design? focused on defining the traits of modern interior design and aspects which have influenced its development. Following the four main traits of modern interiors – comfort, quality, lightness and harmony – and the influencing elements – the machine and nature - Kaufmann portrays examples of the first century of modern design from 1850-1950 culminating in examples of modern interior design in different regions of the United States. Building towards the conclusion of the position of modern interior design, Kaufmann presents the development as the winning of a fight against the decorative historical past. To underline the immense contrast and finally convince the reader of the accomplishments modern interior design, he shocks the reader with a ‘Chamber of Horrors’, a photograph of a oppressive jungle of historical furnishings of Hans Makart’s studio with the accompanying text: “Unprincipled pilfering of the past: what modern interior design had to fight.”87 (fig. 55) The exhibitions and publications in the Introductory Series to the Modern Arts were prime examples of how the Museum of Modern Art defined and explained modern art to a large public. During the same period of these explanatory publications and exhibitions , the Museum of Modern Art also defined and defended modern art by using the traditional genres – still life, portrait and landscape - as bases for comparison to explain the modern artists’
83 Kaufmann Jr., What is Modern Design?, p. 7. 84 As stated in the ‘Introductory Note’, the precepts had been derived from the ideas of “three pioneering generations of modern designers and teachers”. In parenthesis Kaufmann explained that they “like all rules should be taken with a grain of salt”, Ibid., p. 5. 85 Ibid., p. 8. 86 Thomas Aquinas’ requirements of beauty had been used before in for example the exhibition ‘Machine Art’ in 1934, which is discussed further on in this chapter. 87 Kaufmann Jr., What is Modern Interior Design?, p. 30.
128 concerns and to show their great variety. In 1940 a circulating exhibition was first shown called 20 Twentieth Century Paintings in which contrasts and comparisons to similar subjects - the classic genres still life, portraits, and landscapes – was the objective of the show. In another circulating exhibition Contrasts in Pictorial Representation (1941), the viewer is encouraged to compare three French paintings by Segonzac, Pierre Roy and Braque, which all three show different approaches to the genre still life. Circulating exhibitions such as: Objects as Subjects, Faces and Figures, and Landscapes: Real and Imaginary traveled throughout the country during the mid forties. This same type of educational exhibition was to be shown in the very few explanatory exhibitions in the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam in the fifties.
The Stedelijk Museum’s ‘Modern’
In the case of the Stedelijk Museum the necessity to define what was to be considered ‘modern’ seems not to have been as much of an issue until after 1945 and then even, it was not often done in an explanatory fashion, but implicitly. As Baard had explained in his 40th anniversary catalog in 1935, all movements of the visual arts were welcome in the Museum since the only safe judge of artistic quality was time, thereby downplaying the Museum’s authority to define true modern art .88 Nevertheless, this catholic perception of modern art of the thirties seems to coincide with MoMA’s relatively careful approach during the same period. With Sandberg’s influence entering the Museum, in the late thirties as curator and after the War as director, the defining and defending of modern art was to change. Furthermore, the drive to ‘convert’ the public to modern art was not as prevalent in these early years as it was with MoMA. The Dutch museums, in the thirties, were geared primarily to conservation of their collections and providing space for their display instead of education. The history of the various collections and relationships with the different associations of the Museum determined the course of the Stedelijk. The inclusion of ‘living’ art and artists within the Museum walls came with the Levende Meesters exhibitions and provision of space for the various artists associations. Also due to Baard’s broad cultural interest a wide variety of art forms entered the Museum walls. The list of exhibitions from the opening of the Stedelijk Museum in 1895 on, shows a variety of surprisingly ‘modern’ subjects. Already in the first decennia of the Stedelijk’s existence, exhibitions were shown of painting, sculpture, drawing, graphic work, typography, applied arts, architecture, housing, city-planning, ‘machine art’, folk art, children’s art,
88 See Catalog Monumentale Kunst: 40 jaar Stedelijk Museum, p. 7.
129 photography, posters, even an exhibition of old Negro sculpture and an exhibition of prehistoric rock painting .89 During this period separate shows were held of art from different countries, mostly European, as well as combined international shows and theme exhibitions. Already in 1905, a Van Gogh exhibition was held in the Stedelijk, which because of its novelty almost cost Baard his job. The difference with the Museum of Modern Art’s early shows is the lack of emphasis on defining and explaining what was to be considered ‘modern’ in the Stedelijk and the absence of coherence and unity of the exhibition program. So, even if many of the subjects were similar or equivalent to the ones in MoMA – and actually shown much earlier - the presentation of them as contributing to and explaining the many faces of modern art is not apparent. This is due to the lack of unity of the organization of the Stedelijk Museum necessarily caused by the many and diverse contributors to the Stedelijk’s program.90 These different art forms were later to be intentionally included in the realm of modern art which Sandberg was to promote in his Stedelijk after 1945. In the Stedelijk Museum the exhibitions were also the major factor in the presentation of its program and intentions in the period before 1945. Most of the exhibition space was given up to the artists associations which meant that the Museum was only able to organize a few shows itself. A number of associations seem to have contributed to the development of what the Stedelijk was to promote as modern.91 The majority, however, was somewhat conservative, provincial and served a municipal function by providing exhibition space for Amsterdam artists more than the national and international role it was to fulfill after the War in defining modern art. In the early thirties, before he became a curator in 1938, Sandberg was responsible for a number of innovating shows due to his chairmanship of VANK – which had been granted exhibition space for a few months a year – and as a committee member of the Museum voor moderne toegepaste kunst (Museum of Applied Art). During this period – still under Baard’s directorship - Sandberg’s quest began for reducing the amount of shows organized by the - what in his eyes were – conservative and unimportant artists associations in order to create more opportunities for exhibitions of ‘real artistic importance’.92 This seems to reflect Sandberg’s ideas of the difference between
89 Besides the Schilderijen, teekeningen en beelden in het Stedelijk Museum exhibitions and the Tentoonstellingen van kunstwerken van levende meesters, there were, for example, Oud en nieuw drukwerk (1897), Journalistieke prentkunst (1904), Kind en Kunst (1905), Internationale tentoonstelling van foto-kunst (1908), Engelsche schooltekeningen (1908), Internationale tentoonstelling van moderne kunst: Moderne Kunstkring (1911), Internationale tentoonstelling van hedendaagse kunst (1912) etc. 90 As discussed in the first chapter of this book. 91 The exhibitions of the Moderne Kunstkring were advanced in their judgment of modern art. 92 See a letter from Sandberg to the Alderman of Cultural Affairs of the Municipality of Amsterdam, July 7 1938, in which Sandberg explains his feelings on the matter: ‘Eerlijk moet ik bekennen zeer weinig te gevoelen
130 contemporary and ‘modern’ in which ‘modern’ was ‘of real artistic importance’. Shows of ‘real artistic importance’ were, for example, L. Moholy-Nagy, schilderijen en ontwerpen voor toneeldecors (paintings and designs for the theater) in 1934, Theo van Doesburg in 1936 and most importantly, the first exhibition Sandberg was to make as an official Stedelijk curator: Abstracte Kunst (Abstract Art) in 1938, which will be discussed in chapter 3.93 . From the Stedelijk’s earliest years, there were a number of exhibitions which had ‘modern’ in their title.94 In many of these exhibitions ‘modern’ was used as synonymous to ‘contemporary’; the exhibitions which did present ‘modern’ as a progressive, advanced quality such as Internationale tentoonstelling van moderne kunst: Moderne Kunstkring (1911) had not been organized by the Stedelijk Museum itself. In the presentation of its own collection, in a newly modernized interior with plain white walls, the Museum attempted to visualize the development of modern art from 1800 on. A number of gallery-tours were initiated to accompany the collections presentation which seem to have reflected on issues of modernism: ‘Vorm en Inhoud der moderne kunst naar aanleiding van collectie van het Stedelijk Museum’ and ‘Wat is de moderne gedachte in de beeldhouwkunst, getoond aan de hand van de collectie in het Stedelijk Museum’.95 With the outbreak of War the most important collections were removed from the Museum and safely stored in bunkers in the dunes. In 1940 a presentation of what were called ‘demi-modernen’ (half-moderns) was arranged in the upstairs galleries which was a selection – primarily from the Museum Fodor collection – of Dutch artists between 1820 and 1870.96 After the War under Sandberg’s directorship the Stedelijk was set on catching up on showing the developments of modern artists and directing its focus towards the contemporary period and the future. In 1949 the semi-permanent display of the collection the ‘modern’ period was moved up in time starting in 1850 instead of 1800.97 Soon modern was to be
voor een dergelijke regeling waarbij 9 maanden geen plaats voor tentoonstelling zou zijn van werkelijk artistiek belang op de hoofdverdieping van het Stedelijk’ (my italics). SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 93 Organized to accompany this show was a tour ‘De Abstracte Idee’ (The Abstract Idea). 94 Internationale tentoonstelling van moderne kunst: Moderne Kunstkring (1911), Moderne Fransche ceramiek (1913), Belgische moderne kunst (1918), Moderne schotse schilderkunst (1921), Moderne kunstnijverheid (1922), Moderne nederlandsche toegepaste kunst (1929), Esac- moderne parijsche schilders (1929), Moderne italiaanse kunstnijverheid (1931), Moderne kunstnijverheid (1932), Moderne Chineesche schilderkunst (1934), Moderne toegepaste religieuze kunst (1935), Moderne Fransche kunst uit het Museum van Grenoble (1935), Moderne primitieven (1941). 95 From a Press Release in 1938 in the Archives of the Stedelijk Museum from the dossier ‘Reklame en Publiciteit’. ‘Vorm en Inhoud der moderne kunst naar aanleiding van collectie Stedelijk’ – 26 januari 1938 en ‘Wat is de moderne gedachte in de beeldhouwkunst, getoond aan de collectie in het Stedelijk Museum’ – 23 maart 1938. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. These tours were given by Miss N. Posthumus Meyjes. 96 See Jaarverslag 1940, p. 164. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 97 As announced in a press release which presented the Stedelijk’s plans for the year 1949. Dossier ‘Reklame en Publiciteit’, SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
131 disconnected from any time period. In 1955, in the first issue of Museumjournaal , Sandberg explicated what was to be considered modern art. 98 In this article in which he presented the new wing of the Museum, he declared that the art that was to be shown in the modern museum was art which “had something to say to” the contemporary public. “The art that did not fit”, as Sandberg stated, “has become history and belongs to the museum of old art.”99 This did not mean that all old art was considered history: Sandberg defined modern art as “the art to which we can relate whether it was made 2700 years ago or 900 years ago or in 1955”.100 For modern art made in 1955, he distinguished between two typest: “art which through the power of color and style gives expression to strong feelings, which move the artist” and “art in which the will to order has the upper hand.”101 This dialectic between art of expression and art of order was to dominate the spectrum of the Stedelijk’s modern art for years to come. A few years later the relevance of the 19th century art to ‘modern’ art was questioned. In an article ‘de moderne kunst op zoek naar een woning’ (‘modern art in search of a home’) Sandberg, announced that modern art of the last fifty years had “closer relations with Coptic textiles, sculpture from Crete or Sardinia of 3000 years ago, Negro masks, sculpture from New Guinea, the art of the Mayas and modern architecture or advertising, than with Courbet and Breitner.”102 What mattered in modern art for Sandberg was how it reflected and voiced the contemporary world. It is indicative that Sandberg spoke often of his museum as a museum of ‘contemporary art’ instead of modern art.103 That did not mean that all contemporary art was good art: the art that was immediately pleasing and beautiful, was not the modern art which was to end up in the history books, according to Sandberg. The Anniversary book Pioneers of Modern Art in the Museum of the City of Amsterdam, discussed in the previous chapter, defined most closely what the Stedelijk considered modern art. The real modern art was “experimental art”, which opened one’s eyes to the world, which shocked and disturbed the public at first and only later could be appreciated as beautiful and magnificent.104 As
98 Sandberg, “De nieuwe vleugel van het stedelijk museum te Amsterdam”, p. 8. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 99 Ibid. In Dutch: “Wat daarin niet past, is al geschiedenis geworden en behoort in het museum voor oude kunst.” 100 Ibid. The Dutch text reads: “moderne kunst … – en ik bedoel daarmee: kunst, die tot ons spreekt, om het even of zij 2700 jaar geleden of voor 900 jaar of in 1955 ontstond - …”. 101 Ibid. In Dutch: “Maar ook nu ontstaat kunst, die door kracht van kleur en handschrift uitdrukking verleent aan sterke gevoelens, die de kunstenaar bewegen, naast werk, waarin de wil tot ordening de overhand heeft …”. 102 Sandberg, ‘de moderne kunst op zoek naar een woning’, p. 137. The Dutch text reads: “de kunst van de laatste 50 jaar staat in nauwere relatie tot kopische weefsels, beeldhouwwerk uit kreta of sardinie van 3000 jaar geleden, negermaskers, sculptuur uit nieuw guinea, de kunst der mayas en de moderne architectuur of reclame dan tot courbet en breitner”. 103 See Sandberg,, “réflexions disparates sur l’organisation d’un musée d’art d’aujourd’hui”. 104 As expressed by Sandberg in his introductory statement in: Sandberg and Jaffé, Pioneers of Modern Art.
132 Sandberg explained: “True art is, at its birth, exacting and ill-bred // does not speak but shouts.”105 In his museum of contemporary art the works of art were to expose and question the modern world and actively participate in modern life. Their presence together with the Museum building was to breathe the atmosphere of a modern work of art itself which is what Sandberg considered his living Museum to be. Besides the ‘experimental’ quality, ‘vitaliteit’ (vitality) was described by Sandberg as one of the most characteristic and important features of modern art. Vitality – as in the sense of rejuvenation - was an essential characteristic of life and art. This characteristic featured in several of Sandberg’s writings and a number of exhibitions, such as in the exhibition de vitaliteit in de kunst (Vitality in Art) in 1959. Quoting the postwar manifest of the Dutch experimental group, Sandberg explained in the catalog what modern painting was: “a painting is not a construction of colors, but ‘an animal, a night, a scream, a human being, or all of that together’.106 In an article announcing this exhibition, Sandberg described vitaliteit in art as an essential quality which is the “answer to the want of the community”.107 He connected vitality in art to social and political vitality: “protest”. The true modern artist – together with Sandberg himself - protested against the smug Post-War society of well-to-do citizens, who were responsible for “suppression and falsification”.108 Society’s protest of 1945 was disappearing, according to Sandberg; besides a few wakeful moments due to fear of the Russians and of atomic war, society had dozed off and needed to be awakened. As if to demonstrate the role of the true modern artist in voicing the contemporary world, Sandberg illustrated his article with Appel’s painting ‘Atoomangst’ (Atomic Fear) which was to be considered a prime example of vitaliteit. Although Sandberg acknowledged and welcomed the other type of modern art, which was defined as ‘order’ and which was also to feel at home in his new wing, vitality fit best in Sandberg’s living art center. The Stedelijk’s definition of modern art was more of a declaration: Sandberg prescribed what was to be considered real modern art and from there looked back at the pioneers and experimentalists of earlier period and other manifestations of ‘modern’ works of art. It was clear that the Stedelijk defended modern art’s position in society by presenting its leading role in voicing contemporary problems and confronting injustice and consolidation. In
105 Ibid. 106 Sandberg, ‘de vitaliteit in de kunst’ in the catalog De vitaliteit in de kunst, p. 9. In Dutch: “een schilderij is niet een bouwsel van kleuren, maar een dier, een nacht, een schreeuw, een mens, of dat alles samen”. 107 Sandberg, ‘De vitaliteit in de kunst’, Museumjournaal, p. 95. 108 Ibid.
133 the Museum the works of art were to speak for themselves and the public was expected to experience and learn from modern art, instead of learn about it.
Stedelijk’s Didactic Exhibitions
The Stedelijk, however, did develop a few explicit didactic exhibitions in the 1950’s.109 These exhibitions, similar to the one in the Museum of Modern Art, followed the traditional genre’s ‘portraiture’, ‘landscape’ and ‘still life’ and were specifically meant for a young (school) audience.110 In 1955 the first of four exhibitions , Het Portret (The Portrait), opened in a corner gallery of the Museum. An information sheet, designed by Sandberg himself, accompanied the exhibition. On this pamphlet a large face of the most ‘modern’ portrait – by Picasso – confronted the viewer. (fig. 56) The young viewer was activated by the invitation to partake in a “three-way conversation” with the artist and the portrayed individual in the painting. As the text explained, every conversation will be different since in every time period artists are different and even in the same period the artists’ modes of expression will differ. A list of explanations of what “they”, the artists, provide for us – their own reality, a new world and new expressions is answered by the correct response: “we” are to take part in order to enrich and deepen our own world.111 The chosen works of art – paintings, drawings and photographs - were to display the different concepts of artists from the period 1850 to the present. Just as in the didactic exhibitions in the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the installation technique was designed to compare and contrast which was to heighten the differences in order to clarify the various expressions of modern art. The works of art were not installed in chronological order but in pairs which provided the greatest contrast: for example, an impressionistic portrait by Monticelli was juxtaposed with an expressionistic one by Kokoschka. (fig. 57) To enhance their differences, the complementary portraits were displayed with different colored wall labels (black and red) on which the text pointed to the
109 This seems to have been stimulated by the outcome of a report of a municipal experiment in 1948 and 1949, in which extra funds had been given to Amsterdam museums to organize repetitive visits to the Museums for schoolchildren. The Rapport betreffende jeugdrondleidingen in de musea voor beeldende kunsten suggested that the Museums arrange separate exhibitions for schoolchildren. (Map 2631) SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 110 In a letter (s.m. 3257) to the Amsterdam Alderman of Education, dd. November 18 1955, Sandberg announced the Museum’s plans to install a small exhibition of a number of works of art from their own collection to give schoolchildren some insight into de different styles of painting. Sandberg requests permission to send their folder announcing the exhibitions to various high schools (for children and adolescents up to 18 years of age). The fact that even for this type of activity permission has to be requested shows the great dependence on the City Council. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 111 See information sheet ‘Het Portret’, Het Stedelijk Museum, 1955. Dossier exhibition Het Portret, SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
134 different approaches of the artists. An interesting juxtaposition was provided between the pairing of the Picasso litho with an advertisement poster of a Coca-Cola girl. The expressive, irregular face of the Picasso was to contrast sharply with the cliché of the average girl in the advertisement and the accompanying message was that “art brings us something new, something with real character as opposed to the cliché which does not catch our interest”.112 Accompanying this contrasting pair, a ‘modern’ photograph was compared to an ‘Academic’ painting. Both showed a strong likening portrait, but the photograph was honored for its good composition of light and dark, of accentuating and excluding, whereas the Academic portrait was denounced for its “traditional manner which has nothing to do with the adventure in modern painting.”113 This type of didactic exhibition lasted only a few years and was seen as a separate activity for the youth. It was clear that the Stedelijk did not believe that this type of exhibition was necessary to present modern art to a larger public.
Modern Art as Part of Modern Living: A Sign of Progress
During the thirties modern art was promoted as part of modern life and living in both Museums. Architecture and design shows visualized how modern art was to shape cities and homes. Modern was presented as synonymous with improvement, with progress. Modern painting and sculpture was promoted as befitting our times. In both Museums comparison and contrast were used to define and defend modern art. In order to clarify what was good, the opposite was often presented as the antagonist and personified as such.114 Exhibition installations brought the examples to life (energeia) through detailed reconstructions and life- like installations.115 Although both Museums held exhibitions on the same theme, their approach was different. The Museum of Modern Art presented modern art as fitting in the ideology of progress, which was inevitable and was to be experienced as a normal, positive and necessary
112 Handwritten text for wall label. Dossier exhibition Het Portret, SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 113 Ibid. 114 Terence Riley observed how Philip Johnson, who was responsible for a number of these exhibitions, used the concept of personifying “the antagonist” for the public. See Riley, “Portrait of the Curator as a Young Man”, pp. 61-62. 115 Lanham describes enargia as “vividness, distinctness”, a generic term for visually powerful, vivid description which recreates something or someone”; and energia as “activity”, “vigor of style”, a general term for vigor, vividness, energy in expression. He describes Aristotle’s use of the term, as how to make description vivid by bringing it “before your eyes”. Lanham, A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, p. 64. I choose here to use energeia as described in the Glossarium of Marc Huys’ translation of Aristotle’s Retorica (p. 240).
135 development. The Stedelijk’s approach to modern art in modern living was that modern was the style of the present and the future, and therefore fit contemporary living; the artist, the architect and the interior designer would show the public what good modern art was.
The Museum of Modern Art’s Positioning of Modern Art in Modern Life and Living
The influential and canonizing exhibition Modern Architecture: International Exhibition (1932) is the Museum of Modern Art’s first architecture exhibition and the Museum’s very first circulating exhibition. This exhibition defined modern architecture as a modern art with its own aesthetic and yet functional in modern living. One section of the exhibition was devoted to poor housing and the solutions which have been developed, especially in foreign countries.116 This social aspect of the show was however not emphasized; the exhibition was primarily to identify what good modern architecture was in order to prescribe its characteristics for future building and to point out who were to be considered the most important modern architects. The choice of four architects seems to counterbalance the four masters of painting – Cézanne, Gauguin, Seurat and Van Gogh - chosen by Barr for the Museum’s first painting exhibition. The clarity of the Museum’s message was enhanced by what Johnson, the curator of the show, called “a simple and understandable arrangement”.117 The selected masters of modern architecture, J.J.P. Oud, Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe and Frank Lloyd Wright, were given the largest gallery in which their works were explained in a uniform manner: the model of a chosen building was the focal point of each artist’s display, behind which explanatory plans, elevations, perspectives and enlarged photographs of the actual building were presented. This large gallery was like an altar which could be seen from the entrance room and had to be approached through the main aisle of the whole exhibition space. (fig. 58) Visible from afar were two of the four chosen masters of modern architecture: Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe, which presented them as the main figures. Their special position was highlighted by the spotlights on their scale models.(fig. 59) The presentation of the architectural models and photographic materials was similar to Barr’s presentation of painting and sculpture. The similarities with the painting exhibitions have been noted in the chosen size of the enlarged photographs corresponding to the size of Post-Impressionist paintings hung in the previous exhibitions and the similar mode of
116 See Aronovici, “Housing and Architecture”, p. 2. 117 Ibid., p. 42.
136 hanging: the uniform height of hanging – slightly under eye level - and the considerable space in between the photographs.118 This stresses the positioning of modern architecture as a true expression of modern art, worthy of a position in the Museum.119 The exhibition was described as pioneering – even revolutionary - and its success is said to have been responsible for the coining of the phrase ‘International Style’ which was to be considered the modern style; for the ‘identification’ of Mies van der Rohe as ‘pivotal’ figure; and for the formation of the Department of Architecture in 1932.120 The exhibition’s success has to be seen in perspective: its influence was prevalent in setting the standard for MoMA’s architecture exhibitions for many years after and in triggering an architectural discourse but both public attendance and attention at that time were modest.121 The accompanying catalog of the exhibition was followed shortly after by a more in depth study, by the same authors. This book, The International Style: Architecture since 1922, - with a new edition still reprinted in 1995 - is boasted by the Museum to have become “the classic text on the International Style” by which it was written into the corpus of art history.122 In the preface of the book, Barr builds the ethos of the authors by showing that their strong scholarly skills link them to the tradition of art historical research: the authors “have studied contemporary architecture with something of the scholarly care and critical exactness customarily expended upon Classical or Mediaeval periods.” He continues by proclaiming that the conclusions of the research presented in the book are “of extraordinary, perhaps epoch-making, importance”.123 As evidenced in the 1994 preface by Johnson, Barr himself was actually responsible for some of the ideas and conclusions such as the capitalizing of ‘International Style, increasing its importance and independence as a
118 See Riley, “Portrait of the Curator as a Young Man” and Staniszewski, The Power of Display. 119 Contrary to the neat and carefully selected displays themselves; the uniform size of the photographs; and the consistent grouping of materials, the display furniture and hanging of the photographic materials seems somewhat clumsy with tables either loosely covered with cloth or not at all and photographs hung on doors, in wall, overlapping them. Perhaps this is due to the fact that it was hoped and anticipated that Mies van der Rohe might arrange the show and therefore the choice of display furniture was postponed. It could also have to do with the fact that this was the last show to be held in the Heckscher galleries before the move to 11 W. 53 rd Street. (in MoMAExhibitions list it is put as first in new building). See page 2 of 115 – http://library.moma.org/links/MoMAExhibitions.htm . 120 In his essay “Portrait of the Curator as a Young Man”, Terence Riley states, “no single accomplishment of Johnson’s curatorial career can rival his identification of Mies as the pivotal figure of modern architecture”. Riley’s choice of phrase ‘identification’ seems to downplay the influence Johnson had in Mies’ promotion. (Philip Johnson and the Museum of Modern Art, p. 63). Editorial, “Museum Notes”. In Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 12, no. 1 (August 1944): p. 2, when promoting the publication Built in USA: 1932-1944, the International Exhibition of Modern Architecture is called revolutionary. 121 See Staniszewski, The Power of Display, p. 196. Staniszewski speaks of the ‘legendary importance within the history of modern architecture in the United States”. 122 See Introduction of Hunter, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, p. 17. 123 See Barr’s Preface to Hitchcock and Johnson, The International Style, p. 27. A reprint of the originally published The International Style: Architecture Since 1922, 1932.
137 movement. 124 The International Style is described as the modern style which had its own historical development and a set of principles which characterized its style. In the book, the International Style is presented as synonymous to ‘modern’ and superior to ‘half-modern’ and ‘modernistic’ which are both presented as the antagonist: not quite ‘the real thing’125. ‘Modernistic’ is described here as a commercially successful modern-looking style used by opportunistic “impresarios”. This putting down of ‘modernistic’ art was repeated in painting and sculpture exhibitions and in the influential Machine Art exhibition in 1934, discussed further on. Contrasting between good and bad was used in what could be called a practical architecture show, America Can’t Have Housing (1934), in which architecture was presented as “the most social of the arts”. In this exhibition the public was confronted with their own city’s and country’s poor housing situation. The installation of the exhibition brought the problem and its solution to life, creating a persuasive plea for modern housing.126 The first part of the exhibition consisted of exhibits which were presented in a numbered sequence and in which the arguments were presented scientifically - both visually and verbally - based on convincing numbers and graphs. The exhibition was described as being made up of “models, plans, graphs, charts and photographic murals depicting housing conditions in the United States, the splendid development of city planning abroad, and the obstacles which must be overcome in this country before we can achieve such fine results”.127 The introductory photographic mural display directly confronted the New York public with a major opposition: On one side, “New York City The Richest City in the World with comparative statistics on population, wealth and annual budget”, and on the other side, “It is Failing as a Place to Live” with – on one half of the display - a visually declining series of
124 In the Foreword to the 1995 edition (pp. 13-17) , Philip Johnson gives his account of the history of the exhibition and book and his claim that “even though comparatively few people came to the exhibition, its impact was huge in the architecture world … ” , that it “resulted in big teaching jobs at American universities for Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius” and that “the exhibition established architecture in the art world’s eyes” underlines the importance since then given to both the exhibition and the book. 125 See Barr’s Preface to Hitchcock and Johnson, The International Style, p. 30. In an article published in 1951 and included in the 1995 edition, Hitchcock refers to a passage – on the concept of ‘half-modern’ in the original text (page 40) on the history of modern architecture, and states: “We said then (rather condescendingly) of the architects active from 1890 to 1920: “Today it seems more accurate to describe the work of the older generation of architects as half-modern.” In 1951 there seems no reason at all not to claim that the work of the older generation of modern architects was “early modern”, not “half modern”. The achievements of the earlier men seem much greater today in retrospect, moreover, than they did 20 years ago.” This demonstrates the changing concept of ‘modern’. Barr, in his preface, comments on the “commercially successful modernistic” architects as “modernistic impresarios” for whom the modern critic feels little sympathy. 126 The exhibition was held under the joint auspices of the Museum of Modern Art, the New York City Housing Authority, the Housing Section of the Welfare Council, Columbia University Orientations Study, and the Lavanburg Foundation. Philip Johnson was the general supervisor of the exhibition. 127 See Aronovici, “Housing and Architecture”, p. 2.
138 pictures of the city of the last two hundred years, and on the other half: a photo of a rising slum area.128 (fig. 60) On this photographic display the public was directly confronted with the question: “Has this generation the courage, skill and vision to plan the city worthy of the new age”. This direct address to the public involves the viewer emotionally and intellectually and creates a interactive mode of viewing. The highlight of the exhibition was a set of two antithetical groups of reconstructed rooms: three authentic slum rooms were compared to three modern housing rooms. To the rebuilt slum tenement rooms - which even had the original furniture and clothes in it - live cockroaches were added to “add reality”. 129 This outrageous addition cleverly created media attention and aroused emotions of excitement and condemnation in the public.130 These slum exhibits were contrasted with three rooms of a modern apartment designed by Johnson with furniture from Macy’s department store. This, of course, would be considered an attractive alternative and what seemed the ‘right answer’ to the low-cost housing problem in the modern city. By providing such a lively ‘description’ of the unworthy, the public would bound to be attracted to the opposite option of ‘good’ modern housing. In this type of show the Museum hoped to cultivate ‘good taste’ in building, in other words a taste for modern art.131 The message of the America Can’t Have Housing exhibition can be seen in line with the concept of modern art and architecture as part of modern living in a society that believes in progress as a motor of life itself.
Modern Design: Sign of the Modern
The Museum of Modern Art also worked together with department stores and industries in presenting a new style of living which promoted modern design as an important component of modern, fashionable living. 132 The Objects: 1900 and Today (1933) exhibition was an antithetical display of Art Nouveau objects and interiors, contrasted with Bauhaus type objects and interiors. It was presented in the Museum Bulletin as the forerunner of the Useful Objects Exhibitions and the display furniture which seems to have been designed for this show, provides a perfect setting
128 The clever visual rhetoric was the contribution of the artist, Walker Evans, who was responsible for the selection and display of the photographs for this exhibition. 129 See Press Release “America Can’t Have Housing”, October 11, 1934. MoMA Library, NY. 130 The cockroaches were taken out after complaints from the public. See Staniszewski, The Power of Display, p. 199. 131 See Lynes, Good Old Modern, p. 90. 132 Merchandise Stores, Bonwit Teller, store windows, advertising. etc. Philip Johnson was responsible for a number of significant early life-style type shows.
139 for the shop-like atmosphere of the Useful Object exhibitions: counters on which the household objects seem to feel at home. (fig. 61) Under the headings of ‘A Style of Ornament vs. an Unornamented Style’ and ‘Decorative Objects of 1900 vs. Useful Objects of Today’ similar type household objects, furniture and photographs of interiors were juxtaposed in a carefully arranged setting: a simple, direct contrasting of two styles supported by extensive wall labels and a catalog. The contrasting is stimulated by the pairing of opposing objects and settings: two tables, two hanging lamps, two bowls etc. Although the wall labels seem to suggest a competition between the two styles, using the concept of one style versus the other , the catalog explains that “one is not necessarily better than the other” and that the exhibition is “arranged with the purpose of contrasting the design, and the attitude toward design, of two modern periods”.133 (fig. 62, 63) Although both styles are presented as ‘modern’, the clear difference in time period and the close relationship of the display furniture and the clean, cool atmosphere of the exhibition to the style of ‘today’, provide for a different type of contrasting than the comparison of the variation of modern styles in one period as so often would be done at the Museum so as to demonstrate the broad scope of modern art. In this exhibition the contrasting is done by comparing contradictory opposites such as ornamented versus unornamented, but also by comparing correlatives: the modern art forms are opposite in style but related as being of different generations of modern. The display shows the development of modern design as a real change: two contrasting generations of modern art.134 In the Museum of Modern Art’s early years, Machine Art was perhaps the most remarkable show concerning the stretching of the definition of and influences on modern art and the incorporating of modern art in modern society. Philip Johnson, the curator of the exhibition, defined what was to be considered modern design and what not. In many respects this exhibition and its accompanying catalog proved innovative and effective. It was to become a show which would be used as exemplary of the Museum’s daring leadership efforts for the modern cause; installation photographs of this exhibition were to star in many Museum publications. The catalog of the exhibition was to be reprinted in 1969 and again – in a “Sixtieth-Anniversary Edition” – in 1994, providing a long and wide exposure of the exhibition and augmenting its importance in museum- and exhibition history.
133 See Riley, “Portrait of the Curator as a Young Man”, p. 48. One third of the objects for the show came from loans of Johnson’s own collection, from that of the Museum’s trustees and from collections of the Metropolitan Museum. Although Riley suggests that it would not be done to ridicule them by choosing sides with the objects of today, but the fact the these objects all came from his own collection do point to a preference. 134 Riley describes the contrasting presentation as having “an almost Darwinian function, demonstrating an inescapable evolution toward the modern – at least, the modern as Johnson saw it”. Ibid., p. 50.
140 Dramatically announced in an issue of the Museum’s Bulletin, the exhibition Machine Art was to “illustrate a victory in the long war between the Craft and the Machine”: modern machine-made products were presented as honorable winners in the battle between the old and the new.135 This competitive element was to be used in later exhibitions on design.136 The installation of the exhibition was explained as to “show the beauty of the Machine and the objects produced by it”. Johnson - director of the show - designed the installation so as to enhance the beauty of the machine quality of the objects, which is explained as to derive from the mathematical shapes and proportions. The shapes and proportions of the objects were cleverly used in the installation of the objects. The display furniture consisted of painted pedestals and podia of different shapes and proportions which provided for a spacious and ‘industrial display’.137 (fig. 64) Barr defined the aesthetic qualities of machine art in the catalog text as: perfection of shape and rhythm and beauty of surface.138 Johnson clarified and underscored these defined aesthetic qualities by using the same qualities in his installation of the objects. The perfection of shape of the machine art objects is enhanced by the perfectly shaped installation and the perfection of rhythm was to be illuminated by the rhythmic hanging and positioning of the series of objects. (fig. 65) The beauty of the surface of the objects was underlined by the contrasting different colored and textured surfaces used as backgrounds in the installation. As explained in The Museum of Modern Art Bulletin: “the qualities of certain objects like glassware for example, are enhanced by arrangement of them in long series; other exhibits gain by isolation; still others by unexpected placing or juxtaposition”.139 (fig. 66) The objects were arranged according to industry so as to clarify “the continuity of production from first products to finished useful objects”.140 The exhibition was divided into six divisions, in which the objects were listed with the same information: the name of the object, the manufacturer and of the designer and finally the price. The price was provided because, as the Bulletin explains, “another purpose of the Exhibition is to serve as a practical guide to the buying public.”141 This purpose of the show is
135 A whole issue of the Museum’s Bulletin was devoted to the exhibition of Machine Art. See Editorial, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 1, no. 3 (November 1933): pp. 1-2. 136 As in the booklet What is Modern Design? discussed previously in this chapter. 137 The installation views of the exhibition show - for the first time – straight pedestals that seem to no longer consist of separate stackable units. The austere simplicity enhances the austere – non decorative - quality of the displayed objects. 138 Barr, Machine Art. Barr writes: “In addition to perfection of shape and rhythm, beauty of surface is an important aesthetic quality of machine art at its best”. 139 See Editorial, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 1, no. 3 (November 1933): pp. 1-2. 140 Ibid. 141 Ibid.
141 displayed by the use of long counters lining the walls – as in shop windows - on which the objects became attainable products befitting a modern household.142 Through clarity of division and installation the show defined what ‘machine art’ was; an art which was part of modern life and part of modern art and which had influenced important modern (fine) artists. Despite the different methods of display, the objects – which were examples of modern progress - were all presented as beautiful modern objects - as ‘objets d’art’.143 The aesthetic quality of the machine art – as it had now been coined – was emphasized and argued in - and on - the catalog. The cover of the catalog was designed by the Bauhaus artist Josef Albers, who at that time was professor at Black Mountain College. The ingenious presentation of a ball bearing, which was blown to full proportions, emphasized the beauty of the shape and surface of the object. Based on three citations from works of three respected authorities: Plato, Thomas Aquinas and the contemporary critic L.P. Jacks, Barr and Johnson presented their argument that machine art was a true art form in which the qualities of beauty and utility determined its worth. By using such big names as Plato and St. Thomas Aquinas as authorities, the public was bound to be impressed (although it does seem strange to use Plato on matters of visual art). Quoting Plato, the abstract shapes were presented as being “always and absolutely” beautiful.144 The quotes by the respectable authorities were printed on the very first page of the catalog in their original languages, Greek and Latin, and accompanied by the English translation of the first two, which immediately gave the catalog a scholarly appeal and provided the argument with trustworthy foundations.145 The overall message of the catalog seems to be: industry is part of modern civilization and therefore should be accepted as part of and integrated in our culture. Furthermore, the products of industry – machines and machine made objects – can and should be accepted as beautiful and therefore worthy of the Museum’s attention and guidance.146 Barr uses Plato
142 See photographs of installation view of the Machine Art exhibition. The same type was used for the Useful Objects exhibitions later, of which the photographs including the ‘shopping’ public have become so famous. 143 The Bulletin stressed the beauty of the machine and its products: “A polished ball bearing is beautiful. The motors of Gar Wood’s speedboat art beautiful. Analogous is the beauty of pure engineering in factories, in grain silos, in suspension bridges”. Ibid., p. 2. 144 Catalog Machine Art, n.p. 145 The first two ‘classic’ authorities helped to explain how the machine and its products could be called beautiful, the contemporary authority pointed to the necessity of ‘marrying’ art and industry so as to make a livable society, as Barr put it: “If, to use L.P. Jack’s phrase, we are to “end the divorce between our industry and our culture we must assimilate the machine aesthetically as well as economically”. And summarizing the statement, Barr adds the metaphor “Not only must we bind Frankenstein – but we must make him beautiful” (ibid.). 146 The aspect ‘beauty’ is explained in the catalog as a by-product: just as unintentional as the beauty of natural form Later, in the fifties and sixties, in a number of exhibitions the design quality and the beauty of natural form shall be compared to modern art. In both Museums there were exhibitions on design in nature and design in science.
142 and what he calls ‘the excellent thomistic definition of the beautiful” to define beauty. These beautiful qualities put machine art in the realm of art itself. The ‘modern’ quality of the objects seems to be the ‘machine’ quality: perfection, simplification of shape, rhythm and refinement of surface. As in the International Architecture show (1932) the protagonist ‘modern’ is opposed to ‘modernistic’, which here is presented as both the French machine-age aesthetic that influenced American designers and as the ‘styling’ of objects for advertising, for more ‘eye-appeal’ to help sales.147 So, on the one hand the Museum promoted art as a part of contemporary industrialized life welcoming the cooperation with commerce and industry, and on the other hand, distancing art from commercial influence: setting the standard for what was to be considered truly modern art. Not only was the Museum to present guidelines for good design to industry but, by presenting the exhibition as “a practical guide to the buying public” it also promoted the acquisition of these machine art objects for every modern household: modern art objects for modern living. 148 The public then was not only invited to admire and learn but was enticed to buy, which was actively stimulated by a visitor poll quizzing the public on what they considered the most beautiful machine art object in the exhibition. The Machine Art exhibition had an unusual and effective promotion. To visually announce the exhibition there was the ‘exhibit’ on the outside of the entrance to the Museum.149 Furthermore, the Museum caught the media’s eye by asking a group of celebrities to take place in a committee, which was to select the three most beautiful objects in the exhibition. The choice of the committee members seems ingenious: the chosen celebrities personify honorable characteristics such as daring, knowledge and leadership to perfectly match this pioneering exhibition. The voices of these authorities not only provide spectacle and desired media attention but also strengthen the authority of the message of the exhibition.150 In addition, as mentioned above, the public was also asked to voice their
147 Barr mentions in this case ‘streamlining’. See Catalog Machine Art, n.p. 148 Editorial, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 1, no. 3 (November 1933): pp. 1-2. All the objects in the exhibition were ‘on sale in the United States’ and the catalog listed the price of each object and the store(s) where it could be purchased. 149A large marine propeller presented in a showcase provided the Museum with an unusual eye-catcher for the group of potential visitors passing by. 150 The committee consisted of John Dewey, Amelia Earhart, Charles R. Richards and Frances Perkins. Dewey was a well-known philosopher, social critic and theorist of education. He had at that time just retired from Columbia University in 1930. He is also quoted in the press release for the exhibition. Amelia Earhart was an aviation pioneer and a media celebrity. Many of the show’s notices included a photograph of her holding a selected exhibit. Charles R. Richards was director of the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago and Frances Perkins was U.S. Secretary of Labor. See Riley, “Portrait of the Curator as a Young Man”, p. 60.
143 opinion by picking a favorite object in the exhibition.151 These media attractive elements proved successful and added a sense of sensation and spectacle to the Museum’s exhibition. This stimulating of modern design as part of modern living is apparent in a number of specific design shows: Useful Objects in the thirties and forties, and their successors, the Good Design shows of the fifties. In these exhibitions modern design was promoted and positioned as attainable art for everyone. To emphasize this aspect, the price limit of the objects was often included, such as Useful Household Objects under $5.00 or Useful Objects of American Design under $10.152 The presentation in the Museum mimicked that of either a department store or - in the case of some of the Good Design shows - household interiors. Both display methods highlighted that modern design was part of good and fashionable modern living and stimulated the public to incorporate modern art in their lives.153
MoMA’s exemplary exhibition of Modern Art as part of Modern Life
A prime example of an exhibition that defined and defended modern art as part of modern life and living was the 20th anniversary exhibition Modern Art in Your Life in 1949. This exhibition together with the exhibition Timeless Aspects of Modern Art (which is discussed further on in this Chapter) had been chosen as special anniversary exhibitions. As stated in the ‘19th Annual Report of The Museum of Modern Art’ (1948), which was published in The Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art prior to the anniversary, the Museum’s aims were now on explaining modern art to an ever growing public because art, like knowledge, as was argued, had become increasingly complex. “It is not surprising”, said the Museum, that “many people are disappointed and resentful because they find modern art ‘difficult’.”154 It was the Museum’s job to “attempt further clarification in terms understandable to the widest ring of the concentric circles op public opinion it helped to create”. So, the two anniversary exhibitions of 1949 were intended to help explain modern art to a larger public and take away
151 This type of participation can perhaps be seen in the light of stimulating the public to undergo the ‘experience’ as the ‘front door of understanding’ as we shall see that the public was asked to do by Barr in the early modern painting and sculpture shows. 152 It is noteworthy that later a distinction was made between cheap attainable objects of design and more expense objects of “fine design”: in 1948 there was an exhibition 100 Useful Objects of Fine Design (available for under $100). 153 In 1945 an exhibition on modern clothing, Are Clothes Modern? was installed in the Museum before becoming a nationwide circulating show. In this exhibition the Museum attempted to clarify the role of modern dress in modern life and to stimulate dress reform to fit the modern woman and man. As in the Design shows, modern dress was presented as being “overburdened by the past”. In the Are Clothes Modern? show, the art aspect of clothes is defended and ‘the fundamental principles which should govern clothing in a democratic age and nation’ are clarified. 154 “The 19th Annual Report of The Museum of Modern Art”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 25, no. 4 (1948): p. 11.
144 the prejudices that modern art was difficult and that the modern artist lived in an “ivory tower”, his work lacking “social and human content”.155 The goal of the show was to familiarize the public with modern art in a way that they would recognize it as a part of their everyday life and therefore become less hostile towards it. The exhibition was directed by René d’Harnoncourt, who was Director of the Museum at that time in collaboration with the academic art historian Robert Goldwater.156 The argumentation of the show was based on formal affinities. As announced on the first page of the catalog, the exhibition Modern Art in Your Life was “designed to show that the appearance and shape of countless objects of our everyday environment are related to, or derived from, modern painting and sculpture, and that modern art is an intrinsic part of modern living.”157 This concept was repeated many times throughout the catalog and exhibition in different words and images (exergasia). This rhetorical tool strengthened the definition and explanation of modern art as part of modern living. The front cover of the catalog, which was designed by the artist Paul Rand, humorously presented modern art as part of everyday living by exchanging attributes of art and eating in a placemat setting in which the plate is replaced by a palette, and the knife by a paintbrush. (fig. 67) The catalog text provided the necessary argumentation and evidence that applied modern art – in its many guises - was indeed already part of the public’s life and that therefore modern painting and sculpture should be accepted too. Each style represented in the exhibition was explained, illustrated and documented in the catalog. To prove that the modern artist did not live in an “ivory tower”, the link was made between the modern artist, architect and designer who had “similar needs provoking similar esthetic discoveries”.158 As was explained: “When the architect strips his walls of ornament, when the jacket designer makes up his page with a few rigorous lines against large immaculate areas, when the package designer limits his appeal to square-cut letters and a minimum of balanced rectangles, they all share Mondrian’s delight in a bold and subtle simplicity.”159 It was this example that was chosen to clarify the common aesthetic of objects of everyday use and objects of ‘pure’ art and familiarize the public with ‘difficult’ art: the vivid comparison of a box of Kleenex Tissues with a Mondrian was easily picked up by the
155 As expressed in a report in preparation of the 20th Anniversary of the Museum: Proposed Twentieth Anniversary Exhibitions, Museum of Modern Art (nd.) p. 4. R&P: box 2. MoMA Archives, NY. 156 Goldwater was Associate Professor of Art History at Queens College in New York and editor of the Magazine of Art at the time. 157 See Goldwater, Modern Art in Your Life, p. 5. 158 Ibid., pp. 5-6. 159 Ibid.
145 media.160 (fig. 68) Goldwater confronted the public with its own illogical position towards modern art: the critical, hostile reaction of the public when it concerned what he called “pure” modern art, whereas the public seemed receptive and friendly towards the more recognizable “applied” modern art. To back this argument, Goldwater used the comparison with more accepted and familiar art periods: “for the older periods of the world’s art we take this pervasive unity for granted. We assume a natural relation between the Greek vase and the Greek temple. We enjoy the similarities among the Gothic cathedral, sculpture, tapestry and chest. … Belonging to the same world, we expect them to have certain essential likenesses; the same spirit infuses them all, creations of the artist, artisan, or designer, and as we recognize it we call it the “style” of the time.”161 The design of the catalog and exhibition – in its educational approach - was built on comparison and contrast, which was described by Goldwater as an insightful approach: “By comparison and contrast we see with greater precision and enjoy with deeper understanding.”162 The comparison lay in the comparing of the different expressions of art within a certain style as ‘members of the same family’: comparing the likenesses of painting and sculpture - pure art - on the one hand, and all types of design and architecture – applied art - on the other. As stated in a press release prior to the opening of the exhibition: “The exhibition will show how the appearance of a popular magazine or of a box of cleaning tissue has direct antecedents in the most elusive abstract art.”163 The contrast was presented by confronting the different characteristics of the “five major styles” of modern art and their different applications.164 The installation of the exhibition stimulated the comparing and contrasting through a clearly drawn-up ground plan and the creation of different atmospheres which were at once familiar and exciting. The entrance of the exhibition was a dark low-ceilinged corridor through which the public entered the main central gallery. This gallery, in which the ‘high’ art branches –
160 This example was used in the Museum of Modern Art Press Release No. 490818 – 61:‘Preliminary Announcement – Museum to Celebrate its 20th Anniversary with Large Exhibition, “Modern Art in Your Life”, Opening in October. MoMA Library, NY. It was used in for example the reviews in New Yorker, in the article ‘Mondrian, Kleenex, and You’, October 15, 1949; and, T.B. Hess, ‘Of Arts and the Man’, Art News, October 1949. 161 Goldwater, Modern Art in Your Life, p. 5. 162 Ibid. 163 The Museum of Modern Art Press Release No. 490818 – 61:‘Preliminary Announcement – Museum to Celebrate its 20th Anniversary with Large Exhibition, “Modern Art in Your Life”, Opening in October. MoMA Library, NY. 164 Although it was announced that this exhibition did not cover “every style and every school of modern art”, through its choice of a closed circular presentation it did suggest that the chosen “five major styles” were indeed the five most important modern styles.
146 painting and sculpture – were displayed, was - opposed to the low and dark entrance corridor - high-ceilinged, spacious and well lit. (fig. 69, 70) The ground plan of the exhibition was built around this central gallery, the core of the exhibition, in which the ‘pure’ art of each of the five styles was presented: painting and sculpture of the sections of Geometric Abstraction, Geometric Stylization (which included a section on Cubism and Futurism as antecedents of this style), Organic Abstraction, Organic Stylization, and, Surrealism.(fig. 71) For each one of these styles, a section of this center gallery was reserved so that the paintings and sculptures of each group hung together. By walking around this gallery the contrast between the different styles was to become evident, showing the different faces of modern art. This contrast was enhanced by the choice of different colored walls for the five styles: a midnight blue for the Surrealism section, white for both the Geometric Abstraction, the Organic Abstraction and the Organic Stylization sections, and grey for the Geometric Stylization section. Each section led to its own auxiliary gallery of applied art of the same style. (fig. 72) The comparison of the difficult ‘pure’ art objects with the easily accepted ‘applied’ art objects – posters, furniture, architecture, window displays, advertisements, designed products - was to lead to recognition of the resemblances between the two and to familiarization with the “pure” modern art. A wall label explained the exhibition installation: “The objects displayed in each of these galleries are tied together by a common esthetic. … all testify that modern art has largely helped to shape the appearance of our cities, our streets, and the homes we live in.”165 (fig. 73) With this clever climax – both verbally and visually - modern art is escorted into the public’s lives, straight into their homes. The different sections had their own atmosphere which was created by the installation design. The Geometric Stylization section started in the central gallery with works of ‘pure’ art of, for example, Leger, Le Corbusier and a sculpture by Gargallo. The paintings were hung on a grey wall, which referred to “machinery” in which “geometric order has its clearest physical embodiment”, as is explained in the catalog.166 The character of the ‘geometrically stylized’ art was also enhanced by the lighting, as in the case of the presentation of Gargallo’s Picador. (fig. 74) Here the spotlighting of the sculpture created sharp silhouettes against the wall, the sight of which now showed a resemblance to the paintings on the back wall in which, as is explained in the catalog, “lighting is dramatic, with sharp contrast
165 Wall label text which hung in the central gallery of the exhibition. See photograph and text in CUR, Exh. #423. MoMA Archives, NY. 166 Goldwater , Modern Art in Your Life, p. 22.
147 sometimes going as far as silhouettes … ”.167 In this way the spotlighting was used to create similarities. The wall of the connected gallery of ‘applied’ art was lined with tile-like paper so as to mimic the familiar subway atmosphere in which the selected posters seemed in place.168 The Surrealist section of the main gallery where the paintings hung on a dark blue wall led to its supplementary gallery of applied art which had dark (black) walls and ceiling and in which the objects were dramatically lit with spotlights. This gallery included full-scale recreated window displays which had been inspired by Surrealist art and even in one case the displayed garments on sale were actually designed by the famous Surrealist artist Dali.169 (fig. 75) The original window displays had been designed for fashionable New York department stores such as Lord and Taylor and Sachs Fifth Avenue a few years before. 170 By presenting these elegant window displays the Museum made Surrealism not only familiar, but also classy and desirable and therefore attractive for a public who admired the rich and famous. Two other sections also made use of re-creations of store windows to familiarize the public with and attract it to modern art. The Abstract Organic form section had a shoe store window on display which used abstract organic shaped background designs for its shoes, and in the Organically Stylized Form a Bonwit Teller show window was reproduced as evidence of the participation of this style in living. In the Geometric Stylized form gallery, in which the applied arts were modern shown, no show windows were duplicated, but there were actual store mannequins included to show affinities to the form of Geometric Stylized sculpture, such as Archipenko’s Woman Combing Her Hair. These examples all show the use of the department store as a link between modern art and successful modern living. This theatrical delivery strengthened the message. The effect of the Modern Art in Your Life in defining and defending modern art was prolonged after the exhibition: a second edition of the catalog was published four years later. This edition brought the exhibition itself back to life by including D’Harnoncourt’s schematic ground plan of the exhibition and installation photographs of different sections showing the affinities between the painting and sculpture on the one hand and the applied arts on the other.
167 Ibid. 168 The atmosphere in the Abstract Organic applied Arts gallery, for example, was colored light blue so as to suggest space. 169 Mention is made – by both Mordechai and Staniszewski - of six full-scale re-creations of New York City department store window displays in this Surrealist section, but in the catalog of the exhibition only four window displays (which were included in the exhibition) are listed. There were two other show window displays in the exhibition, but they were in other sections: one in the Organically Stylized Form section and the other in the Abstract Organic Form section. Compare: Mordechai, p. 4. RdH, II (Installations). MoMA Archives, NY. ; Staniszewski, The Power of Display, p. 134; and, Goldwater, Modern Art in Your Life, pp. 44-48. 170 See for further details: Mordechai, p. 4. RdH, II (Installations). MoMA Archives, NY.; Staniszewski, The Power of Display, pp. 134-136.
148 These photographs were included so as to prove the validity of the Museum’s comparisons since, as the text in the renewed edition warned: “The resemblance between two individual works of art is often superficial and irrelevant and should always be checked by comparison of entire groups.”171 There was another important addition to the second edition of Modern Art in Your Life. This addition concerned the rectification of an omission which Barr, who had not directed this exhibition, had discovered after the appearance of the first edition. In the first edition the Museum had omitted the Museum’s own name under the reproductions of the various art objects. This mistake was rectified in the second edition. On discovering the mistake, Barr had sent an internal memo in which he described his disappointment and frustration. This memo – with the telltale title “Et tu MOMA” – is revealing in a number of ways.172 As Barr explained: “For years now we have been trying to persuade or threaten magazines so that they would give the museum credit under reproductions of works of art in the museum collection … The omission of the museum’s name under the cuts in Modern Art in Your Life was especially frustrating in view of the fact that so many objects were acquired for the collection against the better judgment of some of our friends who felt that they were inferior esthetically and primarily of historic interest. The publication might have been as effective as the exhibition in increasing the value of these previously underestimated works.”173 Besides the importance the Museum put on the appearance of the Museum’s name in the media, this memo also reveals the fact that the exhibition and the catalog were not only to familiarize the general public with the difficult “pure” modern art, but also to boost the value of the many works of art “pure and applied”, which had not been readily accepted by the Museum’s own “friends”, meaning its influential trustees, patrons and donors, who like the general public, constantly needed to be convinced of the value of modern art.
The Stedelijk Museum’s Positioning of Modern Art as Part of Modern Life and Living
In the Stedelijk Museum the applied arts (toegepaste kunsten) had always been part of its program.174 Due to the collections stored in the Stedelijk such as those of the Sophia Augusta Foundation, the decorative arts had been on display since the opening years of the Museum
171 Goldwater (in collaboration with René d’Harnoncourt), Modern Art in Your Life, 1953 (2nd edition), p. 44. 172 See a Memo from Alfred Barr to d’Harnoncourt, Wheeler, Pernas, Porter, McCray, Burden and Ritchie, dated November 1, 1949. Re: Et tu MOMA. In CUR, Exh. #423 (file: Imports and Exports) MoMA Archives, NY. 173 Ibid. The mistake was rectified and it was agreed that a correction slip be inserted into the catalog. 174 For a good introduction to the development of the Applied Arts Department in the Stedelijk Museum see Van Adrichem and Delfini, “Furniture in the Stedelijk Museum”, pp. 25-88.
149 although not as examples of modern art. Through the art and artist associations such as St Lucas and Architectura et Amicitia, which were allowed to regularly organize exhibitions in the Stedelijk, the applied arts were to be slowly introduced to the public as part of modern art.175 Already in the first decennia of the 20th century exhibitions were held on good modern living, which prescribed what were to be considered ‘good’ and ‘bad’ interiors, and what ‘good’ and ‘bad’ taste was. 176 These exhibitions were organized by the politically left, social- democratic association Art to the People (Kunst aan het Volk). For example, The Exhibition of Taste Deception (Tentoonstelling van Smaakmisleiding) in 1910-1911 was organized to show what was described as the “many crimes that are committed against the construction of the objects for daily use”.177 These ‘crimes’ had to do with the “mistakes in material, construction or decoration”.178 The exhibition, which in its display contrasted “taste deceptive objects with good ones” was not meant to be “nice” or “pretty”, but “educational” in the sense that it would lead to insight, which would then lead to a change in taste.179 A similar exhibition was held ten years later, in 1921 now as a major project of the Amsterdam Cooperative Housing Association with on its exhibition committee influential members of other Amsterdam associations (including Art to the People), the Amsterdam City Council and the Stedelijk Museum. This exhibition Amsterdamsche Tentoonstelling van Woninginrichting (Amsterdam Exhibition for Home Interiors), also focused on educating the public – from a social democratic ideology - so as to stimulate the production of “good” design for affordable prices for the middle class and especially the working class: by showing examples of good design , the exhibition demonstrated that – “if one looks in the right places – one could make his house cozy with objects of art and applied art in good color and form for little money.”180 This crucial Dutch concept of ‘gezelligheid’ (coziness) was repeated three
175 For example, the artists’ association St Lucas, which was founded in 1880, organized sales exhibitions of their members’ work. 176 In 1905, for example, an exhibition was held Oude en nieuwe meubelen followed by an exhibition organized by Kunst aan het Volk on the Commissie voor Architektuur en nijverheidskunst. In 1913 an exhibition of Moderne fransche ceramiek was held and in 1920 the first of a number of exhibitions on Weensche kunstnijverheid was shown. 177 The Dutch text says: “Zij (de Vereeniging Kunst aan het Volk) bedoelt hiermede te wijzen op de vele “misdaden”die er worden begaan tegen de samenstelling van de voorwerpen voor dagelijksch gebruik (…). See Korte Uiteenzetting van het Doel der Tentoonstelling van Smaakmisleiding’, Vereeniging Kunst aan het Volk, published for the exhibition in the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam. p, 14. 178 Ibid., p. 4. 179 Ibid., p. 14. According to the text of the brochure, the manufacturer and the shopkeeper speculated on the public’s ignorance in its desire for cheap semblance and bad taste. The public would be able to change the manufacturing of the objects by demanding good examples so that the manufacturers would have to make them and the stores would have to sell them. 180 Hulshoff, “Wat met de tentoonstelling voor Woning-inrichting wordt beoogd.”, p. 17. The Dutch text reads: “het is zeer zeker thans niet meer moeilijk – indien men slechts op de juiste plaatsen zoeke – zijne woning voor
150 times in the short text which would contradict any prejudice that modern design was ‘sterile’, cold and only for an elite. The message in these early exhibitions was a functional one and not focused on the modern aesthetic qualities of the applied art objects. The paternalistic approach and tone of these exhibitions was not always welcomed and seemed to broaden the gap between the elite manufacturers and exhibition committee instead of bridging it. In the twenties and thirties the number of exhibitions either focusing on or including the decorative arts increased. Applied Art, sometimes combined with different branches of art from separate countries were combined and were shown in ‘national’ exhibitions.181 These exhibitions, just like their fine art counterparts during the same period, emphasized the national qualities instead of the international modern characteristics. A number of Applied Art associations were to be influential for the promotion of modern applied art in the Stedelijk: The BKI, the Netherlands Association for Art in Industry (de Nederlandse Bond voor Kunst in Industrie) which operated between 1924 and 1950, and especially, the VANK (de Nederlandse Vereeniging van Ambachts- en Nijverheidskunst), the Netherlands Association for the Crafts and Industrial Arts, which existed between 1904 -1941 and was succeeded by the GKf (Gebonden Kunsten federatie), the Applied Arts Federation. Sandberg was prominent in both the VANK and the GKf. The involvement of these associations brought both the commercial and the artistic innovative impulses to the Stedelijk. From 1932 on, the VANK was allowed to organize exhibitions on modern industrial art and design in a few rooms of the Stedelijk for a number of months per year. A committee, including the director Baard and Sandberg who as a graphic designer was a member of the VANK, was installed to program these exhibitions, which were to stimulate the production of good modern design and encourage the acceptance of Modern Applied Art as part of modern living. They organized a variety of shows on applied art for modern living.182 Especially in De stoel gedurende de laatste 40 jaar, and in Wonen: machinaal vervaardigde
betrekkelijk weinig geld gezellig te maken met voorwerpen van kunst of gebruikskunst, goed van kleur en vorm.” 181 As for example: Oostenrijkse schilderijen en kunstnijverheid 1900-1927 (Austrian Painting and Decorative Art 1900-1927) in 1927, Moderne italiaanse kunstnijverheid; glas, aardewerk, kant (Modern Italian Decorative Art; Glassware, Earthenware, Lace), and, Finse kunst, kunstnijverheid en bouwkunst (Finnish Art, Decorative Art and Architecture) in 1931, and, Hongaarse kunstnijverheid, volkskunst en huisindustrie (Hungarian Decorative Art, Folk Art and Domestic Industry) and Deensche kunstnijverheid (Danish Decorative art) in 1937. 182 Moderne kunstnijverheid (Modern Decorative Art) in 1932, Tentoonstelling van toegepaste kunst (Exhibition of Applied Art) and Goede en goedkope gebruikskunst (Good and Cheap Household Art) - for which Sandberg designed the poster (‘binnenhuiskunst’) - in 1933, De stoel gedurende de laatste 40 jaar (The Chair in the Last Forty Years) in 1934, Moderne toegepaste religieuze kunst (Modern Applied Religious Art) in 1935 and Wonen: machinaal vervaardigde gebruiksvoorwerpen (Living: Machine-produced Useful Objects) a year later. For a list of exhibitions by VANK, see Eijkhout and Simon Thomas, “1895-1935 Het museum als galerie en als volksopvoeder”, p. 13.
151 gebruiksvoorwerpen, a descriptive definition - using likeness/difference and negatives - of modern was presented: the correct modern quality of the objects was explained as ‘functional’, as honest and honorable, as opposed to the wrong quality called ‘modern’ which was either superficial and dishonest or decadent and snobbish.183 The public was shown the right examples and was discouraged to fall for the wrong ones. In an article in the VANK related magazine, Prisma der Kunsten, which accompanied the ‘Living’ exhibition, the goal of the exhibition was explicitly stated (including a moral appeal to the public): to stimulate the manufacturers to produce ‘quality’ and ‘good design’ and not to be misled by the notion that the public only cared about money; and, to call on the public to not only look at the price of the objects but to feel the responsibility to buy ‘good design’ since “it would be shameful for the culture of a nation if the potential to produce excellent things would be lost.”184 After this warning, it was spelled out to the public what good modern form principles in household objects were: “these useful objects have a design, which is based on use; all eccentricities should be avoided, the basic forms are simple and pure.”185 And to entice them to make this modern design part of their life, the new design was related to a new honorable way of life: the “pragmatic taste” was linked to “new philosophies of life” and to “a new attitude towards life”, which was described in such moral and admirable terms as “honest, free and powerful”.186 These early examples of modern design exhibitions presented ‘modern’ as functional, as a quality which fit the modern life of people of all classes.
Dutch Modern Interior Design During the War
What was planned to be a large exhibition on innovative modern architecture and interior design, became a historical exposition of the development of the Dutch interior, due to the outbreak of the War.187 In this 1941 exhibition with the quaint title ‘In Holland staat een huis’ (‘In Holland there’s a house’) – relating to the overly familiar Dutch children’s song – defining statements were made, however, on modern art as part of modern living attainable for all. As stated in the richly illustrated catalog (a photographic tour is included of the rooms
183 See Bromberg, “V.A.N.K.-tentoonstelling: “wonen”, pp. 29-42; Stam, “De stoel gedurende de laatste veertig jaar”, p. 7 . 184 Bromberg, “V.A.N.K.-tentoonstelling: “wonen”, p. 32. 185 Ibid., p. 42. 186 Ibid. 187 The 1939 idea consisted of an exhibition in which contemporary (mostly functionalist) architects were asked to design an interior. The exhibition was to show what good housing and interior were and why. The exhibition was to be titled: Our Interior, what to do and what not’. See Eijkhout and Simon Thomas, “1895-1935 Het museum als galerie en als volksopvoeder”, p. 13.
152 installed for this exhibition), the art, architecture and design of a certain period will not only tell about the individual who owns it, but also – following the concept of ‘Zeitgeist’ - about the world at that point in time. In the analysis of this exhibition it is important to keep in mind that Holland was an occupied country during the War. The catalog and the exhibition adhere in a clever way to the feelings and desires of an occupied country to hold on to the own national identity and provide hope for the future, which was to be found in the ‘honest’ and functional modern way of life. The Dutch identity is not only emphasized by the title of the exhibition, the colors of the catalog cover (red, white and pale blue) – designed by Sandberg - refer to the Dutch flag. The different size and character of the lettering of the words of the title, which fills the cover, stress the domestic emphasis of ‘in huis’ (at home). (fig. 76) The introduction of the catalog begins with the comforting characterization of the Dutch mentality and the Dutch concept of the home as “our safe and reliable little niche” in which one rightly desires “coziness and intimacy of his interior design”.188 The text starts with a direct statement, presented as a fact in which the public could identify itself and is therefore immediately drawn in: “We Dutch are home-loving people. That’s just what our character and also our changeable climate, which has greatly formed and still dictates our character, happen to bring about.”189 In a series of rhetorical questions the desire and quest of the ‘responsible’ Dutch families to provide for a safe and productive domestic climate is cleverly implied. This ‘domestic climate’ was of course to be found in the modern rooms presented in the exhibition. The modern rooms were described to fit the modern way of life: hygienic, light and airy in their openness to the outdoors, with functional lightweight furniture of simple undecorated design. The message was: contemporary life asked for new modern developments which provide for a new sense of beauty. The public was appealed to directly experience (energeia) the atmosphere of all the historic periods which had been installed “from the Empire to the ultra-modern”: “Position yourself on the sofa or armchair, which has been installed for your use in order to ensure an easy survey of the whole interior. Try to envision yourself in that milieu, and become part of it, to then decide for oneself , in which of each of these domestic interiors you feel most at
188 In Dutch: “ons veilig en vertrouwd plekje” and “de gezelligheid en de intimiteit van zijn interieur”. See ‘Ter Inleiding’, p. 4 in catalog In Holland staat een huis. 189 Ibid. The Dutch text reads: “Wij Hollanders zijn huiselijke menschen. Dat brengt nu eenmaal onze aard mee en ook wel ons wispelturige klimaat, waardoor onze aard toch grootendeels gevormd is en beheerscht wordt.”
153 home”.190 Of course, as the catalog explained, each time period had its own atmosphere and beauty. For example, the “somewhat pompous” atmosphere of the Makart-room (1890) was also described as “an atmosphere of picturesque coziness”. The strong condemnation of this type of interior was to follow a little more than a decade later.191 Meanwhile, the public was to accept it as the aesthetic of a historical period As if to stimulate the public’s choice for the modern rooms, a vivid description – which is, however, strikingly patronizing - was provided of the life of a modern woman who needs modern attire and a modern interior to cope: “Because with a crinoline, Madame, you would not be able to hurry through your home when the telephone beckons you, or when running around doing household chores – now that we have to do with so much less household help. And perhaps you have to be off to the tennis courts on the bicycle, or off to town in a two-seater to do your shopping. Like your dress, your interior design has also adapted to the new living conditions.”192 And, as if to capture the reader completely, the prescribed conclusion is drawn on the value of modern design: “And when you will have returned from your daydreams to the present reality, you will for sure come to realize … that the modern interior also possesses a charm from which you will not want to detach yourself. The charm of the Dutch house in our own time.”193 The three modern rooms, installed as in a climax at the end of the exhibition, show a bedroom, living- and dining room, and a collector’s room in 1940. Sandberg was responsible for having A. Bodon, a contemporary architect, design these modern rooms. They were to demonstrate the advantages of modern art, design and architecture in modern living and their rightful place in contemporary life. As true examples of energeia the rooms were brought to life by adding, for example, wall decorations, books, magazines, plants; like decors one could step right into. The rooms actually had real life settings, some of them with window fronts and terraces in front of them, complete with deckchairs. Not only were these rooms life-like,
190 Ibid. p. 6. In Dutch: “Zet U neer op de sofa of de fauteuil, die voor U is bestemd om U een gemakkelijk overzicht te verzekeren van het gansche interieur. Tracht U in te leven in dat milieu, er één mee te worden, en maak dan voor Uzelf uit, in welke van elk dier woninginrichtingen gij U het beste thuis voelt.” 191 The same type of chair and the vase with satin flowers as in the ‘dream room’ in Sandberg’s exhibition wonen & wonen, discussed below. Makart’s interiors were used as examples of ‘horror’, which modern interior design had to fight, in Kaufmann, What is Modern Interior Design?, discussed in Chapter 2. 192 Ibid., p. 6. The Dutch text reads: “Want met een crinoline zoudt U, mevrouw, niet zoo driftig door het huis kunnen loopen als de telefoon U haastig roept, of de huiselijke bezigheden – nu wij het met zooveel minder hulp moeten stellen – Uw aanwezigheid dan hier, dan daar vereischen. En misschien moet U aanstonds op de fiets naar de tennisbaan, of in de two-seater naar de stad om te winkelen. Evenals Uw toilet heeft ook de aankleeding van Uw huis zich aan de nieuwe levensomstandigheden aangepast.” 193 Ibid. In Dutch: “En als U uit Uw mijmeringen weer tot de realiteit van het heden zult zijn teruggekeerd, komt U stellig tot het besef … dat ook het moderne interieur van een bekoring is, waarvan U zich niet los zult willen maken. De bekoring van het Hollandsche huis in onzen eigen tijd”.
154 they were to be seen as prescriptive guidelines, as examples for the public to follow. (fig. 77, 78) The very last room was a reconstruction of a collector’s attic room, which was to function as an ideal setting for modern art. (fig. 79) Through the high ceiling and reconstructed tall windows, a painted blue sky was installed to emphasize the importance of light and air in the modern interior. This clear blue climax of the exhibition also seems to point to what Jaffé called the “purification” of the function of modern painting For, not only the ideal interior design and architecture was displayed, but also the ‘modern’ approach to the position of works of art in a private settings. The room consisted of a sparse modern interior with chairs designed by Rietveld, a bookcase full of books on art and a modern system of sliding racks on which the collector’s paintings were hung. It was to be made clear that only one painting was hung at a time, so that the collector was able to “concentrate” on this single work. The racks, with the other paintings could be pulled out at any time to “show the art treasures to his guests”.194 This new type of display was to demonstrate the important change in the function of modern art. This concept was explained by Jaffé in an article which was published during the exhibition, in which he defended the development of modern art .195 The modern work of art was not to be seen as “decoration” but as “a spiritual useful object”: the work of art changed from being “external possession to intrinsic property, now that it has been freed from its duty to decorate a room”, as voiced by Jaffé.196 By personifying the painting, Jaffé creates a more dramatic effect: “By this spiritual hygiene, however, the “use” of a painting can be much more intense. Freed from its duty to decorate a room, and purified of the fatal denotation of being a symbol of wealth and property, the painting can now demand the attention and concentration which it deserves.”197 As Jaffé defended the position of modern art, this new free position of art – as spiritual appliance – would have its effect on the positive development of painting. Although the metaphoric presentation of ‘freeing and purifying art’ may have worked effectively during this period of occupation, the philosophical approach towards painting seemed to isolate modern art from the public’s modern everyday living instead of to integrate it.
194 Jaffé, “De Verzamelaar van 1940”, pp. 110-111. In Dutch : “Om de aandacht beter te concentreren, wordt er telkens één schilderij opgehangen, de overige zijn geborgen in uitschuifbare rekken, die hij om beurten kan uithalen om zijn kunstschatten aan de gasten te toonen”. 195 Ibid. 196 Ibid., p. 111. In Dutch: “Het wordt van uiterlijk bezit tot innerlijk eigendom, nu het van zijn plicht tot het sieren van een vertrek is bevrijd.” 197 Ibid., p. 110.
155 Despite the popular appeal in the introduction of the catalog ‘in Holland staat een huis’ and the inviting and involving lively installation of the exhibition, this show remained an elite affair, as remarked by the commentary in the media.198 This became clear at the climax of the exhibition in the ideal modern interiors. Even though the catalog text describing the modern collector’s room began with the bold statement that: “No great riches are needed to collect contemporary art”, the elitist atmosphere was prevalent. The modern collector’s room displaying its full bookcases, designer furniture and even a grand piano (!), were not in reach for the general public. This elitist approach to the position of modern art in modern living undermined the message that modern art was part of modern living for all classes.
An Exemplary Exhibition of Modern Art in Modern Life in the Stedelijk
Perhaps the Stedelijk’s best example of defining and defending modern art as part of modern living was Sandberg’s exhibition ‘wonen en wonen’(Living and Living) in the summer of 1954. This exhibition, which was mentioned in the previous chapter as an example of the Stedelijk’s ethos-building - was organized together with the Foundation Good Living and the Amsterdam Vacation-committee. Set up as a rhetorical question, the Stedelijk asked the public “How do you want to live?”. The exhibition was to present the different choices and the public was to choose its favorite by way of filling in a questionnaire. The pretence was made that the comparison between the different choices was “possible and honest” because the costs of the strikingly different interiors had been practically equal .199 Furthermore, the Museum claimed not to be out to steer the public’s choice. However, the different interiors were installed in such a way that the choice had already been made by the Museum itself: the choice for the modern interior was obvious. The exhibition design by the architect Mart Stam was set in an antithesis of good versus bad: modern versus old fashioned or - as commented on in the press - the “good-for-
198 For example, the commentary in Het Volk ( d.d. August 27, 1941) was: “Zoals de lezer weet wordt ons de moderne tijd (in het Stedelijk Museum) geleverd door de firma Metz & Co, door Liberty uit de Leidsestraat. Wie niet bij Metz koopt is geen Modern Mens. … Wie minder dan de paar duizend gulden, die Metz per kamer vraagt, voor zijn woonvertrek uitlegt, wordt niet tentoongesteld en met zijn woninginrichting wordt in het Stedelijk Museum geen rekening gehouden. Deze ‘welstandsgrens’ is een van onze zwaarste bedenkingen tegen deze hele expositie.” (As the reader knows the modern era (in the Stedelijk Museum) is brought to us by the Metz & Co firm, by Liberty in the Leidssestraat. One who does not buy at Metz is not a Modern Person. … The one, who spends less than the few thousand guilders, which Metz asks per room, on his living room, is not exhibited and the Stedelijk Museum does not take his interior design into consideration. This ‘income limit’ is one of our severest objections to this whole exhibition.) Quoted from: 80 jaar wonen in het Stedelijk, p. 16. 199 As Jaffé explained in an article in Goed Wonen (Good Living): “Om de vergelijking mogelijk en eerlijk te maken en de bezoeker inderdaad voor een eerlijk keuze te kunnen stellen, is ernaar gestreefd de kosten der zo uiteenlopende inrichtingen om en bij gelijk te houden.” See Jaffé, “wonen en wonen”, p. 109.
156 you rooms” against the “shame-on-you rooms”.200 Stam designed eight rooms which were to be judged. First two living rooms and two bedrooms were contrasted: a traditional ‘old finish’ living room versus one with modern ‘lightwood’ and a conventional type versus an up-to-date type bedroom. These rooms were followed by a ‘dream room’ in which a large surreal installation made by B. Wissing displayed all sorts of objects, pictures and commentary, displayed in a topsy-turvy way. (fig. 80, 81) This playful intermezzo in the exhibition underlined just how old-fashioned and stuffy the traditional interiors were to be considered and how exciting, worldly and up-to-date the modern style was: the atmosphere of an old fashioned, decorative armchair combined with a bunch of dry flowers (satin flowers) and a 19th century woman’s gown was counteracted by the sphere of high tech modern life displayed by a trendy scooter, a large shiny propeller, a photograph of a rocket ship and an ultra-modern design chair. The reference to Jules Verne – a huge photograph portrait hung in the installation – transferred the public from the olden days when one used to only dream of modern inventions to the present, in which these fantasies have come true. (fig. 82) The wall label stated: “with satin flowers and red plush Jules Verne’s fantasies became reality”.201 The added commentary’s message – disguised in a rhetorical question - was clear: “Are we going to hang curtains in front of life and dream of satin flowers?” This ‘dream room’ presented a playful, yet mystifying message. It created a mood, but did not clarify. The ‘dream room’ was followed by four living rooms designed in different styles, exuding different atmospheres with their different styles of furniture : ‘old finish’, ‘gothic’, ‘lightwood’ and ‘steel’. This last room with the steel furniture was the most ‘modern’ and was connected directly to the newest modern fine art: a painting by Appel which hung on the wall characterized the atmosphere of the room, which was colorful, experimental, playful and daring.(fig. 83) The contrast between the ‘good’ rooms and the ‘bad’ rooms was enhanced by the emphasis on light, space and color in the modern interiors, whereas the old fashioned rooms were dark, cluttered and drab. The alarming commentary accompanying the exhibit added to this grim image of the old fashioned style – the public was warned: “In the overfull house, the house which is not roomy enough, not light enough and not airy enough, that is where the housewife is exhausted and where little children are fussy.”202
200 In the article “Foei’ – ‘Goed zo’ – en ‘sfeerkamers’ in het Stedelijk”, by Gerda Brautigam in Het Vrije Volk (dd. July 6, 1954), the comparison was made between the ‘Foei-kamers’ and the ‘Goed-zo-kamers’. 201 Salomonson, “Wonen in het museum”, p. 121. In Dutch: “Bij judaspenningen en rood pluche werden Jules Verne’s fantasieën werkelijkheid”. 202 According to an article in Maasbode (d.d. July 17, 1954). See 80 jaar wonen in het Stedelijk, p. 20. The text says: “In de overbelaste woning, De woning die niet ruim genoeg is, Niet licht genoeg en niet fris genoeg, Daar is de huisvrouw oververmoeid en zijn kleine kinderen humeurig.”
157 To enliven and typify the rooms for the public, different objects were added: paintings on the walls, lamps hanging from the ceilings and walls, books in the bookcases, magazines and newspapers on the tables, food and dishes on the tables or in the cupboards. For example, the ‘steel’ room had one painting by Appel spaciously hung on a colored wall, the ‘gothic’ room was filled with four traditional 19th century land- and seascapes hung on flower patterned wallpaper. The ‘lightwood’ room presented a box of Cornflakes as exemplary for that modern living. The ‘steel’ room’s ‘simple’, ‘honest’ meal of a bottle of milk and a loaf of bread seems to point to the simplicity and honesty the Stedelijk promoted as good design. All rooms had plants, but each room had a different type to fit the desired image of the room: the ‘gothic’ room had old-fashioned clivia, the ‘lightwood’ modern room had a kamerlinde (room linden), which – because it needs lots of light – highlighted this quality of the modern room. (fig. 84) The modern experimental room had a cactus demonstrating the room’s ‘different’, ‘worldly’ character. At the end of the exhibition the epilogue provided two statements. As if walking through a park, the public wandered through the last room of the exhibition, which was hung with texts concerning the improvement of housing, of what works and what doesn’t. After leaving the exhibition the public is guided through a somewhat chronological survey of the development of ‘good design’, so as not only to steer the right decision for the questionnaire, but to provide insight into the development of this ‘right’ modern art. Despite the professed objectivity, announced in Jaffé’s article on the exhibition – and also presupposed in the title equalizing ‘living and living’ - the Stedelijk Museum indeed defined and defended modern art as part of modern living. As Jaffé admitted further on in the same article: “Here lies the Museum’s task: it can direct good design towards the larger public for which it is, after all, meant. The Museum can open the public’s eyes for a new and honest beauty, which is the beauty of our own time and its means of production.”203 That the Stedelijk wanted to reach as many people as possible, so as to defend the position of modern art in modern living, was demonstrated by the spectacular opening up of the Museum to the outside world. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Sandberg had a high boardwalk built around the Museum so that anybody who walked by could look into the exhibition and therefore contribute to it. (fig. 85, 86) As defended in a letter to the alderman of Amsterdam, in this way the public could participate – by viewing and voting - even in the
203Jaffé, “wonen en wonen”, p. 110. The Dutch text says: “Hier ligt de taak van het museum: het kan het goede gebruiksvoorwerp de weg wijzen naar het grote publiek, waarvoor het immers bedoeld is. Het museum kan dat publiek de ogen openen voor een nieuwe en eerlijke schoonheid, die de schoonheid van onze eigen tijd en zijn productiemiddelen is.”
158 evening when the building was closed.204 This spectacle – it indeed was an eye-catcher from afar – was a clever visual appeal to the public to participate. To further entice the public to partake in the referendum, prizes were allotted by Goed Wonen. 7000 questionnaires were filled in and – perhaps as proof of the Stedelijk’s persuasive presentation – 95% voted for the ‘modern’ interiors of which two-thirds preferred the ‘lightwood’. In the December issue of Goed Wonen, the outcome of the referendum and the names of the prize-winners were reported. The prizes that were given to the winners for the ‘original’ reasoning of their choice went to individuals who - needless to say - voted for two or three of the modern rooms. Mention was made of the choices of visitors of different nationalities and it is noteworthy that the choice of the Americans, who were said to have chosen unanimously for the most modern room, the ‘steel room’, is presented as a choice of a people for whom the preference for modern art was self-evident. The admiration for Americans as world leaders was great during the fifties and perhaps their taste was hoped to be seen as leading too. Alongside the boardwalk – on the sidewalk of the street, Sandberg installed another ‘good modern art’ exhibition. During the summer months the exhibition Het goede affiche (The good poster) was installed on flagpoles, each with a flag from a different country. This presentation of international good poster design did not have the didactic impact of the good versus bad exhibitions, but did triumphantly define modern art as part of modern living, as part of modern street life, by bringing it out of the museum building and into the street. (fig. 87)
Modern Art of All Times, Ages and Cultures: The ‘Modern’ Quality
Besides the theme ‘Modern Art as Part of Modern Living’, a second theme was used by both Museums to define and defend modern art. This theme, which also strengthened the position and character of modern art, was the issue that modern art was not only a new phenomenon but that the ‘modern’ character of art could be found elsewhere in different ages and cultures. Through comparison the relationship between the various expressions of art could be argued. In this way modern art was presented as not being an isolated occurrence but as a rooted phenomenon with timeless qualities.
204 Letter from Sandberg to the Alderman of Culture of the City Council of Amsterdam, s.m. 1469, dd. May 26, 1954. SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
159 The incorporation of ‘older’ and ‘other’ art in the realm of western modern art was already accepted in both Museums in the thirties, but in different ways. In the Stedelijk Museum there were many different exhibitions on art from different cultures and eras very early on, they were, however, not organized to explain their relations to modern art, but were exhibitions in their own right. The Museum of Modern Art initiated a number of exhibitions and connected them specifically to modern art by presenting the ‘primitive’ art and art from all periods as sources of modern art by focusing on the universal and eternal forms in nature and art. Later in the forties and fifties, both Museums were demonstrating the relationships between modern art and art from past centuries and from other cultures by displaying analogies and affinities, and by revealing the one as source for the other. Besides the presentation of art from past eras and cultures as proof of the ‘modern’ quality in art throughout history, children’s art was presented as a branch of art which possessed a great freedom of expression: a quality much desired by many modern artists. After the War, both Museums voiced their ideas of this aspect of modern art in exhibitions and publications. As we shall see, the idea of a ‘timeless’ modern art shall flourish in the late forties for the Museum of Modern Art and the mid-fifties for the Stedelijk Museum.205 An explanation can perhaps be sought in the growing internationalization after the war. The geographic range of interest broadened and the interest in the ‘other’ was growing due to the growth of international trade, travel and organizations. The disasters of war had paved the way towards internationalization and stimulated the interest in the positive innocence of the youth. The welcoming of Children’s art into the museums as resembling
205In 1939 the Institute of Modern Art in Boston - of which , among others, Alfred Barr, Jere Abbott, Paul Sachs were trustees – organized an exhibition The Sources of Modern Painting, in which the influence of Primitive art on modern painting was presented. This display of the timeless concept is also apparent in publications and exhibitions in other museums and countries. In 1948-1949 there was an exhibition in the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London of timeless aspects of modern art - 40,000 Years of Modern Art: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern - similar to the ones in New York and Amsterdam. Picasso’s Demoiselles d’Avignon was sent to London for the exhibition. This was one of the very rare occasions that the Demoiselles d’Avignon was allowed to leave the Museum of Modern Art. In the acknowledgments of the catalog Barr is thanked for his assistance and advice. Publications dealing with the timeless aspect of modern art were popular during this period. In for example, Goldscheider’s, Towards Modern Art or King Solomon’s Picture Book. Although this book was not written as ‘a defense of modern art’ –as the author explains in his Foreword -, the “ultimate result will be that one will say either: Now I am beginning to understand modern art; or else: Old art, I now see, is just as incomprehensible as modern art.” This book is based on comparison of - what one would describe as - ‘striking resemblances’, affinities instead of sources. It is interesting that Goldscheider in his Foreword – which is the only text in the book – provides a rather advanced insight into the character of modern art: “Modern art is no longer modern, it is academic; and like all manneristic schools – Late Gothic, the post- Michelangelo school, Rococo – it is an international style. Nowadays exhibitions of contemporary art, whether they are held in Paris, London, Berlin, Budapest or New York, all look very much the same. No young artist would have any chance of success if he defied the rigid laws of academic modernism.”
160 modern art of grown-ups is an outcome of this strong focus on ‘freedom of expression’, which, as was stressed, found in all cultures throughout history. The unsophisticated art of children, like folk art and ‘primitive’ art, expressed the desired quality, which modern artists were trying to recapture and the exhibiting of these straightforward art forms helped to ‘explain’ modern art to the public. The exhibitions of Children’s art, in which contemporary art made by children was presented as works of art, were interspersed by educational exhibitions in which the focus was the actual making: on stimulating ‘creativity’ as a necessary component of individual growth. The importance of ‘creative’ education for children and young adults was stressed in both Museums, in which new teaching methods, focusing on ‘individual creativity’, were practiced and stimulated. The character of modern art was now defined by likeness: now the emphasis was on comparison, finding resemblances instead of contrasts. In this way modern art’s modes of expression were defined and defended.
Children’s Art in the Museum of Modern Art
In the famous 1937 exhibition Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism, a section of ‘Comparative Material’ was installed. A number of children’s drawings and paintings were included. The introduction of children’s art in the Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism exhibition, together with art of the insane, was defended in the catalog as being “appropriate” comparative material because both children and “psychopaths” have a freedom of the creative imagination which the Surrealist artists try to achieve through conscious effort.206 After the Educational Project had been started in the Museum in 1937, a period commenced in which many separate children’s art exhibitions were to be held. Children’s paintings were included in the ‘Study Collection’ of the Museum, in survey exhibitions and from 1938 on separate exhibitions were held of children’s art. Much attention was given to the children’s section of the New Horizons in American Art show in 1936 from which a number of Children’s oil paintings and sculptures by children were acquired. 207
206 See catalog Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism, 1947 (1936, 2nd revised and enlarged edition 1937), p. 13. This introduction section in the 1947 catalog was originally published under the title A Brief Guide to the Exhibition of Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism in January, 1937. 207 See Editorial, “Publicity Department”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 5, no. 1 (January 1938) in the printed Annual Report to Members, p. 12. A newsreel section by Paramount was mentioned as having focused on the Children’s section in the exhibition.
161 In the tenth anniversary show, Art in Our Time (1939), children’s painting was presented at the end of the painting section and formed a counterpoint to the American Popular art which was displayed at the beginning of the section: “The exhibition of paintings which begins with folk art is concluded with a group of Paintings by Children between the ages of eight and twelve, whose best work needs no apology and is, of course, directly related to the problem of recovering that innocence of eye and imaginative freedom desired by so many artists of our period.”208 Here still children’s art was shown for its own quality and not (only) as the outcome of the educational activities of the Museum, which will be more frequently the case as the Museum increased her efforts to ‘develop creativity’ through the growing list of programs. The catalog of this anniversary show listed the children’s artworks in the same way as other works of art: the names and ages of the ‘artists’ were listed including the titles and ownership of the paintings. This seemed to promote them to ‘real’ modern works of art. Half of the works of art were from the Collection, the other half were lent by the WPA Federal Art Project. The section ‘Painting By Children’ in the catalog was introduced through five statements by artists and critics dating from 1877 through to 1938. These statements were to show the prejudice against modern art, which was bound to be felt by the public and to underline the “pictorial genius” of the children’s art.209 In the captions accompanying two of the three illustrations, the reader is invited to compare the child’s painting to a selected one by Matisse – apparently for the affinities of pictorial forms of both ‘geniuses’. (fig.88) There were different types of exhibitions of Children’s Art.210 From the early forties on Children’s Festival of Modern Art exhibitions were held yearly, just as variations of exhibitions presenting ‘Art Work by Children and Young People from the Classes of the Educational Project’, which also included separate exhibitions of paintings made by the
208 See catalog Art in Our Time, p. 14. 209The first three voice the putting down of artists like Cézanne and Matisse for their childish, ‘ignorant’ and inferior approaches, for example, quoting Whistler who commented on a painting by Cézanne: “If a child of ten had drawn that on his slate, his mother, if she were a good one, would have whipped him”. The final statement from Aldous Huxley in 1938, which seemed to represent the ‘right’ intelligent contemporary approach, applauded “the astonishing artistic talents” of children, and called “at least fifty per cent of the children … little geniuses in the field of pictorial art”. Ibid, catalog part not paginated, see pages of catalog numbers 226 through 238. 210 In cooperation with Dr. Lowenfeld from Hampton Institute, Hampton, Virginia, a number of unusual exhibitions were put on in the Young People’s Gallery. In 1940 an exhibition Visual and Non-visual Art Expression was shown which consisted of work of blind or partially blind children and, for comparison, work of those who have normal vision. The exhibition ‘proved of great interest’, according to the Bulletin . Young Negro Art was the title of another exhibition, which, in 1943, showed work of students of Lowenfeld at Hampton Institute (a title which would be unheard of now).
162 children of Museum members.211 In the 1940’s, separate exhibitions were held of art of children from different countries. In 1940 the exhibition Mexican Children’s Art coincided with the Twenty Centuries of Mexican Art show. This exhibition was followed by exhibitions of British, Soviet and Chinese Children’s art. These last three exhibitions concerned the topic of war and the children’s reaction to it. The artworks were praised for their expressive and formal qualities and discussed as works of art fitting in each country’s own tradition, which contrasted with the traditions of ‘other’ countries. 212 The shows, which were held in the Young People’s Gallery, were all installed with great care: the careful positioning and lighting ensured a mature installation. The Museum of Modern Art had initiated a separate gallery: the Young People’s Gallery, which could be used as studio, classroom, or gallery space. Many of the Educational Program exhibitions showing the results of the workshops in which children and young adults made their own works and/ or installed their own exhibitions were shown here, but also educational exhibitions following courses for parents and children, such as: Understanding Your Child Through Art: A Course for Parents (1949).213 Separate publications – as for example Art for the Family (1954) - were made as practical guides to stimulate making art at home.214 The focus of this publication was on developing creativity at home as a fun and accessible way to enlarge the quality of everyday life. But, it also acquainted the public to modern art: it brought the reader closer to the Museum’s modern masters by using examples of their work in between the reproductions of children’s and grown-ups works of art. (fig. 89) The public was also encouraged to make their own “family art gallery”, familiarizing the public with the concept of art gallery viewing. The style of the text was simple and direct like all the educational exhibitions in MoMA. In the first chapter of this booklet, ‘Art is for you!’, the reader is drawn in by a series of simple questions illustrated by explanatory, enticing
211 In 1942 and 1943, Paintings from the Class for Member’s Children exhibitions were held in the Museum of Modern Art in Young People’s Gallery. 212 See Sze, “Chinese Children’s War Pictures.”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 11, no. 5 (April 1944): pp.15 –17. On the differences between cultures, the Bulletin states: “The most striking differences between these drawings by Chinese children and those by children in other parts of the world, are apparent in brushwork, in color, and in the use of space” (p.17), on the continuation of tradition, the following: “… the drawings seem unintentionally to carry out with amazing ease what painters in China have been taught for centuries – the principle of ‘rhythmic vitality’ – which states that the painter should be attuned to the rhythm of the universe and be able to express the movement of life.” (p. 17) The Chinese pictures were described as “small in size but big in feeling” and had – as the “most outstanding trait” – “the marvelous sense of the shape and weight of spaces”. 213 Others, for example, were Creative Work by Parents and Young Children (1950), and, Creative Art for Children, Young People, Adults, Schools (1951). 214 This publication was the result of one of the series “Through the Enchanted Gate” developed by the Museum of Modern Art and co-sponsored by NBC for television in 1952-1953.
163 photographs: ‘Do you like color? , Do you like to touch pleasant things? Do you like to discover things? Do you like to make things?’ , followed by a direct ‘If you do, then you will like to…., make feeling pictures….tell your ideas in clay…and you will like to…paint pictures of sounds… make paper magics …build space designs ..or any number of things. This is art. You don’t have to be an artist, and you don’t need talent. Everyone can do it.’215 The message of this publication was that creativity was within everyone’s reach, one needed only to encourage it. Creativity, however, was also placed in the arena of the Cold War. In the exhibition Developing Creativeness in Children in 1955, the stimulation of creativity was presented as a necessary condition for modern life and for progress. In a striking visual and verbal opposition between the development of creativity in America and the suppression of it in the communist countries, creativity – and modern art as its product - was promoted as the driving force behind the development of a prosperous nation.216 (fig. 90) As expressed on a large wall label: “Creative experiences help to develop children who are sensitive to their possibilities and to the achievements of others; who are aware of their environment and the world; and who will work for improvement and progress” and as illustrations to this text, modern architecture (skyscrapers), industrial design, Picasso’s art and primitive art (with its modern qualities!) were displayed. In this way modern art was defended as a necessary component of a strong and prosperous nation. In defining the qualities of children’s art, it was compared to work by ‘real’ artists in its similarities: “children are like artists” and differences: “they are different from artists because: artists have greater maturity and experience. Artists are more skillful. Artists are adults and have adult concepts and purposes.” To illustrate this concept Michelangelo’s Moses was used. It seems like a missed opportunity that this point was not illustrated by a modern work of art, but that a Renaissance classic was used, to demonstrate an artist’s ‘maturity’ and ‘skill’.
Children’s Art in the Stedelijk Museum
Even before the Museum of Modern Art had opened its doors, Children’s art was already being shown in the Stedelijk Museum. As early as 1905 the exhibition Kind en Kunst (Child
215 D’Amico, Wilson and Maser, Art for the Family, pp. 7-9. 216 Unfortunately three installation views of this exhibition which I had picked out – one which was highly political - could not be retraced in the Photographic Archives of the Museum of Modern Art.
164 and Art) was organized, followed by the exhibition Engelsche schooltekeningen (English schooldrawings) in 1908. In 1924 the exhibition Door en voor kinderen; kinderhandenarbeid (By and for children; children’s handicraft) took place and in 1938 a competition Kinderteekeningen (Children’s drawings) was organized by the Artists Association ‘Arti et Amicitia’ 217 All these exhibitions had little to do with defining and defending ‘modern’ art though. The interest in children’s art was developed more fully by Sandberg after the War. Sandberg was also responsible for the development of the free expressive creativity in art education for children in Amsterdam. In 1947 Sandberg initiated a children’s atelier in the attic of the Stedelijk in which children were able to express themselves freely in a stimulating atmosphere of the living arts. In 1956 the exhibition Beeldend werk van kinderen (Visual art by Children) showed work which had been made in this atelier. The Stedelijk Museum was to have its first ‘real’ show of Children’s art in 1948: kunst en kind (Art and Child). As the broad title conveys, this exhibition showed more than just drawings by children. Besides the children’s works of art, books were put on display: children’s books designed by artists and children’s books on various branches of art: theater, dance, music, architecture and the fine arts. The Children’s drawings, of which most had been selected from an earlier international exhibition of Children’s art in Paris, were listed anonymously, which reduced the emphasis of the drawings being works of art by individuals. A major section of the drawings were the group drawings which were the result of a ‘new art educational method’ that was geared towards encouraging the individual child to “remain or become” himself, while having to participate in a group project. These group drawings were presented as evidence that “the child can only enrich or serve the community on artistic grounds if it maintains and develops its personality”. 218 In this exhibition, as in the exhibitions and publications of the Museum of Modern Art, creativity was presented as a necessary component of a prosperous future. The emphasis, however, was different between the Museums. The Museum of Modern Art with all its educational programs, exhibitions and publications was not afraid to provide guidance, to steer its young public in directions which seemed beneficial. In the catalog kunst en kind the Stedelijk cautioned for any ‘grown-up’ influence and demanded total freedom for its youth in
217 See list from the Archives of the Stedelijk Museum Tentoonstellingen gehouden in het Stedelijk museum Amsterdam van 1895 – heden, bewerkt door J.S. Verheijen-Zwaan, issued June 1978. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 218 See the section ‘groepstekeningen van kinderen’ in the catalog: kunst en kind, 1948, np. The Dutch text says: “Deze werkstukken laten zien dat het kind alleen dan de gemeenschap op artistiek gebied kan verrijken of zelfs dienen, wanneer het zijn persoonlijkheid handhaaft en ontplooit.”
165 the Museum: “We ought to grant our youthful audience the largest possible freedom; we must guard against any influencing”.219 This freedom to develop was presented as “a first condition to provide for a better society”. And, as if to authorize this concept, Plato (curiously) was quoted: “Art should be the basis of all education”.220 In the same breath, the Museum complemented itself – in a rather cloudy statement - in having succeeded in providing this new educational condition: “The honor goes to the city of Amsterdam that with a broadly based experiment once again has proven a thing or two”.221 The Stedelijk’s exhibitions Kinderen uiten zich in1950-1951 and Kinderen uiten zich 2 in 1953-1954 were based on the new teaching methods developed and practiced by the Amsterdam Werkschuit. Sandberg was a member of the Board of the Werkschuit Foundation, which was an educational study center situated on a barge in the Amstel canal. 222 These exhibitions did not connect the children’s art directly to the modern art from the Stedelijk itself, like was done early on in the children’s exhibitions in the Museum of Modern Art . The focus of Stedelijk exhibitions – as expressed in the introduction of the booklet Kinderen uiten zich - remained on the necessary development of education through art expression. The Museum’s position is commented on as being one where children can learn to truly ‘look at’ art in a way that it experiences the artist’s ‘expression’ as long as the Museum in no way curtails the freedom of the child.223 In a number of exhibitions children’s art was presented as a source of inspiration for modern artists. In the exhibition moderne kunst nieuw en oud (modern art new and old) in 1955, which shall be discussed further on, children’s art is presented as based on the “elementary concept” that “what takes place in one’s head and heart is more important than the phenomenal world”. This elementary concept is, according to the Stedelijk, one that appeals to the modern artist in his search for new terrain in order to give form to a new feeling for life.”224
219 See the section on ‘onze kinderen in musea’ (our children in museums) in: kunst en kind, 1948, np. The Dutch text says: “Wij behoren hierbij ons jeugdig gehoor de grootst mogelijke vrijheid te laten; wij dienen voor iedere beinvloeding te waken.” 220 Ibid., In Dutch: “een eerste voorwaarde om tot een betere samenleving te komen”, and “Kunst behoort de basis van alle opvoeding te zijn.” 221 Ibid. The Dutch reads: “Aan de stad Amsterdam de eer een en ander met een op ruime schaal genomen experiment opnieuw bewezen te hebben.” 222 It had been established in 1951by the WVO (Werkgroep voor Vernieuwing van Opvoeding en Onderwijs Study group for Modernization of Upbringing and Education), which itself had been initiated already in 1936. The WVO set up different groups of which the Werkgroep voor Aesthetische Vorming was responsible for stimulating new methods of art education. 223 See ‘Leren zien’ in Van Bladeren, Kinderen uiten zich, Purmerend, 1951, 2nd edition, p. 69. 224 ‘moderne kunst nieuw en oud’, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1955, np.
166 Children’s art is also brought into the realm of modern art as example of the free spirit and authentic creativity through the attention given to it by the experimental artists in the early 50’s. The Cobra artists openly professed their admiration for the expressive qualities of the art of the child. This freedom of expression of children’s art was applauded in a number of other exhibitions in the Stedelijk ranging from an exhibition organized by the GKf, the organization which succeeded the VANK, hand en machine (hand and machine) celebrating the 12th anniversary of the liberation in Holland ending the Second World War, to the exhibition Natuur en kunst (Nature and art) organized by Sandberg in which children’s painting and sculpture were displayed in comparison to modern art. (fig. 91) After a period in which great attention was given by both Museums to children’s art in the forties and fifties, a vast decline in the number of exhibitions can be traced starting in the early sixties and finally practically disappearing from the museum walls by 1970.
Ancestors and Affinities: Older, Exotic and Primitive in the Museum of Modern Art
Presenting modern art as stably rooted in the art of the ancient and respected past helped to legitimate it as a worthwhile and authentic mode of expression and to defend it against the idea that modern art was a snobbish fad of the present. Ancestral sources were both western and non-western sources. In the very first catalog of the Museum of Modern Art, Cézanne, Gauguin, Seurat and Van Gogh (1929) the “genealogy” of modern painting was defined as extending to “almost every preceding period and almost every exotic culture”225 This early statement on the ancestry of modern art emphasized the fact that modern art was not a passing fashion, but that it was deeply rooted in the culture of humanity all over the world and therefore worthy of our attention. This early declaration in the opening year of the Museum of Modern art cleared the way for inclusion of ‘older’ and exotic art in the Museum’s program. Indeed, early on, the Museum of Modern Art showed interest in the primitive and exotic art of various cultures and stated that the inclusion of exhibitions and publications were to be considered an essential part of its program of modern art. 226
225 See Foreword catalog Cézanne, Gauguin, Seurat and Van Gogh, p. 11. 226 In Barr, Report Loan Exhibitions: Ten Year Schedule (complete), May 1933. AHB[AAA:3266] MoMA Archives, NY. Barr defines primitive and exotic art as follows: “By primitive and exotic art is meant the art of Africa south of the Mediterranean littoral, Australia, the Malay archipelago, the Pacific islands, “pre-Columbian” America, the North Polar region and pre-historic European art – in other words most of the world’s art outside of the great historical European and Asiatic traditions. The word exotic is used rather arbitrarily to include the art of the post-primitive cultures such as the Mayan, or Benin, or Balinese which are preserved in our ethnographical
167 According to Barr, the interest in primitive and exotic art from an aesthetic point of view was only just beginning in America when he voiced his desire to include a series of exhibitions for the Museum in 1933.227 He considered the catalogs to be one of the most important elements of these exhibitions because, as he explained, “well illustrated books in English treating primitive art as art are almost non-existent” and “if carried through these catalogs would provide inexpensive anthologies of fine primitive art.”228 The inclusion of primitive and exotic art was based on two views of these art forms: as discoveries and resurrections of the ‘Modern’ art of the past, and as sources of inspiration for the contemporary modern artists. 229 Primitive and exotic art possessed ‘modern’ qualities, which made them modern artworks themselves and also admired objects of inspiration for contemporary artists. The ‘primitive and exotic’ art objects were presented as one of the (many) sources of modern art which together with other factors as the artist’s social, political and economic ideas as well as his heredity and esthetic environment mixed with the artist’s own make-up, determined the modern work of art.230 In Barr’s ten year exhibition plan, he lists a number of desirable exhibitions of “Ethnographical Art” as a series of great importance for the Museum with the emphasis on the assembling and installing from both an aesthetic and a scientific point of view.231 The primitive works of art were to be carefully selected, only showing the finest objects which were to be clearly classified and “as in the American sources show a few modern works might be included if their derivation is fairly certain but this relationship need scarcely be offered as a raison d’etre. Such exhibitions would have sufficient value themselves.”232 The title of this show suggested a strong link, but this is denied in the very first paragraph of the catalog American Sources of Modern Art of this 1933 exhibition..233 The reason for this exhibition is explained as bringing together examples of art of ancient
rather than in our art museums. Of course Chinese, Persian, Japanese and Egyptian art are also exotic, but they have been more or less domesticated since the XVIII century and are now respectably housed in art museums.” (p. 11). 227 Ibid., p. 11-12. Barr lists the museums in America and in Europe, which do show primitive art and acknowledges the “remarkable exceptions such as the museums in Hamburg, Berlin, Cologne – and notably in Essen where superb examples of African and Polynesian art are shown side by side with European and Oriental”. 228 Ibid., p. 12. He does name a few exceptions. 229 See Barr, Report Loan Exhibitions: Ten Year Schedule (complete), May 1933. AHB[AAA:3266] MoMA Archives, NY. 230 See introductory Label for the Ancestral Sources of Modern Painting show, 1941. CE , II.1.35(6). MoMA Archives, NY. 231 Barr, Report Loan exhibitions: Ten Year schedule, May 1933, p. 7. AHB[AAA: 3266] MoMA Archives, NY. 232 Ibid., p. 12. 233 “There is no intention here to insist that ancient American art is a major source of modern art. Nor is it intended to suggest that American artists should turn to it as the source of native expression”. Catalog American Sources of Modern Art by Holger Cahill (p. 5).
168 American civilizations, and to show its relation to the work of modern artists: “It is intended, simply, to show the high quality of ancient American art, and to indicate that its influence is present in modern art in the work of painters and sculptors some of whom have been unconscious of its influence, while others have accepted or sought it quite consciously.”234 To demonstrate the direct influence, work by twelve contemporary artists were included in the show. The directors of the exhibition found, according to Cahill - who together with Barr was responsible for this show -, in the various art forms of some cultures “suggestions for greater freedom and boldness in the treatment of color mass”, and in other cultures they “found simplification of form, and methods for analyzing objects into design elements … with a tendency to formalism … and solution of the problems of the relation of form and concept, realism and abstraction.”235 All these highlighted characteristics connected the American primitive art to American modern art, defining it and providing it with its own sources. Eight years later, in 1941, a second American ‘primitive’ show was held: Indian Art in the United States. In this exhibition, Indian art was presented as an American art which needed recognition and support.236 Besides the historical component, which was politically important, there was a section on ‘Indian Art for Modern Living’. This section was to demonstrate its “valuable contribution to modern American art and life”. Here, for example, the exotic patterns of Indian dress, were presented as sophisticated, fashionable design. (fig. 92) The Museum presented examples of exotic and pre-historic wall painting, which were used to position the new American mural painting in a universal tradition. This new type of painting had been introduced by Mexican artists, such as Diego Rivera, who was very popular early on at the Museum, and was to be further stimulated by the WPA a few years later.237 The first ‘exotic’ mural painting exhibition - facsimile copies of - Persian Fresco Painting in the fall of 1932 was what seems to have been somewhat of a mistake and demonstrates the
234 Ibid. It is noteworthy that in the catalog Twenty Centuries of Mexican Art of 1940, the 1933 exhibition is recalled as the exhibition of “Aztec, Incan, and Mayan Art” and not ‘American Sources of Modern Art’. See Twenty Centuries of Mexican Art, p. 14. 235 Ibid., p. 7. 236 The political importance of the show is demonstrated by the fact that Eleanor Roosevelt wrote the Foreword from the White House, acknowledging “a cultural debt not only to the Indians of the United States but to the Indians of both Americas. See Douglas and D’Harnoncourt, Indian Art of the United States, p. 8. 237 The Murals By American Painters and Photographers (1932) was described as the first controversial exhibition because of the controversy of the subject matter of a few of the mural displays. See Lynes, Good Old Modern, p. 98-101.
169 influence of trustees on the Museum’s program.238 The 1937 exhibition Prehistoric Rock Pictures, which traveled for a number of years as the circulating exhibition, Comparative Styles in Prehistoric Rock Pictures (a smaller show), was promoted as “of particular interest today” due to the “extraordinary rise of interest in public or communal mural painting, especially in America, and the resemblance between Paleolithic art and the works of Paul Klee, Hans Arp, Joan Miro and other artists related to Surrealism”. 239 The Museum itself highlighted these ‘resemblances’ or ‘affinities’. For example, the sculptures of female figures by Gaston Lachaise were compared to Ivory figurines from Lespugue in France (possibly 23,000 B.C.), which - as described in the Museum’s Bulletin - showed “an interesting analogy with the sculpture of Lachaise who however developed his art without knowledge of this Paleolithic prototype.”240 This analogy was to be presented in a future exhibition, Timeless Aspects of Modern Art, which is discussed further on in this Chapter. A few years earlier the Museum had introduced African Negro sculpture in an exhibition directed by J.J. Sweeney and catalog with contributions from Charles Ratton. Ratton is presented to the public as an expert on the subject: the official delegate appointed by Professor Paul Rivet, Director of the Ethnographical Museum of the Trocadéro, now working on a ‘comprehensive study’ of African Art. In an article for the Museum Bulletin, he presents the exhibition as a first in its kind by bringing together “most of the finest African sculpture
238It had been organized during Barr’s absence and is explained to have come about due to the dual trusteeship and other involvement of a number of the Museum of Modern Art’s trustees being with the institute, which had arranged the exhibition. The American Institute for Persian Art and Archeology arranged this exhibition which “there seems to have been no other excuse than that Mrs. Murray Crane and Sam Lewisohn, and Miss Elizabeth Bliss and Sir Joseph Duveen were on the Institute’s Board of Trustees or Advisory Council. See Lynes, Good Old Modern, pp. 107-108. Barr seems not at all to have been happy with the exhibition for in his report Loan Exhibitions: Ten Year Schedule (complete), May 1933, he doesn’t mention it as having been important or desirable and states that an exhibition – as part of a desired background of Medieval Art - of facsimile copies of Russian and Russo-Byzantine Frescoes “would make a far more impressive show than the Persian frescoes show in the fall of 1932”. See pp. 13-15. 239 See the Press Release for the exhibition. MoMA Library, NY. In the Preface (page 9) of the catalog Prehistoric Rock Pictures From Europe and Africa, of the exhibition in 1937, the same two factors are mentioned but in more general terms: “That an institution devoted to the most recent in art should concern itself with the most ancient may seem something of a paradox, but the art of the 20th century has already come under influence of the great tradition of prehistoric mural art … these are achievements which living artists and many others who are interested in living art have admired.” ( including the financial supporters such as perhaps Walter P. Chrysler, Jr. who is thanked for his ‘interest and assistance’). And in connection with the Government art projects Barr compares “Today walls are painted so that the artist may eat, but in prehistoric times walls were painted so that the community might eat”. Even though it is clear from Barr 1933 Loan exhibition report that he planned an exhibition of Prehistoric Rock Painting, this exhibition was first suggested by Iris Barry , the Curator of the Film Library, who also carried on preliminary negotiations. 240 See Editorial, “Gaston Lachaise”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 2, no. 5 (February 1935): pp. 3-4.
170 scattered among the museums and private collections of Europe”.241 The approach seems both aesthetic and scholarly. The photographs of the exhibition show a varied installation emphasizing the aesthetics of the objects. Sculptures are displayed on separate pedestals varying in size, shape and color, presenting a lively effect.242 Even the smaller sculptures in the showcases have their own little pedestal. The sculptures are often placed symmetrically or antithetically. In the showcases in which the smaller figurines, masks and jewelry are presented, the same orderly fashion is used. The objects are predominantly presented by country and type. In one installation shot a thematic approach is visible. On a pedestal in what seems to be the center of the room, a sculpture of a man holding up two machetes is flanked by a wall hung full of machetes, axes, spears and sickles against a white background board or cloth, on one side, and on the other side an ornate piece of clothing is spread out against the wall.243 Although almost every object – even in the showcases - is carefully lit from above, the lighting seems neither dramatic nor suggestive. The playing down of the ‘primitive’ aspect emphasizes the scientific approach. As Ratton states in the Bulletin of the Museum: “we have come to judge Negro art by very different standards from those of its first critics whose writings still bear witness to their opinions. For us Negro Art is no longer a primitive or savage art nor does our interest in it rest any longer upon passing esthetic fashions. Having learned to love it for its own sake we now wish to study it more seriously.”244 The exhibition was set up to compare the various artistic centers of Africa and their relative values so as to contribute “to the infant science of African archaeology”. This approach, however, does not seem to have prevailed in the Museum. Although the desire to approach the material from a scientific viewpoint of comparative African archeology was voiced, important aspects of the exhibition were the presentation of the objects as ‘primitive fine art’ and the effect of these objects d’art on western modern artists. Separate attention was given to the fact that famous modern artists
241 Ratton, “African Negro Art”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 2, no. 6-7 (March-April 1935): pp. 2-3. The whole issue of the Bulletin was practically dedicated to the exhibition and in the columns called ‘Book Notes’ - in which books are reviewed that have been sent by the publishers as gifts to the Museum Library – Barr reviewed three books on African Art (one from England and two from Germany). 242 The installation photographs of the early exhibitions (until 1934) in the Museum of Modern Art show a flexible system of pedestals made up of separate sections varying in size of lighter and darker wood to be installed with or without a baseboard section. In the Machine Art show in 1934, the pedestals are different: they are uniformly, light-colored with no separate sections showing and no separate base-sections, providing a slick, more ‘modern’ look. In the African Negro Art show a number of these ‘modern-looking’ pedestals are used but in combination with variations of the older system. 243 See installation photograph: 39-3 number: S-1017. MoMA Photographic Archives, NY. 244 Ratton, “African Negro Art”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 2, no. 6-7 (March-April 1935): pp. 2-3.
171 were inspired by and owned African Negro art. In a view of the fourth floor gallery a series (five are visible) of Congo velvets (tufted cloth of cocoanut fiber from the Belgian Congo) were installed on one wall and on the other wall – hung on the same height as the cloth - a row of masks was displayed. (fig. 93) These primitive works of art were hung in the same manner as their Western counterparts. The selection of works of art for this room was to indicate that African art was an inspiration for a number of important modern artists and demonstrated primarily the variety of the important owners. The photograph with explanatory text, which was reproduced in the Museum’s Bulletin, showed the emphasis on the fact that modern artists had been the first to appreciate the aesthetics of African Negro art.245 (fig. 94) In a number of exhibitions, art from other and older cultures is presented as having predicted or anticipated modern art, which provides modern art with a strong, cultural lineage. The 20 Centuries of Mexican Art exhibition, which was held in 1940, shows a different approach to ancient cultures and the contribution of Mexican art to Modern art. The large show presented for the first time the history of Mexican art from the archaic cultures to the modern period. The high quality and ‘modern’ character of the Ancient Mexican sculpture are emphasized. Supported by quotes from two authorities of classic modern art history, Elie Faure and Roger Fry, especially pre-Spanish Mexican sculpture and modern mural painting are noted for their contributions to modern art.246 The finest pre-Spanish Mexican sculpture was said to “equal the masterpieces of any other period” and were in their solutions “surprising in their modernity”, meaning their plastic qualities.247 Presented as connected and having contributed to the shaping to Western modern art, the ancient sculpture was said to have predicted developments in modern art: the Tarascan statuettes were said to “anticipate the essential and drastic simplicity of Brancusi” and “the reclining figure of Chac-mool seems to forecast the lines of “The Mountains” by the English sculptor, Henry Moore”.248 The
245 “In no previous exhibition at the Museum have so many artist-collectors been among the lenders. Of the five Congo velvets shown in this photograph of a fourth floor gallery two were lent by Henri-Matisse and one by the cubist painter, Louis Marcoussis. The masks from left to right were lent by the poet Tristan Tzara, the cubist sculptor Jacques Lipchitz, and the painter André Derain. Other artists among the lenders are André Lhote and Patrick Henry Bruce of Paris, and Richard Bedford of London.” See Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 2, no. 6-7 (March-April 1935), p.3. 246 Twenty Centuries of Mexican Art, 1940. Starting the introduction to the catalog, a statement by Elie Faure is quoted: « L’art mexicain se rapproche de plus en plus de nous au point de determiner dans nos recherches des courants essentials. » (p. 14.) In the section of the introduction on Pre-Spanish Sculpture, Roger Fry is quoted on the quality of Mayan sculpture. 247 Ibid., p. 15. 248 Ibid.
172 modern Mexican mural painting is described as “one of the most vigorous and original contemporary esthetic manifestations.”249 Two of the most famous exhibitions of the Museum of Modern Art in the thirties, the historical survey shows Cubism and Abstract Art (1936) and Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism (1936-1937) – which will both be discussed fully in Chapter three – anchored modern art in the past and showed that the new expressions in art were of all times. In both exhibitions arts from different times and cultures were juxtaposed with the art of the surveyed modern movements. In the Cubism and Abstract Art exhibition, for example, African masks and sculptures were positioned next to works by Picasso and Lipchitz showing the formal resemblances between, influence of, and dependencies on African Negro sculpture.250 (fig. 95) Another, often quoted, example is the positioning of a small plaster cast of the ‘Nike of Samothrace’ together with Boccioni’s Unique forms of continuity in space.251 On entering the room of the Italian Futurism section, both works of art – facing the same direction - could be viewed simultaneously in profile due to the fact that the ‘Nike’ was positioned on a higher pedestal behind the modern sculpture. The fact that the ‘Nike’ plaster was positioned in a corner against the wall underscored its subordinate, illustrative function. Pushed against the wall the cast was not there to be admired in its own right but seems to have functioned solely as a background: a comparative display reminding the viewer of the fact that artists of all times have sought answers to the problem of portraying movement. The explicit drawing of a parallel between the ancient classical sculpture and the modern one emphasized the timeless quality of modern art as was also done by other comparisons in the show. (fig. 96) In the Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism show, Surrealism as an art of the “marvelous and irrational” and its “esthetic of the fantastic, enigmatic and antirational” was presented as an art of all times. Comparisons were made with older and other art which resembled Surrealism.. The objects chosen for the show dated from 1450 up until 1936 with artists represented, as the press release put it, “ranging from such extremes as Hieronymus Bosch and Leonardo da Vinci of the fifteenth century to Walt Disney, Rube Goldberg and Thurber of the twentieth century”, with Mickey Mouse as “the world’s best-loved
249 Ibid., p. 16. 250 For example, in one of the first rooms of the exhibition, covering ‘Cubism 1906-1910’ - the “first” Cubist pictures – as Barr referred to them - were displayed together with their ‘influences’: African figures. (photo 46-1 and 46-3). The relationship between Picasso’s ‘Dancer’(1907-1908) and a figure from Gabun, which the public’s attention was brought to by encouraging the comparison was stated confidently in the catalog: “The silhouette of the body as well as its mask are definitely derived from BaKota metal-covered fetishes from the Gabun.” Catalog Cubism and Abstract Art, 1936, p. 30. 251 See Staniszewski, The Power of Display, p. 81; Noyes Platt, “Modernism, Formalism, and Politics”, p. 284.
173 Surrealist”.252 This remarkable quote and the listing of Walt Disney along with Leonardo da Vinci must have encouraged the public to see this art as accessible for all. The presentation of the selected materials helped to defend modern art. The exhibition seemed to both want to impress the public so as to inspire admiration for modern art, as to show that the new art was actually quite familiar. In the circulating exhibition Ancestral Sources of Modern Painting that was first shown in the Museum in 1941 before traveling for several years, the resemblances suggested above were now presented and argued as ‘actual sources’.253 The show was made up of 20 mounts of comparative selections of color reproductions and photographs of modern paintings with their sources in older cultures.254 Prehistoric rock painting was presented as ‘source’ for Miro’s Carnaval d’Arlequin (1924-1925) and Klee is said to have taken pictorial motifs from such “recognized sources” as, for example, prehistoric rock pictures.255 As noted in the Introductory Label of the exhibition - “mere analogies ... as opposed to actual sources have been avoided” and “in most instances the exhibition is limited to comparison of material for which there is actual evidence of kinship”.256 This kinship was personified by describing the paintings as having “close relatives” and “ancestors” in the arts of other cultures.257 The other ‘primitive source’ of modern painting displayed was, what was referred to as, ‘African Negro sculpture’. On three mounts under the heading ‘Primitive Art’, examples of African Negro sculpture were presented as sources for Schmidt-Rotluff, Modigliani, Klee, and Picasso. The public was encouraged to compare and discover the similarities in the chosen examples: “Compare the forms of this African mask with the Picasso Head. Picasso has even emulated the color of the Negro Sculpture – rich red browns and blacks. Compare the extreme simplification of features, flatness in handling and similarities of color”. 258
252 Press Release of the traveling exhibition Fantastic Art, Dada and Surrealism (page 1), which followed the showing at MoMA itself. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 253 This exhibition was sent to England in 1946. 254 Earlier European Painting was presented as the most important source of modern painting. On the first mount of the exhibition, for example, Manet’s Dejeuner sur l’herbe was explained by Giorgione Concert Champetre and Raimondi’s Judgement of Paris. 255 Labels for Ancestral Sources of Modern Painting (1941) CE, II.1.35(6). MoMA Archives, NY. Labels for Mount 17.. In the case of Miro’s Carnaval d’Arlequin however, the label states that “there is no evidence of his actual dependence on this material” and the similarity of forms, shapes and pattern are carefully suggested as a result of the fact that “Miro may have been familiar with the prehistoric cave paintings of the Spanish Pyrenees”. 256 Ibid., Introductory Label. 257 Press Release Ancestral Sources of Modern Painting. CE, II. 1 35(6). MoMA Archives, NY. 258 Labels for Ancestral Sources of Modern Painting (1941), See Labels for Mount 17. CE, II.1.35(6). MoMA Archives, NY.
174 The show was designed to help define and defend modern art through understanding its sources: as expressed by the Museum, “By pointing out a few comparisons, the exhibition should call to mind many other such sources of influence which furnish clues to an understanding of the vast field of modern painting.”259
An Exemplary Exhibition of Timeless Modern Art in MoMA
In the Museum’s 20th anniversary year a counterpart to the previously analyzed exhibition Modern Art in Your Life was organized by René d’Harnoncourt in order to promote more understanding and acceptance of modern art for a large audience. This exhibition was Timeless Aspects of Modern Art (1948-1949) .260 By comparing analogous examples of modern works of art and ‘older’ ones, characteristics of modern art were defined visually. In contrast to the circulating exhibition Ancestral Sources of Modern Painting , this exhibition presented a story of affinities and analogies without identifying real sources.261 It was to act as “a reminder” according to the Museum, which explains the strong visual component of the exhibition which would trigger - and stick in - the memory of the public. There was to be no lengthy catalogue; only a folder with a playful plan of the installation, visualizing the space in which the loci of the various affinities and analogies, was to accompany the exhibition. The exhibition Timeless Aspects of Modern Art was both informative and playful in its defining and defending of modern art. At the beginning of the exhibition an orientation gallery was installed in order to introduce the public to the subject and to prepare the public for what was to be seen. In this first room the concept and purpose of the exhibition was made clear verbally and visually. The same verbal and visual material was repeated in the accompanying folder, which underlined and clarified the message. Statements provided explanations and background information. As was explained on the wall labels and in the folder: the exhibition was designed so as to have the public discover “that a walk though the galleries would show that modern art is not an isolated phenomenon in history but is, like the
259 Press Release from Museum of Modern Art Archives, Department of Circulating Exhibitions. II. 1 35(6). MoMA Archives, NY. 260 The exhibition Timeless Aspects of Modern Art took place during the exact same period as the London exhibition 40.000 years of Modern Art. 261As was expressed by the Museum in the Press Release: “this display is not for the purpose of discovering influences or derivations but is rather to demonstrate affinities and analogies.” The exhibition, and the Teaching Portfolio which followed two years later, were criticized for not attempting to present the sources of the modern works of art. Press Release No. 111248-44 ‘Timeless Aspects of Modern Art, First of the Museum’s 20th Anniversary Exhibitions’, p. 2. Library MoMA, NY. See reviews of the show: Alice B. Louchheim, “Modern Art? Not So Modern.”, The New York Times (November 21, 1948); T.B. Hess, “Antiquity Up-to-date”, Art News, no. 49 (Summer 1950): p. 53.
175 art of any period, an integral part of all ages”.262 It was to also be seen as “a reminder that such “modern” means of expression as exaggeration, distortion, abstraction, etc., have been used by artists since the very beginning of civilization to give form to their ideas.”263 This idea of ‘reminding’ the public of the commonness of modern art’s characteristics both builds the public’s feeling of being knowledgeable and yet gives the Museum the opportunity to repeat its message. A large world map – with the Western world and its Modern Art in the middle - and timeline running from about 75,000 B.C. to 1948 A.D. visualized where and when the works of art on display in the exhibition were made or found. This overview of simplified graphs communicated a sense of scholarly analysis and comprehensiveness. (fig. 97) On another wall a large ground plan of the exhibition itself prepared the public for what it was about to see and why. This ground plan had the design of a huge board game. (fig. 98) All works of art on display were numbered and were reproduced in miniature size. The tiny reproductions were connected with dots, which playfully set out the course of the exhibition. The path wound its way through fields such as ‘Structure and Abstraction’, Stylization and Emotional Content’ which indicated the linking characteristics demonstrated by the chosen examples. In this way the works of art became illustrations in the discovery game of timeless aspects of art. This enticing element of discovery was enhanced by the darkened rooms in which the public’s attention went from one spotlighted work to the other. The lighting often heightened the drama. (fig. 99) In the ‘emotional content’ field, for example, where various ‘religious’ works of art were compared a large Romanesque wooden crucifix was dramatically lit from below amplifying Christ’s position as God, whereas a smaller wooden statue of the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher looking up in prayer was lit from above as if avowed with godly light. (fig. 100) The sense of discovery was also stimulated by the concept of a map and the active pairing of the miniature icon with the real thing. The exhibition was not to be seen as a “dogmatic statement but as an invitation to the visitor to undertake his own explorations.”264 Not part of the exhibition, but a ‘discovery’ which was sure to be made, was the kinship of the Totem Pole - prominently positioned in the Museum Garden - with other works of art in the exhibition. (fig. 101).
262 Timeless Aspects of Modern Art. Ex. pamphlet, 1948. Archive Wheeler, Library MoMA, NY. 263 Ibid. 264 Ibid.. Also see Press Release No. 111248-44 ‘Timeless Aspects of Modern Art, First of the Museum’s 20th Anniversary Exhibitions’, p. 2. Library MoMA, NY.
176 The chosen examples that were to show affinities and analogies between modern and older art had the same subject which strengthened the comparison. To underline the more scholarly aspirations of the show, it was made clear that the presented analogous examples were not “accidental resemblances” but “true” affinities, the text explained the concept of affinities in which works of art are related to each other through kinship of style or content. This exhibition seemed to want to promote understanding and acceptance through discovery and drama. In this way it was less scholarly than most of the Museum’s educational exhibitions. It remained a typical MoMA educational exhibition though in that it was based on learning and that it approached its audience in a down-to-earth manner and simple style making it accessible for a large public. A year later the Museum’s message was repeated, a teaching portfolio for schools based on the Timeless Aspects of Modern Art exhibition and providing the same comparison of ‘affinities and resemblances’, was published under the title Modern Art Old and New: a title which in reverse order Modern Art New and Old would carry a similar exhibition five years later in the Stedelijk Museum.
The Older, Exotic and ‘primitive’ in the Stedelijk
The introduction of exotic and primitive art in the Stedelijk Museum came early through independent exhibitions on art from different cultures; exhibitions which claimed no relationship to the modern art collections or exhibitions in the Museum. Due to the presence of the Museum for Asian Art in the Stedelijk, it was not unusual to present art from different cultures in the Museum. In 1925, for example, there were two exhibitions on Asian Art in the Museum of Asian Art, which was housed in the Stedelijk: Oost-Aziatische kunst (East-Asian art) and Chineesche kunst (Chinese Art), and in 1927, for example, there was an exhibition Oude Negerplastieken (Old Negro Sculpture) from an art gallery collection from the town Laren.265 In 1931 the Stedelijk installed an exhibition Leo Frobenius; zuid-afrikaanse rotstekeningen (Leo Frobenius; South-African rock paintings) which toured a number of European countries and the United States, including the Museum of Modern Art, in the thirties. It is telling of the lack of central organization between the different collections and presentations in the Stedelijk during this period that the link between the African rock paintings and modern art was not highlighted, whereas in the MoMA exhibition the link
265 The exhibition of the East-Asian art collection in 1925 was from the Collection Kleykamp. The 1927 Old Negro Sculpture exhibition was from the Collection of the Kunstzaal van Lier in Laren.
177 between modern mural painting and pre-historic rock paintings had been explicitly mentioned. The first time that primitive art was brought in relation to modern art in the Stedelijk was through a loan exhibition from the French Museum in Grenoble, which was well-known for its forward approach to modern art. In this exhibition Tentoonstelling van de Afdeling Moderne Fransche Kunst uit het Museum van Grenoble (Exhibition of the Department of Modern French Art from the Museum of Grenoble) in 1935 a number of masks from African sculptors were exhibited along with French masterpieces. After the War the Stedelijk continued its interest in art from ‘primitive’ cultures. Although the information in the catalogs, which was not provided by the Stedelijk itself, was focused on presenting the cultural background of the objects, the installation of the exhibitions was primarily coolly aesthetic, highlighting the formal qualities of the objects and therefore identifying them as works of modern art. In 1949, for example, the exhibition Kunst van het Zuidzee gebied (Art of the South Sea Area) was brought to Amsterdam by Sandberg after its initial showing in the ethnographic Museum in Rotterdam. The selection of the objects displayed had to be altered somewhat, according tot the foreword in the catalog, the aesthetic qualities of the work had determined the final selection. The installation of the objects underlined this aesthetic emphasis, presenting the various objects as universal objets d’art to be admired. The front cover of the Stedelijk catalog shows a simplified wooden figure which, more than any other object illustrated in the catalog, resembles a western modern work of art. This same sculpture was used as an example of “old modern art” in an exhibition a few years later, which is discussed further on, demonstrating the timelessness of modern art. In 1954, the Stedelijk showed the exhibition Praehistorische bronsplastiek uit Sardinie (Prehistoric bronze figures from Sardinie).266 Although - due to the small size of the figures – the objects were displayed in showcases, it was the neutral presentation which once again emphasized their resemblance to modern sculptures. The relationship between prehistoric art and modern art had been described to the museum public two years earlier. In an article “van holbewoner tot Picasso” (from caveman to Picasso) in 1952 for the Amsterdam Museumkring voor Moderne Kunst, which was also published a year later in Goed Wonen, Jaffé had defined and defended modern art as a new developing language. This new language, which was yet to be understood by many, had a 40.000 year pedigree, as Jaffé pointed out.267
266 This exhibition was first shown in the Gemeentemuseum in the Hague. The catalog was a joint publication and did not carry the Stedelijk’s signature in choice of lettering or paper. 267 See Jaffé, “van holbewoner tot Picasso”, Goed Wonen 6, no. 3 (1953): pp. 47-50.
178 But the position of primitive art as modern art was not only related to the past. Sandberg welcomed contemporary ‘primitive’ art from non-western countries as equals of universal modern art. For example, the 1950 exhibition of artists from Haiti ,19 schilders uit Haiti (19 painters from Haiti), and the exhibition hedendaagse negerkunst uit centraal-afrika (Contemporary Negro art from Central-Africa) in 1957 were installed as any western modern art exhibition. The catalog of the Hedendaagse negerkunst uit centraal-afrika exhibition is a real Sandberg catalog despite the fact that he did not write any texts for it. Comparable to the Indian totem pole in the Sculpture Garden of the Museum of Modern Art, the permanent display of a proa/prahn from New Guinea was a clear statement by Sandberg to present primitive art as modern art. In 1956 a proa /prahn from New Guinea was hung in the newly opened restaurant area of the Stedelijk; in the same area which was marked by the newly installed large Appel mural on the adjacent wall. Both works of art – huge in size and rich in expression - dominated the room and dictated the concept of universal, timeless modern art. Just a year before this concept had been demonstrated in an educationally inclined exhibition which attempted to define the Stedelijk’s concept of modern art: Moderne Kunst Nieuw en Oud (Modern Art new and old).
An Exemplary Exhibition of Timeless Modern Art in the Stedelijk
In the summer of 1955 the Stedelijk organized the thematic exhibition Moderne Kunst Nieuw en Oud (Modern Art New and Old) in the Museum’s new wing. In many ways it was a combination of the Museum of Modern Art’s earlier anniversary exhibitions: Modern Art in Your Life and Timeless Aspects of Modern Art presenting modern art as timeless and part of our contemporary life. Even though this exhibition highlighted the relationship between modern art and primitive art (as in Jaffé’s earlier article), it presented a much broader picture of modern art as deriving from many different sources including modern science and technology. On the two floors of this spacious building comparisons were displayed in niches - created by the movable wall stands - between examples of modern works of art and objects which visually resembled them. The corresponding objects which were to demonstrate the sources of inspiration for the modern works of art were either works of primitive art, children’s art, or objects and photographs from modern technology and science. On the ground floor the ‘old’ sources of modern art were displayed, whereas the ‘new’ sources of modern art seem to have filled the first floor. (fig. 102, 103, 104)
179 The coupled objects were connected to each other through juxtaposition and by providing them with corresponding numbers on the wall labels. According to the ‘guidelines’ presented to the public at the beginning of the exhibition, the gray wall labels provided information on the modern objects and the red labels pointed to the similarities between the objects in question. (fig. 105) In the catalog the analogy of the coupled objects was enhanced by presenting them in the same format or size. (fig. 106) This exhibition attempted to define and legitimize modern art as the art which truly mirrored the modern world: a world of new developments, yet inhabited by modern man who shares the age-old values and similar anxieties as older and primitive cultures. The title of the exhibition set the tone: modern art was to be considered both new and old. As is stated on the very first page of the catalog in parallel wording: De moderne kunst is oud als de wereld. De moderne kunst is jong als de wetenschap. 268 This type of explanation is typical for the Stedelijk approach. It sets a tone of mystification without providing the argumentation needed to explain. As in the rest of the text the statements are filled with ideology often in poetic empty language. The title moderne kunst nieuw en oud reflects Sandberg’s reverse chronology in which one starts from the present and looks back to the past. Yet within the catalog the position and meaning of new and old is played with, which mystifies and confuses the message.269 Sandberg’s preface (woord vooraf) provides the same mystification and confusion. In the grand style of poetic metaphors of rivers and fish, Sandberg presents the changing world and the artists’ different inspirations and positions within it, without clarifying the definition of modern art. Sandberg concluded his preface with: “From old and new elements the artists build the face of a new world.”270 Jaffé’s text which followed illuminated Sandberg’s statement and attempted to explain what the true characteristics of modern art were.
268 moderne kunst nieuw en oud, 1955, n.p. “Modern art is as old as the world. Modern art is as young as science.” 269 Accompanying the photographs of the analogous objects captions defined ‘modern art old’ as both the primitive examples as well as their modern companions. Under the caption ‘modern art new’ both the modern work of art as its scientific or technological source of inspiration are classified. For the example of modern art which was presented as being inspired by children’s art the caption merely said: ‘modern art’. The used example was Kirchner’s Franzi (1907) and a children’s painting. This suggested source of inspiration for Kirchner was criticized later as were other analogies made in the exhibition. See Roodenburg-Schadd, Expressie en ordening, p. 386 (note 104); and Van Adrichem, De ontvangst van de moderne kunst in Nederland, p. 336. In the text of the catalog of the exhibition a chronology is suggested that the old modern art sources were indeed older than the new modern art sources which came later as sources of inspiration. 270 moderne kunst nieuw en oud, 1955, n.p.. In Dutch: “de kunstenaars bouwen uit oude en nieuwe elementen het gezicht van een nieuwe wereld.”
180 Although the display itself focused on formal aspects by centering on visual similarities, the catalog text defined modern art in more philosophical and social terms. Modern art was not to be identified as mainly an aesthetic matter; it had a social and humanitarian cause. Vitality as ideology was promoted. As Sandberg and Jaffé - who were responsible for the exhibition and catalog – argued in the text of the catalog, the modern artist of the 20th century was to be seen as one ‘who by discovering new territory gives shape to a new feeling for life”.271 The modern artist was presented as one who serves humanity; as a scout and a leader who “on the authority of mankind searches for the elements of our human existence”.272 This concept of the modern artist as a valuable contributor to the building of a new society is echoed visually in Sandberg’s use of Leger’s ‘builders’ on the first and last pages of the catalog. (fig. 107) The modern artist was also to be admired for his courage: he is presented as one who “dared to break with tradition” and “refused to accept a useless heritage”.273 By portraying the modern artist as brave and as being of great advantage and importance to the whole of mankind, the Stedelijk defended modern art as worthy and of essential value to society. As with the defining characteristics of the modern artist, the defining characteristics of modern art were also identified in mystifying language: modern art was characterized as “the elementary power of visual art and the search for new paths”.274 These aspects were said to correspond directly to the two sources which inspired the modern artist: the elementary forms of primitive art (art from exotic and ancient cultures and children’s art and art of the insane) on the one hand, and the new developments in technology and science on the other. The ‘elementary power’ was said to be recognized in the art of the primitive. That the modern artist looked to primitive art was explained as being driven by “the doubt as to how coherent our civilization is” and by the search for the same “elementary forms”, “magical power” and “expressive concentration”. The search for new paths could be detected in the displayed similarities between expressions of new developments in the modern world in photographs and objects of technology and science and the analogous works of modern art. The analogous pairs seem to have been selected on resemblances. Although the text spoke of sources, the actual relationships were often merely visual. Duo’s such as an aerial
271 See the text in the catalog moderne kunst nieuw en oud, 1955, n.p. 272 Ibid. The Dutch text reads: “Het zijn de elementen van ons mens-zijn, waarnaar de kunstenaars – in opdracht van heel de mensheid – zoeken.” 273 Ibid. 274 Ibid.
181 photograph of a traffic circle and Pevsner’s Monument for an airport’(1934), and a hollerith card and Van der Leck’s Geometrische compositie (1918), were ridiculed by the Press. Although moderne kunst nieuw en oud was considered to be an explanatory exhibition, the catalog did not attempt to provide scholarly information. There were no explanations of relevance of the chosen ‘sources’. There was no listing of the objects on display. Nor was the text annotated and a bibliography was omitted. Compared to the exhibition’s own source of inspiration, the London exhibition and catalog 40,000 years of Modern Art with its clear, scholarly explanations, the Stedelijk exhibition and catalog remained attractive ‘poetry’ and empty prose.
The Necessity to Define Declines
The Museum of Modern Art had set out to teach its different audiences on modern matters. Its different types of definitions of modern were persistently presented, argued and adjusted. Most of its educational exhibitions had provided convincing presentations of defining modern art and defending its appearances with clear argumentation in a simple style of language and visually persuasive methods of display. Starting in the mid-fifties there is a significant decline, in the number of exhibitions in the Museum of Modern Art centering on the identity of modern art and fewer educational exhibitions explaining and defending the modern concept. The Museum accounted for the change due to the development of the public’s familiarity with modern art forms and what is explained as “a degree of sympathetic understanding in the viewer’s attitude” which in the case of circulating exhibitions let them focus more on ‘theme’ exhibitions. 275 The term ‘modern’ hardly turns up in the list of exhibitions after about 1950; it then seems only to be used in relation to ‘modern classics’, ‘modernism’ and the ‘modern movement’ as historical concepts.276 The Museum of Modern Art had defined its position on what was to be considered modern art. And for the new developments in modern art, ‘modern’ was increasingly replaced by ‘new’, ‘young’ and ‘contemporary’ which eventually be added on to the modern canon. The Stedelijk Museum’s approach to defining modern art was different. The necessity to define modern art in the Stedelijk had never really been as much of an issue as it had been
275 This explanation is given in an issue of the Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art devoted solely to the Museum’s Circulating Exhibitions. Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 21, no. 3-4 (Summer 1954). 276 Exemplary in this context are The Modern Movement in Italy: Architecture and Design (1954), Modern Masterprints of Europe (1955), Modern Allegories (1962) and Modern Masters: Manet to Matisse (1975).
182 in MoMA. The Stedelijk’s broad definitions early on, seem to have become steadily more prescriptive backed by the director’s and curator’s ideologies. When defining the characteristics of modern art and artists they were always linked to their importance for mankind and society. This emotional appeal was persuasive due to the artistic style of the Museum’s presentations. Implicitly, whatever the Stedelijk , as living center of the arts in which the living artist was to gain a prominent position, had presented and promoted as modern art, was to be seen as such.
183 Chapter 3: The Making of Masters, Masterpieces and Movements: the Representation of the History of Modern Art
Presenting history in a modern art museum is a paradox. Modern art has yet to be positioned in a history and often reacts against it. During the period between 1935 and 1975, the division between ‘classic’ modern and ‘contemporary’ modern surfaced and was to intensify, and the issue was being raised as to how the growing weight of history – classic modern - was to fit into a museum of the new. And eventually, the question was posed as to which way the scales were to tip. The declaration of a starting point or period of modern art for the museum collections and presentations was called for and the realization that this was to be a date that would eventually seem ‘ancient’ instead of ‘modern’ was becoming evident. The longer the period of modern art became, the more the overview became cluttered. To untangle the growing complexity of modern art, the Museums had to present some sort of order. They were expected to present a history: some kind of structure to give the public insight into the obscure world of modern art. How did both Museums present the history of modern art and what were their communicative strategies? As discussed earlier, the changing position and role of history would lead to policy changes in both Museums on the starting point of both collections.1 The inter-museum agreement which the Museum of Modern Art had started with the Whitney Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1948 was beginning to backfire: the loss of the valuable, securely acknowledged ‘classics’ as opposed to the acquisition of risky, yet-to-be-challenged ‘contemporaries’ was discouraging trustees and other potential contributors to the collection. In 1953 – after selling forty classic modern works of art - the agreement was terminated.2 After years of defending the idea of an ever rejuvenating collection, the Museum of Modern Art had decided to acknowledge its growing desire to hold on to the – financially crucial and internationally respected - ‘historical’ collection and to create a permanent ‘Masterpiece Collection’ which was to start at approximately 1880. This meant that the Museum was
1 See Chapter 1. 2 Twenty-six European paintings and sculptures were sold, including paintings by Cézanne, Seurat, Redon, Picasso and Matisse, and sculptures by Despiau, Kolbe and Maillol. Fourteen works by American modern primitive artists including paintings by Hicks and previously proudly exhibited works such as the 19th century wooden eagle and the wooden sculpture of Henry Ward Beecher (1850-60?). The list of works sold to the Metropolitan Museum of Art was published in Barr, Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art 1929- 1967, p. 654.
184 finally to drop the ‘torpedo’ and ‘river’ concept of an ever changing collection. More emphasis was put on exhibitions of ‘Masters’ and ‘Master Movements’. Around the same time, the Stedelijk Museum moved its starting point to approximately 1850 instead of 1800, therefore providing a survey of European movements of painting of the past hundred years. 3 A new balance was sought in both museums for the historical survey of the permanent collections and the temporary loan exhibitions. As we shall see, the importance of history and a historical approach was prevalent in the Museum of Modern Art and is very much in tune with the educational, academic emphasis of the Museum. In presenting the history of modern art, the Museum of Modern Art acts as a historical orator positioning the honorable masters and masterpieces in a historical lineage and teaching the public this history. In the Stedelijk Museum however, history was to shift to the background and the ‘now’ and ‘future’ were to become the focal points for the Museum’s activities, which was in line with the emphasis of the Museum on art appreciation and the experience of the living museum itself. The Stedelijk, acting as a laudatory orator, is full of praise for the masters of modern art, but struggles with its presentation of history. It seeks more to delight and move its audience. Yet, also for the Stedelijk Museum the necessity of presenting this history of modern art remained and it experimented with various themes in their ‘summer’ exhibitions. What were the issues involved for the Museums concerning the history of modern masters and movements? The questions which our Museums faced were: Which artists and which works of art are important as classic modern and are therefore worthy of a special place in history and for what reasons? And, how is the history to be explained or structured with the available means? As we shall see, especially the Museum of Modern Art’s persuasive strategies are those common to a rhetoric of scientific argument. Persuasive not only because of the authority of the museums presenting the history or because of the emotional appeal to the audience to accept the history, but especially because of the convincing argumentation with which the history was constructed. The metaphors chosen for the masters and their masterpieces establish the sense of natural stability and honorability and the structures and figures of argumentation help to define the presentation of the historical development of modern art and artists. The desire to present the beginning and the history of modern art in an
3 See A.N.P. press releases of 19/9/1948 and 18/1/1949 in which the arrangements with the Rijksmuseum are mentioned concerning the division of the time-span of both museums: the Rijksmuseum for the period pre-1850 and the Stedelijk for the period post-1850. There is no specific mention of wanting to hold on to the hundred- year date. SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
185 orderly fashion demanded clarity in the structure of the historical lineage and a clear picture of the memorable ancestors and their masterpieces. In order to study both Museums’ approaches to the history of modern art – in casu the issues identified above, two themes have been chosen: the structuring of the history of modern art and the presentation of the Founding Fathers of Modern Art and other classic modern masters.
Structuring the History of Modern Art
Since the Museum of Modern Art was focused on a scholarly approach to the history of modern art, it attempted to define the concept of history and ‘historical’ in the context of modern art for the public. To the Museum of Modern Art history and ‘historical’ seemed to have had at least three meanings: besides the obvious meaning in time (as in the past), there were two meanings in context. The first meaning in context was the educational meaning: a distinction was made between the historical quality of an art object within the Museum collection as opposed to the esthetic value of an art object. This does not necessarily mean that the work of historical value is always considered less of a masterpiece: Barr gives the example himself in the comparison between Picasso’s Demoiselles d’Avignon and Three Musicians: “Quality, of course, should be and has been the first criterion. Yet the matter is not so simple. Picasso’s Three Musicians, page 83, may be superior in quality of Picasso’s Demoiselles d’Avignon, page 69, but the latter, with all its coarseness and experimental changes of mind may be equally important to the Museum: whatever its esthetic quality, it is a dramatic record of agonistic effort and the first detonation of a great historic movement”.4 In this example the historical value is presented as equally important as the aesthetic quality. Most often, however, the historical value was more of a supportive, documentary quality of certain objects, which are selected to provide a context for the masterpieces. In the same quote on the value of Demoiselles d’Avignon, Barr used another meaning of ‘historic’ when he describes the painting as “(…) the first detonation of a great historic movement”, signifying historic as worthy of being written down in history. As for the obvious time aspect of historical, Barr explained, that for the Museum “the history of art ends only with yesterday; the living art of the more remote past is second in
4 In the introduction of Barr’s Masters of Modern Art, p. 9.
186 interest only to the art of the recent past which we call the present.”5 And on another occasion, Barr wrote after stating how necessary and rewarding it is to look back over the history of art: “But history begins with today.”6 In other words, Barr seems to imply that the Museum of Modern Art always deals with history and historical objects, for the ‘present’ is also history. This seems to take the weight off of the historical emphasis of the presentations and indicate that the Museum’s presentations deal with the present developments yet are safely anchored in the past. With this explanation, Barr attempted to deal with the paradox of presenting the history of modern art while the art was still living. He encompassed the best of both worlds: the advantage of proven history and the attraction of the exciting new. In this way the Museum was pleasing all audiences, ranging from the often conservative trustees to the more adventurous critics and artists. One of the major goals of the Museum of Modern Art, as discussed in chapter 1, was to provide for a body of literature on the history of modern art not only for a general public but also for schools and universities. The emphasis on providing art history of the modern period stimulated a systematic covering of the field of modern art and an academic approach to the material. Until 1945 this was done by way of a series of temporary historical exhibitions accompanied by catalogs in which the Museum indicated the most important developments in modern art history. After 1945, the historical development of modern art was also displayed in a ‘permanent’ exhibition of a selection of the Museum’s own collection and in the catalogs of the collection. Furthermore, the Museum of Modern Art started to publish books on the history of modern art movements, such as the famous volumes by John Rewald: The History of Impressionism and Post-Impressionism: From Van Gogh to Gauguin. 7 In 1974-1975 a “general survey of modern art” appeared which had been initiated – and later published - by the Museum of Modern Art.8 The Stedelijk Museum did not have the same goal of ‘writing’ history, through publications and presentations but emphasized the exposing and experiencing of modern
5 The use of ‘living’ here is interesting. It seems to say as much as ‘valid to the living’. This quote comes from the catalog of the “historical” retrospective, Romantic Painting in America. 6 Stated in the introduction of the catalog: Paintings From the Museum of Modern Art New York, for the exhibition in the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC, Dec. 17, 1963- March 1, 1964, p. 8 7 The History of Impressionism was first published in 1946. Editions were printed after that and in 1961 the format of the volume was changed to match the first edition of Post-Impressionism:From Van Gogh to Gauguin. In 1973 a fourth revised edition of The History of Impressionism was published. Both volumes are still available. 8 John Russell’s The Meanings of Modern Art which had been instigated by The Museum of Modern Art and the Book-of-the-Month Club was first published in twelve monthly parts and distributed by the Book-of-the-Month Club (only by mail subscription). The single edition appeared in 1981 as a Museum of Modern Art publication. Although the survey was written by someone outside the Museum, the assignment was that “it was to be acceptable to the Museum, in terms of art history … ” as is explained in the preface (p. 9).
187 works of art for the Dutch public. Until the beginning of the War, in the thirties, the Stedelijk was set on showing historical overviews of art of the last century which until then had not been shown in the Dutch museums and were not well represented in their collections. These exhibitions mostly showed the modern art of a single country; it seems as if each European country was to be covered. The emphasis was on the national identities, on each countries’ achievements and on the work of individual artists who – according to the Museum - were important for expressing the issues of art of their time and not so much on the classifying and grouping of artists in separate movements. After the War the summer presentations of the collection Vijf Generaties (Five Generations) and theme exhibitions were used to stage the concept of development in modern art.
Both Museums launched historical exhibitions. They were however very different in scope and approach. When analyzing the historical presentations of the two Museums - both the verbal and visual presentations – the persuasive methods of argumentation become apparent in the Museums’ choices in structuring the course of modern art. The Museum of Modern Art especially used visual devices common to science such as diagrams, charts, timelines, and mathematical equations to structure and present its history. Basic patterns of reasoning common in all sciences such as the use of metaphors, opposites, series, reversals and repetitions, which prove to be effective analytical and persuasive communicating devices, can be detected in the presentations of both Museums, however especially in the Museum of Modern Art.9 Division, for example, supplies a clear structure for different classes of artists and movements. The use of antithesis provides a rational approach and stimulates participation from the public. As sources of antithesis there are contraries, contradictions and correlatives. With many contraries there is a midway - an average of properties - between the two opposites. A prime example from the Museum of Modern Art in which this is displayed is the exhibition of German Painting and Sculpture in 1931. This exhibition presents a scaled set of sculptures displaying the gradations between ‘abstraction’ and ‘realism’. (fig. 108) Contradictions are mutually exclusive opposites which do not have a middle way, as in the created opposition between the traditional ‘academic’ and ‘modern’. Another source of antithesis is correlatives, that present opposites which are actually connected pairs, such as master-pupil, parent-child. When examining the
9 See Fahnestrock, Rhetorical Figures in Science.
188 presentations of both Museums many of these devices give insight into the structuring of their stories.
The Museum of Modern Art’s Historical Series in the Thirties
The Museum of Modern art was especially keen on providing a persuasive historical structure of the development of modern art early on. In a series of general retrospective exhibitions of modern movements the museum attempted to clarify the field of modern art by division; by dividing the expanse of modern art into separate areas or movements which were then divided into different sections, the history of modern art could be described. In addition the movements and sections were presented in an antithetical mode. In the analysis of this series, the first two – and especially the first - shall be discussed in detail since they were the most influential. The first exhibition of the series was the famous Cubism and Abstract Art in1936, which became canonical itself as one of the most influential and well-known historical modern art exhibitions in a museum.10 For the first time in museum history, Cubism was linked directly to abstract art. It presented art as not only being painting and sculpture, but also “paintings, watercolors, drawings and prints, sculpture and constructions, architecture and furniture, theatre design, typography and photography.”11 The exhibition consisted mostly of European artists; the only Americans included were Calder and Man Ray.12 Although it was primarily a European show, the exhibition’s ‘flag’ hanging outside the Museum was American: a mobile by Calder hung from the Museum flagpole during the exhibition announcing the show to the public on the street. What made this exhibition so iconic? Two components of the show especially determined its lasting influence and success: the scholarly catalog and the famous chart made by Barr to illustrate the development of abstract art. (fig. 109) This genealogical chart which covered the jacket of the catalog provided a clear lineage towards abstraction: a legitimate ancestry and a raison d’etre for an art movement, which seemed to many incomprehensible in those days. The use of the chart – which is reminiscent of diagrams of scientific research - underscores the desire to present the ideas in an ‘objective’, scientific manner: the appropriate
10 The exhibition Cubism and Abstract Art was held in the Spring of 1936. 11 See Press Release ‘Cubism and Abstract Art’, p. 1. Press Releases. Library MoMA, NY. 12 Barr defended his omission of American Abstract art by stating in his preface that “only last year a large exhibition of Abstract Art in America was held at the Whitney Museum of American Art.
189 style for an authority to present the history ‘as it was’.13 The diagram seems like a cross between a pedigree chart – a visual diagram of evolution - showing the family ancestry of European abstract art and a flow chart presenting the schematic representation of the complicated process of art towards abstraction with the arrows displaying the direction of flow. Not only was this chart dominant in the appearance of the catalog, it also determined the look and organization of the rooms of the exhibition. In every room of the four-floor building the chart was posted at the entrance to verify and clarify the movement’s development. The insistent repetition of this icon strengthened its message. The chart presented the process of the evolution of abstract art from its ancestors in 1890 via a maze of ‘isms’ and shaped by the input of a number of non-western art forms and western machine esthetic to its then – in 1936 - contemporary state of antithesis: non- geometrical abstract art and geometrical abstract art. The position of Cubism – the movement in the chart that has the most arrows flowing from it - is stressed by the use of larger lettering, which amplifies its importance. The non-western and machine influences are set apart in rectangular casings and highlighted by red print; they represent the ‘input’ in the chart. The special position of modern architecture is visualized by also setting it separately in a rectangular casing and yet giving it the same color print as the art isms; modern architecture is presented as the ‘output’ of the development of a number of isms. The catalog which accompanied the exhibition received immediate praise from the press as “a work of permanent value within its field especially as a volume of source reference”, as a “contribution of lasting import” and “a treatise on the subject”.14 The professed longevity of the catalog’s value came true: even to this day the ingenuity and authority of the catalog is celebrated.15 The first sentence of Barr’s preface in the catalog spells out his goal: “The exhibition is intended as an historical survey of an important movement in modern art”. The desire to present it as ‘objective’ history is enhanced by the choice of the same chart on the dustcover: the ‘scientific diagram’ of the evolution of abstract
13 As Robert Rosenblum says in his foreword to the 1986 edition of the Cubism and Abstract Art catalog, that a schema such as the chart, is more familiar to for example the biological sciences: an evolutionary pedigree. In the preface of the first edition of Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism (1936), the series that started with Cubism and Abstract Art, is described as a group of “exhibitions planned to present in an objective and historical manner the principal movements of modern art.” 14 See book review by Edward Alden Jewell, ‘The Anatomy of Cubism and Abstract Art’ in New York Times, June 7 1936, p. 8, section 1, and, Jerome Klein, ‘New Catalog by Modern Art Museum Praised’ in the ‘Art Comment’ section of the New York Post, not dated, as found in AHB[AAA: 3146;1045]. MoMA Archives, NY. 15 Robert Rosenblum’s ‘Foreword’ for the 1986 reprint of the catalog Cubism and Abstract Art was cited extensively in the Museum of Modern Art’s Bee and Elligott, Art in Our Time, A Chronicle of The Museum of Modern Art, p. 45.
190 art. This use of objectifying, scientific visualizing and reasoning can also be found in the text of the catalog. To explain the relationships between different isms, Barr uses the mathematical equation form with which he wants to suggest a “similarity in sequences”:
“Impressionism : Neo-Impres si onism = Cubism : Purism Monet, Pissaro Seurat, Picasso,Braque Ozenfant Intuitive Signac Intuitive Le Corbusier development Rationalization development Rationalization”16 This ‘equation’ is also exemplary of one of the ways in which Barr was to present a convincing development of abstract art. In this analogy, this ‘double hierarchy argument’, Barr takes an established relationship between Impressionism and Neo-Impressionism – one familiar and acceptable to the public – and forms a second series on the model of the first by which he transfers the relationship of the first sequence to the second, providing a convincing argument.17 As is expected of an historical survey the catalog is set up in a scholarly manner with an extensive list of content of the many isms and tendencies in European abstract art. Each chapter discussing a movement starts with a chronology of important facts listed by year. The text that follows offers a annotated systematic survey in which each artist and art form of implied importance is represented and positioned. Each chapter is illustrated by black-and- white photographs of a large number of works of art, most of which are in the exhibition, but also of some which are not present in the show. This inclusion of many other examples underlines the ‘survey’ ambition of the catalog. An extensive bibliography is provided at the end of the catalog in which the titles – including titles in English, French, German, Italian, Dutch, and: Russian! - have been categorized according to a “simple” classification of divisions and subdivisions.18 The arrangement of the catalog indeed meets the standard of any academic reference book.
16 Barr, Cubism and Abstract Art, p. 166. 17 This concept of double hierarchy argument was established in Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, pp. 337-345, as quoted in Fahnestrock, Retorical Figures in Science, p. 105. 18 As explained in the introduction of the bibliography: “The titles have been arranged in a simple classification, commencing with the few publications devoted solely to abstract art (titles 1-13, followed by general works on modern art (14-72), painting (73-110), sculpture (111-120), and photography (125-129) which include discussion of the various fields of abstract art; these are subdivided by countries. The remaining sections, “movements” (130-217) and “Monographs” (218-444) are subdivided alphabetically by ‘-isms”and artists’ surnames.” Furthermore, the bibliography also included symbols indicating “more important work”. See Bibliography of the catalog Cubism and Abstract Art, p. 234.
191 Barr’s argument is carefully constructed in the beginning of the catalog. The key concept of the exhibition ‘Abstraction’ is tackled. In this clever introduction Barr defines, defends, classifies and clarifies abstract art. As an opening to this subject, a separate statement on the opposite page of the introduction gives an illustration of the difference between the “realistic” style and the “abstract style”. In a short text with the catchy title ‘Contrast – and Condescension’ the public is set in the right frame of mind: the concept of contrasting styles is introduced and the prejudice against either style at different times by different people confronts the public with its own possible prejudice against abstraction. The text is illustrated by a visual statement : two posters on the same subject in the same place and time, but in the two opposing styles: one of which the public is used to (“realistic”) and the other of which is hoped that the public will learn to accept (“abstract”). (fig. 110) He uses verbal and visual contrasting to confront the public with the concept of prejudice. In the first part of the actual Introduction, the character of the early 20th century artists is built up by comparing them to other generations of artists – all of whom were of course respected by the public now - who had also “been obsessed by a particular problem”.19 The abstract artists were presented as admirable and adventurous: “the more adventurous and original artists” who “had grown bored with painting facts” and were driven towards abstraction.20 Before clarifying and defining the term “Abstract”, Barr softens the response towards the difficult term by once again making the analogy with art of the respected past. This time the word “abstract” was compared to the words “Gothic” and “Baroque”: words which once had a negative connotation but that no longer ‘needed an apology’. He also confronts the supposed prejudice head on: “prejudice can sometimes be met with argument, and for this purpose the dialectic of abstract painting and sculpture is superficially simple enough”. Barr explains: “It is based upon the assumption that a work of art, a painting for example, is worth looking at primarily because it presents a composition or organization of color, line, light and shade. Resemblance to natural objects, while it does not necessarily destroy these esthetic values, may easily adulterate their purity.”21 And, one may conclude, the public would not consider adulteration admirable. By also comparing abstract art to music, Barr further clarified and defined the term and provided and explained two classifications: near-abstractions and pure-abstractions. Finally, he defended abstraction by explaining its hounded position in the political arena of
19 Barr, Cubism and Abstract Art, p. 11. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid., p.13.
192 Fascism and Communism. And, in an emotional appeal, he concluded the introduction by dedicating the essay and exhibition to “those painters of squares and circles (and architects influenced by them) who have suffered at the hands of philistines with political power.22 The next chapter is ‘Two main traditions of Abstract Art’. Here, once again, Barr anchored the modern art by positioning it in tradition – in this case each type of abstract art with its own tradition. In this chapter the antithetical mode was pursued to epitomize a line of reasoning: despite his acknowledgment of “the risk of grave oversimplification”, Barr blatantly divided abstract art in two separate streams and placed them in opposing camps. In the ‘river’ analogy of “two main currents” - departing from different sources and flowing via different routes and at different speeds to their different deltas – Barr separated the two traditions. “The first and more important current finds its sources in the art theories of Cézanne and Seurat, passes through the widening stream of Cubism and finds its delta in the various geometrical and Constructivist movements … . The second – and , until recently, secondary – current has its principal source in the art and theories of Gauguin and his circle, flows through the Fauvisme of Matisse to the Abstract Expressionism of the pre-War paintings of Kandinsky. After running under ground for a few years it reappears vigorously among the masters of abstract art associated with Surrealism.”23 The analogy to nature Barr used strengthened the qualification of the development and importance of both : “the widening stream of Cubism” on the one side and the “current” which “after running under ground … reappears vigorously” on the other. Once the two traditions had been separated, they were placed in opposition to each other. As in a Darwinian opposition in which antithetical emotions are matched to antithetical gestures, Barr matched opposing characteristics with the opposing manifestations of abstract art. Barr described the first current as: “intellectual, structural, architectonic, geometrical, rectilinear and classical in its austerity and dependence upon logic and calculation”. In his description of the second current, he stated that “by contrast with the first” the second tradition is “intuitional and emotional rather than intellectual; organic or biomorphic rather than geometrical in its forms; curvilinear rather than rectilinear, decorative rather than structural, and romantic rather than classical in its exaltation of the mystical, the spontaneous and the irrational.”24 This persuasive device of contrasting invited the public’s participation in constructing and completing the argument of their differences. Opposites go in pairs and
22 Ibid., p.18. 23 Barr, Cubism and Abstract Art, p. 19. 24 Ibid.
193 provided with a characteristic of the one side, the public will automatically look for the opposite in the other side. The now established opposing camps with their contrasting characteristics were then brought before the public’s eye. The two traditions are personalized and positioned – by Barr - as in a competition and each backed by complementary mythological gods and philosophical greats, the two opposing forces challenge each other: “Apollo, Pythagoras and Descartes watch over the Cézanne-Cubist-geometrical tradition; Dionysus (an Asiatic god), Plotinus and Rousseau over the Gauguin-Expressionist-non-geometrical line”. And Barr concludes with: “The shape of the square confronts the silhouette of the amoeba”.25 By choosing the form of opposing pairs, the terms – which are not real antonyms – are forced apart and thus strengthen the argument of opposition.26 To illustrate the contrasting traditions, a painting by Kandinsky (Improvisation, 1915) is shown next to a painting by Malevich (Suprematist composition). In order to highlight the difference between the used shapes – geometric and non-geometric - in each work, the other differences are erased. (fig. 111) The actual difference in size of the works of art, the difference in medium and coloring are removed by giving the photographs of both works of art the exact same dimensions and positioning them side by side and by the fact that they are black-and-white photographs.27 This neutralizing effect of the works of art in the catalog positions the works of art as subordinate to the presented history of contrasting traditions, as merely an illustration in the presented history of abstract art. In the exhibition itself the same classifying and sequencing was present as was in the catalog but the contrasting, antithetical mode of the catalog’s introduction was less apparent. In its place came a type of parallelism to create order: the emphasis was placed on the evolutionary development of two forms of abstract art. As mentioned above, the chart provided the structure of the exhibition and through the constant repetition of this organizational diagram in each of the rooms an air of clear, definitive development was established. The development was presented through divisions and sub-divisions: in time, in movements, and sometimes in art forms and in countries. Arrows – posted at the doorways - determined the sequence in which the different rooms were to be visited so as to experience the evolution towards the two types of abstraction just as the arrows had determined the story
25 Ibid. 26 This refers to the use of the “False Window”: a strategy of forcing or faking a double antithesis by placing one pair of words in strategic positions that are not pairs of antonyms to begin with in the existing vocabulary or prior usage of an audience, as explained in Fahnestock, Rhetorical Figures in Science, p. 69. It is noteworthy that the contrast here between intuitive and intellectual is strengthened whereas in the sequences suggested between Impressionism - Post-Impression and Cubism – Purism the ‘opposing’ terms are positioned as stages. 27 Kandinsky’s ‘Improvisation’ (1915) is a watercolor, 13 ¼ x 8 7/8 inches; Malevich’s ‘Suprematist Composition’ is oil on canvas, 38 ½ x 26 ½ inches. See illustrations in Barr, Cubism and Abstract Art, p. 18.
194 in the flowchart. Didactic wall labels – often elaborate - were present to explain the divisions, the sequences and the comparisons. These comparisons were not contrasts: they were not shown in juxtaposition, so as to emphasize differences, but rather as ‘relatives’ to stress their formal affinities. This type of comparison was used throughout the exhibition and in the catalog.28 For example, Cézanne’s influence was demonstrated by comparing works by Picasso, Braque and Cézanne. The comparisons were also drawn between other and older art as discussed in the previous chapter. Besides the frequent comparisons the works of art throughout the exhibition – and catalog – were often presented in sequences to emphasize the evolutionary aspect of the change in abstract art. Sequences were shown within the oeuvre of one artist or sequences of works of different artists were presented which were described as either anticipating or following certain changes. An example of the first sequencing was the demonstration of the development of the formative years of Cubism by the presentation of five paintings by Picasso: “a series of five heads”.29 This series of five heads “summarize”, according to Barr, the five consecutive stages from the beginning of Analytical Cubism to the stage that “marks the end of “Analytical” Cubism and the beginning of “Synthetic Cubism””.30 A sequence of works of art of different artists was, for example, “the definite influence”, Barr described in the catalog that the kind of Cubist analysis – represented by Figure (1910), a charcoal drawing by Picasso, which itself had been anticipated by a Cézanne drawing – had had on paintings by Mondriaan, van Doesburg and architecture by Mies van der Rohe and Gropius.31 This sequence could be traced in the exhibition to the display on the third floor which was described by the Museum in a memorandum to the Press as the floor devoted to “geometrical abstract movements growing out of Cubism”.32 In this display the sequence showing the flow of influence was visualized via small photographs on mounts. (fig. 112) Another sequence was a lineage departing from the 18th century Piranesi Prison etchings. This series was said to have “anticipated Cubist-Constructivist esthetics” and was
28 In the catalog the comparisons are explicitly encouraged by the including of “cf.” with the comparative figures in the captions accompanying the illustrations. For example on page 32 of the catalog in the caption accompanying figure 13 it says: “African figure. Gabun, Bakota; cf. Picasso, figs. 12 and 14.” 29 Barr, Cubism and Abstract Art, p. 31. 30 Ibid. 31 As Barr said: “It so happens that this kind of Cubist analysis was to have a definite influence on architecture as one may see by studying the following sequence: Mondrian (fig. 141), Doesburg (fig. 162), Mies van der Rohe (fig. 163) and Gropius (fig. 164). See Barr, Cubism and Abstract Art, p. 42. 32 As described in the article: Edward Alden Jewell, ‘The Realm of Art: Abstract Pennants F…’, The New York Times, Sunday, March 8, 1936, from AHB[AAA: 3146;1058-1060]. MoMA Archives, NY.
195 presented as being a series of “magnificent proto-Cubist interiors” which connected to a series of drawings for The tower and the wheel by Delaunay, which were said to “anticipate Futurist experiment”.33 The Piranesi etching was displayed next to one of the Delaunay drawings. The reason for the comparison seems to have been to show the ‘development’ of form; indeed, the resemblance – especially in the catalog where the size of the photographs of both works is made identical – is striking. (fig. 113) Through these types of verbal and visual incrementum the impression of continuity and progress is reinforced.34 The evolutionary sequences can also be detected in the presentation of the isms in the exhibition as growing out of each other: with rooms branching off to other rooms and walls within the rooms leading on to other walls. In the catalog this growth towards abstraction via the many isms can be followed through the consecutive chapters and their paragraphs. For example, in the chapter on Surrealism – which follows the chapter on Dadaism - Surrealism is described as “a schismatic outgrowth of Dadaism”.35 Both the exhibition and the catalog provided a persuasive historical evolution of abstract art. The convincing strategies detected are the clear arrangement of the message and its focus on teaching through effective presentation of ideas and arguments. The impact of the exhibition and its catalog was immense and was prolonged by the Museum through a number of following exhibitions and by the many citations referring to both the original show and the catalog in the Museum’s own publications. A circulating exhibition adapted from the original Cubism and Abstract Art show – containing fewer objects but with the same structure and message - traveled throughout the United States in 1936 and 1937.36 Two years later, in 1939, another circulating exhibitions was launched: Classic and Romantic Traditions in Abstract Painting.37 Although the title differed, and American artists were now included in the selection, a narrative strikingly similar to the Cubism and Abstract Art show was told. The Classic tradition, starting with Seurat and Cézanne, replaced what had been described as the geometrical current and the Romantic tradition, with Gauguin and Van Gogh as its founders, replaced the non-geometrical current.
33 Barr, Cubism and Abstract Art, p. 46. 34 Incrementum according to Lanham is words or clauses placed in climatic order. Lanham, A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, p. 26. 35 Barr, Cubism and Abstract Art, p. 179. 36 The circulating exhibition was about half as big as the original one (it was composed of over 200 items in stead of 400) and traveled to museums in San Francisco, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Baltimore, Providence and Grand Rapids. The exhibition included many of the original works of art and the illustrative mounts with photographs. 37 The Classic and Romantic Traditions in Abstract Painting exhibition circulated in 1939 and 1940 and was shown in museums and universities in Wilmington, Pittsburgh, Springfield, New Orleans, Des Moines and Durham.
196 This exhibition attempted – just as the Cubism and Abstract Art show had – to reveal “the influence of abstract painting on sculpture, architecture, furniture, typography, advertising art, posters and the film”.38 This was done by the presentation of photographs of the different art forms on separate mounts. Excerpts from the Cubism and Abstract Art catalog were re-used for the press releases and the wall labels accompanying the new show. The introductory wall label reiterated large sections of the text of the chapter ‘Two main traditions of Abstract Art’ from the Cubism and Abstract Art catalog, thus repeating the same analogies and antithetical argumentation.39 A shift in importance of the two currents, however, is apparent by then. In the Cubism and Abstract Art exhibition the tradition starting with Cézanne and Seurat was deemed “more important” although it was noted that the non- geometric biomorphic form “were definitely in the ascendant”, whereas three years later in the Classic and Romantic Traditions in Abstract Painting exhibition, it is noted “that the most recent work in each field shows a predilection for the curvilinear or amoebic forms rather than the more rigid geometric forms paramount between ten and twenty-five years ago”.40 In 1942 a second exhibition Cubism and Abstract Art of European and American painting and sculpture was held in the Museum of Modern Art, in the series of New Acquisitions and Extended Loans. In this exhibition the famous chart had once again been presented, now as it seems, in a large version.41 New didactic installations were created on which the development of certain artists were portrayed: under paintings by Mondrian, for example, wall labels were installed which had explanatory text and eight small photographs of other paintings by Mondrian so as to explain the development of his work from realism to abstraction.42 Here the antithesis between the two contraries ‘realism’ and ‘abstraction’ is actually a bridge, uniting the opposites by way of an incrementum, by showing the series of steps from the beginning ‘realism’ to the climax ‘abstraction’. Although the concept of
38 See ‘Installation List’ and accompanying texts and itinerary of the circulating exhibition Classic & Romantic Traditions in Abstract Painting from CE, MoMA Archives, NY. 39 Ibid. 40 The first quote comes from Barr, Cubism and Abstract Art, p. 19; the second quotation is from: an introductory wall label from accompanying texts and itinerary of the circulating exhibition Classic & Romantic Traditions in Abstract Painting CE MoMA Archives, NY. 41 A letter from Leslie Switzer (secretary to Barr) to Mr. Thiessen, State Director of the Iowa Art Program, dd. April 17, 1942, revealed that the Iowa WPA had made a large chart and this chart was hung on the walls in the 1942 exhibition. Mention was made of several requests from schools for the chart. CUR, Exh# 176. MoMA Archives, NY. 42 Staniszewski, The Power of Display, pp. 78-79.
197 presenting the development of an artist in this way is new, it resembles the strategies used in the 1936 exhibition.43
The second exhibition in the series of general retrospective exhibitions of modern movements – as it was presented - was the Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism show, which was held at the end of 1936, following the Cubism and Abstract Art showing by a few months. It was announced, in the first line of the Preface of the catalog, as “the second of a series of exhibitions planned to present in an objective and historical manner the principal movements of modern art.”44 This movement was characterized as being “diametrically opposed in both spirit and esthetic principles” to the Cubism and Abstract Art exhibition, which had been more concerned “with the composition of color and line into formal design”.45 The Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism show was concerned with “the kind of art”, which reflects “the deep- seated and persistent interest which human beings have in the fantastic, the irrational, the spontaneous, the marvelous, the enigmatic, and the dreamlike”.46 Although the two exhibitions were presented as opposites, they were both designed to provide an objective, scholarly contribution to art history. Their argumentative strategies were, however, slightly different. In Cubism and Abstract Art the persuasive power was provided by the created taxonomies and the presentation of a definitive evolutionary progress towards Abstract art. In Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism, the Museum wanted to contribute to art history by providing a clarifying anatomy of the field of research- which was still ‘work in progress’ – by giving an ‘objective’ account of a wide-ranging, living art movement connected through time by character and not by style. The approach was broad and cursory: with lots of ‘brief’ information and lots of room for including a large number of pictures and objects of which Barr himself said, that they could doubtlessly later be discarded as “mediocre and capricious”.47 The objective was to stress the importance of the movement by building its authority and to provide a clear overview by dividing the exhibition in simple “self- explanatory” divisions and supplying neutral background information.
43 For example the sequence of the five paintings of ‘five heads’ by Picasso in the catalog of the Cubism and Abstract Art exhibition, as discussed previously. 44 See Barr’s “Preface to the first edition” in Barr, Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism, 3rd ed. 1947, p. 7. 45 See Barr’s “Introduction” in Ibid., p. 9. 46 Ibid. 47 In the original 1937 catalog seven hundred catalog numbers were included. For the third edition only approximately one third was retained.
198 Besides a catalog, Barr wrote A Brief Guide to the Exhibition of Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism to accompany the exhibition.48 As described in the ‘guide’, the Museum wanted to present “a report to the public by offering material for study and comparison”.49 The use of ‘report’ emphasizes the desired impartial status of the exhibition and its information. In the guide the ‘material for study and comparison’ consisted of a brief description of each division of the show and ‘A list of devices, techniques, media’ – in which twenty-one terms were explained by definition and/or by examples in the catalog. The catalog itself supplied a fair amount of documentation which was carefully presented as ‘brief’: a ‘Brief chronology’ of the activities the Dada and Surrealist movements with certain pioneers and antecedents from 1910 to 1936 in major cities, a ‘Brief bibliography’, of over one hundred and eighty pages of illustrations, and an extensively documented ‘Catalog of the Exhibition’ were provided. Two essays on Dada and Surrealism which were supposed to be included in the catalog were not ready on time and were published in the Museum’s Bulletin. They were included in the 2nd edition of the catalog a year later. 50 The articles were written by Georges Hugnet, a Surrealist writer whose authority was displayed by the listing of his Surrealist poems and his essays on the subject and who seemed to fit the Museum’s desire for a historical approach: as announced in Barr’s appraisal of him, Hugnet was “among all the Surrealist writers, the one most interested in an historical approach to the movement”.51 His account of Dadaism is “comparatively detached and retrospective”, his article on Surrealism he wrote “more as an active participant and apologist”.52 Both articles are elaborate historic explanations in which the two isms star as activists. In convincing personifications, Dada and Surrealism are brought to life: “With the advent of the War and in its atmosphere of breakdown, Dada was born. … Dada is ageless, it has no parents, but stands alone, making no distinction between what is and what is not. It approves while denying, it contradicts itself, and acquires new force by this very contradiction. … . It turns against itself, it indulges in self-destruction, it sees red, its despair is its genius.”, and, “Surrealism restores to art its true meaning. Surrealism, not as an esthete, but as an
48 Barr, A Brief Guide to the Exhibition of Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism. 49 Ibid., p. 9 . This ‘guide’ was reprinted in the second edition of the catalog as an Introduction, along with the essays which had been prepared for the first edition but which had arrived too late for inclusion. Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism, 3rd edition 1947, pp. 9-13. 50 The essays were first published in the Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art. See Hugnet, “Dada and Surrealism”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 4 , no.2-3 (November-December 1936): pp. 3-32. They were added to the second edition of the catalog which was revised and enlarged and was published a year later. 51 Ibid., p.14. 52 Ibid., p.14.
199 investigator and experimenter has extended its research into every field in an attempt to get to the bottom of things.”53 Dada is portrayed as an enfant terrible, as an orphan who eventually passes on certain qualities to the next generation, Surrealism. This art movement is presented as a serious and respected actor in the development of art, as one who incorporates its inherited Dada qualities but evolves and progresses beyond through investigation and experiment. As Barr stated: “Surrealism, which developed in Paris around 1924, was the direct descendent of the Dadaist interest in the bizarre, the spontaneous, and the anti-rational. But while the Surrealist program carried on the iconoclasm of Dada it added serious researches into subconscious images, dreams, visions, automatic and psychoanalytic drawings.”54 In the exhibition itself the ‘material for study and comparison’ were the different sections of the exhibition which took up all four floors of the Museum, just as the Cubism and Abstract Art exhibition had. The wall at the entrance to the exhibition was marked by organically shaped designs by Hans Arp. (fig. 114) His work was also chosen for the face of the catalog: the cover and the title page of the catalog carried a distinct design taken from a drawing by Arp. This playful, organically shaped emblem contrasted sharply with the emblem of the Cubism and Abstract exhibition - the systematic chart - underlining the announced difference between the two exhibitions which were to be “diametrically opposed in both spirit and esthetic principles”.55 The first section was a large historic section which was set up to show that the “fantastic and marvelous” had always existed in art. The public was warned, however, not to take the obvious resemblances as genuine analogies, because, as Barr explained, “these resemblances, however startling, may prove to be superficial or merely technical in character rather than psychological”, and it was to be supposed that “many of the fantastic and apparently Surrealist works of the Baroque or Renaissance are to be explained on rational grounds rather than on a Surrealist basis of subconscious and irrational expression.”56 More research was to be done, according to Barr, which positioned the Museum as scholarly institution.
53 Ibid., pp.15, 52. 54 See Press releases for the circulating exhibitions: ‘Fantastic Art, Dada and Surrealism’, p. 2 and ‘Fantastic Art, Past and Present’, p. 2. Press Releases, Library MoMA, NY. 55 As stated in A Brief Guide to the Exhibition of Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism, which was published as ‘Introduction’ in Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism, 3rd ed., p. 9. Even the colors used for the catalogs seem to be ‘diametrically opposed’: the use of bright red for the ‘Cubism and Abstract Art’ catalog versus the soft green cover of the Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism catalog! 56 Ibid., p. 7.
200 The historic section ‘Fantastic art of the past five centuries’ was filled with works by famous artists, for example: Bosch, Breugel, Da Vinci, Dürer, Arcimboldo, Piranesi, Blake, Goya, and Delacroix, but also more contemporary works of art by Ensor, Redon and Rousseau.57 The value of the historic section seems to have been mostly to impress the public and to stress the importance of the developing movement.58 By including such authoritative old masters as Breugel, Dürer or Da Vinci, both the attraction and the authority of the show were enhanced: with such excellent and well-respected ancestors the new artists would have to be virtuous!59 In this same section cartoonists and illustrators, such as Lear, Busch and Carroll - with illustrations of his ‘Alice in Wonderland’ - were included. The inclusion of illustrated manuscripts of this well-known story in the show must have augmented the accessibility for a larger public. The same effect was created by including works by the cartoonists, Disney, Goldberg and Thurber in another section of the exhibition: ‘Artists independent of the Dada-Surrealist movements’.60 By including Mickey Mouse and calling him “the World’s most famous Surrealist” a large public was bound to feel at home. In this same section a diverse selection of artists was presented – most of which were Americans - such as, for example works by: Blume, Calder and O’Keeffe, but also works by Gonzalez and Siquieros were on view. Other sections of the exhibition were ‘Comparative material’ and ‘Fantastic architecture’. The Comparative material division showed a broad array of objects: ‘Art of children’, ‘Art of the insane’, ‘Folk art’, ‘Commercial and journalistic art’, ‘Miscellaneous objects and pictures with a Surrealist character’ and ‘Scientific objects’. The objects were presented together as a collection of oddities. The division Fantastic architecture showed illustrations of work by, for example: Gaudi, Guimard, and Schwitters.61 Photographs of Schwitters’ Merzbau were presented together with Piranesi’s Prison interior etchings and Giacometti’s The palace at 4 a.m., creating a tradition in fantasy approach to architecture with
57 The same Piranesi ‘Prison interior’ c. 1745 was shown in the Cubism and Abstract Art exhibition. 58 In the Press release for the ‘Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism’ exhibition, nr.: 113036-38, For Release December 5 or 6, 1936, the names of the living artists are listed together with the old masters: “More than 157 American and European artists will be represented, ranging from such extremes as Giovanni de Paolo and Leonardo da Vinci of the fifteenth century to Walt Disney, Rube Goldberg and Thurber of the twentieth century, and including such famous names both old and modern as Hieronymus Bosch, Duerer, Delacroix, Edward Lear, Redon, Chagall, de Chirico, Duchamp, Picasso, Arp, Dali, Ernst, Grosz, Magritte, Miro, Klee, Man Ray, Tanguy, Peter Blume, Georgia O’Keeffe, and Alexander Calder.” 59 Quintillian, The Orator’s Education, Book 3.7 (Russell, p. 107). According to Quintillian, there will be praise for those who live up to the noble birth of their ancestors. 60 Frames from Walt Disney’s animated cartoon, Three Little Wolves, 1936, were shown. Furthermore his The Skeleton Dance, 1929, was included in the listing of ‘Fanstastic or Surealist films in the Museum of Modern Art Film Library’ in the catalog. 61 The ‘Fantastic Architecture’ division also included photographs of works by Ferdinand Cheval and two models and wash drawing by Emilio Terry.
201 Piranesi once again as forefather; the names of the artists were marked above their works in large bold lettering.62 (fig. 115) The main body of the exhibition, as was explained in the catalog, were the sections of Dada and Surrealism of the past twenty years and certain of - what the Museum considered to be - their ‘20th century Pioneers’: Chagall, De Chirico, Duchamp, Kandinsky, Klee and Picasso. The selection of these artists as “pioneers” was indicated in the catalog: as artists who had anticipated many of the ideas of the Dadaists and as artists (all besides Chagall) who were “admired and claimed” by the Surrealists.63 The individual “relation” of each of these “pioneers” to the Dada and Surrealist movements was “indicated briefly” in a list in the catalog.64 In the installation, the works of each artist were presented together in a spacious, balanced setting worthy of a master. (fig. 116). The inclusion of so many famous modern and old artists and so many other influences underlined the important position the Museum gave to this movement for the future development of art. And even though Barr stated that it was not possible to evaluate the contemporary movement since it was too close in time and that he could only describe it, he stressed the import of Surrealist Art: “It should … be stated that Surrealism as an art movement is a serious affair and that for many it is more than an art movement: it is a philosophy, a way of life, a cause to which some of the most brilliant painters and poets of our age are giving themselves with consuming devotion.”65 The influence of the Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism catalog was prolonged and the catalog itself was rejuvenated: new editions were revised and enlarged. Of the seven hundred original catalog numbers, only approximately one third was retained. A number of important Museum acquisitions by Klee, de Chirico, Miro and Picasso, which had not been shown in the exhibition itself and which had been acquired after 1936, were added to the third edition of the catalog in 1947 - more than ten years after the actual exhibition!. 66 This adding on to the
62 It is noteworthy that Piranesi’s ‘Prison interiors’ were presented in the exhibition as ‘fantastic architecture’ close in character to Surrealism, whereas in the ‘Cubism and Abstract Art’ exhibition they were celebrated as “magnificent proto-Cubist interiors”, as discussed above. See Barr, Cubism and Abstract Art, p. 46. 63 See Catalog Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism, 3rd edition 1947, p. 11. 64 The listing of the relations of the individual artists was indeed very brief and tentative: for example: “Chagall has had almost no relations with either the Dadaists or the Surrealists. De Chirico’s art of the period 1910-1918 was studied by the Dadaists and has been perhaps the most important single influence upon Surrealist Painting. … Kandinsky did not participate in either movement but some of his work of 1911-17 interested the Zurich Dadaists and remains among the first and purest expressions of quasi-automatic painting”. Ibid., p. 113. 65 Ibid., p. 8. 66 As explained by Barr in the ‘Note to the third edition’, reproductions of the Klee Twittering Machine, the de Chirico Toys of a prince, the Miro Dutch Interior, and Picasso’s Ma Jolie and Two figures on a beach were added to the catalog. These works had not been included in the original exhibition. See ‘Note to the third edition’ in Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism, 3rd edition 1947. In the third edition the ‘plate’ section of the catalog was
202 catalog emphasizes the role it was to fulfill: as independent scholarly text of modern art history in which the Museum’s works of art themselves featured as highlights of the movements. The Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism exhibition continued the same year as a circulating exhibition visiting museums across the country and a year later - in 1938 - a smaller version of the exhibition was circulated under the name: Fantastic Art, Past and Present; of the seven hundred catalog numbers from the original exhibition only seventy-five remained.
In the same historical series of the Cubism and Abstract Art and Fantastic Art, Dada and Surrealism exhibitions, a number of exhibitions were to follow in the thirties and forties.67 These other exhibitions within the historical series, which were planned to “present in an objective and historical manner the principal movements of modern art”, were, however, not as influential internationally and more concerned with putting American Art on the art historical map. To counter the growing criticism – in the 1940’s - of favoring European art above American art, the emphasis of the retrospective series shifted towards profiling the historic development and current positioning of contemporary American art. Furthermore, this highlighting of American art seemed justified due to the growth of the international position of the United States during the war. The American self-confidence built up by their military contribution to ‘a free world’ was starting to expand to the arts. Especially the last two exhibitions American Realists and Magic Realists (1943) and Romantic Painting in America (1943) were focused on the American fortes within the realistic tradition of painting and were presented broad enough to include some of the same artists and within ‘Romanticism’ almost every style of painting: ‘Romantic Realism’, ‘Romantic Expressionism’, ‘A Romantic Cubist’, ‘Romantics of the Subconscious’. In Romantic Painting in America, the role of American art in relation to European art was re-established: subjects which were highlighted were “our little known but important contribution to the beginnings of the European Romantic revolt” and, “what our painters in turn have borrowed”.68 American artists and movements
rearranged. One noticeable alteration was the enlargement of Piranesi’s ‘Prison interior’, which was now upgraded to a full page illustration, whereas before it had been presented in a smaller version together with two other illustrations of Larmessin’s work. 67 Masters of Popular Painting, Modern Primitives of Europe and America in 1938, in collaboration with The Grenoble Museum was the third of the series, American Realists and Magic Realists and Romantic Painting in America, both in 1943, were registered as the fourth and the fifth in the historical series “designed to present the movements, trends or divisions of modern art”. See Barr’s “Preface” from the catalog Romantic Painting in America, p. 5. 68 Catalog Romantic Painting in America, by Soby and Miller (p. 6).
203 were frequently presented as equally important to European examples in the texts of both catalogs. 69 The American Realists and Magic Realists show seemed to have been positioned in two series of exhibitions: the above mentioned historical series and a series focusing on contemporary American art, which was directed by Dorothy Miller.70 There was quite a contrast between the clearly defined first two exhibitions of avant-garde movements with their authoritative catalogs and the fifth – the last – in the series: Romantic Painting in America (1943) which was described as “the first general survey of a tradition” – “a pioneer venture in the presentation of the subject” with a very broad and inclusive approach to Romanticism. Barr must have anticipated the criticism: in the catalog he defended the broad approach chosen by Miller, then associate curator of painting and director of the exhibition, and Soby, then assistant director and the writer of the catalog text and – in a direct approach to the public – asked “that their selections and classifications be considered tentative”. 71 To boost the credibility and authority of Soby, Barr stated that although Soby “is not primarily an historian of American art”, he is knowledgeable on early 19th century Romanticism and he has, “more than any other American critic, heralded the recent revival of Romanticism as distinguished from 20th century realism and abstract art.” 72 “The Romantic tradition”, as Miller stated, “emerges as one of the strong and continuous currents in American painting”.73 Within seven years the series of five historical exhibitions had covered what was then considered the most important divisions of modern art and their histories. The first two exhibitions were by far the most influential and representative of what the Museum wanted to present. The latter three were more focused on positioning American art in the history of
69 For example in the catalog of the Romantic Painting in America, the year 1908 is discussed as important: “The meeting between Ryder and Eilshemius is said to have taken place in 1908, a crucial date in modern art on many scores. Cubism was launched then, and since that time modern European paining, centered in Paris, has produced formal movements in bewildering succession; … American painting over the same period has been by comparison a matter of individual direction … the group of painters which in 1908 opened the path for modern art in this country was known characteristically as “the Eight”. (p. 37). It is interesting to note that the Stedelijk Museum singled out the date 1907 as important in modern art. 70 In Miller’s Foreword and Acknowledgment of the catalog American Realists and Magic Realists, (p. 5), the exhibition is announced as: “the second of a series of exhibitions inaugurated by the Museum of Modern Art last year with 18 Artists from 9 States. The series was planned to provide a continuing survey of the arts in the United States.” In the Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art, this aspect was stressed by changing the title of the exhibition to: Americans 1943: Realists and Magic Realists (Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 10, no. 3 (February 1943): p. 22). In the ‘Preface’ of the Romantic Painting in America catalog (p. 5), the ‘American Realists and Magic Realists’ exhibition was acknowledged as the fourth in the historical survey series. 71 See Barr’s Preface of the catalog Romantic Painting in America, p. 6. 72 Ibid. As expected, the show received a lot of critical commentary for being too vague and broad. In a reaction to criticism of the show, Barr as general director admitted, “we may have stretched the term “Romanticism” a little too much”. 73 See Miller’s Foreword and Acknowledgement in Romantic Painting in America, p. 4.
204 modern art. All five shows were to travel as circulating exhibitions. The combination of traveling exhibition and an authoritative catalog on the subject seems to have fit the desired format of materials for colleges and universities.74 It is notable that the catalogs were presented as equally important or sometimes even more important than the exhibitions themselves.75 The Museum hoped that the catalogs would fill a gap in the market for authoritative scholarly books on the subject of modern art.76
Early Historical Exhibitions in the Stedelijk
The history of modern art was told in a very different way in the Stedelijk Museum during the thirties. There was no systematic covering of the field of modern art with its different divisions. Certain movements such as Surrealism were not presented in the Museum exhibitions. The important exhibition on Surrealism in the thirties was held in a gallery: the Amsterdam Galerie Robert in 1938.77 Abstract art was given a separate exhibition. The history of abstract art told by the Stedelijk Museum in 1938 in its Abstracte Kunst exhibition was quite a different one from the Cubism and Abstract Art exhibition in New York of two years earlier. In the Stedelijk exhibition the artists themselves had a dominant role. Although the organizing committee of the Abstracte Kunst exhibition described it as a “fairly complete survey of the development of abstract art since the beginning of the 20th century”, it was not arranged in a scientific, evolutionary line-up, nor was it set up in an antithetical mode as was the case in New York.78. The selection of the rooms did, however, seem to distinguish between nations what was
74 In a letter from Harriet Dyer Adams, Acting Director of Person Hall Gallery of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, to Barr, dated June 8, 1943, Dyer Adams writes: “This note is to express my appreciation of your works on modern art, especially “Cubism and Abstract Art”: I am using it constantly in my preparation for a course in Contemporary Art … Next will come your museum’s analysis of Picasso’s “Seated Man” and later your “What is Architecture?”, I feel like a millionaire being able to correlate the exhibitions with my course! Without your books thought I never could have prepared the material in the short time I have had, and my thanks go to you many times”. AHB[AAA: 2170;0040]. MoMA Archives, NY. 75 In the catalog of the Romantic Painting in America exhibition, the books are presented as the core of the series in which the exhibitions accompany them: “Romantic Painting in America is the fifth of a series of books and accompanying exhibitions designed to present the movements, trends or divisions of modern art.”(p. 5) 76 In the preface of the catalog of the fifth in the retrospective series Romantic Painting in America exhibition, the importance of the catalogs is underlined: “Romantic Painting in America is the fifth of a series of books and accompanying exhibitions designed to present the movements, trends or divisions of modern art.” (p. 5) 77 The Exposition Internationale du Surréalisme was held in the Spring of 1938 at Galerie Robert on the Keizersgracht in Amsterdam. It was organized by a number of artists, such as Breton, Eluard, Hugnet, Penrose. George Hugnet, who had written the essays for the Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism catalog, wrote the essay, Surréalistische Schilderkunst for the Galerie exhibition. 78 As described by H. Buys, who wrote a text for the press release in a handwritten letter to Sandberg, dated March 28, 1938. Dossier exhibition Abstracte Kunst, SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
205 described in one of the essays in the catalog as the two pillars of “constructivisme”: the Dutchmen and the Russians.79 The exhibition was spread over the two wings of the first floor. The survey started in one wing with the two prominent Dutch artists of abstract art: Piet Mondriaan en Theo van Doesburg, who were acknowledged as the forerunners of abstract art. Their central role in the exhibition was underlined by the reproduction of two of Van Doesburg’s paintings on the front of the catalog and the invitation for the opening. Their work was the core around which – in two consecutive rooms - other works of art of younger artists were presented together with a few Dutch architectural models in what was described as ‘a pleasant and instructive’ ensemble.80 The works of art which were displayed in conjunction with the paintings by Mondriaan and Van Doesburg had either been inspired by them or resembled them formally. The last room in this wing was devoted to sculptures by Brancusi. Perhaps his having been enrolled in the Stijl group in 1926 positioned him on this side of the Museum. The other wing presented the painters and sculptors more or less constructivist (Lissitzky, Moholy-Nagy, Pevsner, etc.) next to master-jugglers of harmonies of colors and forms (Kandinsky, Léger, Klee, Arp, etc.).81 There were no lengthy explanatory wall labels to clarify the progress of abstract art. The catalog did provide “a small avalanche” of theories on its meaning, reception and historical lineage.82 Three of the six essays included in the catalog were written by contributing artists: Mondriaan, Kandinsky and Gorin, which underlined the position of the artist in the exhibition. They were passionate exposés on the importance of abstract art for creating a better world, as were the other three essays. This especially was the catalog’s strength. As voiced by Albert Schulze Vellinghausen, who – in 1962 - called it Sandberg’s first catalog, it was cherished as a “spark of hope” in the dark period of National Socialism and war.83 Although Sandberg was in the organizing committee, he had not actually contributed to the catalog nor had he designed it. Only one of the members of the organizing committee, H. Buys, had contributed to the catalog with an essay on abstract art. His approach
79 Georg Schmidt, “Constructivism” in the catalog Abstracte Kunst, the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1938, p. 12. The essay was taken from the opening speech which Georg Schmidt had made for his own exhibition of Constructivisten, held in the Basel Kunsthalle in 1937. 80 As described in an article written in French by Hans Jaffé, “L’art abstrait a Amsterdam”, which was probably sent in response to a request by G. di San Lazzaro, dd. May 10, 1938, for the revue XX siecle. Dossier exhibition Abstracte Kunst, SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid., p. 1. 83 Albert Schulze Vellinghausen contributed to the laudatory De Collectie Sandberg in 1962 with a personal story on what the Abstracte Kunst exhibition and catalog meant to him. Describing the impact of the catalog he says: “Ich habe ihn durch den Krieg hin gerettet und (…) in die Kaserne mitgenommen: um ihn einigen Kameraden (…) als kostbaren Zipfel der Hoffnung zu zeigen. Als Beweis, wo die Welt schon eigentlich sei und wohin sie wieder gelangen musse.” See Kouwenaar, de collectie sandberg, n.p.
206 was not a historical one but a more philosophical approach, and the only reference he made to historical lineage was a reference to Picasso: “Picasso was one of the first to sense cosmic power in painting, our former compatriots Piet Mondriaan and Theo van Doesburg were the ones to verbalize this experience, and architects like Van Eesteren, Oud, Rietveld and others recreated her in spatial form.”84 There was no preface or introduction in which the Museum was visible as ‘directing’ organization. The story told in the catalog was a compilation of un-orchestrated voices. The different voices provided different descriptions of the importance of abstract art and different references to the heritage and development of abstract art, either starting with Picasso, Cubism, or Impressionism. Because these views were not positioned in a larger overview, no definitive history was presented: there was no authoritative voiceover to provide a clear message on the evolution of abstract art. It is clear that the emphasis of the presentations was not on the development of art history but on the importance of this art and these artists for society. Furthermore, the focus was on the quality of the individual artists and the works of art themselves: the abstract works of art were displayed in an ‘appropriate’ and aesthetic manner in which each object received individual attention. This focus on the works of art can also be witnessed in the catalog, which started – after the listing of the committees involved –with the ‘list of exhibitors’ including their works of art, placed before the six essays. Centrally positioned at the end of the list, a quote in italics from artist Theo van Doesburg was highlighted personifying the work of art: “The painting is a free creation, an independent organism, in the mind of the maker, born and realized in matter”. 85 This statement seems to bring the work of art to life (energeia) making it easier for the public to relate to it. In a number of the essays the abstract work of art is put in an active role of leading the public to a new world. As was expressed by Kandinsky in his essay: “each real work of art is a new discovery … . That is why each real work says: “Here I am”.”86 This declaration is what the installation of this exhibition seems to have expressed: Here they are!. To provide a fitting background for these new creations, the rooms on the first
84 H. Buys, “Abstracte Kunst” in catalog of Abstracte Kunst, the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1938, p 5. The Dutch text reads: “Was Picasso een der eersten, die in de schilderkunst kosmische krachten bespreurde, onze vroegere landgenooten Piet Mondriaan en Theo van Doesburg brachten deze ervaring onder woorden, architecten gelijk Van Eesteren, Oud, Rietveld en anderen herschiepen haar tot ruimtelijken vorm.” 85 Catalog of the exhibition Abstracte Kunst, p. 4. The Dutch text is: “Het schilderij is een vrije schepping, een zelfstandig organisme, in den geest van den maker, geboren en gerealiseerd in de materie.” 86 Kandinsky, “Abstract of Concreet?”, in the catalog Abstracte Kunst, p. 9. The Dutch text says: “Dus is ieder echt werk een nieuwe ontdekking; naast de reeds bekende werelden wordt een nieuwe, tot dusver onbekende wereld ontdekt. Daarom zegt ieder echt werk: “Hier ben ik!”.
207 floor of the Museum had been modernized as discussed in the first chapter. In these newly modernized rooms – especially prepared for this exhibition - the architect Mart Stam helped to create an ideal, decorous setting for each of the abstract works of art. Besides the faint distinction in classification between the Dutch masterpieces and the paintings and architectural models influenced by them on the one hand, and the more-or-less Constructivist works of art on the other, the installation was aesthetically based. The paintings were not hung in a symmetrical line-up as was the custom, but were hung high and low highlighting each individual creation. (fig. 117) Every wall provided a lively spectacle; the long row of cushioned benches ran along the window-side of the rooms – giving light from behind - as in a theatre-like setting so that the public could experience the staged works of art to the fullest. The sculptures were positioned on pedestals and podia of different heights and sizes often in the middle of the rooms. (fig. 118) Each sculpture had its own base designed to fit its personality. Arp’s sculpture – for example - with its round curving silhouette was placed on an organically shaped plateau which emphasized the shape and character of Arp’s abstract creations.(photo) To underline Brancusi’s special position as an artist, a separate room was installed with his sculptures. Here the individual approach to each sculpture is even more evident: the natural shape and material of De Visch is enhanced by the floor of pebbles, whereas the slick, shiny Leda sits on an austere rectangular plateau. This strategy of display was to be used more often in the Stedelijk in other Sandberg exhibitions of sculpture, which was to bring him and the Stedelijk international acclaim.87 In many ways the ‘Abstracte Kunst’ exhibition was a forerunner of what was to become a typical type of Stedelijk exhibition in which the artists were prominent and the works of art themselves were brought to life for the public. The ‘Abstracte Kunst’ exhibition, however, was not representative of the type of historical exhibition held in the Stedelijk of the thirties.
The dominant historical Stedelijk exhibitions of that period showed large overviews of the art of different countries with the objective of positioning the Museum on the European map as a real modern art museum and of bringing large audiences to the Museum. These blockbusters- type exhibitions were grand celebrations of each countries characteristic contributions; they were laudatory exposés designed to show a country’s state of the arts. They fit perfectly in the type of nation state thinking of this period in Europe. Especially the first large exhibitions were not designed as much to explain, but were meant to expose and impress. Large amount
87 There was international acclaim for Sandberg’s exhibition designs of, for example, his Calder exhibition (1947) and his 13 beeldhouwers uit Parijs (1948) . “Museums and Unesco”, Museum 2, (1949): pp. 14, 27.
208 of works were presented from renowned collections and the shows received a great amount of publicity not in the last place due to the impressive lists of honorary committee members involved and the effort performed by especially installed propaganda committees. The mode of display was traditional: an aesthetically designed, symmetrical installation, hung a la cimaise. The French history of modern art received the most attention with three large exhibitions – of which two were ‘blockbuster’ size - within a few years: it was acknowledged that the French lead the way in the history of modern art. The other country to receive a large exhibition of their art was England. These exhibitions are discussed because they were important for promoting the Stedelijk as an internationally established museum of modern art in a period of the Museum’s history that it was still very much a boarding house. In a foreword by Roëll of the catalog of one of the first grand shows in 1936, Twee Eeuwen Engelsche Kunst, an exhibition of two hundred years of English art, he stated that except for England nearly every country in Europe had already shown its art in Amsterdam. The idea for the exhibition of English art had initially been to focus on the more modern period: to show “contemporary art with a small retrospective survey starting in 1750”, which indeed would seem to be in line with the Stedelijk’s desire to position itself as a modern art museum. But, due to “the positive response in England” it had grown to a much larger, “completely representative presentation of two centuries of English Art” according to Roëll.88 The “modern section” of the exhibition, however, was “weaker”, as Roëll explained, because a number of the very best 20th century artworks were in an “important exhibition in Johannesburg”.89 The emphasis of the exhibition had thus shifted from a presentation of contemporary art with a minor retrospective introduction to a large, historical overview with a halfhearted contemporary section. Despite the weight shift from a smaller contemporary show to a hefty historical one, it turned out to be a great success: it attracted a large audience to the Museum, which had been the Museum’s objective. The Stedelijk had been under pressure to increase its number of visitors and this type of giant exhibition indeed seemed effective.90 The press was enthusiastic and the installation was praised: “The hanging of the exhibition is excellent ; both in the way the major movements in British painting are made clear, and in the value given to individual pictures. Aesthetically as well as historically, it is a
88 ‘Ter inleiding’ of catalog Twee Eeuwen Engelsche Kunst, p. 13. 89 Ibid., p. 14. 90 The attendance to the Stedelijk Museum that year had grown substantially due to exhibition of English art. See Verslag 1936 Musea der Gemeente. (p.1), SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
209 triumph of ingenuity and taste.”91 The hanging seems to have been a perfect translation of the message in the catalog, which also focused on the individual artists and the beauty of their individual works of art. The Foreword – which was the only essay in the catalog besides Roëll’s preface - by Kenneth Clark, then the Director of the National Gallery and Surveyor of the King’s Pictures, described the strength of English art as the power of individuals, who at their best could approach the greatness of English literature: Clark compared Turner at his best to the poet Shelly, and portrayed Constable as creating “prose of the clearest beauty”.92 This says a lot about the esteem the British had for their painters. There were no established traditions to be found in English art, according to Clark, and therefore the seeking of parallels in an exhibition would not be suitable.93 This lack of lineage in the text is reflected in the installation of the exhibition. Although the catalog does not provide any substantial texts on the subject, there are a few references to a more scholarly approach. Each artist was introduced in the catalog section by a short biography, and the works of art each were accompanied by information on material, measurements and heritage, and sometimes a short caption with information relating to the content of the work. Furthermore, for what seems to be the first time in a Stedelijk Museum catalog, a bibliography was added at the end of the catalog listing books on English art and artists – books which were present in Amsterdam.94 This was the first catalog that Jaffé, who at the time was still an art history student, had worked on as assistant curator. Encouraged by the success of Twee Eeuwen Engelsche Kunst, the Museum pursued the course of making prestigious monster shows for a large public. The history of French art received the most attention in the Stedelijk of the thirties: Baard and Roëll had always had strong connections in France, and furthermore, it was acknowledged that “without any doubt, the highpoint in painting of the last hundred years was to be found in France.” 95 This was reason enough to want to present the French developments in a number of exhibitions. Before two large French historical exhibitions were
91 W.G.C., “British Art at Amsterdam”, Burlington Magazine 69 (August 1936): pp. 87-88. 92 The Foreword of the catalog for the exhibition Twee Eeuwen Engelsche Kunst by Kenneth Clark, who was a member of the organizing committee, was printed in English and Dutch. For his comments on Turner and Constable, see pp. 18-19. 93 Ibid., p. 21. 94 The list ‘Eenige litteratuur over de Engelsche Kunst, voorzoover deze te Amsterdam vertegenwoordigd is’ contained a number of books on contemporary art, such as Herbert Read’s Art Now (1933) and R.H. Wilenski’s The Modern Movement in Art (1935). 95 See the preface of the catalog, Tentoonstelling van de Afdeling Moderne Fransche Kunst uit het Museum van Grenoble, p. 7. Roëll had studied art at the Ecole du Louvre in Paris.
210 presented in the late 1930’s, a somewhat smaller one was brought to the Stedelijk that emphasized the desire to profile the Stedelijk as a more experimental and living museum. In 1935 – a year before ‘Twee Eeuwen Engelsche Kunst’ - the history of modern French art was shown in an exhibition selected from the collection of modern French art from the progressive Museum of Grenoble: Tentoonstelling van de afdeeling moderne Fransche Kunst uit het Museum van Grenoble.96 This museum had the reputation of having the most adventurous and advanced collection of contemporary art in France, as Baard acknowledged in his preface of the catalog. He described it as “a living museum with a universal collection”.97 It was as if by associating with this lively, vanguard collection that the spark of modernity would light the changing aspirations of the Stedelijk, which was to focus on the collection and the presentation of more contemporary art. This desire was expressed at the end of the preface in his welcoming words to the Grenoble collection: in a personified plea Baard stated that the Stedelijk Museum “feels like an older, level-headed sister next to this frisky figure. The Stedelijk, however, would be delighted if Amsterdam were to give its heart to this lively youth.”98 The selected collection was indeed lively: there was a large and varied selection of paintings (according to the catalog, one hundred and forty-five paintings by ninety-three painters were included), drawings, prints, aquarelles and gouaches, and furthermore, a selection of sculpture was included, together with two African masks, sculptured earthenware plates and garden vases, and, a silver soup terrine. Due to the large number of contributing artists – of whom a number were less known - and their diverse art, the presentation was not structured in a strictly chronological order but grouped to show the immense diversity of the period represented: the selection of paintings and sculptures were presented in an aesthetic manner without acknowledging any clear lineage.99 Although no artists were presented as dominant, a few received relatively more attention than others. Matisse, Fantin-Latour – the famous son of Grenoble as, he was called – Jongkind and Derain, were represented by more than five works of art while most of the artists were only represented by one or two. The catalog reflected this lack of historical structuring, the focus on the broad landscape of
96 In 1932 the Stedelijk Museum had already organized an exhibition on 20th century modern French art. The 1935 exhibition was the second retrospective show on modern French art in the thirties. 97 See the preface of the catalog, Tentoonstelling van de Afdeling Moderne Fransche Kunst uit het Museum van Grenoble, p. 7. 98 Ibid., p. 9. The Dutch text reads: “… roept het Stedelijk Museum als gastvrouw de verzameling uit Grenoble een hartelijk welkom toe. Het voelt zich eenigszins als een oudere, bezadigde zuster naast deze dartele verschijning. Het zal er zich echter in verheugen, wanneer Amsterdam aan deze bruisende jeugd zijn hart mocht verpanden.” 99 See Van Adrichem, De ontvangst van de moderne kunst in Nederland 1910-2000, p. 194.
211 modern French painting, and the laudatory character of the exhibition: the short preface by Baard – the only essay in the catalog – boasts simply of the virtues of the Grenoble collection, a collection which the Stedelijk would like to emulate. The two large historical exhibitions were held on the history of French painting and sculpture in two consecutive summers: Honderd Jaar Fransche Kunst in 1938, which presented a historical survey of French painting from David to Cézanne, and, Rondom Rodin Tentoonstelling Honderd Jaar Fransche Sculptuur in 1939, which presented French sculpture of the last 100 years as pre- and post-Rodin.100 Both exhibitions were large prestigious cultural events showing two “beautiful expressions of French genius” of a whole century, as Roëll commented in the prefaces of both catalogs.101 Initially there had been the idea to have a Hundred Year Dutch Art exhibition after the first French show and comparable to it, but the Museum did not feel ready for such a national proclamation: there was doubt that the quality of the work would not be high enough and that public attendance would not equal the foreign art exhibitions, so the Museum chose for the French sculpture exhibition.102 The catalogs of both French exhibitions showed the same ambitions as the Twee Eeuwen Engelsche Kunst catalog. The texts in the catalogs were written by experts outside the museum. The extensive foreword for Honderd Jaar Fransche Kunst was written by René Huyghe, curator from the Louvre, and Michel Florisoone wrote an equally lengthy piece for Rondom Rodin. Catalog entries included bibliographical information, and now even included documentation of previous exhibitions and literature. Honderd Jaar Fransche Kunst provided a clear picture of the development of the French painting until the last quarter of the 19th century. The emphasis – and “the main interest” of the exhibition - seems to have been on the early period. As noted in the press, “the main interest lies in the first three rooms, which set a peculiarly high standard”.103 The presentation of the more modern works was disappointing: although Cézanne was represented by the largest number of works of art (over thirty paintings), the selection was conservative: the focus was on the period before 1877.104 The text by Huyghe was written as a historical explanation of the “stages of the 19th century art”
100 The summer exhibition ‘Rondom Rodin, Tentoonstelling Honderd Jaar Fransche Sculptuur’ was held from July 1, 1939 until September 3, 1940. It was prolonged due to the outbreak of the War in September 1939. 101 See “Ter Inleiding” in the catalog Honderd Jaar Fransche Kunst, p. VI and the “Ter Inleiding” in Rondom Rodin, p. VIII. 102 See minutes of 172nd meeting of the Commissie van Bijstand held October 24, 1938. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. Alderman Boekman was chairman. A “150 Years of Dutch Art’ was finally held at the Stedelijk Museum in 1963. This exhibition was organized by a larger group of museums. 103 Lord, “Honderd Jaar Fransche Kunst: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam”, pp. 131-132. 104 Ibid., p. 132.
212 which were “so clearly grouped” in the exhibition.105 In his historical essay he described the “birth of impressionism” and the artists’ reactions to it. At the end of his exposé he highlighted the reactions of Seurat, Gauguin and Cézanne. Strangely enough Seurat’s art is absent in the exhibition itself, therefore presenting a different story, which did not go unnoticed.106 In the Rondom Rodin exhibition the focus was also on the earlier period: the more contemporary works – including sculptures by Picasso, Laurens, Lipchitz and Zadkine among others - were by far outnumbered and were presented, more or less outside of the chronological installation, in the central hall of the Museum, like individuals in a waiting room waiting to be positioned in the development of the history of sculpture.107 The text by Florisoone, who didn’t even mention Picasso, underlined this insecure position of the contemporary sculptors: in his otherwise so passionate personification of the sculpture of, for example, Rodin or Maillol, he presents most of the contemporary sculpture as disappointingly static, waiting for “a modern Giotto of Sculpture”.108 Both the exhibitions of one hundred years of French art were accompanied by lectures given by experts in the various fields and tours of the exhibitions. Propaganda committees were installed to match the grandeur of these cultural enterprises which seem to have been initiated in order to strengthen the international ties during the years of the threat of war and to establish an international position for the Museum. These exhibitions positioned the Stedelijk as a internationally important modern art museum and increased its popularity with the public. They did not provide a historical survey of modern art, but celebrated the history of the French and English modern masters.
Historical Theme Exhibitions in the Stedelijk in the Fifties and Sixties
The historical overviews of modern art in the Stedelijk Museum were to be initiated in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s in theme exhibitions. After the war the first and at the same time the most ambitious exhibition highlighting a historical movement was the influential expressionisme: van gogh tot picasso exhibition in
105 Foreword by René Huyghe in Honderd Jaar Fransche Kunst, p. XVIII. 106 Lord, “Honderd Jaar Fransche Kunst: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam”, p. 132. 107 Jan van Adrichem describes Hammacher’s reaction to the installation of the ‘moderns’ in the hall. According to Hammacher, there were not many visitors who – after viewing the large exhibition – had the courage and desire to give the moderns the attention they deserved. See note 115 of chapter 8 in Van Adrichem, De ontvangst van de moderne kunst in Nederland, 1910-2000, p. 504. 108 See the essay by Michel Florisoone in Rondom Rodin, pp. IX-XXVII.
213 1949. This exhibition was the first exhibition at the Museum after the war to be organized and researched by the Stedelijk Museum itself.109 It featured the historic movement ‘expressionism’ of the period between approximately 1905 and 1925, and its precursors. This exhibition, together with the expressionisme exhibition of 1951, presented the historic movement of expressionism as an international, European movement. It was even called a “European school of painting”.110 Where before the War the focus of the development of modern art had been on the accomplishments of the individual nation states, now after the war the international – European - aspects were accentuated. One of the messages of the exhibition was a political one: art had the power to overcome national differences and the artists led the way. The differences between the European countries had been overcome by the art of expressionism. Artists from a number of European countries were included in the exhibition. As Jaffé stated at the beginning of his introduction of the catalog: “For a short period – from 1905 until about 1925 – Europe had a style of visual art which incorporated and overcame all international differences: expressionism. The Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians, French, Russians and Germans worked together on the creation of a new form of visual art – they all contributed their national characteristics towards the development of an art which incorporated all of Europe and which expressed the spiritual life of those years.”111 The line- up of countries is noteworthy with its emphasis on the first and the last. The Dutch were mentioned first, which claimed a major role for them. As Jaffé elaborated further on in the text, Holland played a special role in the development of expressionism. The Germans are cited at the end, which stresses their inclusion. This special emphasis on the German participation was necessary. The lack of attention for German art in general – as opposed to the dominant position of the French - and for expressionism in particular, which had been declared ‘degenerate’ by the same country that was responsible for many of its artists, needed to be rectified. Besides the political message, the exhibition and its catalog had a social aim: to present modern art as an honorable source, as a contributor to mankind. As stated in the catalog: “expressionism is more than a merely artistic movement, it is an expression of
109 See Roodenburg-Schadd, Expressie en ordening, p. 232. 110 See the catalog expressionisme: van gogh tot picasso , np. Jaffé called it a “Europese schilderschool”. 111 The Dutch text reads: “Voor een korte tijd – in de jaren van 1905 tot ongeveer 1925 – heeft Europa in de beeldende kunst een stijl gekend, die alle internationale verschillen omvatte en te boven ging: het expressionisme. Nederlanders, Belgen, Noren, Fransen, Russen en Duitsers hebben samengewerkt aan de schepping van een nieuwe vorm der beeldende kunst – allen hebben hun nationale eigenschappen bijgedragen tot de groei van een schilder- en beeldhouwkunst, die heel Europa omvatte, en die het geestelijk leven dier jaren vertolkte.”. See the ‘inleiding’ of the catalog: expressionisme: van gogh tot picasso, n.p.
214 feelings that are deeply rooted in our era”, and as was concluded, “expressionism realizes that art’s duty is not to reproduce something, but above all, to contribute something to mankind”.112 The expressionistic works of art were brought to life and presented as active communicators who “ask the viewer not to acknowledge, but to sympathize with them, to create with them.”113 This personification of expressionism and of the works of art clearly draws the viewer in to honor - and sympathize with - these modern works of art. The choice of the cover for the catalog communicates in the same way: one of the peasants from Van Gogh’s famous painting The Potato Eaters (which itself was not included in the exhibition!) confronts the viewer face to face. This enlarged detail, this close-up fills the entire front cover; there is no text to neutralize the effect, all we see is the face of the poor peasant staring out at us, holding out his coffee cup.(fig. 119) This visual ‘introduction’ to the catalog has a strong emotional appeal. That Van Gogh’s work was used for the front cover was no coincidence: as the subtitle of the exhibition clarified, the first to be acknowledged as an expressionist was Van Gogh, who “may rightfully be considered the father of expressionism”, as stated in the introduction of the catalog.114 According to Jaffé, Van Gogh’s art gave the Stedelijk the right to stage this first survey of the movement since expressionism’s main source came from Holland, came from Van Gogh. Not only Van Gogh’s paintings were taken as source, his letters were presented as the first document of expressionism: “his work stands at the beginning of expressionist painting, his letters are the first – and the largest – document of the ambition of this European school of painting. That is why his work must be the point of departure for this exhibition, and his letters may introduce this short sketch. ”115 Throughout the introduction, Van Gogh’s letters led the way. From the very first letters to the last, Van Gogh’s words were used to guide the public through his artistic development which was presented as synonymous to the development of expressionism. There was to be no doubt as to whom should be considered the rightful father of expressionism. Perhaps due to this emphasis on the painter Van Gogh, the important sculptors included in the exhibition, Barlach and Lehmbruck and Kollwitz were not as prominent in the story of the catalog: in the text only Kollwitz was briefly mentioned, the other two were
112 Ibid. In Dutch text: “ … dat het expressionisme meer is dan een louter artistieke stroming; dat het een uiting is van gevoelens, die diep in ons tijdperk zijn geworteld.” … “dat het expressionisme uitgaat van het besef, dat de taak der kunst niet is, iets weer te geven, maar vooral, de mensheid iets te geven.” 113 Ibid. In the Dutch text it says: “zij (de kunstwerken) vragen de beschouwer niet om te erkennen, maar om mee te voelen, mee te scheppen.” 114 See the ‘inleiding’ (introduction) in the catalog expressionisme. van gogh tot picasso, np. 115 Ibid. In Dutch, it says: “Zijn werk staat aan de aanvang van de expressionistische schilderkunst, zijn brieven zijn het eerste – en het grootste – document van het streven deze Europese schilderschool. Daarom moet zijn werk het uitgangspunt zijn van deze tentoonstelling, en zijn brieven mogen deze korte schets inleiden”.
215 omitted from the verbal presentation. The photographs of their sculptures in the catalog, however, are powerful portraits: the sculptured figures have a human presence with a direct emotional appeal.(fig. 120, 121) Van Gogh’s position was also apparent in the exhibition itself. Although the first room of the exhibition in which the forerunners of expressionism were shown, was filled with works by a number of artists including Van Gogh, it was clear that he was presented as the most important. His rivals for the role of ‘pater familias’ were not well represented and therefore not as convincing as ‘fathers’ of expressionism. Gauguin’s only contribution to the exhibition was his Portrait of Van Gogh which was commented on as being “irrelevant in this context” - the presence of the portrait, however, did strengthen Van Gogh’s dominance in the room.116 Both Ensor and Munch were “ineffectively represented”: Ensor’s masks were missing and the choice of Munch’s Strindberg, which was exhibited in a prominent position, was “hardly relevant” here because it was “as ‘French’ as the Norwegian could produce .117 The inclusion of Modersohn-Becker in the first room was remarkable; she was granted a whole wall for her eight paintings. However, she did not pose a threat to the position of Van Gogh, since there could be no such thing as ‘the mother’ of expressionism. She was presented as she was considered to be: an isolated figure within the Expressionist movement. Van Gogh the expressionist was embodied, not only by Gauguin’s portrait of him which brought him to life for the viewer, but by the selection of his paintings chosen for the exhibition. His works showed him as the expressionist avant la lettre; the selection included his piéta naar Delacroix that was described in the catalog as an embodiment of “a complete expressionistic idea”, and what were to be considered his most “expressionistic” paintings: ‘onweer boven de velden’ and ‘korenveld met vogels’, of which the last was described as “the highpoint of his expressionism”.118 At the same time, this painting pointed to the drama of Van Gogh’s death, because “one of Vincent’s last letters” referred directly to this painting.119 This first room therefore gave a vivid, emotional and convincing portrayal of Van Gogh as the worthy father of expressionism.
116 See Hoffmann, “Expressionism at the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam”, p. 344: “the Gauguin exhibition in Paris showed how important he was for the development of Expressionism. He had gone further than Van Gogh in the liberation of art from nature ... ” 117 Ibid., pp. 344-348. 118 See the ‘inleiding’ in expressionisme: van gogh tot picasso, n.p.. 119 Ibid. In the 1990 catalog Van Gogh, Paintings from the Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, (p.283), the following is said about these two paintings: “There has been a constant tendency to perceive the two expressive landscapes exhibited here, with their troubled skies, as portentous of Vincent van Gogh’s approaching death.” Perhaps this perception was strengthened by the Stedelijk exhibitions.
216 As for the development of expressionism after Van Gogh’s death, it is presented in the catalog as a European quest departing from Van Gogh, Gauguin and Munch as leaders: a search “to find the answer to the problems that reality confronts them with. During twenty years all European nations work toward this solution, and despite their national differences, their art shows a great unity.”120 This argumentation here for the development of expressionism is typical of the Stedelijk’s type of argumentation: based on mystifying statements that seem profound but do not clarify the issue at hand. In the same text, European art is briefly set in an antithesis between Northern romanticism with its dynamic character and passion versus Southern (Latin) classicism with its sense of order and regularity. As if to not crack the newly created image of unity within the so passionately argued ‘European school of expressionism’, the presented opposition between North and South was softened immediately: it was not Northern European countries versus Southern European countries, but the North and South of each individual country. All expressionists were Northerners, according to Jaffé, Northern Frenchmen, Northern Germans, Northern Belgians etc.121 This vague reasoning only seems to confuse the matter, since it is then undermined further on in the text, in which the national differences within the professed European unity were acknowledged, but this – so it was said - did not distort the unity of the expressionist period. Although the argumentation in the catalog does not seem convincing, it was bound to appeal to the emotions of the public who desired unity in Europe. The Stedelijk Museum was the first to focus on the international character of expressionism and was credited for it.122 The portrayal of expressionism as an international style was also expressed in the installation of the works of art in the exhibition: artists from different countries were hung together to show affinities that transcended national borders. Even though the German expressionists received the most attention, an attempt was made to present an international story. Both formal qualities and emotional affinities were used to group the works of art. Color seemed to have been the main organizing factor here.123 But there were other striking
120 Ibid. The Dutch text reads: “ … een oplossing te vinden voor de problemen die de werkelijkheid hun stelt. Alle Europese volkeren werken gedurende 20 jaren aan deze oplossing, en hun werk vertoont, ondanks nationale verschillen, een grote eensgezindheid.” 121 Ibid. Jaffé explained that it is remarkable to observe that all expressionists are Northerners: the French from the North of France, from Picardie and Flandre, the Belgians all Flemish, the Germans from Saksen and the far North of Germany. (“En het is opmerkelijk vast te stellen, dat alle expressionisten Noorderlingen zijn: de Fransen uit het Noorden van Frankrijk, uit Picardie en Flandre, de Belgen allemaal Vlamingen, de Duitsers uit Saksen en het verre Noorden van Duitsland.” 122 The expectation in 1949 was that the Stedelijk Exhibition would be remembered as a “landmark” in the history of the movement. See Hoffmann, “Expressionism at the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam”, p. 344. 123 Ibid., p. 348.
217 combinations that pointed more towards temperamental affinities in painting. As was commented by a critic: “It was a proof of real insight that he (Beckmann) was hung opposite Picasso, the painter who can be equally realistic and equally cold, but by whom there were unfortunately only two irrelevant pictures: a Head of a Woman of 1908, and one of 1927. From these nobody could have guessed that there is a real similarity between the two artists.”124 The same critic had questioned Picasso’s presence in the exhibition earlier when discussing the broad and unclear definition of expressionism used in the Stedelijk show. Though surprising and questionable, the inclusion of Picasso as expressionist, which was stressed by the subtitle of the exhibition and catalog – van gogh tot picasso - was important for the lines of reasoning presented in the exhibition . First of all, the importance of Van Gogh and of expressionism as modern art movement were augmented by his inclusion: a direct line was implied between Van Gogh and this internationally admired modern artist who was always being associated with cubism. By incorporating Picasso in expressionism, the attention was called to a movement which had previously been neglected. The direct line between Van Gogh and Picasso was visualized by the cover of the catalog which formed a diptych of the masters of expressionism: on the back side of the cover a full-page reproduction of Picasso’s primitive Head of a Woman confronted the viewer in the same way as the previously discussed front cover of Van Gogh’s peasant. The obvious differences in style were defused by connecting – via the spine - the two black-and-white images of which the gray tonal backgrounds dissolved into one. Furthermore, the two depicted individuals were brought to the same size and proportions, both showing head and shoulders, as if they were sitting together. (fig. 122) Another reason for including Picasso was to show that expressionism as an important revolutionary and socially involved modern art movement lived on and – as the public was to read – lives on, because it is to be understood as being more than only a time-bound art movement: “it is an expression of feelings, that have deep roots in our era”. Picasso’s Guernica of 1937 – together with Käthe Kollwitz’s Die Klage of 1942 - were presented in the text of the catalog as important expressionist works of art, created to contribute to society, years after the movement’s dominant period had ended. The living artist Picasso stood for the international expressionist artist who has his roots in the past, but continued and continues to express the feelings of the times: expressionism lives on, was the message. The history of expressionism in this catalog and exhibition was more of a story of expressionism. The
124 Ibid.
218 information provided was shaped by the pathos of Van Gogh’s letters. Besides the introductory essay, there was no other information on the artists besides their dates, nor was there a bibliography. The second exhibition ‘Expressionism’ in 1951 was not a Stedelijk production and in some ways added to the first but in other ways subtracted from its story.125 In the introduction in the catalog, the first Expressionism exhibition was praised: it had been a convincing presentation of the fact that Van Gogh was to be acknowledged as one of the ‘proclaimers’ of expressionist art.126 Furthermore, the emphasis of expressionism as an important international modern art movement with the capacity to unite a divided Europe was strengthened by the fact that within two years two exhibitions on expressionism were held with this same message: the message of international unity.127 The catalog expressionisme also provided more information on the individual artists. The prominence, though, of Van Gogh as father of expressionism was weakened by not including his work in the exhibition and by stating so clearly in the catalog, that Van Gogh was only one of the three important fathers of expressionism and that in this exhibition Van Gogh’s place was to be taken over by Munch.128 The pathos of the first catalog was missing in the second (not a Sandberg design!), which provided a more ‘neutral’ and more reserved portrait of the expressionist artists and in which the works of art were not brought to life as in the catalog of the first exhibition: they remained paintings and sculptures.
In the late 1950’s and early 1960’s the Stedelijk Museum experimented in their yearly summer exhibitions with ways in which to present the history of modern art. The treatment of the history of modern art was geared towards the creation of a better understanding of the contemporary developments in art and the contemporary world views. The approach towards history was not a linear history of styles and movements, like in the historical exhibitions of the Museum of Modern Art. The Stedelijk shows were to be seen as attempts to provide insight in the dialectics of art history. As in the series of historical exhibitions in the Museum of Modern Art in the 1930’s and 1940’s, they were presented as a series by referring in the catalog to the exhibition of the former year. The five consecutive summer exhibitions in the
125 The exhibition ‘expressionisme’ in 1951 contained works of art from the Haubrich Collection from the Wallraf Richartz Museum in Cologne and was organized and sponsored by the German government. 126 The Dutch reads: “een der uit vaderlandse bodem ontsproten verkondigers van de expressionistische kunst…”. See “inleiding” in catalog expressionisme, p. 5. 127 Beckmann and Kokoschka were hailed as protagonists of “a higher Western unity, a unity which our people and our political leaders today strive to achieve.” See “inleiding” in expressionisme, p. 6. 128 See “inleiding” in expressionisme, p. 5.
219 Stedelijk Museum repeated some aspects of the same story of modern art which Sandberg and Jaffé considered important to convey. Each exhibition changed the treatment or delivery of the subject somewhat which amplified the message. The message was also strengthened by the fact that for each summer show Jaffé wrote an article in Museumjournaal , in which he prepared the public for the coming exhibition. Often the articles in Museumjournaal were very similar to the texts of the catalog. These essays were not written as scholarly surveys, but were more like philosophical essays that tackled an art historical ‘problem’. The problem would be presented and a hypothesis suggested. The exhibition was then to provide both the test and the solution, which was actually to be viewed in the exhibition itself. As shall become evident in the following analysis of the five summer exhibitions, the Stedelijk’s message seemed often to be based on philosophical notions and presented in pretty poetical wording in somewhat mystifying and unsubstantial prose. The Stedelijk’s approach here seems to be more elitist than suitable for the general public, due to its ‘difficult’ language and the authorities called on. Furthermore, the metaphors and analogies used in the catalogs are those to be understood by an elite (for example: wine and classical music). Perhaps for the larger public this did not necessarily have to work as off-putting; maybe it stimulated a sense of belonging to a desired class or status. The Stedelijk’s logos seemed to appeal more to the emotions of the public than to their understanding. Although the summer exhibitions often lacked a convincing argumentation, they seemed to often delight the public through a persuasive presentation and design in the appraisal of the modern artists. The first summer theme exhibition in the Stedelijk was in 1957: Europa 1907, which celebrated the 50th anniversary of the year 1907, a year that was presented as “an extremely fertile and important year” for the art of the 20th century.129 The exhibited hypothesis was that 1907 was a crucial and rich year in the evolution of modern art: a vital impetus comparable to a Bergsonian élan vital that stimulated the plurality of modern art , which formed an irrational contrast with the Darwinian more rational concept of linear evolution of modern art in the Museum of Modern Art.130 The year 1907 was brought as “a turning point in the history of contemporary art” and the works of art created in that year supposedly carried “the mark of that fact” as Jaffé described in an essay in Museumjournaal in which he prepares the public for the exhibition which was then yet to come.131
129 Catalog europa 1907, n.p. 130 Henri Bergson’s Evolution Créatrice is presented as an important creation in 1907. Both Bergson and Pinder are cited in Jaffé’s essay which was published a month before the exhibition opened. Jaffé, “Europa 1907, naar aanleiding van de zomertentoonstelling in het Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam”, p. 31. 131 Ibid.
220 The idea that the Stedelijk wanted to convey was that there was a unity between the works of art made in that special year; a unity not expressed in form but expressed in a communality of problems with which all artists - “old and young, near or far” struggled .132 Why 1907 was such a big year was explained as caused by the “change of the sense of reality, the arising of a new world view which was expressed by artists, poets, philosophers and scientists, the ensemble of a number of widely dispersed generations of artists”, and “the lust for discovery and spirit of adventure that all the important painters possessed”.133 The arguments in the essay “europa 1907” of the catalog – with the same title - were shaped by three main metaphors: the concept of the ‘good wine year’, the idea of a large ‘orchestra’ of artists who together create a ‘rich polyphony’, and the ‘pioneer mentality’ of the adventurous artists who broke new ground for the artists who followed in their footsteps. The claim that a calendar year could be singled out as an important time entity for the development of modern art, that 1907 could be presented as an extraordinary year in the history of modern art, was carefully constructed. First the question was raised if one can - and may – speak of 'an important year’ in the history of art. The question was answered immediately. After acknowledging the weaker point that a year is indeed but an arbitrary unit of measure, a stronger case was then presented by the comparison with the existence of a ‘good wine year’. As Jaffé stated in a somewhat elitist analogy: “One can, however, in the field of visual art call the year ‘1907’ “a good year”, using the terminology that wine connoisseurs use for a year with a rich harvest and an excellent quality. Like a wine from a “good year”, the works of art produced in the year 1907 have a rich, powerful body, a maturity, which only sporadically appears in other years.”134 The factors that determine the quality and power of an exceptionally good ‘art year’ were, according to Jaffé - just as in the case of a ‘good wine year’- undetermined by man. In the case of wine, the weather factors were contributory for its excellence, in the case of art, “the constellation of historical circumstances” determined art’s course. A ‘good art year’ was thus presented as a fait accompli which – like a ‘good wine year’ – “can be recognized after the fact, but which is difficult to argue or explain.”135 So, even though a list of reasons was given further on in the
132 Ibid. 133 Catalog europa 1907, n.p. 134 Ibid. 135 Ibid. In Dutch Jaffé stated: “ … gelijk men dat doet bij edele wijnen, wier kwaliteit om de zoveel jaren een toppunt bereikt, dat wel achteraf te constateren, maar moeilijk te beredeneren of te verklaren valt.”
221 text for spotlighting the year 1907, the argument that it was a special year was already put in place .136 Another image was conjured up to defend the chosen year 1907. The year 1907 is presented as a “turning-point”, as a year of “revival”: a year that is characterized as “a melody of history in which an abundance of sound, a fullness of polyphony is reached, which in other years would be sought in vain.”137 This ‘polyphony’ made the year 1907, “one of great multiplicity”, as cited in the catalog, “a multiplicity in which on further consideration, a unity will prove to exist: a unity that reveals the feelings of the time period.”138 In this effective image, Jaffé provided an explanation for the paradox of the apparent large diversity of artistic manifestations of that year which can, however, be presented as a uniform, harmonious picture. For, as Jaffé explained: the ‘polyphony’ is created by “the large, full strength orchestra of artists” which consists of “various groups of instruments and many individual musicians”.139 Jaffé identified with the public by acknowledging the tendency of the viewer and the historian to value the unity of the artists too much, to want to create historic groups or movements. But, as he pointed out, our attention should focus more on the individual artists – in this exhibition there were sixty different individuals from different European countries - who were shaped by their own characters and backgrounds; each with “their own sound and timbre.”140 Jaffé carried the music metaphor further to explain Pinder’s concept of generations and to tackle the problem of the “asynchronic synchronism”.141 As Jaffé explained that even though the paintings shown in the exhibition were produced in the same time period, it does not mean that the voice with which they sang was the same: “Because the simultaneity of the exhibited works of art from 1907 is in fact a seeming simultaneousness: the time 1907 in the score of visual art has a different meaning for the voice of the 67 year old Claude Monet than it does for the 21 year old Kokoschka. The melody, that Monet had rendered in his oeuvre, already had a rich past and just in this year reached a new climax, a bright, clear, high note.
136Jaffé listed the many important events of the arts in 1907 such as: the birth of cubism, the climax of the Fauves, the second and richest year of “die Brücke” and the year in which Monet painted his most brilliant paintings of water lilies. Furthermore, it was the year of the large Cézanne exhibition, the year in which the first German biography of Van Gogh appeared, Kahnweiler’s art salon was opened in Paris. 137 Ibid. The Dutch text reads: “… bereikt de melodie der historie een rijkdom van klank, een volheid van polyphonie, die men in andere jaren tevergeefs zou zoeken.” 138 Ibid. Jaffé wrote: “Deze polyphonie … maakt het jaar 1907 tot een periode van grote veelzijdigheid, tot een rijk geschakeerde veelvuldigheid. En bij nader toezien zal binnen deze veelvuldigheid toch een eenheid blijken te bestaan, een eenheid, die de gevoelens van de tijd zichtbaar maakt.” 139 Ibid. 140 Ibid. 141 Ibid. Jaffé pointed to “de ongelijktijdigheid van het gelijktijdige”.
222 For Kokoschka the year 1907 was the year of his first entry, the addition of his own voice, his own timbre, to the ensemble of artists of the 20th century.”142 Jaffé used these explanations to contradict the concept of art history as “a linear, one-dimensional event, a sequence in which painters or movements follow each other single file like geese.”143 Art history should be viewed as a polyphony which is played in a time period in which there is room for all possible crossovers. The selected artists for the exhibition – so diverse in age and background – all shared, as stated in the essay, the true pioneer mentality: the lust for discovery and the spirit of adventure.144 The pioneer artists together with pioneering poets, philosophers and scientists, such as the famous Freud, Einstein, Bergson and Strindberg were presented as being responsible for shaping a new world view. According to Jaffé, the élan of the pioneers was what was to be seen and experienced in the Stedelijk fifty years later. As Jaffé promised: this élan shines from the walls of the exhibition and the viewer is bound to feel its lively and invigorating effect.145 Here, once again, the lively and living aspect of the modern works of art is emphasized. At the end of the essay, Jaffé returned full circle to the wine metaphor with which he stimulated the public to take a taste of the year 1907: “That is why it is good, after 50 years, to look back on that rich and fertile year 1907 and to taste the vintage, which is still within our reach.”146 The result shall be, said Jaffé, that the viewer will get a better feeling and understanding of the art of his own time, since the source of our contemporary art lies in that vintage year 1907. This aspect of the exhibition of providing a solid base for a better understanding and feeling for the newest developments in art, was stressed in the communications with the press.147 The exhibition was held in the New Wing with its light and airy halls. The goal of the exhibition was to show the unity of all the works of art made in the year 1907; the display was to be the ultimate proof of the Stedelijk’s hypothesis, as had been announced in the article in
142 Ibid. The Dutch text reads: “Want de gelijktijdigheid der tentoongestelde werken uit 1907 is in feite maar een schijnbare gelijktijdigheid: de maat 1907 in de partituur der beeldende kunst heeft voor de stem van de 67-jarige Claude Monet een andere betekenis dan voor de 21-jarige Kokoschka. De melodie, die Monet in zijn levenswerk had vertolkt, had in 1907 al een rijk verleden en bereikte net in dit jaar een nieuw hoogtepunt, een stralende, heldere, hoge noot. Voor Kokoschka betekent het jaar 1907 zijn eerste inzet, de toevoeging van zijn eigen stem, zijn eigen timbre, aan het ensemble der beeldende kunstenaars van de XXe eeuw.” 143 Ibid. 144 Jaffé spoke of “painters” instead of artists. But one is to surmise that he meant to include the sculptors chosen for the exhibition as pioneers as well. 145 Ibid. 146 Ibid. In Dutch: “Daarom is het goed om thans, na 50 jaren, weer terug te kijken naar dat rijke en vruchtbare jaar 1907 en de oogst, die voor ons nog bereikbaar is, weer te proeven. 147 Press release dd. August 14, 1957. Dossier exhibition europa 1907, SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
223 Museumjournaal a month prior to the exhibition’s opening date. To create a sense of communion and to emphasize the professed unity of the works of art, the paintings and sculptures were installed by genre such as: portraits, landscapes and cityscapes. Paradoxically the works of art were also displayed in an antithetical mode contrasting the different temperaments and generations and yet because they were correlatives – connected generations - the differences were bridged by showing them in pairs and sequences. Of the three chosen milestones of 1907 mentioned in the catalog, two were included in the exhibition: Monet’s Water lilies and Munch’s Portrait of Walter Rathenau took up prominent positions in the exhibition; the Water lilies were hung on one of the few dark walls, close to the entrance on the first floor and Munch’s portrait, also on the first floor, was hung on the wall at the far end of the room, not only visible as one enters but actually accentuated by a tunneling effect of partitions leading straight to it.(fig. 123, 124). Demoiselles d’Avignon which had also been selected as highpoint of 1907 was not included in the exhibition, despite the efforts made by the Stedelijk.148 As a surrogate a study of a detail of Demoiselles d’Avignon was loaned from Paris. It received special attention by the presentation of it on the cover of the catalog. The cover expressed the story of the exhibition. As with the Sandberg catalog expressionisme: van gogh tot picasso , two opposing portraits – black-and-white blow-ups covering the whole pages - were presented on the front and the back of the cover: Matisse’s Margot face to face with one of Picasso’s demoiselles. The contrast is obvious and represents the acknowledged diversity of the year’s production and yet they are united as the exhibition wants to show. A veil of loose tracing paper covers the portraits. On the slightly transparent paper the title of the exhibition is written in red lettering: ‘europa’ on the back, and ‘1907’ on the front, so that if one is to read the whole title, the book has to be opened and turned over exposing the contrasting portraits. On the front, the year 1907, the leitmotiv, is visually presented as the ‘thread’ of the story - as the Dutch say: the red thread (de rode draad): a red thread runs from the top of the page to the bottom connecting the ‘pioneers’ of 1907 – the artists, and other pioneers responsible for ‘a new world view’ – in the different stages of their lives.(fig. 125) The artists’ lives are represented by repetitions of their names in black lettering starting at year of birth and continuing across the page according to age. Freud,
148 In a letter from Barr responding to Sandberg’s request to have the painting on loan for the exhibition, Barr explained that Demoiselles d’Avignon was not available to be sent on loan. Letter Sandberg to Barr dd. 30 January 1957 asking for loan and other suggestions for important works of 1907. Letter Barr to Sandberg dd. February 5, 1957 declined request. In another letter from Barr to Sandberg dd. February 26, 1957, Barr offered Kirchner’s The Street (1905). Sandberg declined the offer. Dossier exhibition europa 1907, SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
224 Bergson, Debussy, Curie, Lenin, Schoenberg, Einstein, Bartok and Strawinsky are mixed in between the sixty artists in blue lettering.149 Inside the catalog, the essay titled “europa 1907” was printed on rough brown paper – Sandberg’s trademark - the illustrations of the works of art were mostly in black-and-white and were presented either as juxtaposing pairs or series of the same genre. A juxtaposing pair was, for example, the diagonal presentation of two crouching figures, Barlach’ Russische Bedelares and Derain’s Hurkende man. To present the paintings in a series of the same genre, the photographs were cut to the same size and lined up to underline their unity: a unity full of differences.(fig. 126)
The summer exhibition of the following year, de renaissance der xxe eeuw in 1958, described itself as the anti-pole of the 1949 exhibition expressionisme: van gogh tot picasso. The two exhibitions presented, according to Jaffé, the two poles between which the pioneers – artists, philosophers and scientists - of the 20th century manoeuvred in search of a new world view.150 It also presented itself as the sequel to the previous summer exhibition europa 1907, since the two ‘poles’ of the 20th century were initiated in 1907, as the catalog de renaissance der xxe eeuw stated in the introduction.151 One pole started with Van Gogh and followed the heart and emotions – that pole was displayed in the expressionisme: van gogh tot picasso exhibition. The opposite pole started with the pioneer Cézanne and followed the mind in search for order and method. It was this last pole that the exhibition was to examine. The thread that had been used visually – on the catalog cover of europa 1907 - to connect all the different personalities in the year 1907, was now deployed in the text to illustrate the continuity of the development of the ‘rational’ pole of modern art from Cézanne on. As Jaffé explained: “ … despite the danger of simplifying here and there - the exhibition especially wants to clarify the mutual relationship, wants to expose the thread which – often hidden – leads from the revolution of the xxth century art in the beginning of the century to the works of art which immediately precede the works of the contemporary artists. Following and researching this one thread – the search for order, for an objective pattern – this exhibition
149 In the Archives of the Stedelijk Museum a design for the entire listing of artists and other influential pioneers shows that previously the list of other pioneers included Mahler and Montessori. In the final design, they were left out. Dossier exhibition europa 1907, SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 150 Jaffé, “De renaissance der XXe eeuw, Naar aanleiding van de gelijknamige tentoonstelling in het Stedelijk Museum te Amsterdam”, pp.21-28. 151 See the introduction written by Jaffé in the catalog de renaissance der xxe eeuw, n.p.
225 wants to illuminate the continuity of modern art …”.152 ‘The thread’ of the exhibition started with Cézanne and ended with the Bauhaus, following the different movements which were highlighted in the catalog and the exhibition: cubism, ‘der blaue reiter’, futurism, suprematism and constructivism, ‘de stijl’ to ‘das bauhaus’. The exhibition started with Cézanne and ended with the Bauhaus because, as Jaffé explained in his article in Museumjournaal, “all the consecutive new movements and developments of XXth century art have – at least one of their roots – in cubism, and therefore share the heritage of Cézanne. … All the new movements that appear in different countries and at different moments in time, flow together in the activity of the Bauhaus, which therefore rightfully shall conclude the exhibition.”153 The analogy made at the end of the article in Museumjournaal to prepare the public for the exhibition was one of a pioneering expedition to discover one of the poles: “This exhibition in the Stedelijk Museum aims at following the artists’ exploratory expedition to this pole in order to create a better understanding of the art of this century, and to show her connection with the spirit of our own era.”154 Just as the previous summer show, this exhibition was said to be designed to establish a better understanding of contemporary art and the world around us. In these exhibitions however, the Stedelijk did not include contemporary works and therefore did not connect the contemporary works directly to the ‘older ones, like in the historical exhibitions in the Museum of Modern Art in which the contemporary art and design was included in the exhibitions to actually show the links. Nevertheless, ‘De renaissance der xxe eeuw’ was the most traditional art historical exhibition of the series and therefore the most comparable to the historical exhibitions of the Museum of Modern Art.155
152 Jaffé, “De renaissance der XXe eeuw, Naar aanleiding van de gelijknamige tentoonstelling in het Stedelijk Museum te Amsterdam”, pp.22-23. In Dutch: “ … de tentoonstelling wil vooral – op het gevaar af hier en daar te moeten simplificeren – het onderling verband duidelijk maken, de draad zichtbaar maken, die – vaak verborgen – van de revolutie der XXe eeuwse kunst in het begin der eeuw doorloopt tot de werken, die onmiddellijk voorafgaan aan het werk der hedendaagse kunstenaars. Deze ene draad vervolgend en naspeurend – het zoeken naar orde, naar een objectieve wetmatigheid – wil de tentoonstelling de continuïteit van de moderne kunst … in een helder daglicht stellen.” 153 Ibid., p. 27. The Dutch text says: “Al deze elkaar opvolgende stromingen en vernieuwingen der beeldende kunst in de XXe eeuw gaan – tenminste met een hunner wortels – terug op het cubisme, en hebben daarmee deel aan de erfenis van Cézanne.(…) Al deze vernieuwingen, ontstaan in verschillende landen en op verschillende tijdspunten, vloeien weer samen in de werkzaamheid van het Bauhaus, die daarom terecht aan het einde dezer tentoonstelling zal staan.” 154 Ibid., p. 28. Jaffé concludes his article with: “De tentoonstelling in het Stedelijk Museum stelt zich ten doel, de ontdekkingstocht der kunstenaars naar deze pool te volgen, om zodoende groter begrip te wekken voor de kunst van deze eeuw, en haar verbondenheid te tonen met de geest van ons eigen tijdperk.” 155 It even shows a number of resemblances to the Cubism and Abstract Art exhibition in 1936. The year 1958 was the year of the World’s Art Fair in Brussels and many tourists were expected to visit. The exhibition renaissance der xxe eeuw’ was planned as an addition to the Brussels’ exhibition 50 jaar Moderne Kunst. Perhaps that is why a more traditional approach was chosen.
226 The catalog de renaissance der xxe eeuw indeed provided – although brief - a historical account of the development of the different art movements. The title of the exhibition of course referred - and therefore connected the new art - to a great historical period. The concept of ‘renaissance’ is to be understood, as Jaffé wrote in his introduction, as “the rebirth of age-old principles of visual creation”, and at the same time as a reaction to the historical Renaissance: in the renaissance of the XXth century “the invisible reality is – once again – relevant in the domain of visual art”.156 The association with the great Renaissance, however, was stimulated by claiming as the renaissance of the xxth century’s spiritual precursors the famous and honored Bach (which seems somewhat of a strange choice for the Renaissance) and Piero della Francesca.157 The historical introduction was written by Jaffé and a summary was provided in English, German and French. This multilingual approach - the result of the expected tourists of the Brussels’ World’s Art Fair - also showed the confidence of the growing international position of the Stedelijk and the changing perspective of modern art as an international expression. The poster designed for the exhibition had an international appeal: it used the ‘xx’ as a universal sign for twenty and connected the different words for ‘age’ to it. (fig. 127) Besides the introduction, the catalog contained a text – a primary source – for each movement, written by an artist or critic involved in that movement; most of these texts were presented in the original language and in a Dutch translation. They were included as documents with no further reference to them or explanation for their representation. No attempt was made to position or explain the chosen texts for the public. The exhibition was not received well: the critics found it either inconsistent (the inclusion of futurism and an artist such as Franz Marc) or plain boring: one critic described it as “a boring art historical lesson” and compared the summer exhibitions of the Stedelijk Museum to those of the Rijksmuseum. That type of art historical lesson was considered not fitting for the Stedelijk of the late fifties, a Stedelijk which had by then promoted itself as a lively center for the arts.158
156 See the ‘inleiding’ in the catalog de renaissance der xxe eeuw, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1958, np. Jaffé’s ideas are to be associated with Dvoráks ideas of the rebirth of values. See Van Adrichem, De ontvangst van de moderne kunst in Nederland 1910-2000, p. 338. 157 The summary in the catalog de renaissance der xxe eeuw ends with: “This renaissance of the twentieth century has found its spiritual precursors in the formal severity of the music of Bach, in the creations of Piero della Francesca and, with them, the lawfulness which is its purpose and which has endowed it, through its every renewal, with its present form.” It is noteworthy that the Dutch text only mentions Bach, whereas the summaries name both Bach and Piero della Francesca. 158 See R.K. Penning, “In Amsterdams Stedelijk Museum Renaissance der xxe eeuw een saaie kunsthistorische les”, Haagse Courant, July 20, 1958.
227 It is clear that the Stedelijk was to chose a different approach for its next summer exhibition to counter the criticism. The aspect of a living museum was once again much more present in the 1959 exhibition, 50 jaar verkenningen (50 years of explorations).159 The concept was based on once again on the metaphor of pioneers and frontiers. Starting in the living present, the Stedelijk paraded the art of the last fifty years as the “explorations” and “discoveries” of the “pioneers” who opened up new horizons in art. As the catalog stated: “The exhibition wants to map the scouting and exploratory expeditions which have expanded the realm of art considerably in the last fifty years.”160 The pioneer concept is explicitly stated as the central issue of the show: “this exhibition deals with the problem of the frontier – which has played such an important part in the history of the United States – and with the people who are constantly crossing and moving this frontier: the pioneers.”161 It is noteworthy that the United States is mentioned so specifically, perhaps because during this period there was a growing interest in American Art as the new art. In the catalog Jaffé presented this exhibition as more ‘adventurous’ than a regular survey, daring to venture out into the unknown: “that is why the exhibition starts in the present and slowly guides the visitors back through time to the year 1907, the year to which two years ago the exhibition in the Stedelijk Museum was devoted. Because in the present the character of the scouts among the contemporary artists is the most apparent – in the present the viewer also senses this frontier bordering on the unknown, while he has slowly forgotten that it was also once new and unknown country that the artists scouted and discovered 50 years ago. The border between the unknown and the old country is always shifting; only the spirit of adventure, the pioneer’s lust for discovery stays the same over the years.”162 Jaffé explained, as he had done in the previous summer exhibitions, that the pioneer’s lust for discovery was not only among the artists, but was shared by scientists and philosophers. All
159 The official title of the exhibition was 50 jaar verkenningen, in de beeldende kunst uit de eigen verzameling en uit bevriende particuliere collecties in Nederland. 160 See the unsigned essay by Jaffé “50 jaar verkenningen” in the catalog 50 jaar verkenningen, n.p. As Jaffé says: “De tentoonstelling wil dus de verkenningstochten, de ontdekkingsreizen in kaart brengen, die in de laatste 50 jaren het rijk der beeldende kunst aanmerkelijk hebben uitgebreid.” 161 Ibid. In Dutch: “De tentoonstelling houdt zich bezig met het probleem van de grens – zoals dat in de geschiedenis van de Verenigde Staten zulk een belangrijke rol heeft gespeeld – en met de mensen, die telkens weer deze grens overschrijden en verleggen: de pioniers.” 162 Catalog 50 jaar verkenningen, n.p. The Dutch text says: “Daarom ook begint de tentoonstelling in het heden en voert de bezoekers geleidelijk terug door de tijd tot het jaar 1907, dat jaar, waaraan twee zomers geleden de expositie in het Stedelijk Museum was gewijd. Want in het heden blijkt het karakter van verkenners van de hedendaagse kunstenaars het duidelijkst – in het heden voelt ook de beschouwer het bestaan van deze grens naar het onbekende telkens weer aan, terwijl hij langzamerhand vergeten is, dat ook eens nieuw en onbekend land was, wat de kunstenaars 50 jaar geleden hebben verkend en ontdekt. De grens tussen het onbekende en het oude land verspringt telkens weer; alleen de geest van avontuur, de ontdekkingslust van de pioniers blijft door de jaren gelijk.”
228 pioneers together, as Jaffé stated, have changed the ways in which we see the world, if we like it or not. Jaffé identified with the public – using ‘we’ and ‘our’ - and drew an analogy between the impact that the developments of industry and science have had on everyone’s lives and the impact that the development of art has had. 163 By drawing the analogy between developments in science and art, the incomprehensible aspects of modern art were put in a favorable light. The choice to start the exhibition in the present period is defended by the idea that together with the young pioneering artists, the public is aware of the contemporary frontier. Jaffé explained, however, that the public preferably stays behind the frontier, whereas the experimental artist will venture beyond: “the viewer prefers to remain behind the frontier and surveys the already cultivated terrain, which for that matter was recently just as uncultivated; the artist crosses the frontier en ventures into unknown territory.”164 Starting in the present the exhibition and catalog were divided into three periods: the period from the present until the War, the period between the two Wars, and the period before the First World War. The periods are indicated by efficient symbols which one would associate with science. (fig. 128) In the description of the first period – the period in which the contemporary artists are working - the pioneers are presented as ‘scouts’ of elementary powers, venturing into the forces of the present reality of the atomic age: “the reality as a flood of forces, as a chain of elementary eruptions and catastrophes.” And, as Jaffé added, “the creative activity of man can also be seen as an eruption of elementary powers within him”.165 The creative activity of the new experimental artists and “their terrain of explosive vitality” was the focus of the exhibition. The new artists were confronted with a problem, as Jaffé stated, “the unknown, the riddle”.166 The jacket of the catalog visualized ‘the unknown
163 Ibid. “ … we live completely in the time of the automobile, of the airplane, the spaceship and of atomic energy; and we can not close our eyes to these facts. We can applaud or repudiate the development which has led to these characteristics of our time, but we can not deny her existence. Neither can we undo the discoveries within the field of art, whether we embrace or despise them; they have changed the way in which we view the world around us and they have made it impossible to view the world today with the eyes of 1909 …” In Dutch it says: “ … wij leven volop in een tijd van de auto, van vliegtuig, raket en van atoomenergie; en wij kunnen voor deze feiten onze ogen niet sluiten. Wij kunnen de ontwikkeling, die naar deze kenmerken van onze tijd heeft geleid, afwijzen of toejuichen – maar ontkennen kunnen wij haar niet. Net zo min kunnen wij de verkenningen op het gebied der kunst ongedaan maken – of wij deze nu begroeten of verfoeien; zij hebben onze kijk op de wereld om ons heen veranderd en zij hebben het ons onmogelijk gemaakt heden de wereld te bekijken met de ogen van 1909 … ”. 164 Ibid. Jaffé said: “ … de beschouwer blijft bij voorkeur achter de grens staan en laat zijn blik gaan over de reeds ontgonnen gebieden – die overigens nog kort geleden even ontgonnen waren -; de kunstenaar trekt de grens over en waagt zich op onbekend terrein.” 165 Ibid. 166 Jaffé, “50 jaar verkenningen”, Museumjournaal, p. 2.
229 in the terrain of explosive vitality’ by presenting the public with a visual riddle of dynamic color and shape: against a bright blue background two bright red torn-out geometrical figures were placed dynamically across the front and back of the cover, with references to an arrow pointing ahead, outward – with no text to clarify. (fig. 129) The new art with its explosive vitality was the first image to confront the reader in the catalog: the pioneering experimental art is visualized in the catalog by the reproduction of a work by Wolvecamp covering two full-pages in the beginning of the catalog and again at the end.167 Although their expression was different, they were to judged as their precursors. The new artists shared the same mentality and spirit of adventure as their forerunners, but time would tell if the contemporary scouts would – as their precursors – turn out to be true ‘discoverers’, as Jaffé explained, in other words: if they would be included in the history of modern art. The Stedelijk’s story of the ‘discoverers’ went back to the first pioneers, the expressionists, who as scouts dared to venture “into unknown terrain where the eye’s observation no longer dictated the laws of visual art.” This exhibition and catalog made it clear that the expressionists were to be seen as the first pioneers of modern art: “They are the first, who dared venture beyond known terrain, they stand as the first “pioneers” and scouts at the beginning of this new art, which we are now used to calling “modern art”.168 Once again, vitality had been presented as the adventurous, pioneering movement in art starting with Van Gogh and the expressionists.
The two last summer theme exhibitions in which the history of modern art was presented were the 1960 exhibition,3 ages, and polariteit, het apollinische en het dionysische in de kunst in the summer of 1961. Both dealt with themes that had been introduced in the previous exhibitions: the concept of generations and the dialectical concept of art, the division between hart and head. The exhibition 3 ages was directly connected to the 1907 exhibition, in which the contrast between generations was identified. In the introduction to the catalog 3 leeftijden, the problem that was to be tackled in this exhibition was announced as the distinction of different phases in artistic creation. This problem had first become evident during the summer exhibition 1907, as Jaffé reminisced in the introduction appealing to the public’s memory of
167 Jaffé spoke of “het domein der explosieve vitaliteit” in his article in Museumjournaal. (p. 2). 168 Jaffé, “50 jaar verkenningen”, Museumjournaal, p. 6.
230 the exhibition three years ago.169 This exhibition “wants to work out and demonstrate the premise that there are indeed three phases in the work of many artists: the phase of youth, the phase of the riper age, and the phase of old age.”170 For the comparison, ten artists were chosen, artists who all belonged to the same historic period (born between 1840 and 1879) but who otherwise differed greatly: they came from four different countries, belonged to very different schools of art and their work in general showed very little resemblance. The exhibition was to show that - despite their differences in nationality, of schools and of individual courses of life - there are mutual similarities between the three phases of their development.171 According to Jaffé, the exhibition did not want to make a value judgment as to which period was to be preferred. The works of art were to be presented in an ‘objective’ way so as to demonstrate the similarities of the different artists in the same stages: the chronology of the works of art were solely to determine the installation and not any preconceived plan, as Jaffé stated.172 The artists were represented by a number of works from each period. The development of each artist was displayed in the catalog by the reproduction of the selected works: each artist had two pages on which his (there were only male artists) paintings - or in Rodin’s case: sculptures – were presented in a diagonal, crossing the two pages, showing the first phase – indicated by the number 1 – in the lower left hand corner, the second phase in the middle, and the third phase at the top of the right page. Even though there was to be no value judgment, the visual presentation suggests a climax towards the third phase, with this ‘visionary phase’ as the highest order. (fig. 130) This same sense of climax was created in an article in L’Oeil in which Sandberg explained the exhibition. In the article the works of art from the third phase are reproduced larger than the others, presenting them as important key works in which the artists expressed themselves as visionaries, as precursors of movements yet to come: as Sandberg announced, Monet as “father of action painting”, Van Gogh as “father of
169 See Jaffé’s unsigned ‘inleiding’ in the catalog 3 leeftijden, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1960, n.p. It is noteworthy that most of the Stedelijk summer exhibitions were geared towards the Dutch public who was expected to visit the Stedelijk each year. The only exhibition which seemed to want to address a more international (tourist) public is the ‘renaissance der xxe eeuw’ in 1958 with its multilingual approach. All the others seemed to address the Dutch public. 170 Ibid. In Dutch: “De tentoonstelling “drie leeftijden” wil nagaan en aantonen, dat er inderdaad drie phasen in het werk van vele kunstenaars bestaan: de phase van de jeugd, die van de rijpe leeftijd, en die van ouderdom.” 171 Ibid. Characteristics that rose above the individual ones were selected for each period: the first period is one of revolution, searching for one’s own style – a period of ‘Sturm und Drang’; the second period is of a ripening personality, one who has found his own viewpoint, his own position; the third period is one of ripe old age, of simplicity and wisdom of visionary strength. 172 Jaffé, “De drie phasen der artistieke creativiteit”, pp. 10-11.
231 expressionism” and Kandinsky as “father of l’art informel and constructivism”.173 In this way these masters were given a position in the history of art, a history not of linear development of styles, but a history of what was called “the chain of artists throughout the ages”. This was the aim of the exhibition: “an attempt to not only describe the different phases of artistic creation, but also to shed some light on the dialectics that controls and directs the history of visual art, the chain of artists throughout the ages”.174
In the last consecutive summer theme exhibition polariteit, het apollinische en het dionysische in de kunst in 1961, the chain of artists were positioned in an antithesis of opposites. Once again the message was to be – as expressed in the catalog of the exhibition - that “the history of painting and sculpture was not a – almost mechanical – succession of styles and artists, but foremost an interwovenness, a symphonic, balanced score, in which many different voices are heard at once, that is how it is and always has been.”175 The goal of this exhibition was to “oversee and order this polyphony”. Once again the artist was to be the focus of the exhibition: “the human being in the artist” and once again the duality was stressed between the two poles of modern art.176 As art historical ordering principle the two opposing types of humans, the two types of human expressive capacity were to be described, following Nietzsche. Through their dialectical exchange these opposite poles of human expressive capacity were responsible for the history of modern art, according to the makers of the exhibition.177 As explained, the exhibition wanted to discover and demonstrate the age old concept of polarity in the art of the contemporary period – in the art of painting
173 Sandberg, « dix artistes, trois étapes », pp. 42-51, 73. In Jaffé’s article in Museumjournaal the reproductions of the paintings representing the three phases were represented from top to bottom. 174 Jaffé, “De drie phasen der artistieke creativiteit”, p. 13. In Dutch it says: “Zo moet deze tentoonstelling als een poging worden beschouwd om niet alleen de verschillende phasen der artistieke creativiteit te omschrijven, maar ook om enig licht te werpen op de dialectiek, die de geschiedenis der beeldende kunst, de keten der kunstenaars door de eeuwen , beheerst en bestuurt.” 175 See the unsigned essay by Jaffé in the catalog ‘polariteit, het apollinische en het dionysische in de kunst’, n.p. The Dutch text reads: “Want de geschiedenis der schilder- en beeldhouwkunst is niet een – haast mechanische – opeenvolging van stijlen en van kunstenaars, maar juist een verstrengeling, een symphonische, genuanceerde partituur, waarin tal van stemmen gelijktijdig klinken – zij (sic?) is het en is het altijd geweest.” 176 Ibid. 177 Ibid. The exhibition was directed together with the organization of the “Ruhrfestspiele” in Recklinghausen. The Recklinghauser team was made up of: the critic Albert Schulze Vellinghausen, the painter-museum director Thomas Grochowiak, curator Anneliese Schroeder and the cultural leader of the German labor unions, Otto Burrmeister. This summer festival was organized every year by the German labor unions together with the municipal authorities. In the preface of the catalog ‘polariteit, het apollonische en het dionysische in de kunst’, credit is given to the ‘Ruhrfestspiele’ organization for its successful cooperation, which is looked upon with slight jealousy because similar Dutch attempts have always failed due to the compartmentalization ‘verzuiling’ of the Dutch workers.
232 and sculpture of the last 150 years.178 The Stedelijk created the idea that this polarity existed but that it needed to be ‘discovered’ and ‘demonstrated’ by them. As symbols of the polarity between the two opposite poles of human types, the Greek gods Apollo and Dionysus were chosen – just as Barr had done in 1936 in the ‘Cubism and Abstract Art exhibition - and as the German philosopher Nietzsche had in his The Birth of Tragedy. The essay in the catalog of the exhibition, started with an eight page excerpt from Nietzsche’s book, in which the duality of the Apollonian and Dionysian was introduced, and ends with a quote from Nietzsche’s work which was used to defend the changing position of the opposite forces and of the dominance of the Dionysian in the contemporary art of the last ten years. The two poles are presented in the exhibition as opposites: the lively, passionate, exuberant and emotional expression versus the orderly, cerebral, measured expression.179 The choice to have Nietzsche himself introduce the catalog would perhaps impress the public, but did not enhance the clarity of the message. The opposite poles were headed by the two gods: Apollo and Dionysus. In Jaffé’s accompanying article in Museumjournaal, Jaffé compared the exhibition to a Greek drama. Theatrically he introduced the actors of the drama to the public and positioned the actors in the two opposing processions led by Apollo and Dionysus. The Dionysian group he described passionately: “Powerful and seething Dionysus’s procession rushes past our eyes: Delacroix, Vincent van Gogh, de French Fauves, the German Expressionists, Rouault, Soutine, and the whole unbridled crowd of young contemporary artists: Appel, Bazaine, Hartung, Lataster, Schumacher, Van Velde and many others, who are not represented in this exhibition. Excited and turbulent, the procession tumbles noisily past us … ”. The retinue following Apollo, he introduced calmly, as striding towards the opposing crowd: “Ingres stands at the head of the followers of the god (Apollo), and behind him trails a long row of artists: Cézanne, the cubists, the painters of the Bauhaus, Mondriaan, Morandi, and a few younger painters, who now also try to live by the strict rules of Apollo.”180 In what Jaffé described as merely “a
178 Ibid. 179 The opposing poles were visualized in a scheme by W.Jos de Gruyter in his second edition of De Europese Schilderkunst na 1850, which was published in 1954. (The first edition of 1935 did not have the schematic introduction. 180 Jaffé, “Polariteit, zomertentoonstelling in het Stedelijk museum te Amsterdam”, p. 28. In Dutch: “Machtig en bruisend ruist de stoet van Dionysos voor onze ogen voorbij: Delacroix, Vincent van Gogh, de franse fauves, de duitse expressionisten, Rouault, Soutine, en de hele tomeloze schare van jonge hedendaagse kunstenaars: Appel, Bazaine, Hartung, Lataster, Schumacher, Van Velde en vele anderen, die niet op de tentoonstelling zijn vertegenwoordigd. Opgewonden en rumoerig, met wild geraas tuimelt deze stoet langs ons heen … .” And: “Ingres staat aan het hoofd van de volgelingen van de god, en acher hem wandelt een lange reeks van kunstenaars: Cézanne, de cubisten, de schilders van het Bauhaus, Mondriaan, Morandi, en enkele jonge schilders, die ook thans het strenge gebod van Apollo trachten na te leven.”
233 prologue” to the drama, he set up a strong, yet simplistic, contrast of opposing pairs of artists, which provided a one-dimensional and somewhat naïve presentation of the development of modern art. He concluded by enticing the reader to go and see the exhibition: “to see and experience the drama for himself”. By presenting this exhibition as a drama, he appealed to the public’s emotions as the key to the exhibition. The exhibition was indeed installed as two opposing groups. The two gods who represented the opposition, were depicted on two Greek vases which were used as symbols of the two opposing camps. These ancient vases provided an honorable, historic introduction to the exhibition and the catalog. (fig. 131) The artists were positioned either in the one or the other camp. The line-ups started with the exemplary polarity of two heroes, as Jaffé called them, Ingres versus Delacroix, through whom Apollo and Dionysus spoke directly to us, as Jaffé declares in somewhat pompous and theatrical prose: “it almost seems as if at the beginning of a new era of human history the two old gods called upon two heroes to show Europe in an exemplary way the polarity of their fundamental principles.”181 On the left – the ‘sinister’- side of the room, the Dionysian heroes were installed; on the right hand side the followers of Apollo were lined up. To underline the contrast a simple sign was hung on a pillar in the middle of the room with the text: “Left Dionysian Right Apollonian” (fig. 132). The works of art which were to represent the two poles, were chosen so as to emphasize the differences: a full-length portrait by Delacroix versus a full-length portrait by Ingres; a sculptured head by Rude versus a sculptured head by Canova; a landscape by Van Gogh versus a landscape by Cézanne etc. These obvious and clear examples in the beginning of the exhibition set the right mood of contrast and comparison for the public to continue in the same mode of viewing for the rest of the exhibition which was not as clear cut and convincing and could therefore use the help of the antithetical automatism. Jaffé admitted in the catalog that some of their choices were debatable and that “the visitor would only hesitantly – or perhaps not at all – share the curators’ opinions”, but as Jaffé defended his position: the Museum’s “goal was to pose a problem and to encourage the visitor - when viewing the works of art - to sympathize with and think about them.”182 Here, Jaffé clearly declared the Stedelijk’s strategy: to arouse the public’s emotions and thoughts.
181 Ibid. In Dutch: “Haast lijkt het, of de twee oude goden aan het begin van een nieuw tijdperk der menselijke geschiedenis twee heroen hadden opgeroepen, om de polariteit van hun beginselen aan de mensheid van Europa voorbeeldig te vertonen.” 182 See Jaffé’s unsigned text in the catalog polariteit, het apollinische en dionysische in de kunst’, n.p. Jaffé says: “(…) zal de beschouwer slechts aarzelend – of in ‘geheel niet – de mening der samenstellers delen: zij zullen het hem stellig niet euvel duiden, want hun doel was het, een probleem te stellen en de beschouwer voor de schilderijen tot meevoelen en tot nadenken aan te zetten.”
234 The catalog strengthened the contrast between the Apollonian and Dionysian works of art not only through the text but also visually. The front cover of the catalog presented a very sharp contrast in character and color. To provide a striking opposition two ‘women’ were chosen to confront the viewer. Two depictions of women – brought to the same size in the reproductions - who fit the characteristics attributed to both poles described in the catalog perfectly, literally personify the two poles and provide an overwhelming opposition. Schick’s Apollonian woman – a prime example of dignity, harmony and order - sits serenely in a thoughtful pose and looks out at the viewer from the top of the page; the cool blues of her dress and the sky stress the serene atmosphere. This early 19th century example of a peaceful portrait is contrasted with the 20th century depiction of a wild, naked woman dancing furiously. The crude, lively brushstrokes and fiery colors of Nolde’s Dionysian figure at the bottom of the cover clash with its counterpart above.(fig. 133) The complementary colors enhanced the opposition. On the back of the catalog cover two sculptures were presented as opposites: against a warm yellow background a voluptuous Dionysian woman by Matisse opposes a ‘platonic’ Apollonian beauty by Arp, presented in a cool blue surrounding. Inside the catalog one hundred and six pages (!) are filled with examples of contrasting pairs. Almost twice as many ‘Dionysian’ paintings – as opposed to the ‘Apollonian’ paintings - are reproduced in color, which indicates of course the importance of color for these works of art but also increases their ‘vitality’: a character trait that the Stedelijk wanted to attribute to them in order to position them in the ‘Dionysian’ camp.183 The works of art are accompanied by either an A or a D, indicating their temperament, and by the name and dates of the artist. They are not to be viewed individually, as separate masterpieces with their own dimensions and title. The works of art refer to their makers, the artists. They are there to illustrate the Stedelijk’s story, to act in its play, as Jaffé had said. Polariteit was the last of the five consecutive summer exhibitions in which the Stedelijk projected different approaches to the history of modern art. The diverse exhibitions and their publications fit the Stedelijk’s concept of constant change, which was part of the Museum’s image as living center. The messages in the consecutive presentations overlapped and presented a repetition of the Stedelijk’s ideologies.
183 There were 19 ‘Dionysian’ paintings reproduced in color versus 10 ‘Apollonian’ paintings in color. See the catalog polariteit, het appolinische en het dionysische in de kunst, n.p.
235 Historical Exhibitions in MoMA in the Fifties and Sixties
In contrast to the Stedelijk’s desire of constant change in its historical exhibitions, the Museum of Modern Art seemed to steer towards stability and continuity in theirs. A number of historical exhibitions of the 1950’s and 1960’s in the Museum of Modern Art were in part continuations of the influential historical 1930’s exhibitions: Cubism and Abstract Art in 1936 and Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism in 1936-1937. These two important exhibitions were to be once again written into history and revitalized by their successors. In the forewords of the catalogs of the later exhibitions, the 1930 exhibitions were commemorated and used as starting points to take off from. For both of the 1930 exhibitions a direct sequel will be analyzed here, exemplifying the historical approach in the Museum of Modern Art.
The 1951 historical exhibition Abstract Painting and Sculpture in America was directly linked to the earlier Cubism and Abstract Art show as the review - and addition of the American side - of the history.184 As Ritchie, curator and director of the Exhibition, stated in the preface of the catalog: “Now, fifteen years later, with the production of abstract painting and sculpture steadily increasing in this country it has seemed appropriate to review the movement in both historical and contemporary sense.”185 In many ways Abstract Painting and Sculpture in America refers directly and indirectly to the former exhibition. The 1951 exhibition’s scholarly ambitions were not only prevalent in the exhibition and catalog, which was presented to the public as the first book to review the Abstract movement in American art, a symposium on Abstract art was organized by the Museum with Ritchie as moderator.186 In the Acknowledgements of the catalog the scholarly authority of the Museum was underlined, Ritchie gave “particular thanks” to Barr, “to whose book, Cubism and Abstract Art, all who touch the subject of abstraction must always be indebted”.187
184 The exhibition Abstract Painting and Sculpture in America included more than 100 paintings and sculptures by about 85 artists for the exhibition, which covered the period from 1913 to 1951. 185 Ritchie, Abstract Painting and Sculpture in America, p. 9. 186 The Museum of Modern Art organized a symposium on Abstract Art in connection with the exhibition on February 5, 1951. Six artists – Calder, Davis, Glarner, de Kooning, Morris and Motherwell - were asked to speak on their views of the proposition: “What Abstract Art Means to Me”. Their statements were published in the G.L. Morris e.a., “What Abstract Art Means to Me.”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 28, no. 3 (Spring 1951): pp. 3-15. The statements by the artists were frequently used in Museum of Modern Art catalogs and exhibitions in the years to come. 187 Ibid., p. 8.
236 The approach in Ritchie’s catalog shows great resemblance to Barr’s. First the concept of Abstraction was defined and analyzed in the text in the chapters ‘What is Abstract Art?’ And, ‘Why Abstract Art?’. These questions were answered immediately in the text: after defining Abstract art, the reasons ‘why’ were provided. The arguments were first based on understandable and respectable explanations – which had “some justification”, as Ritchie said, such as parallels with music, new scientific discoveries and the influence of the machine: all arguments that the public could relate to.188 The text was supported by visual evidence in a series of impressive scientific photographs taken through a microscope, a telescope and from the air, which showed abstract patterns of celestial and microscopic material, and abstract design of a land- , sea- and cityscape.(fig. 134)189 After providing these easily understandable arguments, Ritchie presented what he described as “the fundamental motivations for abstract art”: “Protest against the established order of traditional perspective, naturalistic space and color, conventional subject matter”.190 These ‘fundamental motivations’ bring the beginnings of abstract art back to the ancestry of the founding fathers of modern art: Cézanne, Seurat, Van Gogh and Gauguin. Just as in the catalog Cubism and Abstract Art, the currents of abstract art were reasoned back to these four ancestors, who are once again – as in 1936 - divided into two poles: the rational of Cézanne and Seurat and the emotional of Van Gogh and Gauguin.191 Besides the acknowledged protest within the development of European art history “against the established order of traditional perspective, naturalistic space and color, conventional subject matter”, Ritchie included a broader concept of ‘protest’ to incorporate the American development of Abstract art. The ‘protest’ was now also explained as the “Protestant revolution”, the revolution against the patronage of art of the “combined tyrannies of Church and King. The change in patronage “grew out of the great social and economic changes produced in part by Protestantism, with all its emphasis on individual faith, and Democracy, with all its emphasis on individual freedom.”192 These qualifications fit perfectly into the American values of the 1950’s, bringing the ‘protest’ – read ‘abstraction’ - in art closer to the understanding of the contemporary American public. The parallel reasoning of the transformation of the patronage of art – from the Church and nobility to “the business man” - was described as a victorious one in which America played its part: “The American
188 Ibid., p. 12. 189 Ibid., pp. 13-15. 190 Ibid., p. 15. 191 Ibid. This history is explained in the text under the heading “Rebel Artists and the Gradual Dissolution of Conventional Subject Matter”, pp. 18-24 192 Ibid., p. 16.
237 Revolution and finally the French put an emphatic end to this association.”193 Popular patronage, however, was not immediately receptive to new developments in art, as Ritchie explained, and the rebel artists were thrown upon their own resources. By explaining this reaction of the popular patronage in history, the public’s own expected reactions was justified. In further parallel reasoning, by pointing to the negative position of the academies in history, Ritchie indirectly discredited contemporary academic art. As he stated: the academies – with their history of “royal and aristocratic support” exerted their control – a control which still existed, according to Ritchie, in Russia: in a note he further stressed the Soviet Union’s controlling position by comparing it to the control exerted by the Nazis.194 By bringing in the comparison to the Soviet Union’s control in this period of Cold War, the public was bound to sympathize with the artists who opposed controlling institutions. In a simple question and a quick answer, Ritchie positioned the rebel ancestors: “What of the 19th century artist, unable to accept academic subject matter and technique and the popular patronage they had attracted? He naturally found himself painting for a very restricted public and often only for himself.” Ritchie then cleverly connected this position to the contemporary artists in his exhibition: “The important point for us here, however, is that the rebel minority became largely separated from public patronage. This isolation, as a condition of work, experienced by such artists as Courbet, Manet, Monet, Pissarro, Degas, Seurat, Gauguin, van Gogh – to name a few of the greatest – was inherited on an even more intensified scale by experimental artists of this century.”195 Of the above list, one artist is singled out as a new predecessor of abstract painting – along side the already acknowledged four founding fathers. Monet is mentioned specifically as the “extremist” of the Impressionists, for having completed “the victory of landscape over all other forms of painting.”196 Furthermore, the abstract character of Impressionism is stressed so as to present Impressionism as an early starting point of abstraction: “Impressionism has so often been wrongly called the last stage in naturalistic painting, its contrary significance as the first movement pointing forward to the “pure” abstract painting and sculpture we know today has been underestimated.”197 Monet’s Nymphaea: Waterscape (1907) was reproduced, as first in line, in this section of the catalog followed by a painting of
193 Ibid., p. 16. 194 Ibid., p. 18. The text in the note is as follows: “The Nazis, following the example of the Soviet Union, placed these absolute controls upon artists – controls comparable to those forced upon all their other subjects – and the Soviet Union continues these controls today.” 195 Ibid., p. 19. Ritchie had already mentioned Cézanne as an example in a previous line. 196 Ibid., p. 20. 197 Ibid., p. 20.
238 Seurat, Cézanne, Van Gogh and Gauguin. These five paintings together visualized the beginning of modern art. (fig. 135) They also demonstrated – due to the selection of the paintings - Ritchie’s hypothesis that the rational current of abstract art coming from the Impressionists (Monet !) and “those rational explorers who followed them, Cézanne and Seurat”, “projected into the 20th century an impulse toward the abstract analysis of static, inanimate forms, the forms to be found in the still life.” As Ritchie elaborated: “At any rate, they focused their experiments very largely on an examination of the still life, or landscape and figures reduced to still-life significance.” Monet’s waterscape, Seurat’s figures and Cézanne’s still life demonstrated this “still-life significance”.198 The other current, “the non-rationalist 19th century rebels, … emphasized the emotive potentialities of a dynamic space, a space which for infinite permutations of emotional response and rhythmic vitality they found potentially greater in landscape than in still life.”199 The paintings by Van Gogh and Gauguin which were predominantly ‘landscapes’ were chosen to display Ritchie’s hypothesis.200 His hypothesis was presented as one that would create order and would make the development of abstract art until that moment clearer: “If this hypothetical delimitation of the problem of the evolution of art toward abstraction is accepted, I think we can better appreciate the development of the two branches of abstract art up to our own day.” And confidently he added: “It is also a hypothesis that may help to keep our thinking straight as we plot our way through the maze of 20th century art movements, Cubism, Futurism, Orphism, Suprematism, Constructivism, Neo-Plasticism, Expressionism, Dada and Surrealism, all of which have had a direct or residual bearing on abstract art as we now find it today in America.”201 After the introduction in which Ritchie prepared the public for the survey of American Abstract art by providing a clear, honorable ancestry and raison d’etre, he organized his material according to chronology and categories. The development of American Abstract art was divided in two periods which were presented as two ‘waves’ of abstraction in America: the first wave from 1912 to c. 1925, “given its greatest impulse by the Armory Show, built up steadily through the World War I period and gradually lost its momentum about the mid- ‘twenties”; and the second wave from
198 Chosen illustrations were: Monet’s Nymphaea: Waterscape (1907), Seurat’s La Chahut (1889), Cézanne’s Still Life (1904-1906). 199 Ibid., pp. 23-24. 200 Van Gogh’s Ivy (1889-1990) and Gauguin’s Goose-girl, Brittany (1888) were reproduced in the catalog. 201 Ritchie, Abstract Painting and Sculpture in America, p. 24.
239 c. 1930 to 1950 which after a long, slow beginning “began to pick up speed in the mid-‘forties and appears now to be at its crest.”202 The second wave was classified by Ritchie in five different groups , each listed with two ‘characteristics’ (a and b) and their ‘origins’. The characteristics were descriptions of formal qualities and the origins were a list of movements, such as: Cubism, Constructivism, de Stijl, Bauhaus. The five classifications refined Barr’s original two classifications of 1936, Non-Geometrical Abstract Art and Geometrical Abstract: 1. Pure Geometric, 2. Architectural and Mechanical Geometric, 3. Naturalistic Geometric, 4. Expressionist Geometric, 5. Expressionist Biomorphic. These categories organized the catalog and the exhibition. The works of art determined the categories, they were the focus of the exhibition and not the artists themselves. The systematizing of the recent work was to order and clarify the field of Abstract American art. It also seems to have been a selecting mechanism to single out the most promising works of art. The installation of the exhibition started with Max Weber, a ‘European’ American, who in his early years was very much a part of the Parisian scene and who therefore was a perfect link between the respected European influences and the independent American development. This ‘introduction’ section of the exhibition provided an authoritative, secure link with the evolution of Abstract Art through Cubism: Weber was described as “the most consistent Cubist of all the American artists of these early days”.203 The body of the exhibition worked its way through the first wave and through the categories of the second wave, and ended with the conclusion of the exhibition which represented a climax of new American painting: the last gallery had been given to the Expressionist Biomorphic category. In this stylistic category there were paintings – described as ‘masterpieces’ by sympathetic critics – by Gorky, de Kooing and Pollock, who together had been selected by Barr the previous year for the prestigious Venice Biennale.204 They represented the ‘new’ and the promise for the future.205 This climax of the exhibition was to strengthen the budding position of the New American Painting, which would soon be
202 Ritchie is quoted in the Press Release ‘Comprehensive exhibition of American Abstract Painting and Sculpture to be Museum’s next large showing’, pp. 1-2. AHB[AAA: 3146;471-472] MoMA Archives, NY. 203 Ritchie, Abstract Painting and Sculpture in America, p. 32. 204 For the 1950 Biennale exposition, the American Pavilion was divided into two parts. One part was devoted to a retrospective of John Marin’s work. The other part showed works by six younger artists. The three artists chosen by Barr were, Gorky, de Kooning and Pollock. 205 Sandberg seemed not well informed when he wrote that the new American painting (Pollock, de Kooning, Kline, Rothko and Barnett Newman) had not entered the museum of modern art yet in the late 1950’s. See W. Sandberg, “museums at the crossroads”, p. 326.
240 presented as the new direction in international art – finally putting American art on the map of the world, as will be discussed in the next chapter.
In 1968 the Museum of Modern Art exhibition Dada, Surrealism and their Heritage was presented as the follow-up of the historical exhibition Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism in 1936: Dada, Surrealism and their Heritage was announced as “the first comprehensive exhibition anywhere of these movements since the Museum had presented - its now classic show - in 1936-1937, a generation ago.”206 In the Press Release - months before the show - the aim of the exhibition was described: “To provide a rich and historically balanced survey of these two great movements along with a limited selection of more recent works – some familiar, some not – influenced by them.”207 The exhibition was directed by William Rubin, Curator of Painting and Sculpture at the Museum. His approach was in many ways similar to Barr’s in 1936: Rubin continued the concept of the evolution of styles and movements in art history and shared the pretense of providing a scholarly survey and catalog which included notes, a chronology, bibliography and index. But there were also differences. These lay in the fact that by 1968 both movements were considered to have become history: Rubin claimed the end of Surrealism in 1947: the chronology included in the catalog ends with the Exposition Internationale du Surréalisme, the last major group show of the movement. Furthermore, the approach to the material was dissimilar. The historic Fantastic Art section of the 1936 exhibition with all the curious and famous predecessors was left out; in 1968 the masters of Dada and Surrealism had themselves become famous and needed no special ancestry besides the historic modern masters themselves to boost their honorability. The curiosities of the 1936 Comparative section (with the art of children and the insane, folk art, commercial and journalistic art, scientific and miscellaneous objects with a Surrealist character) were not included either: Dada and Surrealism were no longer presented as ‘a way of life’ and recognizable in different corners of society, but as art styles. And even though Dada and Surrealism “were so variegated as almost to preclude the use of the terms as definitions of style”, each art movement could be said,
206 Press Release ‘Advance Information on DADA, SURREALISM, AND THEIR HERITAGE Exhibition’, No. 13, Wednesday, January 31, 1968, and Press Release No. 26, Wednesday, March 27, 1968, p.1. Press Releases, Library MoMA, NY. After the New York showing, the exhibition traveled to Los Angeles County Museum of Art and The Art Institute of Chicago. 207 Ibid., p. 1.
241 according to Rubin, to have “some properties of style and many common denominators of character, iconography, and intent.”208 The focusing on the ‘art’ and stylistic aspects of Dada and Surrealism fit in Ruben’s aesthetic formalistic approach. For example, to emphasize the aesthetic value of Dada, Rubin explained that Dada as ‘anti-art’ “incorporated more of that “art-art” than its authors knew” and what once was perhaps intended as “devoid of aesthetic interest” such as Duchamp’s Bottlerack (1914) acquired, according to Rubin, “an inescapably “arty” look”.209 The ancestry and the stylistic development were emphasized in the catalog: at the top of the first chapter on Dada , Picabia’s Portrait of Cézanne’(1920) was featured and references were frequently made throughout the catalog to Cubism as having influenced the style of Dada and Surrealism therefore connecting the movements in a linear history of styles beginning with Cézanne.210 The installation of the exhibition and the catalog were arranged by style and iconography, but also by artist.211 The Surrealist section of the exhibition was installed by style instead of chronology, as Barr had suggested to Rubin: Surrealism was divided into abstract surrealism and illusionistic surrealism.212 There were also sections installed according to themes: for example a ‘Words and Images’ section – in both the exhibition and the catalog - in which works of art from different artists featured, works of art in which words were incorporated. The survey of Dada and Surrealism was presented as an authoritative history of these art movements in which a number of leading figures featured: masters who dominated in the text and in the installation of the exhibition. Where the master artists had previously – in the 1936 show – been given their own wall in a gallery, now in 1968 the masters were given an entire gallery for themselves: a Duchamp gallery, a Schwitters gallery, an Arp gallery, a Dali gallery, and more.213 The Dali gallery received special attention: his dreamlike paintings and sculptures were set in a cinematic atmosphere. A darkened room of dark colored walls in which the works of art were highlighted by theatrical spotlights echoed the suggestive cinematic lettering of the word ‘Surrealism’ in the title on the front cover of the catalog.(fig. 136) The Duchamp gallery was the first room after the entrance – the exhibition started with
208 Rubin, Dada, Surrealism, and Their Heritage, pp. 11-12. 209 Ibid., pp.15,19. 210 For example on pp. 16, 17, 19, 27, 114. 211 Staniszewski, The Power of Display, p. 136. 212 Ibid., p. 136. Staniszewski quotes a memorandum that Barr sent to Rubin after reviewing the outline for the exhibition. Barr is said to have suggested that Rubin “sacrifice chronology and start out with Abstract Surrealism (Arp, Miro, Masson, Ernst, Picasso, 1925 +), follow that with illusionistic surrealism (Ernst, Man Ray, Tanguy, Picasso, 1927 +, Magritte, Dali, Oelze, Dominguez, Seligmann, Paalen, Delvaux, etc.)”. 213 Ibid., pp. 136, 138-139.
242 the leaders of the New York Dada: Duchamp, Picabia and Man Ray, positioning the beginning of Dada in New York City and underlining the city’s importance. Before entering this first gallery, the introduction to the exhibition was made at the entrance. Standing in front of the entrance doorway - from which a lintel hung with the title of the exhibition - the public was confronted with three large masterpieces which together formed the beginning and the end of the historic movements of Dada and Surrealism: on each side of the doorway a large painting hung by two of “the three last Surrealists” as they were called in the catalog: Matta and Lam (fig. 137).214 These paintings seem not to have been officially part of the exhibition since they are not listed in the catalog entries: they seem to function as a preview of what was to come and an important link to the art that followed them. The last Surrealists were of great importance to the Museum since they had had an influence on the by then highly honored Abstract Expressionists, as was shown in the ‘Heritage Section’ of the exhibition. Visually the connection was made: standing in front of the entrance a third large painting could be seen in a through view to the second gallery. This in contrast to the last paintings of the movements was one of the earliest paintings of the show: Picabia’s “still most Cubist” ‘Edtaonisl’ (1913). Its large dimensions together with those of Matta’s and Lam’s paintings refer to the large abstract expressionist paintings which were to be seen elsewhere in the Museum. The Heritage Section was divided in two sections: one showing the influence of Dada in work of art of the 1950’s and 1960’s “which are founded on a revival metamorphosis of certain essential ideas in Dadaism, as seen in recent work by Niki de Saint Phalle, Lucas Samaras, Christo, Jasper Johns, Kienholz, Claes Oldenburg and Jean Tinguely”, and one presenting “the surrealizing works of the 1940’s which constitute the early phases of the careers of some great Abstract Expressionists including Pollock, Ferber, Gottlieb and Rothko”, as is stated in the Museum Press Release.215 These Heritage sections provided the links in the evolution of modern art from the accepted master movements Dada and Surrealism to the new developments in art, therefore securing their position in the history of art. It is noteworthy that Rubin stressed that the new works of art in the heritage section were masterpieces in their own right and that they did not depend on their ancestry for their value. Here Rubin introduced the concept of autonomy of
214 Staniszewski says: “On either side of the entrance were two large Matta paintings (…)”. The photograph of the entrance, however, shows on the left Matta’s Le Vertige d’Eros (1944) and on the right Lam’s The Jungle (1943) and therefore the entrance does not feature a single artist as is stated on page 136. 215 Press Release for the Exhibition ‘Dada, Surrealism, and their Heritage’, No. 26, Wednesday, March 27, 1968, p. 8. These quotes from the Museum Press Release together with two photographs of the installation of the exhibition were included in Bee and Elligott, Art in Our Time, p. 144.
243 the modern works of art giving them their own right of existence: “In both groups,” Rubin is quoted as saying, “it is important to remember that the later works transcend these influences and stand on their own as independent works of art. The lineage of the early Rothko or Newman in regard to Surrealist ‘poetic-painting’, of Johns, Rauschenberg and Tinguely with regard to the work of Duchamp, no more delimits their quality than does the debt of Cubism to Cézanne.”216 In the case of the Abstract expressionists, Rubin claimed with the death of Surrealism the birth of the new avant-garde: “Gorky’s mature career belonged to a period of transition in the avant-garde; it extended from 1942 through 1947 and thus corresponded simultaneously to the last phase of Surrealism and to the early work of the artists who would later emerge as innovators of the new American painting. The international Surrealist exhibition at the Galerie Maeght in 1947 sounded the death knell of the Surrealist movement. That same year Jackson Pollock’s work – the consolidation of his revolutionary “drip” style – announced a new phase in the history of art.”217 Rubin’s catalog is a good example of the authoritative catalog of the Museum of Modern Art: a well documented and annotated elaborate scholarly history. With its red glossy cover it shines with confidence. (fig. 138) Each section of the title is presented in different lettering, characterizing the different movements: through the irregular letters of the word ‘Dada’, text is shown of which one can discern a number of important words (for example, Pioneer, Dada, Surrealism, Exiled Artists, Freud); the cinematic spotlighted white letters of Surrealism stand out and cast dark shadows behind them; at the bottom of the cover in bold no-nonsense lettering ‘and their heritage’ visualizes the smaller role of the more modern works in the exhibition. In the text of the catalog, however, Rubin made room to incorporate the new art into the extensive history of the two movements. The new works of art especially those categorized as heritage of Dada - then still controversial – were easily written into history. Even past ‘events’ outside of the show, such as Jim Dine’s Happening Car Crash (1960) and Tinguely’s famous exploding Homage to New York (1961) could be identified as real works of art due to the glossy photographs. The Museum’s approach to this experimental work of art by Tinguely shall be analyzed in the next chapter.
216 Press Release for the Exhibition ‘Dada, Surrealism, and their Heritage’, No. 26, Wednesday, March 27, 1968, pp. 8-9. Patin in his book elaborates on this development of autonomy. See Patin, Discipline and Varnish. 217 Rubin, Dada, Surrealism, and Their Heritage, pp. 175-176.
244 The Founding Fathers of Modern Art and other Classic Modern Masters.
In the Museums’ presentations of the history of modern art, artists were selected who in the Museums’ views made history and therefore should go down into history as ‘masters’ of modern art. They were also selected as precursors of important new developments. Their role therefore was to historicize the contemporary, and in order for them to remain ‘modern’ themselves, they were to be contemporized.218 These influential artists were portrayed as ‘masters’, ‘pioneers’ and compared to ‘scientists’ and ‘inventors’, as we have seen in the previous chapters. These qualifying images set them apart from their contemporaries. Both museums acknowledged the fact that there were many artists whose work was worthy of a place in their galleries, but to present a understandable overview of art history ‘masters’ were to be chosen who - more than others - determined the course of history. Furthermore, in the presentation of a clear history of modern art, the desire to offer a comprehensible beginning was apparent - a clear starting point marked by the first masters and masterpieces of modern art. The prevalent metaphors for these first great artists were the concept of ‘father’ or ‘founding father’ and ‘pioneer’. Who were presented as the fathers or first pioneers of modern art? From the beginning of the Museum’s existence, Cézanne was to be presented as the central figure in the Museum of Modern Art, whereas in the Stedelijk Museum Van Gogh was the center of focus. In both Museums Monet was to be included much later on as one of the important ancestors. His inclusion is given as an example of ‘re-writing’ history. In the following analysis, the communicative strategies of both Museums in canonizing their founding fathers shall be scrutinized. In the previous section of this chapter their positioning in the historical exhibitions has already been highlighted; in this section a detailed analysis shall clarify the Museums’ coining of their masters.
MoMA’s Founding Father: Cézanne
For the Museum of Modern Art, the selection of the founding fathers of modern art occurred in the Museum’s very first exhibition. In the 1929 opening exhibition Cézanne, Gauguin, van Gogh, Seurat, these four artists were presented as “foremost among the pioneers of modern
218 As John Elderfield says : “Precursors of modern art have worn a surprising variety of guises and have preached many creeds. Always, however, they have served two interrelated functions: first, to contemporize the historical and, second, to historicize the contemporary.” See Elderfield, “The Precursor”, p. 65. In this interesting article Elderfield discusses Monet and Turner as precursors of Abstract expressionist painting in the 1960’s.
245 art” and therefore suited as the Museum’s opening statement.219 The choice for these four artists was explained by Barr in the catalog: the selection was made on the basis that they were “especially honored as pioneers who founded new traditions and, more important perhaps, rediscovered old ones. … All four had one element in common – Impressionism as a point of departure …”220. The emphasis here on the fact that these artists “rediscovered old traditions” makes them not as threatening to a public who was expected to be shocked by this first museum exposure in New York of the four pioneers of modern art. This first singling out of these four artists was to be the beginning of a steady construction of a dominant history of the development of modern art built on these four honorable pillars.221 The group of four was either used together to unify the story of modern art, or divided into two opposing groups – Cézanne and Seurat versus Van Gogh and Gauguin - to simplify the categorization of the diverse modern art movements , or into four individual masters, who were positioned as fathers of new developments. The common ground, which unified these four individuals, was presented as a turning point in their careers: their departure from Impressionism and that their reactions to it were what caused the development of their strong individual styles. Through constant repetition of this concept, the Museum of Modern Art presented a continuous and convincing history, which is still to be found in many university curricula of modern art. In numerous exhibitions, circulating exhibitions organized by the Museum and Museum catalogs and books between the early 1930’s and 1975, the four artists together were either discussed or commemorated as the four most important founding fathers.222 In a number of exhibitions on the history of abstract art – as previously discussed - they were split up so as to explain the development of the contrast in style between the geometric and the non-geometric.223 Often one of two were presented as ancestors to a
219 See Publicity for the opening of the exhibition, page marked: ‘Publicity - Statistics regarding Museum of Modern Art’, MoMA Library, NY. 220 Barr, Cézanne, Gauguin, Seurat, Van Gogh, p. 11. 221 Barr’s university ‘mentor’ in modern art, Frank Jewitt Mather acknowledged in his book Modern Painting (1927) the extreme importance of the four founding fathers of modern art – calling Cézanne the key to modernist painting – and singling out Seurat, Van Gogh, Gauguin and Cézanne - in their reaction to Impressionism - as crucial figures in the early modernist movement. See Mather, Modern Painting, pp. 319-349. Mather called Cézanne an expressionist together with Van Gogh and Gauguin (p. 324). 222 The four fathers featured in, for example, the following Museum exhibitions: A Brief Survey of Modern Painting (1932) (also a circulating exhibition); Cubism and Abstract Art (1936) (also a circulating exhibition); They also featured in the books published by the Museum, for example: Rewald, The History of Impressionism, in 1946, and Russell, The Meanings of Modern Art, in 1974. 223 For example in: Barr, Cubism and Abstract Art, and the circulating exhibition Classic and Romantic in Abstract Painting (1939-1940).
246 specific movement or commemorated in a one-man show.224 It is noteworthy though, that the dominance of the four classic artists was not determined by one-man shows, but by the frequent repetition of their position in other exhibitions and catalogs and by the installation of the Permanent Collection of the Museum in which these four founding fathers led the way. Of the four artists Cézanne was promoted as the most important and influential. In the very first exhibition catalog of the exhibition Cézanne, Gauguin, Seurat, Van Gogh in 1929, Barr compared Cézanne’s influence with that of acknowledged great masters of the past: “it is certain that his influence during the last thirty years is comparable in extent to that of Giotto, Roger van der Weyden, Donatello or Michelangelo.”225 Barr’s concluding words in the catalog on Cézanne are that the conclusions reached by Cézanne in his work “have changed the direction of the history of art”.226 From 1929 on, Cézanne’s leadership was made clear verbally and visually. As explicitly stated in the Press Release accompanying Cézanne’s first one-man exhibition Reproductions of Paintings, Watercolours and Drawings by Paul Cézanne, which – after its showing at the Museum - traveled as a circulating exhibition from 1937 until 1942: “The key to an understanding of the evolution of painting since Impressionism is to be sought more in Cézanne’s work than in that of any other modern painter. He was not only the greatest painter of his time but he influenced almost every important artist of the 20th century.”227 Here the Museum presented the strong persuasive argument that this wide extent of his influence proved his value.228 Cézanne had been singled out as the father of modern painting as early as 1932, when the exhibition A Survey of Modern Painting in Color Reproductions first started to travel across the country.229 Cézanne seemed to be the perfect figure for the Museum of Modern Art to focus on as leader. Besides the obvious reason that he was internationally considered to be an important and influential artist, the Museum had a large collection of his work: already in 1934 when the
224 There were early one-man shows of Van Gogh, which included a catalog, in the winter of 1935-1936 with a second showing in 1937. In 1945 Fourteen Paintings by Vincent van Gogh was shown for a few weeks in August (no catalog). There had been a small exhibition of Woodcuts and Watercolors by Gauguin in 1933 (no catalog), Two exhibitions on Cézanne in 1937: one titled Paintings by Paul Cézanne from the Museum and, during the same period, an exhibition of color reproductions of his paintings (no catalogs). The next Cézanne exhibition, which was a large one was in the winter of 1977-1978, Cézanne: The Late Work. Seurat Paintings and Drawings was shown in 1958 (no catalog). 225 Barr, Cézanne, Gauguin, Seurat, Van Gogh, p. 22. 226 Ibid., p. 27. 227 See Press Release, which was written to accompany the traveling exhibition from 1937-1942. The exhibition was shown in schools, colleges, universities, museums and galleries across the United States. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 228 See Quintillian, The Orator’s Education, Book 3.7, (Russell, p. 109). 229 See the catalog by Barr, A Brief Survey of Modern Painting, pp. 1, 7.
247 Museum collection was just starting to grow, the Museum received through the Bliss Bequest eleven oil paintings and ten watercolors and drawings by Cézanne. This gift provided the Museum with a significant collection of Cézanne’s work already very early on in its history. Furthermore, Cézanne fit perfectly in the concept of the evolutionary development, as a figure who linked the past to the present. In the circulating exhibition 19th Century Leaders of Modern Painting of large framed color reproductions, which traveled for fourteen years (from 1940 through 1954), Cézanne’s contribution to the development of modern painting was expressed as follows: “Cézanne is one of the most important figures of 19th century painting, not only because of the quality of his own work, but because his long career forms a solid link between past and present. Through him a continuous formal tradition of French painting was carried from the 19th to the 20th century.” This role of connecting a “continuous formal tradition” over two centuries – as “a solid link between past and present” is crucial for the Museum’s evolutionary concept of art history. Cézanne is linked to the admirable Poussin who is presented as an ancestor, whose virtue brings Cézanne the same.230 Cézanne himself is connected to Picasso and Matisse and to Cubism and Abstract art thereafter. With the growth of the greatness of these masters and master movements, Cézanne’s greatness as ancestor is augmented. To emphasize Cézanne as the link between tradition and new discovery in art, one of Cézanne’s quotes was used, continuously: in almost every catalog and Museum of Modern Art publication concerning Cézanne during the entire period between the 1930’s and 1975, and even until today - Cézanne’s declaration is repeated: “I wish to make of Impressionism something solid and permanent like the art of the museums.”231 To show just how persuasively this was used by the Museum, a close reading of the use of this quote will be provided. As Barr said himself in Modern Works of Art in 1934: “in this famous sentence he asserted both the importance of tradition and the validity of contemporary discovery and in so doing defined not only his own problem but that of his chief contemporaries as well.”232 In
230 In the circulating exhibition Ancestral Sources of in Modern Art which traveled in 1945 and 1946, Cézanne is coupled with Poussin on mount three of the exhibition. See CE, II.1.35/6. MoMA Archives, NY. 231 To name just a few of the many sources. Barr, Cézanne, Gauguin, Seurat, Van Gogh, p. 20. (Here it was quoted together with “What we must do is to paint Poussin over again from nature”. Of these two quotes Barr says: “In these pregnant sentences he insists both upon the importance of tradition and the validity of contemporary discovery”); Barr, Modern Works of Art, p. 11; Lieberman , Modern Maste: Manet to Matisse, p. 56; and in many other catalogs and books! 232 See Barr, Modern Works of Art, p. 11.
248 the catalog for the (circulating) exhibition A Brief Survey of Modern Painting (1934) Cézanne is even cited twice within three pages with this same quotation.233 With the repeated use of this one quote – in this and in many other catalogs and publications – the Museum seemed to want to imply that modern art in general strove to be ‘solid’ and ‘durable’ and that the Museum of Modern art – like the museums in the quote - had these qualities as well, and consequently emphasized and increased the respectability of both modern art and the own Museum. The actual French quote was: “J’ai voulu faire de l’impressionisme quelque chose de solide et de durable comme l’art des Musées.”234 It is noteworthy, that the Museum used the present tense instead of the past tense. Using the present tense makes it more lively and activates the reader to identify with Cézanne’s desire. In addition, Cézanne’s declaration was not always cited in the same wording: it was constantly adapted slightly to fit the message it meant to convey. In the catalog of the first exhibition in 1929, Cézanne, Gaugain, Seurat, Van Gogh, the quote was adapted to include the other pioneers – the ‘I’ became ‘We’: “We must make of Impressionism something solid like the art of the museums.”235 Furthermore, the use of ‘must’ in stead of ‘wish’ presents a much stronger drive and motivation of the modern masters, which makes their cause all the more honorable. Sometimes only a part was used, for example in an opening statement in the foreword of the catalog Modern Masters, From European and American Collections in 1940, which was set up to counterbalance the prestigious Italian Masters exhibition that contained twenty- nine ‘old’ masterpieces from the 15th to the 18th century which the Museum of Modern Art had – strangely enough – accepted to show in its galleries.236 In the foreword of Modern Masters, From European and American Collections mention is made of “imaginary contests between the heroes of antiquity and their modern counterparts” set up by the Museum: “Here, within the Museum of Modern Art, some such trial of strength may actually take place, for the Museum, believing in the power and quality of the modern artist, has not hesitated to accept
233 See the catalog Barr, A Brief Survey of Modern Painting, pp. 8, 11. 234 See Doran , Conversations avec Cézanne, pp. 170, 216. Cézanne’s quote had been written down by Maurice Denis already in 1907 in L’Occident and again in: M. Denis, Théories: 1890-1910. Du Symbolisme et de Gauguin vers un nouvel ordre classique, Paris 1912: “Quelque mois avant sa mort Cézanne nous disait: ‘J’ai voulu faire de l’impressionisme quelque chose de solide et de durable comme l’art des Musées’.” Thanks to Louk Tilanus. 235 Barr, Cézanne, Gauguin, Seurat, Van Gogh, p. 20. 236 The exhibition Italian Masters had been lent by the Italian Government to the Golden Gate International Exposition (the San Francisco World’s Fair) and after a showing in the Chicago Art Institute, it traveled on to New York. The Metropolitan Museum declined the offer and to the public’s surprise The Museum of Modern Art consented to a showing in its Museum.
249 the challenge made possible by its act of hospitality toward the Italian masters.”237 It is at the head of this foreword – singled out in italics - that the adaptation of Cézanne’s quote is positioned together with his name: ““We must make …something solid and enduring like the art of the museums” Paul Cézanne”. The use of ‘we’ instead of ‘I’ and the omission of ‘Impressionism’ broadens the quest to all the modern masters in the exhibition. In the preface to the catalog of Italian Masters, Barr used this same modified section and accompanied the preface with an evolutionary chart similar to that of the Cubism and Abstract Art showing the ancestry of modernism from Giotto to Cézanne and his contemporaries.(fig. 139)238 In these examples the modified citation is used to connect modern art with the old masters and to qualify the modern masterworks as ‘solid’ and ‘enduring’. The importance of Cézanne is not only stressed verbally but is also emphasized visually in the installation of the Permanent Exhibition of the Collection. In 1945 a special exhibition was held of the Museum’s own collection of Painting and Sculpture: the largest show of the collection so far. After a side-step of what Barr called “a two-gallery ‘preface” of American folk art and modern primitives, “the central international tradition of modern painting” was presented “in a suite a galleries leading from Cézanne, Van Gogh, Seurat and Gauguin … ”.239 The first painting of this “central international tradition” which was to confront the viewer, when turning the corner at the entrance of the exhibition was Cézanne’s The Bather (1885). As a mirror reflecting the advancing viewer, the Bather lures the public in. Since then – until just recently - Cézanne’s Bather has stood at the entrance of the many new ‘permanent’ presentations of the beginning of modern art as the first stepping stone.240 (photo)
Van Gogh as the founding father in the Stedelijk
237 See the ‘Foreword’ written by Dorothy Miller in the catalog Modern Masters, From European and American Collections, the Museum of Modern Art, n.p. 238 See Sandler and Newman, Defining Modern Art, pp. 176-177. 239 See Press Release ‘Museum of Modern Art opens large exhibition of its own painting and sculpture’. No. 45615 – 20a, p. 2. Press Releases. MoMA Library, NY. 240 See for example, A. Lubow, “Re-Moderning”, The New York Times, October 3, 2004. Lubow wrote: “For as long as anyone can remember, MOMA has opened the permanent collection of painting and sculpture with its most famous work by Cézanne, “The Bather”, on a freestanding panel wall opposite the doorway.” Lubow describes his conversation with Rubin in 2004 in which they discuss the choice of the opening work of the installation in the new building. Former chief curator Rubin, who had after Barr, always started the installation of the permanent collection with ‘The Bather’ seemed surprised by the Museum’s choice to start with a new opening statement: Signac’s ‘Against the Enamel of a Background Rhythmic With Beats and Angles, Tones and Colors, Portrait of M. Félix Fénéon in 1890’.
250 The clarity provided by the Museum of Modern Art in New York, as to who the founding fathers of modern art were, was not given as specifically by the Stedelijk Museum. As opposed to the consistent, prevalent four fathers of the Museum of Modern Art, the Stedelijk presented most often two, sometimes three, and occasionally four. The selected two, Van Gogh and Cézanne, fit into the concept of two opposing poles of modern art, as was displayed in a number of the previously discussed summer exhibitions. By selecting these two, modern art was divided, as we have seen, into the expressive, emotional, romantic, northern art led by Van Gogh and the orderly, cerebral, classic, Latin art starting with Cézanne. Together with Gauguin they were sometimes presented as the three fathers “for whom the representation of visual reality was no longer a goal but a mean”, for example, in the first summer exhibitions of Vijf generaties in 1945 and 1946.241 In 1961, in the only prestigious survey publication of the collection showing the development of modern art produced by the Stedelijk in the period 1935-1975, Pioneers of Modern Art, two different series of four founding fathers were presented in the same book: first of all, in Sandberg’s introduction, Cézanne, Monet, Gauguin, and Van Gogh were listed as ‘the fathers of the renaissance of the twentieth century’ (the inclusion of Monet is discussed further on), but in Jaffé’s text a different foursome is presented as if it was an accepted fact: Cézanne, Gauguin, Van Gogh and Redon. These four artists were said to have taken “a decisive step in the direction of another, of a new art”: “these four painters are rightly considered the fathers and pioneers of a new art”.242 Redon is now added as “father of modern painting”, and described as “father of surrealism”. The Stedelijk had just acquired a number of works by Redon in the late 1950’s and was therefore perhaps eager to present him as an important master also.243 The obvious choice for Van Gogh as the founding father can be detected very early on in the history of the Stedelijk Collection. The special attention given to Van Gogh in the presentation of the collection and in the number of exhibitions, catalogs and publications was exceptional for the Stedelijk and was of course determined by the immensely important collection of Van Gogh on loan at the Museum. Van Gogh was presented as the central figure in many exhibitions either as “father of the art of today”, “father of expressionism”, “father of the renaissance of the twentieth century”, or “father of modern painting”.
241 See catalog by Werlemann, 5 generaties, p. 29. 242 See Sandberg and Jaffé, Pioneers of Modern Art, n.p. (in the section ’07-’70) 243 Redon’s pastel Hommage a Da Vinci was bought from Regnault heirs in 1958, and Sandberg had managed to receive four other pastels by Redon for the Museum collection . See Roodenburg-Schadd, Expressie en ordening, pp. 184, 185.
251 The first anniversary exhibition after the war – celebrating the Stedelijk’s 50th anniversary - was Vincent van Gogh’s one-man show in September 1945, which was a documentary exhibition to show the unity of artist’s life and person, and his work.244 This exhibition was to be the beginning of the building of Van Gogh’s image as the founding father of modern art. The praise was centered on the person Van Gogh and the importance of his art for humanity. These two aspects were highlighted in the exhibition and catalog. In no way was the exhibition geared towards romanticizing the painter, as this was what the Museum was trying to counteract, as the catalog stated: an exhibition of this type needs “to fight against a sometimes frightening blurring (superficial) of Vincent’s image. In the last few years Van Gogh has become a character from a novel, his art has sometimes been reduced to empty wall decoration.”245 Therefore, the exhibition was set up according to what the Stedelijk considered to be the way Van Gogh would have wanted it himself, using his letters as evidence for their choices. Any “rich frames” were therefore to be removed, so as to provide for an atmosphere that Van Gogh himself would have wanted. For example, The Potato-eaters was installed in a simple frame on what seemed like a roughly woven mat, which was to resemble “a wall paper with a deep tone of ripe corn”.246 (fig. 140) The entrance of the exhibition was marked with Van Gogh’s trademark: on both sides of the doorway two rows of tall, living sunflowers accompanied the visitor into the exhibition. (fig. 14) The public followed Van Gogh himself on the journey through his life, his work: the poster announcing the exhibition at the entrance showed a silhouette of Van Gogh from
244 It is noteworthy that ideas for a documentary exhibition with photographs, letters etc. were not favored earlier on in the Stedelijk’s history. After visiting the World’s Fair exhibition in Paris where a similar documentary exhibition of Van Gogh had been shown, a member of the City Council of Amsterdam had suggested to the Museum already in 1937 to develop similar documentary exhibitions to make the Stedelijk Museum more attractive for the ‘masses’. See “Algemeen Verslag van het onderzoek der Gemeentebegroting 1938 in de Afdelingen van de Gemeenteraad” in Gemeenteblad, No. 662, 21 october 1937, p. 1780. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. Roëll, then director of the Stedelijk, reacted in a letter to the alderman for culture that this type of exhibition could only be done because Van Gogh’s life had been just as interesting and heroic as his oeuvre. For any other modern artist this type of “vivisection” would probably only be boring or indecent. Furthermore, Roëll adds, that Ir. V.W. van Gogh, the owner of the collection, feels very little for the Parisian experiment. In Dutch: “De inrichting van de Parijsche Van Gogh-tentoonstelling was op deze wijze alleen mogelijk, doordat het leven van Van Gogh even belangwekkend en heroisch was als zijn oeuvre. Van geen enkelen anderen modernen Nederlandschen kunstenaar zou zulk een tentoonstelling te maken zijn. Een “vivisectie” als de Parijsche tentoonstelling te zien geeft, zou in andere gevallen waarschijnlijk alleen maar vervelend of scabrous worden. De eigenaar van de Van Gogh-collectie in het Stedelijk Museum, Ir. V.W. van Gogh, voelt weinig voor het Parijsche experiment. Het zou dus niet voor de hand liggen om zijn collectie – die overigens belangrijker is dan de geheele Parijsche expositie – op dezelfde wijze te voorzien van citaten uit brieven, foto’s naar familie-leden, vergelijkings-materiaal, doktersbriefjes etc.”. See Letter from Roëll to the Alderman for Culture in Amsterdam, dd. 25 October 1937, marked: G.M. 95/1937. SMA Archives, Amsterdam. 245 See Jaffé’s text in the catalog Vincent van Gogh, 1945, p. VI. 246 See the catalog Vincent van Gogh, 1945, p. VI.
252 behind, walking towards the characteristic fishing boats from his paintings and, at the same time, towards the entrance of the exhibition. The first room is titled: De Mensch (the Person) and presents Vincent and his family: photographs of his parents and brother, portraits of Van Gogh painted by friends and four self-portraits line the walls. Gauguin’s portrait of Van Gogh is accompanied by a quote from Van Gogh’s letter about him painting the sunflowers. The sunflowers in the room mirrored the sunflowers in the painting and in the text, which brought the room to life. The self- portraits were hung at eye level and were tilted towards the incoming public, so that the visitor made direct eye contact with ‘the person’ Van Gogh, on entering the room. (fig. 141) In a showcase, sketches, paintings and objects, such as the original paradise bird which accompanied Van Gogh’s painting of it, and a box containing balls of wool that Vincent used for his color combinations, were displayed so as to give the public insight into the way Van Gogh worked. The desire to show “Vincent’s agitated development” is reflected in the many displays documenting Van Gogh’s inspirations, thoughts, sketches etc. At the end, after his last painting Wheatfield with Crows (1890) with the dramatic excerpts from his letter – at the exit of the exhibition, photographs were hung of the house of dr. Gachet, the home of the deceased, and Van Gogh’s grave. It is as if the visitor could pay his last respects to the person and painter Van Gogh, just as he had greeted Van Gogh in person at the beginning of the exhibition, making it a personal and yet honorable experience. This use of personification provided a strong persuasive strategy. The whole exhibition had been installed “in the spirit of Van Gogh” “to learn from” instead of “to please the eye”.247 The catalog underlined the same message. Focusing on Van Gogh’s humanity and his desires to benefit his fellow man with his work. Jaffé’s introduction started with a quote from one of Van Gogh’s letters on love for humankind, and ended with the words: “For his fellow man Vincent has created this great oeuvre and perished because of it – the man Vincent, who is the beginning and end of this exhibition.”248 Although the concept of this documentary exhibition was unusual for the Stedelijk , its message set the tone for all the Van Gogh – and Van Gogh related – exhibitions which were to follow in the 1940’s and 1950’s.249 Jaffé’s focus was on Van Gogh’s social conscience and his translation of this empathy in a expressionist mode of painting. The Stedelijk
247 Ibid. 248 Ibid., p. V, p. XI. The Dutch text reads: “Voor zijn medemenschen heeft Vincent dit groote werk geschapen, en is er aan ten gronde gegaan – de mensch Vincent, die begin en eindpunt van deze tentoonstelling is.” 249 For example: many of the same quotes from the same letters were highlighted in the catalog of Vincent van Gogh en zijn nederlandse tijdgenoten, The Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1948, pp. 20-29. In 1958 there was another documentary exhibition on Van Gogh.
253 presented Van Gogh as ‘the father of expressionism’ and expressionism as the beginning of 20th century modern art. In Pioneers of Modern Art in the Museum of the City of Amsterdam, the Stedelijk’s most prestigious catalog, Van Gogh’s position as the founding father of modern art was complete and was convincingly expressed both verbally and visually. The dustcover of the large catalog was made of a reproduction of one of Van Gogh’s last paintings Wheatfields under a Clouded Sky (1890). Not only did this immediately reflect on the position of Van Gogh as the most important pioneer, but it also connected Van Gogh to the new experimental art of the 1950’s, to the new pioneer Appel. The close-up of Van Gogh’s reproduction - while holding the book within reading distance - exposes and highlights the materiality of the painting with the lively, thick brushstrokes, and because the viewer sees only a detail, the components of the depicted landscape melt into an abstraction of color and movement, preparing the reader for the new experimental painting in the catalog. (fig. 142) The catalog was divided into four periods of which the earliest period 1907-1870 was titled: ‘around van gogh’. Van Gogh also featured in the later period, ‘the turning period 1917-1907’ in which he was linked to expressionism verbally – as “father of expressionism” - and to cubism visually – by comparing on one page Braque’s jug with Van Gogh’s coffee pot ( a detail from The Potato Eaters). In the chapter ‘around van gogh’, there was a separate section of reproductions especially dedicated to Van Gogh’s work, including “3 hommages a van gogh” , portraits by Gauguin, Laval and Bernard. In the text, Van Gogh’s work was honored as “work of primary importance because of his revolutionary strength, his deep humanity”.250 In Sandberg’s introduction, Van Gogh was not only celebrated as one of the four founding fathers, as discussed above, but he was also singled out in the very last ‘stanza’: “vincent, the lowliest, most human // of these four, realizes // the new relation between man and man // which is busy growing // he depicts the equality and fraternity // which are the roots of freedom”.251 In the margin alongside this stanza Sandberg wrote “liberté, égalité, fraternité”. As in Sandberg’s first Van Gogh exhibition as director in 1945, the artist’s humanity was once again the focal point, now even strengthened by the famous revolutionary credo of humanity. By this focus on humanity and revolutionary qualities, Sandberg positioned Van Gogh as the most important founding father of the - what Sandberg considered - great art of the postwar, contemporary period. Since the
250 See Jaffé’s text in: Sandberg and Jaffé, Pioneers of Modern Art, n.p. 251 See the introduction by Sandberg in Sandberg and Jaffé, Pioneers of Modern Art, n.p. The Dutch text in Kunst van Heden in het Stedelijk reads: “vincent, de nederigste, menselijkste // van deze vier, geeft zich rekenschap // van de nieuwe verhouding tussen mens en mens // die bezig is te groeien // hij beeldt de gelijkheid en de broederschap // die de grondslag zijn van de vrijheid”. The given English translation of ‘nederigste’ is ‘lowliest’. ‘Most humble’ would seem to be more adequate.
254 works of these new revolutionary artists also “carry a message” of humanity, which makes them – just as Van Gogh – “great artists”.252
Monet as New Ancestor in the Stedelijk?
In his introduction of Pioneers of Modern Art, Sandberg had listed Monet – together with Cézanne, Gauguin and Van Gogh - as one of the four founding fathers of modern art. In 1959 Sandberg had acquired a later work by Monet because he considered him to be the father of American abstract painting, as he had stated in 1960.253 This newly acquired work which was described as The garden at Giverny and dated c.1915, was positioned as the very first reproduction in the section “the turning point 1917-1907” in the catalog.254 It was described in the text - under the heading “expressionism” – as being on “a path” that “seems to lead from impressionism to abstract shaping”. Monet’s painting was said to have “an inspiring contemporaneity” for the public in the 1960’s.255 The mode of reproduction emphasized this – it contemporized the Monet in comparison to, for example, the following reproductions of a Bonnard and a Wouters on the next pages: instead of the reproductions positioned neatly as easel paintings in the middle of the page surrounded by white, the large, almost full-page photograph of the Monet filled out the page in the width emphasizing the abstract expanse of colored canvas – comparable to the reproductions of, for example, Appel’s paintings in the contemporary section. (fig. 143a, 143b, 144) The re-evaluation of Monet in the Stedelijk had started in the mid 1950’s. In 1956 Jaffé had written about Monet’s late work having elements, which could be seen as a prelude to abstract art.256 In a number of summer exhibitions, Monet’s position was promoted: as the first illustration of the important year ‘1907’, Monet’s ‘Water Lilies’ covered the first page of the catalog 1907; in the catalog 3 ages Monet’s late work is honored as “reaching new heights” and it is in connection with this exhibition in 1960 that Sandberg called him “pere de l’action painting” in an article explaining the exhibition.257 This new status - as father of American action painting - climaxed and culminated in the Stedelijk’s exhibition and
252 As expressed in Sandberg’s introduction. 253 Sandberg, ‘dix artistes, trois étapes’, pp. 44. Sandberg says: “Monet d’abord un des premiers impressionists, est devenu par ses dernieres oeuvres le pere de ‘< action painting > américaine.” 254 The painting which Sandberg acquired in 1959 was in actuality La maison a travers les roses (1925-1926). 255 See Sandberg and Jaffé, Pioneers of Modern Art, n.p. 256 See Roodenburg-Schadd, Expressie en ordening, p. 220 (note: 86). 257 Ibid., p. 45 and note 173.
255 publication Pioneers of Modern Art in 1962. The Museum lacked the finances and the focus to promote Monet’s position further than that.
Monet’s position in MoMA
Already in 1951 the Museum of Modern Art was positioning Monet in a different light. The re-evaluation of Monet had started earlier by Clement Greenberg in the 1940’s and would continue in the 1950’s through his influential criticism. 258 Whereas Monet had previously only been discussed – by the Museum - as the leader of the Impressionists against whose art the four great fathers of modern art had rebelled, now a new position was being created for him as ‘not the last in the line of naturalism, but the first in line of a modern approach towards abstraction’. As discussed earlier, for Ritchie the abstract character of Impressionism could not be overemphasized: as he stated in his catalog, after calling Monet “the extremist” of Impressionism: “Impressionism has so often been wrongly called the last stage in naturalistic painting, its contrary significance as the first movement pointing forward to the “pure” abstract painting and sculpture we know today has been underestimated.”259 Ritchie displayed Monet in the catalog as the first in line before Seurat, Cézanne, Van Gogh and Gauguin.260 The first Monet entered the collection in 1951.261 This painting, Poplars at Giverny, Sunrise (1888) was incorporated in the grand anniversary catalog Masters of Modern Art in 1954 and was presented, once again, as first in line in the chapter ‘Impressionism Transformed’, before Cézanne, Seurat, Van Gogh and Gauguin. In the catalog text, Barr began with the quote in which Cézanne comments on Monet: “Monet is only an eye – but what an eye!”. This quote – and especially the part : “Monet is only an eye” - had previously been used to condemn Monet’s art for being too superficial and pretty. Monet had often been discussed in previous catalogs as “ not being “on the right track but in a blind alley”.262 Until the late 1940’s Monet had been considered to be the leader of the Impressionists but not their
258 The interest in Monet as precursor of Abstract Painting started in the late 1940’s. Clement Greenberg wrote an article “The Role of Nature in Modern Painting” in 1949 paving the way for a renewed interest in Monet. In 1955, “American-Type Painting” appeared in Partisan Review (Spring 1955) and abridged and translated in German in Forum (October 1955) . In this famous article Greenberg points to the relationship between Monet and the abstract expressionist Still: “As the Cubists resumed Cézanne, Still has resumed Monet … .” See O’Brien, Clement Greenberg, Vol. 3, p. 228. In 1956 he wrote his “The Later Monet” in which he praises the ‘Water Lilies’ and compares them to Abstract Expressionist works. Appeared in Art News Annual, no. 26 (1956). 259 See Ritchie, Abstract Painting and Sculpture in America, p. 20. 260 Ibid., pp. 19-23. It is remarkable that Ritchie’s positioning of Monet is not mentioned in Elderfield’s article on Monet as Precursor. 261 Gift of Mr. And Mrs. William B. Jaffe, who were to become Patrons of the Collection. 262 As in Barr, Modern Works of Art, p. 11.
256 greatest painter.263 Now, in 1954, the quote was used as a complement and Monet’s art “freshly examined” was to be considered “far more than an optical exercise”. Barr pointed to Monet’s approaching abstraction: “For Monet was an artist as well as an eye. Having, perhaps unintentionally, helped liberate form and color from visual facts, he was in the late 1880s moving toward an art of semi-abstraction in which the important reality would be his surface textures and shimmering color.”264 Barr also presented Monet as “having anticipated abstract expressionism”, giving him the position of ancestor of this new direction in American Art. Monet was called an “Abstract Impressionist” which positioned him perfectly as a precursor for the Abstract Expressionists.265 In 1955 the Museum presented its recent acquisition of Monet’s Water Lilies mural as one of the works acquired within the strict new “policy of acquiring a few carefully selected works by late 19th century masters.”266 In 1956 William Seitz – not yet employed by the Museum of Modern Art - wrote an article in which this acquisition was praised. In his “Monet and Abstract Painting” which was called the beginning of a “restudy of Monet’s career … and his position in the growth of modern painting”, Seitz connected Monet to Mondrian and presented Monet’s Water Lilies as precursor of many modern directions: “Completely without precedent, these paintings combine a globular, enclosing space with flatness and bold brushwork. In content, they stop just short of Symbolism, Expressionism or pure abstraction. 267 In the same year two garden studies by Monet were acquired supplementing the Water Lilies mural which together represented “Monet’s wonderful last decade”.268 Seitz, who entered the Museum in 1960, was responsible for that year’s exhibition Claude Monet: Seasons and Moments in the Museum in which the then newly acquired triptych Water Lilies (c. 1920) was honored as an Abstract Expressionist masterpiece in Greenberg terminology: “It is the tangibility of the work of art that keeps it alive – the saturated, shuttling color tones, the scraped and scumbled flatness of the canvas surface, the nervous tangles that will not retreat into illusion … ”.269
263 See Barr, A Brief Survey of Modern Painting, pp. 4, 7. Mentioned twice in the same catalog, Degas Renoir and Cézanne were called “greater artists” than Monet. 264 See Barr, Masters of Modern Art, p. 19. 265 For a discussion on “the Monet vogue”, see Elderfield, “The Precursor”, pp. 72-74, and especially notes 39, 40, 47. 266As Barr explains in: “Painting and Sculpture Acquisitions June 1, 1953 Through June 30, 1955”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 23, no. 3 (1956): p. 3. 267 See note 1 in Seitz, “Monet and Abstract Painting”, pp. 34-46. 268 Pond and Covered Bridge (c. 1920-1923) and Water Lilies (1916-1926) were acquired with the Grace Rainy Rogers Fund in 1956. They were destroyed in the fire in 1958. 269 Seitz, Claude Monet: Seasons and Moments, p. 52.
257 In the same year another large Monet Water Lilies and a smaller one were added to the collection.270 In the Recent Acquisitions exhibition, in which these newly acquired works were presented, a special temporary gallery was installed for the Monet’s: in the ‘Monet Gallery’ the large Monet mural was positioned opposite the immense triptych which was described as “its companion piece”. The installation of a Monet gallery - which was announced to become permanent in the new building in 1964 - underscored the importance the Museum put on Monet as father of Abstract Expressionism: as a wall label written by Barr stated: “The floating ambiguous images and flat, steeply rising perspective tend to give the scene an unreal or abstract effect. At the same time Monet has given emphatic reality to the painted surface by means of broad sweeping brush strokes combined with a many-layered, scraped and scumbled technique of extraordinary richness. These qualities together with the large scale are among the factors which have made the work of Monet’s heroic old age comparable to some of the abstract expressionist paintings of our mid-century.”271 After the Recent Acquisitions exhibition and awaiting the new building, one of the Monet murals was positioned opposite Picasso’s Guernica acknowledging the Monet’s masterpiece status and emphasizing its – and with it the Abstract Expressionists’ – positive (non-political) qualities: “For the time being the serenity of Monet’s Water Lilies confronts Picasso’s apocalyptic Guernica.”272 The interest in ‘finding’ and presenting historical ancestors for new developments in art would continue. After Monet, Bonnard was presented as “forerunner of abstract expressionism” in a large survey exhibition in 1964.273 By focusing on his “abstract” and “innovative” qualities his “naturalism” was argued away as an “instance of reculer pour mieux sauter”: he was to have “unconsciously anticipated the latest revolutionary discoveries of the science of perception, which have led to practical application in such things as wide- screen film techniques … ” and “although he chose not to participate in the more abstract tendencies of his time, these searchings and probings took Bonnard ever closer to abstraction.”274 A year later, in 1966, the Museum went even further back and presented an artist who had been dead for more than a century. Turner was given a one-man show and presented as
270 The large mural was bought through the Mrs. Simon Guggenheim Fund (as had been the triptych a year earlier) and the smaller Water Lilies was a gift of Mme Katia Granoff. 271 Paragraphs from the accompanying wall label were given by Barr in Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 28, no. 2,3 and 4 (1961): pp. 6, 7. 272 Ibid., p. 7. 273 The exhibition ‘Bonnard and his Environment’ was held in 1964. See Press Release No. 53, Wednesday, October 7, 1964, p. 1. MoMA Library, NY. 274 Ibid., p. 2 and James Elliott, ‘Bonnard and his Environment’ in catalog Bonnard and his Environment, p. 29.
258 sole ancestor of abstract expressionism - as the text in the catalog stated, “Now we find that a kind of painting, which is of vital concern to us, was anticipated by Turner. And by Turner alone; no one else before developed so far and with such devotion this special order of painting, which is so hard to define and yet so recognizable.”275 What seemed to have encouraged recognition of Turner as ancestor to the abstract expressionists was the modernizing of Turner’s works of art by reframing them all in uniform ‘modern’ frames (also removing the glass protecting them) and spacing – and installing – them as contemporary works of art, making it much easier to see the family resemblances.276 So, with the passing of time and the constant renewal of art, the ancestry of modern art evolved also. The new classic modern ancestors were honored with one-man shows and/or separate galleries for permanent showing, which built up their authority as masters. By displaying the influence these masters had on the new generations of pioneers and by calling attention to the similarities in their innovative approaches historical heritage for even the newest art was guaranteed. The expanding interest in other precursors did not mean an upheaval of the authority of the four founding fathers. Thanks to Barr’s brilliant flowchart of the development of modern art and the constant repetition of the founding four, the introduction of new precursors would not alter their positions, but would establish a wider, more detailed family tree. As to how and with what means contemporary masters were promoted and added to the modern canon in both Museums, shall be examined in the following chapter.
.
275 Gowing, Turner: Imagination and Reality, p. 56. This exhibition, which ran from March 23 through June 19, 1966, had actually been planned earlier by Seitz, already in 1961 as a sequel to the Monet exhibition (see p. 71) 276 See Elderfield, “The Precursor”, pp. 65, 66.
259 Chapter 4: Adding the Contemporary to the Modern Canon: the Positioning and Promoting of the Living Artist
Pinpointing and presenting important modern masters of the past is one thing; selecting and promoting the living masters-to-be is quite another. The uncertainty is greater and therefore the demand for persuasive means more pertinent. During the period 1935-1975, the Museums - when dealing with the living artist and contemporary art - were faced with even more misunderstanding, doubt and hostility from their audiences, than when presenting the classic moderns. The relevant issues were not necessarily new but seemed to be even more challenging than when dealing with the older moderns. The core issues the museums were confronted with involved questions concerning: 1) the definition of the newest art and the expansion of its boundaries; 2) the positioning of the different visual art expressions in movements or ‘isms; 3) the judging of the quality of contemporary art; 4) the relationship with the living artist; and 5) the contribution and value of contemporary visual art to society. A major paradox of contemporary art is that the closer the works of art are in time, the larger the gap seems between the art work and the public. Time, often used by both Museums as the ultimate judge of quality, has not yet been able to challenge the importance of the works of art. And, even though both Museums accept – and use - this uncertainty (sometimes even as an excuse), they have to defend their choices with the help of new authorities to strengthen their ethos. The living artist – as the authority - is called upon to present his art. Here another paradox is apparent: the contemporary artist, who is asked to contribute in the presentation of his art by clarifying his motives and ideas, is - according to the concept of avant-garde - ahead of his time and therefore difficult to comprehend for most of his audiences. His status, however, has been acknowledged by leading members of the art world who have given him the authority that the public – being in a following position – can hardly dispute. These leading members of the art world appeal to the consensus gentium: the agreement of an inner circle of museum officials, dealers, critics and other influential and knowledgeable individuals who have a ‘special antenna’ to pick up the signals that seem to be of importance, signals which have been sent out by the artists. From this inner circle the critic’s role – as spokesman and theorist - is especially influential in presenting and explaining the living artist and his work. The critic is called upon by the museum to provide insight into the new developments in art as the mediator between the artist and his works of art and the public.
260 The character of the artists was built up and was presented, as we shall see, as honorable, one to admire. And admiration is what the museums wanted their public to feel. This sentiment of admiration towards the living art and artist was however not easy to promote in a period in which the value, quality and relevance of the newest art seems to have been questioned more than ever with regard to its nature and function. How did the Museums instill a sense of admiration for and acceptance of works of art which in concept and in matter seemed more alien and which were at the same time arousing emotions such as ridicule and anger? The concept of - the idea behind – this type of modern works of art was becoming more central to the artist and at the same time more challenging for the public to appreciate. In its different forms – varying from ‘total abstraction’ or ‘childlike scribbles’ to a performance or a presentation of an ‘idea’ – the concept demanded more from its audience, not only an acceptance but also an active curiosity, interest and belief. The artifact – the physical work of art itself – which since modern times could no longer be solely valued for its skill or craftsmanship – seemed to many often less ‘valuable’ due to either the ‘simple’ or ‘arbitrary’ technique or the actual material it was made of, which in its extreme forms was either ‘rubbish’, ‘worthless’ objects found at flea markets or the actual lack of material (when, for example, conceptual art is concerned).1 What pathos did the Museums exude and encourage when they confronted the public with the newest art? Because of the presented concept of the avant-garde artist being ahead of his time – and therefore almost impossible to be understood by most of his audiences - the Museum’s approach and position were questioned as how to be a good mediator between the living artist, his works of art and the Museum’s audiences (including its financial backers, who need to be convinced of the ‘value’ of this new art). How should contemporary art be presented in the Museum and in its publications? Should this new art be ‘explained’ by the Museum and fit into a historical development, and if so, by whom and by which argumentation , or is it solely to be experienced without any judgment at all? As we shall see, both Museums take a different position in their role as mediator of the new art. What consequences did these different positions have?
1 The increasing prices of contemporary art in one way encouraged the feeling of importance and admiration. Within the working years of an artist the prices of his works of art will often soar to great heights due - not in the last place – to the showings in important museums.
261 Presenting Contemporary Heroes
The presentation of contemporary masters required somewhat different measures than the presentation of the classic modern fathers. The selection of who were the most important and influential living artists needed to be persuasively presented. The exhibitions and publications of two different contemporary artists, who were considered to be leaders of new art developments, demonstrate the promotion of living art in the two Museums. Karel Appel in the Stedelijk Museum and Jackson Pollock in the Museum of Modern Art were promoted as heroes of a new art in the 1950’s – 1960’s and became legendary within a decade. Although Pollock died months before his first one-man show in the Museum of Modern Art was to take place, the show had already been arranged as a show of a living master and Pollock’s position as a new leader was already being established.
Institutionalizing Pollock in the Museum of Modern Art
The Museum of Modern Art’s early interest in Pollock started with Barr’s acquisition in 1944 of The She-Wolf (1943) for the Museum.2 Positive critical evaluation was given from the very beginning. For the first one-man show given to Pollock in Peggy Guggenheim’s gallery in 1943 – from where The She-Wolf was bought for the Museum - Sweeney (who was to become Director of Painting and Sculpture in 1945) wrote the catalog essay which provided the necessary ‘explanation’ of the work of this new master-to-be and which praised him as being full of promise: “Among young painters, Jackson Pollock offers unusual promise in his exuberance, independence, and native sensibility. If he continues to exploit these qualities with the courage and conscience he has shown so far, he will fulfill that promise.”3 Moreover the critic Clement Greenberg whose own reputation as an important critic was being established, backed Pollock from the beginning. Greenberg’s vocabulary, reasoning and authority would prove to be important persuasive means for the Museum that used this critic as an authority on the matter. As early as 1945, Greenberg proclaimed that Pollock was “the strongest painter of his generation and perhaps the greatest one to appear since Miró.”4 Two years later, Greenberg
2 Barr had counseled Peggy Guggenheim’s museum-gallery Art of this Century from its beginning in 1943. He participated in the jury of a Spring Salon for Young Artists together with Soby and Sweeney also from the Museum, the artists Duchamp, Ernst and Mondrian,, and Guggenheim and Putzel from the Gallery. The jury was said to have been made “starry-eyed” by the Pollock in the show. 3 Quoted in catalog O’Connor, Jackson Pollock, p. 30. 4 C. Greenberg, “Review of an Exhibition of Jackson Pollock”, p. 16.
262 dropped any hesitation and announced that Pollock was indeed “the most important new painter since Miró himself”.5 Earlier that year, Greenberg praised Pollock’s originality and carefully predicted that “Pollock points a way beyond the easel, beyond the mobile, framed picture, to the mural, perhaps – or perhaps not. I cannot tell.”6 The first Museum of Modern Art exhibition to pick up on this aspect of scale of Pollock’s painting and to present it as an important modern quality, was the exhibition Large- Scale Modern Paintings in April 1947. In this show, which was experienced as “an almost overwhelming exhibition”, Pollock’s large Mural (1943) starred along with twenty other large masterpieces such as Picasso’s Demoiselles d’Avignon (1907), Matisse’s Piano Lesson (1916), Leger’s Composition with two Parrots (1935-1939) and Max Beckmann’s Blindman’s Buff (1945) to name a few. Margaret Miller, curator and director of the exhibition, pointed to the paradox that the style of the modern artists was becoming more personal and more difficult for a larger public, but that the size of the modern works needed more space and therefore the paintings were destined to be hung in public spaces. The large scale was presented as an expression of self-confidence of the modern artist: as Miller, argued: “Big pictures at their best are assertions of the artist’s self-confidence and esthetic conviction, affirmations of his belief in the importance of painting itself.”7 By attributing the characteristic ‘large’ as a modern quality, the large paintings – hanging together - are assumed to be in the same category: self-confident modern masterpieces. After ensuring the unity of the modern works of art, the diversity of the different styles was emphasized by highlighting their differences through comparison and contrast. Within the diverse styles extremes were selected “showing the artists at their freest and most daring, or most disciplined, austere and uncompromising.”8 Miller provided the explanation of her installation of the show in which open vistas permitted “a cross-wall play of assertions between similar and opposite paintings.”9 Pollock was hung next to Miró , both on a dark wall, which unified the two paintings and pointed to their similarities - similarities which Greenberg had so often commented on! Pollock was positioned opposite the “tight, pellucid vision of the primitive Moreno” with his Paradise painted in the same year as Mural (1943), contrasting the two which demonstrated Pollock’s originality. (fig. 145)
5 C. Greenberg, “Review of an Exhibition of Joan Miró”, p.154. 6 C. Greenberg, “Review of Exhibitions of Jean Dubuffet and Jackson Pollock”, p. 125. 7 See Press Release no. 47401-13 ‘Exhibition Of Large Scale Modern Paintings Opens At The Museum Of Modern Art’. There was no accompanying catalog for this exhibition. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid.
263 Pollock was elected by Barr – together with de Kooning and Gorky - for the XXV Venice Biennale in 1950, which acknowledged his growing importance. Barr described Pollock’s work then as “perhaps the most original among painters of his generation”.10 The first presentations of Pollock as acknowledged ‘master’ of modern art was in the 1954 anniversary exhibition ‘Paintings from the Museum Collection’ and in the accompanying major publication Masters of Modern Art. The exhibition was the first in the Museum’s history to devote all three gallery floors to paintings from the own collection. It was to be considered a display of masters and masterpieces of modern art from the late 19th century through the present period. The masterpieces were installed in a way to distinguish between the degree of mastery of the artists: honoring the absolute ‘champions’ with the prize of the most space allotted to their works. Confident about who the 19th century masters were, Barr explained: “we think we know who were the great painters”, but of the present times Barr admitted: “when we try to pick the champions of early 20th century painting we are a little less certain and when it comes to choosing the work of the younger painters of today, we can be sure of only one thing: in the inexorable light of the future most of our guesses will have been wrong.”11 In the case of Pollock though, there seemed to be no doubt about being right. Pollock was already picked as a champion which was acknowledged by the installation, as Barr explained: “The exhibition is arranged so that each of the painters whom we, at mid-century, like to think of as a master is given a gallery to himself, or at least a wall or two even though this involves omitting the work of some of the lesser artists”, and as he clarified with examples: “Paul Klee, for instance, is given a small room to himself, Léger, Chagall, Miro, three walls each and Modigliani, Hopper, Weber, de Chirico, Pollock, a single wall. Picasso is awarded three galleries for a score of his works.”12 In contrast to other walls in the Recent American Abstract art gallery of the exhibition, Pollock’s wall was dark which emphasized its special status, and made the works stand out. His name, like that of the other masters, was placed on the wall above the displayed paintings. In the publication Masters of Modern Art, Pollock’s status is compared to that of the internationally famous artist Calder, “whose between-wars reputation has increased until he is now the best-known and most admired American artist throughout the world”. Praise for Pollock immediately followed with: “And Jackson Pollock, among younger painters, is
10 Barr, “7 American Open in Venice”, p. 60. 11 See Press Release no. 88 ‘Paintings From The Museum Collection Opens Museum Of Modern Art’s 25th Anniversary Year Celebration’; for release: October 17, 1954, p. 3. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 12 Ibid.
264 beginning to win a similar position.”13 Pollock is presented as the most important member of American abstract expressionism, a movement which in this same text is then already presented as “a tradition” with a noble ancestry of masters: Van Gogh, Monet, Redon and Matisse were to have “anticipated” abstract expressionism and Kandinsky was to have “firmly established it”.14 After having figured in a number of group exhibitions in the Museum, Pollock was given a one-man show in 1956.15 It was the first in the new Museum program of one-man exhibitions which were to show the more recent work of middle-generation artists from America and Europe. What was to become a show of recent work became a memorial exhibition, since Pollock had died in an accident a few months prior to the opening of the show. The exhibition was organized and installed by Sam Hunter, then associate Curator of the Department of Painting and Sculpture, who had previously been working at UCLA and was writing a book on Pollock. In Hunter’s essay in the catalog, Pollock was praised as a hero. Hunter presented him as an influential innovator in the world of art and praised his honorability. The front of the catalog underscored Pollock as an active innovator. The overleaf of the catalog brought Pollock’s innovation to life; it was covered by a photograph of Pollock in action: we are witness of Pollock’s innovating act of creation as he stands half in his painting which is spread on the floor and drips – splatters - paint on the large canvas. The choice of this cover is telling: for Balthus’ catalog cover of his one-man show in the same series, held at the same time, and published in the same Bulletin, the cover shows a conventional setting of the author’s and the artist’s name, and a small reproduction of one of his paintings, positioning Balthus as a master but not as an innovator. (fig. 146)
13 Barr, Masters of Modern Art, p. 174. In the second edition of this volume which was published in 1958, the text was changed to: “And by 1956, the year of his death, Jackson Pollock, among younger painters, had won an almost comparable position.” By 1958 the Museum could record that it owned six paintings and one drawing, instead of the three paintings in 1956. 14 Ibid. 15 Pollock was included in circulating exhibitions in the U.S. such as: 12 Contemporary Painters in 1944-1945, Sculpture by Painters in 1949-1951, and, Calligraphic and Geometric: Two recent linear tendencies in American Painting, which traveled in 1950-1954. In 1952 Pollock was included in the 15 Americans exhibition organized by Dorothy Miller at the Museum itself. A reaction from the critic Thomas B. Hess – who was an admirer of the abstract expressionist artists - was: “Yes, Jackson Pollock … and it’s about time he got here, too.” See Hess, “The Modern Museum’s fifteen: Where U.S. extremes meet”. Pollock was also included in the international circulating exhibitions: Twelve American Contemporary Painters and Sculptors in 1953, and in 1955 in the prestigious 50 years of American Art.
265 Pollock was introduced by Hunter as “the most publicized modern artist of his generation in America”, giving him a star-like status.16 The “most publicized modern artist” related to the broad, sensationalist coverage of Pollock in the press: for example, Life magazine printed an article already in 1949 with the title: “Jackson Pollock. Is he the greatest living painter in the United States?” which was accompanied with large photographs of Pollock in action.17 “In the press,” according to Hunter, “he was dramatically identified for the layman with the more expressive and often exasperating contemporary manifestations of artistic freedom.”18 Pollock was, however, not only to be praised as the “most publicized artist”, he was also considered to be “the most influential”.19 The range of his influence was perceived as proof of his virtue, just as in the case of the presentation of Cézanne discussed in the previous chapter. For a generation of younger artists he was said to have become “a revered symbol of their new sense of liberation and hopefulness”.20 Pollock was presented as a distinctly American revolutionary, as a ‘savior’ with “an artistic mission” to advance the position of American art. Pollock was described as one devoted to a cause not to better himself, but for altruistic motives, to benefit American culture: “better than any critic or biographer, Pollock was aware of his critical role in contemporary American painting history”.21 This awareness resulted, according to Hunter, in “harsh demands he made on himself”: the demands caused his “ten of the most productive years experienced by an American artist of modern times”, but also caused his “anxiety” and “self-rebukes” resulting in collapse, during the period of inactivity before he died.22 Hunter gave a vivid, emotional description of the consequences of Pollock’s devotion to art, strengthening it by displaying the interrelation of his art and his life: “the drama of his life and of his art was their indivisibility; he lived his painting intensely, with a complete absorption and he painted his life, especially in an early style when he made his own tormented individualism the theme and substance of his art. The problem of painting was identified in a total way in his mind with the problem of existence. In neither were easy solutions admissible.
16 The catalog appeared in the Museum’s bulletin. Hunter, “Jackson Pollock”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 24, no. 2 (1956): p. 5. 17 See “Jackson Pollock. Is he the greatest living painter in the United States?”, Life, p. 42. The question related to Greenberg’s remark praising Pollock as the greatest American painter of the 20th century. Greenberg is not named but referred to as “a formidably high-brow New York critic”. As discussed in Chapter 1 coverage in the press was stimulated where possible and a number of influential trustees were connected to magazines like ‘Life’ and ‘Vanity Fair’. 18 Hunter, “Jackson Pollock”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 24, no. 2(1956), p. 5. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid., pp. 5-6, 12.
266 Happening when it did, death may have come as a deliverance from the deep mental anguish of a paralyzing spiritual crisis.”23 This overwhelming case of commitment to American culture would have to be honored by the public. This persuasive appeal was based both on arguments as on arousing emotions. Pollock’s art and life were to be seen as acts of individual struggle and commitment – his art is described throughout the text as a dynamic undergoing of different European and American influences and of a renunciation of all existing beliefs resulting in a revolutionary new American art. As Hunter had introduced the art of Pollock in the beginning of his essay: “If Pollock’s painting style was aggressive in its self-determination and finally distinctly American in temper, it was also deeply nourished by the radical modern forms of continental painting, and by spiritual attitudes which recognize no boundaries.”24 The development of his painting was not portrayed as a stable continuation of a given development within a set tradition of ancient ancestors, but as a revolutionary creation: absorbing influences of the most radical moderns (Picasso!), purging styles of undesirable elements and finally creating a totally new art. Hunter concluded his essay with: “The accelerating tempo of his revolt led him to search for a total freedom that would transcend his artistic sources and his own mood of crisis. He created finally an autonomous and sovereign artistic reality, powered by its own dynamism, monumental in its scale and breadth of feeling.”25 This aspect of creating a totally new art in which he was the first in a new development, emphasized the honorable quality of being the first. The implicit honorable qualities expressed in Hunter’s quotes such as, individualism, power, pioneer mentality, and commitment towards freedom were qualities that Americans could not only relate to, but could recognize as typically American. Also explicitly Hunter endowed Pollock with honorable American characteristics such as “a certain American appropriateness in his manner of arriving at abstraction and in the way he permitted naturalism to re-assert its claims at a much later date” and as Hunter characterized Pollock in his final paragraph: “In his unapologetic materialism there are refreshing and unregerately American qualities, as there are in his effort to breathe spirit into the refractory matter he chose to make the substance of his art. These distinctly native qualities mix matter-of-fact realism with respect to materials, and an innocent idealism.”26 The implicit and explicit references to strong American characteristics must have created as sense of pride for the
23 Ibid., pp. 5-6. 24 Ibid., p. 5. 25 Ibid., p. 12. 26 Ibid.
267 American public and must have helped explain the large-scale dynamic works of art. The result of Pollock’s mission for which he had fought and crossed boundaries was presented as an honorable one: “Pollock was responsible for injecting into American Art a vitality and confidence.” 27 The works selected for the exhibition displayed these qualities of vitality and confidence: the selection focused on Pollock’s late work and especially the large-scale paintings of which six were mural-size. Hunter preferred the large-scale abstract paintings just as Greenberg, who not only contributed to Pollock’s position in the Museum with his supportive critiques but actually helped to install the exhibition. The installation included what Hunter tellingly called “a shrine of great pictures” with the focus on four large-scale paintings.28 Darker walls – black and gray - were used for a few works to highlight them, creating a dramatic, almost religious atmosphere befitting his ‘savior’ status. (fig. 147) After Pollock’s New York one-man show his status as innovator and contemporary master was further established by electing Pollock as major artist for the IV Sao Paolo Biennale in the same year and sending an adapted version of the New York one-man exhibition to Europe and Latin America in 1958. It was the very first one-man show to be sent abroad by the International Council at the Museum of Modern Art.29 It was accompanied by a documentary movie made in 1950 – a perfect way to bring Pollock and his art to life - in which the artist is shown at work and in which he explains in an interview his working method. By uniting Pollock’s one-man show with the traveling exhibition of the American abstract expressionist movement, The New American Painting also organized by the Museum, Pollock was presented internationally as the leader of this new course in modern art. His leadership was strengthened by a separately assembled one-man show as a special section of the American participation in the Documenta II in 1959 in Kassel. This participation had been organized by the International Program of the Museum of Modern Art. Ten years after his first one-man show in The Museum of Modern Art, Pollock was honored with his second: “the largest retrospective exhibition ever assembled” of his works of art.30 The Museum could by now announce him as “a legend”, and his works of art of the last decade with the “world-famous “drip” paintings” could be boasted as having “redirected the course of modern painting in Europe and the United States.”31 The retrospective starred the
27 Ibid., p. 5. 28 As described in Newhouse, Art and the Power of Placement, pp. 171-172. 29 In a few cities it accompanied the ‘New American Painting’ show. 30 See Press Release: no. 34, Wednesday, April 5, 1967. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 31 Ibid.
268 master and his masterpieces: the paintings were installed by Lieberman, director of the show, in two large galleries which were connected by a glass walled corridor with a 30 foot-long montage mural made of enlarged photographs of Pollock at work in his studio. (fig. 148) These life-size photographs not only ‘explained’ his work method, they also brought Pollock back to life and therefore presented him as a ‘living’ artist. The selection was much greater than the previous exhibition and was classified into different periods. It also included many drawings – more drawings than oil paintings - which were either hung in a separate gallery close to the beginning of the exhibition or in between the paintings as examples of preliminary studies. Besides the large amount of drawings there were also pages from sketchbooks which had previously not been displayed. These sketches were studies after masterpieces of famous old masters such as Michelangelo, El Greco and Rubens. The inclusion of these sketches in the exhibition seems to connect the modern master to the honorable masters of the past. The comprehensiveness of the exhibition - displaying a complete picture of Pollock’s work - fit the goal of the exhibition: to present the state of the arts of this modern master in the largest – and therefore most complete – exhibition of Pollock’s work ever. The catalog matched this desire of institutionalizing Pollock as contemporary master and gave a very thorough documentation of Pollock and his works of art: in a 68-page ‘Chronology’, the lives of the master and of his masterpieces were precisely written down for history – all exhibitions of his work were included. This record of past events ran through to 1964, eight years after the death of Pollock, so as to include the canonizing reception and presentation of his work The ‘Chronology’ was presented as a ‘reconstruction’ of the history of Pollock’s art, as the author Francis V. O’Connor, an Assistant Professor of Art History at the University of Maryland, revealed when he thanked the many people who had helped him “to reconstruct Jackson Pollock’s development.”32 This idea of reconstruction shows the ambition of the Museum to record and present the history of Pollock. The authorities called on in the catalog to reveal and explain the development of his life and work were Pollock himself (letters, interviews, statements), fellow artists, Pollock’s teachers, but mostly critics who provided the insight into the work and gave it its theoretical backing. With academic precision a broad index and an extensive bibliography were provided: including Pollock’s own ‘Statements, writings, interviews and letters’, Monographs, General works, Articles and Miscellaneous References. The reproductions in the catalog of
32 See ‘Acknowledgments’ in O’Connor, Jackson Pollock, p. 6.
269 the works of art were to document them: small black-and-white photographs (only one color reproduction, which was a large foldout) were grouped together and accompanied by the complete formal details making them documentary information instead of illustrations to look at as representing the works of art, as was in the case of the Stedelijk presentations of Appel.
The Icon Appel in the Stedelijk
The presenting and promoting of Appel in the Stedelijk Museum happened at approximately the same time as the institutionalizing of Pollock in the Museum of Modern Art and it also included two one-man exhibitions around the same period in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The contributions to the canonization of Pollock by MoMA and Appel by the Stedelijk differ however in their approach to the artists, their methods of presentation and their effects. These differences cannot only be explained by the fact that Pollock died during this period which made him a contemporary artist but no longer a living artist who could participate in the presentation of the work. This fact did of course give the Museum of Modern Art the opportunity to value Pollock’s closed oeuvre, honor him for his life’s work and maneuver his complete picture into history. The Stedelijk’s approach towards Appel – and especially Sandberg’s – was to present the living artist in all his vitality and controversy. Appel’s work was not written into history, it became a visual icon of post-war art for the Stedelijk , personifying protest and freedom. Appel became vital to the Museum’s image: in the collection, in the building, on posters, in and on publications. The art did not only bring fame to the artist, but also to the institution that provided for its exposure. Appel’s omnipresence in the Museum was to demonstrate the importance of this new, vital art and pointed to the vital role of the Stedelijk in a changing society. It is said that Sandberg was immediately attracted to the work of Appel from the first time he exhibited in the Museum in the exhibition Jonge Schilders (Young Painters) in 1946.33 The “vitality” of the work attracted Sandberg: it seemed to personify the resistance, the action against social conflict for Sandberg and the desire to change, to revolt, to renew.34 Appel’s art was presented as such to the public, who was to experience this rejuvenation by
33 As described in Roodenburg-Schadd, Expressie en Ordening, p. 693. 34 This concept can be found in a number of Sandberg’s writings among which: Sandberg and Jaffé, Kunst van heden in het Stedelijk, n.p; catalog nederlands bijdrage tot de internationale ontwikkeling sedert 1945, n.p; Sandberg’s ‘woord vooraf’in Claus, Karel Appel: schilder, pp. 13-14; Sandberg, ‘de vitaliteit in de kunst’ in the catalog de vitaliteit in de kunst, pp. 8, 9,10.
270 the confrontation with his work. The Stedelijk was able to collect numerous works early on, which made it easier to display this revolutionary work. A number of works of art entered the collection from 1948 on through the Municipal acquisitions and the Contraprestatie regeling – a governmental social program to support artists by buying their works. A number of key works, such as Vrijheidsschreeuw (Liberty Cry,1948) were also acquired for the Bijenkorf collection which Sandberg had expected to be able to keep for the Museum.35 Appel also donated a number of works, works which had been especially made for the roguish, experimental exhibition Exposition internationale d’art experimental in 1949, in which Appel and his fellow artists – painters, sculptors and poets - had all the freedom to use the Museum for their experiments. An exhibition was the perfect medium to visualize the new and experimental qualities of the young artists. By experiencing the sense of dynamics, the public was awakened to the changes in artistic expression. The installation of the 1949 exhibition was to be recorded in the memory of the Stedelijk due to the frequently used installation photographs. It was also to be especially associated with Appel because of one installation photograph of this exhibition, which was to become a fixed image of the Stedelijk’s history. This installation shot with Appel’s large- scale painting Mens en dieren dominating the room, would be presented as exemplary of what the Stedelijk stood for and was published in the publications, catalogs, newspaper and magazine articles on the collection and history of the Stedelijk Museum.36 (fig. 149) To present Appel’s art as a new socially committed art – committed to changing society, Sandberg commissioned Appel to transform the public areas in the Museum. In 1951 Appel was commissioned to paint the foyer close to the new auditorium. The lively, colorful figures take over the whole space: walls, door, ceiling. It became known as the “Appel bar”. When it was to be opened to the public, it was Appel’s idea to hang the preliminary studies for the mural close by in the hallway so that people could see how the paintings had been designed. This had not been done as an educational devise like with Orozco’s mural in the Museum of Modern Art and in Pollock’s retrospective later, but because Appel feared major criticism and he felt that perhaps if the public saw that a work like that was prepared meticulously, they would not be as sensitive to the expected negative criticism in the press.37
35 In 1966 the Bijenkorf collection left the Stedelijk. 36 To be found in 9 jaar stedelijk museum Amsterdam, n.p; Sandberg and Jaffé, Kunst van heden in het Stedelijk, n.p. ; nederlands bijdrage tot de internationale ontwikkeling sedert 1945, n.p ; Sandberg, “réflexions disparates sur l’organisation d’un musée d’art d’aujourd’hui”; Sandberg, “Gedachten over een museum van hedendaagse kunst”. 37 See Roodenburg-Schadd, Expressie en Ordening, p. 340 ( note 110).
271 Five years later he received the commission to paint the large wall in the restaurant area. This huge playful mural painting of colorful oversized figures became the face of this central meeting, eating and reading space. Both commissioned works of art demonstrated the function of the museum as Sandberg saw it: a living center of expression and experiment in which the artist reigned. In a photographic line-up in the anniversary catalog kunst van heden in het stedelijk of people – children and grown-ups – in the act of artistic expression , a photograph shows Appel in front of his expressive creation. (fig. 150) In between the two Museum commissions Sandberg had promoted Appel in the international hot spots, just as Barr had done with Pollock: Appel’s art was successfully received in the II Sao Paulo Biennale in 1953 and in the Venice Biennale a year later. These international exhibitions, which both Museums could influence through Barr and Sandberg, helped to seal the fate of these two selected artists. Appel’s first one-man show was presented in 1955. It was announced as being part of the series of Vijf Generaties (five generations), which gave it a formal position in the historical line set out by the Stedelijk, but was not explained as such. It was to be taken in as a contemporary artistic reaction to the developments in the world and not as a new link in a long chain. The exhibition had not been organized by the Stedelijk itself, but had been taken over from the Parisian exhibition in the Galerie Rive Droite which had shown it a month earlier. Although the catalog was given a ‘Sandberg’ aura (rough light-brown paper cover and pages, and, only lower-case letters), it had strangely enough not been designed by Sandberg, nor was there any text included by Sandberg or any other Stedelijk employee.38 It was a Parisian product, not geared towards a large Dutch public: the essay by the artist-critic Michel Tapié was in French as were the un‘Stedelijk’-like elaborate chronological lists of exhibitions, collections and articles in magazines and newspapers. The only Dutch accent was an expressive poem by the writer/painter Hugo Claus, adding to the atmosphere of Appel’s paintings. The text by Tapié positioned the artist Appel - as Sandberg would do in his texts years later – as one of those “exceptional temperaments” who “were gifted with mysterious antennas which instinctively guided them to the heart of current problems and new essential needs”.39 This type of mystical and irrational reasoning was very much like Sandberg’s. Tapié described the “élan dionysiaque” of the work of these special artists whom he named
38 Considering the position Appel had in Sandberg’s ideas, it is strange that he did not choose to design anything for this exhibition. 39 See Tapié, ‘karel appel’ in the catalog: karel appel, np. The French text reads: “ … des tempéraments exceptionels, véritables forces de la nature doués de mystérieuses antennas qui les menent inconsciemment au coeur des actuels problemes et des nouvelles necessities essentielles … ”.
272 specifically: in the past years, Dubuffet and de Kooning, and now the Italian Moreni and the Dutchman Karel Appel”.40 Within this group he praised Appel’s work for being the first to have created an “orgie dionysiaque” with color and paint (pate) in a way that no one before him had, and therefore created an especially honorable position for him. From Appel’s work, the “pioneers of tomorrow” would depart, according to Tapié. As where to position the work of Appel, Tapié posed the question: “Can one in their case still speak of “expressionism”? Definitely yes”, he answered himself, as long as one does not bring the word too close to the historic movement itself.41 This new art was to be seen as new: it was different than the historical expressionism because it knew no restrictions. So, although the catalog positioned Appel as ‘an expressionist’, it was made clear that this was to be understood in a new way: Appel was the first in this new development of vital art and not the last in a historic movement. It is noteworthy that this honorable qualification of being the first to discover or develop something, which stresses the artist’s virtue, was used for both Pollock and Appel. To emphasize the vitality and spontaneity of the work, the paintings were hung at different heights and asymmetrically creating a dynamic atmosphere, which brought back memories of the important experimental exhibition in 1949. (fig. 151) In the years between 1955 and 1962 – the year of Sandberg’s departure from the Museum – Appel became the face of the Stedelijk, nationally as well as internationally by way of visualization and repetition. The large mural paintings, discussed above, could be read as declarations of the living museum: with these vital, colorful statements Sandberg rejuvenated and modernized the building, bringing the Museum up-to-date as he had done when he whitewashed the walls in the 1930’s.42 In landmark exhibitions Appel’s work was repetitively given prominent positions: for example, in the anniversary Pioniers exhibition in 1961 in the Stedelijk, one of Appel’s paintings hung at the entrance to the exhibition symbolizing the newest pioneering. From this exhibition of the one hundred works of art, fifty works were selected to travel.43 Of the forty-one artists to be selected as ‘pioneers’ Appel and Lataster were the only two artists to be represented by three works of art. Appel’s expressive
40 Ibid. Tapié says: “ainsi se sont révélés ces derniers années dubuffet et de kooning, ainsi se révelent maintenant á nous l’italien mattia moreni et le hollandaise karel appel.” 41 Ibid. The French text reads: “doit-on a leur propos parler encore d’ “expressionisme”? certainement oui, dans la mesure ou l’on ne lie pas ce mot de trop pres au mouvement historique qu’immédiatement il concretize pour les amateurs d’art moderne.” 42 There had even been plans to have Appel paint the ceiling of the entrance hall of the Museum in 1961, but – although Appel had made a design for it – the plans never materialized. 43 The exhibition traveled to Louisiana Museum in Humlebaek (Denmark) (October-December 1961), Moderna Museet in Stockholm (December 1961-January 1962) and Curacaos Museum in Willemstad (April-May 1962).
273 two heads (1953) was chosen for the catalog cover, giving Appel the important position he had received at the Stedelijk Pioniers exhibition. For the face of another important international exhibition, which is discussed further on, Appel was once again elected: the front of the catalog nederlands bijdrage tot de internationale ontwikkeling sedert 1945 (The Dutch contribution to the international development since 1945) was covered with a large reproduction of Appel’s Crying Crab (1954). (fig. 152) Furthermore, the poster designed by Sandberg featured an Appel (fig. 153) and, in the exhibition itself, the amount of his works far outnumbered those of the other contributing artists. In Sandberg’s own publication nu (“now”, 1959) which was his ‘manifesto’ on the role of artists, art and museums in society, Appel’s Vragend Kind (1949) was the only work of art to be included in the whole publication. (fig. 154) This painting not only illustrated Sandberg’s text: the painting personified the sensitive, inquisitive artist who – with his antennas – could sense more than any other, but it also reflected on Appel’s position as ‘great artist’.44 His special position is also visualized in the book ‘de collectie sandberg’ which accompanied Sandberg’s farewell gift - that Sandberg received when he left the Stedelijk at the end of 1962 : a gift of about one hundred works of art from artists from many different countries, which he in turn donated to the Museum. The cover of the catalog shows the donated works of art installed in the restaurant of the Museum with Appel’s large-scale mural towering over them. Inside the catalog, Appel’s painting from the beginning (1961) is the first gift to be presented (and it is not in alphabetical order). After Sandberg’s directorship Appel was given his second retrospective exhibition in 1965. This large exhibition showed work of the past eighteen years. In contrast to the 1955 retrospective, all works were now installed in a uniform fashion – evenly spaced and hung at the same height. This tranquil installation mode emphasized the status of the oeuvre as one of an accepted master. The living aspect was now no longer emphasized by a dynamic installation as in 1955, but by way of the direct confrontation with the newest work: coming up the central stairway, the visitor was immediately confronted with a huge face-like sculpture, centrally positioned to greet the public. (fig. 155) Other examples of the newest work by the artist - large paintings and sculptures - filled the upstairs hallway. The living aspect was also to be found in the catalog. A colorful drawing filled the folding front cover of the catalog and the back was decorated by Appel’s large signature made
44 As also remarked by Caroline Roodenburg-Schadd in her Expressie en ordening, p. 608.
274 of two signatures in paint in two different colors almost overlapping which created a dynamic effect. It seemed as if the catalog had just been freshly signed. The contributions in the catalog were all written by friends: fellow artists – painters and poets – contributed poetic statements. The writer/poets Bert Schierbeek, Simon Vinkenoog and painter/poet Lucebert wrote in Dutch, Christian Dotremont in French and Ting in English. All contributions were artistic expressions themselves: associative poems on aspects of color, paint, energy and freedom; not one explanatory, art historical essay. The works of art were to speak for themselves and not explained away into history. The extensive bibliography of Tapié’s catalog in 1955 was now once again reduced to a few publications as in most of the Stedelijk catalogs, which were all publications made by others than the Stedelijk.45 In 1968 Appel’s newest work in relief was shown in the exhibition Karel Appel; reliefs 1966-1968 . The large lively works once again took over the upstairs hall and galleries, but once again, they were to be experienced and not to be explained and understood: there was no lengthy catalog to position his new work in his oeuvre. Although Appel remained prominent, he was no longer to dominate the face of the Stedelijk after Sandberg left the Museum.46 Now Appel was to be mostly promoted as a member of the Cobra artists: under Edy de Wilde not Appel but the “Cobra group” was honored as one of the “spécialités de la maison” together with masters such as Van Gogh, Chagall, Dubuffet, Malevich, Rietveld, Werkman and the post-1960 currents, especially the American Art.47
‘Inter’national shows of new art
Within the period 1935-1975 – a period marked by World War II and the Cold War - the Western world was caught up in the struggle between nationalism and internationalism. On the one hand there was the fight against dictatorial nationalism, which stimulated the notion of ‘brotherhood’ and ‘oneness’ within an international community, on the other hand, the growth of each individual nation and the search for their position and identity in a new world order was apparent. The question of the value of contemporary art and artists for a community and for a country was very relevant during this period. Contemporary art was at times presented as objects of national pride and at other times as expressions of a universal language which transcended all boundaries. The artists were
45 Sandberg did contribute to a few of them in an introduction or preface. 46 Between 1963 and 1968 seven works of art were acquired. 47 See “The Stedelijk Museum’s policy – since 1905” in Keuze uit de verzameling van het Stedelijk Museum, 1970, n.p.
275 sometimes hailed as national heroes and at other times seen as political suspects, in which case the museum would have to try to change the image of the artist and his works of art. These areas of tension are visible in the presentations of both museums. The position of the Museum of Modern Art – especially that of the International Council of the Museum of Modern Art with its International Program - in the political arena of the Cold War and their active promotion of American modern art as the ‘apolitically correct’ art expression of the Post-War period, is evident in the Museum’s presentations.48 There are two exhibitions that illustrate the different approaches towards national contributions to the post-war international art scene very nicely. Two shows of national pride; both traveling shows that were also shown at their home base: The New American Painting: As shown in eight European countries 1958-1959, shown in MoMA in the late spring and summer of 1959, and, Nederlands Bijdrage tot de internationale ontwikkeling sedert 1945, held at the Stedelijk in the summer of 1962 before traveling to Canada.49 Both shows are good examples of how recent art was ‘written’ into history while the paint was still wet.
The New American Painting Show: MoMA’s Claim to Fame
The New American Painting show was one of fifty shows that was made to be sent to countries around the world by the International Program of the Museum of Modern Art. The fact that it was the first of this group of international circulating exhibitions to be shown full- scale also in MoMA itself, is not unimportant. Although the museum emphasized that it was organized “at the request of European institutions”, it proved to be a pivotal exhibition for the museum itself in promoting Abstract Expressionism as a major innovative, American ‘ism’.50 Furthermore, this show was not only a promotion of an American art movement, but also of the museum itself and its International Program with its influence on cultural policy.
48 On the role of the Museum of Modern Art in Cold War politics, see: Braden, “I’m Glad the C.I.A. Is Immoral”, pp. 10 ff.; Kozloff, “American Painting During the Cold War”; Cockcroft, “Abstract Expressionism, Weapon of the Cold War”; Matthews, “Art and Politics in Cold War America”; Shapiro and Shapiro, “Abstract Expressionism: the Politics of Apolitical Painting”; and Guilbaut, How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art. 49 Between April 1958 and March 1959 the exhibition The New American Painting was shown in Basel, Milan, Madrid, Berlin, Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris and London. nederlands bijdrage tot de internationale ontwikkeling sedert 1945 was shown in Montreal and in Ottawa from October to December 1962, after initially being shown in Amsterdam. 50 In the foreword of the catalog of the exhibition the Director of MoMA, Rene d’Harnoncourt wrote: “The New American Painting was organized at the request of European institutions for a show devoted specifically to Abstract Expressionism in America.” The New American Painting, p. 5. In a press release announcing the exhibition mention is made of “repeated requests from European institutions”. Press release no. 45, p.1. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY.
276 The exhibition tackled the issues of how to define and position a group of American artists in art history and how to explain their quality and prove/promote their value for American society. The use of amplification is apparent both in the catalog as in the exhibition itself. The title of the show The New American Painting was said to have been suggested by Motherwell, one of the exhibiting artists, and chosen above a title with the terms ‘abstract expressionist’ or ‘action painting’.51 The use of The was not arbitrary and intimated that the show dealt with the only new American painting that was worthwhile of that period. This claim was emphasized in the press releases praising it as a show “devoted to the advanced American painting of the last decade” and “a totally “new” – a unique and indigenous – kind of painting”.52 The fact that a title was chosen with American in it, fits in perfectly with the promoting of America as culturally superior in the Cold War period. The artists and paintings for the show were selected by Dorothy Miller, then Curator of Museum Collections. The exhibition consisted of eighty-one paintings by seventeen artists – four to five by each artist and six by one of them (Gorky) – who formed “the central core and major marginal talent of the movement”.53 The catalog for the New York exhibition was a reprint of the one used for the London exhibition in the Tate Gallery in London, which was the last showing in Europe before the exhibition was mounted in MoMA. To this catalog, color plates and a report of the exhibition’s reception in the eight European countries were added. This eight-page section called ‘As the critics saw it’ was prominently placed in the front of the catalog.54 In the analysis of the arrangement of the catalog, the ‘As the critics saw it’ section is part of the introduction , with its strong emphasis on ethos. The following section with Barr’s ‘introduction’ is actually part of the body of argumentation which is then followed by the artists’ statements as explanations. The conclusion - the actual ‘catalog’ section including the
51 Dorothy Miller interviewed by Paul Cummings, 1970-1971, transcript p. 142: “… I think Bob Motherwell actually suggested “why not call it The New American Painting.” Archives of American Art Smithsonian Institution. Barr, in his introduction of the catalogue , also mentions the fact that the terms abstract expressionist and action painting were considered for the title. 52 Press Releases No. 36, April 1959, No. 45, May 1959. MoMA Library, NY. 53 The Museum of Modern Art Press release No. 45, May 1959 p. 1 and catalog of the exhibition, The New American Painting, p. 16. 54 It was positioned after the extensive listing of the Trustees of the Museum of Modern Art, the officers, honorary members and members of the International Council at the Museum of Modern Art, the itinerary of the exhibition, the Foreword by the Director of MoMA, René d’Harnoncourt, an acknowledgment by the Director of the exhibition, Dorothy C. Miller, and the listing of the lenders to the exhibition, but before the Introduction by Barr, the large section on each individual artist, and the biographical information and listing of exhibited works at the end.
277 artists’ biographies and listings of shows in which the artists were included - is impressive in its length and detail and leaves the reader with a sense of importance of the artists involved. In d’Harnoncourt’s foreword the exhibition was presented as an actual victory for American art, which had “won for American art widespread recognition and acclaim abroad.” The created interest of Europe in Abstract Expressionism was stressed: the request for a show “devoted specifically to Abstract Expressionism in America” was mentioned and “concrete evidence” of the European interest was claimed to “be found in the increasing number of purchases for public and private collections in Europe.”55 This victory of the American artists was used to build the authority of the Museum itself by not only praising the International Program of the Museum of Modern Art, but also accentuating the authority of its own directors Miller and Barr, for this exhibition “demonstrates the knowledge and experience of its director, Dorothy C. Miller”. Moreover, d’Harnoncourt directly connected this victorious exhibition to their previous museum work by stating that their “insight” was “evident in many exhibitions at the Museum and in the acquisition of works of art for the Museum Collection.” This last statement seems to want to win over any who may doubt or have doubted the choices made by the Museum in presenting and collecting. In the introductory paragraph of the section ‘As the critics saw it’, Porter McCray, director of the International Program, emphasized the great importance of the exhibition, noting that in each of the eight countries “the exhibition was held in the major institution associated with modern art” and that a catalog was issued in the language of every country. Although McCray admitted that the critics’ response to the exhibition was difficult to assess, he did provide two definite deductions which would seem to induce both feelings of excitement and awe: that the paintings “created a sensation” and that “it was acknowledged that in America a totally ‘new’ – a unique and indigenous – kind of painting had appeared, one whose influence can be clearly seen in works of artists in Europe as well as in many other parts of the world.”56 Fourteen quotations were listed and although, as McCray said, “they are necessarily brief” and the “elisions are not indicated”, “we have tried not to distort any writer’s main intent”. It would of course be interesting to see how the selection was made and what was left out, but for analyzing the strategy of the selection which ended up in the catalog, this is not relevant. Of the fourteen quotations listed, three were strongly negative. These quotations were very short, much shorter than most of the positive ones, and provided only outrage without
55 Foreword of the catalog The New American Painting, p. 5. 56 Ibid., p. 7.
278 argumentation, such as “this is not art – it’s a joke in bad taste …”.57 The positive quotations are lengthy and well reasoned. This makes it easy for the reader to put the ‘hysterical’ quotations aside, leaving the more lengthy laudatory quotes as reasonable critiques. The fact that in this selection of the critics’ responses, the positive critiques outnumber by far the negative ones (fourteen to three) seemed to imply that this ratio was representative of all the responses throughout the countries. Comments in a Museum of Modern Art press release, underlined the fact that of the critics commenting on the exhibitions, “the majority were enthusiastic in their praise”.58 In fact this was not the case: for example, the Tate show received mostly negative criticisms according to the art historian Lawrence Alloway, who wrote an article on the failure of British critics to “deal with the show”.59 Of the critics quoted, the longest laudatory quote in the catalog was by Will Grohmann, quoted as writing for Der Tagesspiegel in Berlin. His quote is the only one cited in the Museum of Modern Art press release in which he is described merely as the “well- known critic and scholar”. Grohmann, however, was at the time already an honorary member of The International Council At The Museum of Modern Art and therefore not as neutral as he is presented here.60 When comparing the deductions made by McCray of the quotations of the critics called upon, the view that the paintings “created a sensation” seems valid, whereas the claim that “a totally ‘new’ – a unique and indigenous – kind of painting had appeared, one whose influence can be clearly seen in works of artists in Europe as well as in many other parts of the world” can certainly not be fully substantiated by the given quotations. Yet, the statement was made and provided a strong sense of America spreading its artistic influence throughout the world through – as a MoMA press release called the artists of this exhibition – her “ambassadors”.61 In this ‘As The Critics Saw It’ section a number of small photographs were included, all black and white and all approximately the same size. There are three categories of photographs. The first and largest group of photographs shows various installation shots of a
57 Headlines in Reynolds News, London, March 1, 1959, as quoted in The New American Painting, p. 14. 58 Press release No. 45 the Museum of Modern Art, May 1959, p.2. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 59 Alloway, “Field Notes: An Interview”, pp. 130-131. In this interview Alloway also comments on how thinly attended the show was in London (p. 126). This is in strong contradiction with the statement in the press-release of The New Painting exhibitions, the Museum of Modern Art , New York, no. 45, May 1959, p. 1: “The Tate Gallery in London reported a record number of paid admissions while “The New American Painting” was on view”. 60 Grohmann had a good relationship with the Museum of Modern Art. He had received many of the Museum’s catalogs after the War for the preparation of his own research and publications. 61 Press release No. 45, May 1959, p. 1. MoMA Library, NY.
279 few of the European exhibitions. Some of the pictures show crowds of people, like the first photograph, which is probably of the opening ceremony in Basel. Here, in a room in which paintings by Clifford Still and Mark Rothko were hung, a large audience listens to a talk . The shot is taken from the back of the audience, just above the heads of the public and it is as if we are there in the back of the full room listening together with the rest. Other installation shots of this group of photographs show a few well dressed men and women viewing the paintings intently and some photos display only empty museum rooms void of visitors with walls filled with the large paintings. (fig. 156) A second group of photographs has nothing to do with the exhibition itself but rather shows the authority of the “major institutions” of modern art in the artistic capitals of Europe in which the triumphant American exhibition was shown. One is of the interior of the ultra modern Galleria Civica d’Arte Moderna in Milan with no paintings at all, just a large expanse of an interior hall aesthetically presented: a paragon of modernism, and the other is a photograph of the exterior of the Musée National d’Art Moderne in Paris, the rival institution in the longtime rival cultural capital in which the American show is now presented as the new avant-garde movement in modern art. (fig. 157) The last type of photographs in this ‘As The Critics Saw It’ section is of the jackets of the catalogs issued in the different languages of the European countries visited. The size of the photographs of these full-blown jackets are the same as the size of the interior and exterior shots. (fig. 158) The lining up of the covers provides a victorious site, comparable to the exhibitions in the Museum of Modern Art of their own publications, as discussed in the first chapter.62 To see The New American Painting printed in so many languages creates a sense of pride and authority. Notable is the fact that all the titles in the different languages are literal translations of the American title, except for the Dutch one. The Stedelijk Museum, in tune with its emphasis on artists instead of the works of art themselves, has translated the title to Jong Amerika schildert: ‘Young America paints’. The three categories of photographs in this section of the catalog together enhance the authority of the Museum of Modern Art and the Abstract Expressionist painters. Furthermore, it visually displays the spreading of the influence of the New American Painting. After the ‘As The Critics Saw It’ part, Alfred Barr, not the director of this exhibition but the Museum’s well-known and respected authority on modern art, wrote an Introduction. Barr’s ‘introduction’ provided the argumentation for the definition of the group as a
62 Cf. the photograph of the exhibition Museum of Modern Art Publications: the Retrospective exhibition in 1960.
280 movement and positions the movement in art history. Furthermore, he explained the artists’ qualities and promoted the movement’s value for American society. In the first part of his exposé, Barr built the ethos of the artists and presented them as serious, knowledgeable and uncompromising individualists, who, however, had a lot in common. He first listed nine quotes of seven of the artists, randomly arranged. Then he stated that none of the artists speaks for the other, stressing once again their uncompromising individualism – a quality that appeals strongly to Americans, using John Donne in his argument.63 Yet, Barr right away gave the artists common ground by heading the list of the individual quotes with a quotation – the only one - starting with “We”, and further on he speaks of the artists as ‘they’ and ‘them’ and the convictions the artists share and the ideas that they honor together. In this way, Barr presented the artists as being both individualists and being members of a common group – using the best of both worlds. Barr created in this first part of his introduction a serious atmosphere in which the artists were presented as knowledgeable and philosophical searchers. Already within the first two paragraphs, Barr referred in his description of the seventeen artists to three philosophers, Kierkegaard, Descartes and Karl Jaspers. Kierkegaard was said to be honored by the artists and their uncompromising individualism was compared to Kierkegaard’s uncompromising religion.64 Descartes’ famous phrase, recognizable for even the layman, was adapted to describe the artists’ “desperate effort to discover the ‘self’ or ‘reality”: “I paint, therefore I am”.65 And, connecting the artists to Existentialism, Barr used, as he said, Karl Jaspers’ Existentialist phrase to explain their confrontation with “a blank canvas” as their attempt “to grasp authentic being by action, decision, a leap of faith”.66 Even though the artists used words relating to Existentialism, Barr emphasized that they should not be associated with leftwing politics and that their work could – an in other words, should - be associated with ‘freedom’, which in this time of the Cold War was an important American keyword in politics. As Barr wrote: “They defiantly reject the conventional values of the society which surrounds them, but they are not “politically engagés even though their paintings have been
63 As pointed out by James Leggio, Barr used the poetic figure John Donne to emphasize “the autonomous creativity of artists working to free themselves from influences or schools” in Barr’s sentence: “For them, John Donne to the contrary, each man is an island” (p. 15 of the catalog). See Leggio, “Alfred H. Barr, Jr., as a Writer of Allegory” p. 107. 64 Barr, ‘Introduction’, in The New American Painting, p. 15. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid., p. 16.
281 praised and condemned as symbolic demonstrations of freedom in a world in which freedom connotes a political attitude”.67 After establishing the authority of the artists, Barr continued his introduction with the actual defining of the movement and the positioning of it in art history. The movement’s generally accepted name ‘Abstract Expressionism’ was explained as having been ‘re- invented’ by Barr himself around 1929 to designate Kandinsky’s early abstractions, work that as Barr says, in certain ways does “anticipate the American movement”. This assertion of anticipating put the American movement in prime position, viewing history from its standpoint. The alternative name proposed for the movement, as Barr explained, was ‘Action Painting’: a phrase proposed by the poet-critic Harold Rosenberg in his article American Action Painters. Although Barr credited Rosenberg for his “important article” - and actually listed the article’s specifics in the only note of his introduction - he rejected the name because it “now seems to overemphasize the physical act of painting”.68 In the description of the movement the same two paradoxical aspects of individuality on the one hand, as a strong characteristic; and the notion of a coherent group on the other, were stressed . By describing the movement as being made up of a “central core” and “major marginal talent”, the strength and unity of the group was emphasized; however further on, the movement was said to not be “a compact phalanx” and the different approaches of the members were highlighted.69 As to whom exactly was referred to as ‘the central core’ was not made explicit. Yet, it is obvious from Barr’s introduction and previous statements that at least Gorky, de Kooning and Pollock were considered to be central core.70 They were also referred to as leaders of the movement and in Gorky’s case as “the most important early master of the movement”.71 In the lay-out and the text of the catalog there was, however, no difference in the description of the artists; in the section with the artists’ statements after Barr’s introduction, not more attention was given to one artist than to the other: an alphabetically arranged line-up with equal space for each artist was presented. They each received a uniform display of a black and white photograph of themselvest, a few statements and three pages
67 Ibid., p. 16. 68 Catalog The New American Painting, p. 16. 69 Ibid., p. 18. 70 In an article ‘7 Americans Open in Venice’, Art News 49, no. 4 (June-July-August 1950), Barr wrote the section on Gorky, De Kooning and Pollock calling them “three of the younger leaders”. Barr named Pollock and de Kooning to be “among the leaders” in his introduction of The New American Painting. 71 Catalog The New American Painting, p. 18.
282 each containing a picture of one painting of which two were black-and-white and one colored.72 After establishing the fact that the reader was dealing with a real movement made up of ‘uncompromising individuals’, Barr defined which qualities their diverse work had that ‘unite’ them and makes these different artists into a identifiable movement. “First, their size”, said Barr, naming a property first which was easily recognized and simple to understand for a large public. Then he listed their “flatness” and “their lack of illusionistic depth”: terminology that leaned heavily on Greenberg’s, whom he mentioned further on in the text as an “enthusiastic critic” who helped the artists to gain recognition as “the flourishing vanguard of American painting”.73 Barr provided the necessary explanations of the properties as consequences of the artists interests.74 Barr went on to explain how the movement began: its historical development. He presented the American situation as starting with the chaotic artistic spread of the early 1940’s as “bewilderingly varied and without dominant direction” and culminating at the end of the 1940’s into a flourishing dominant ‘avant-garde’ movement.75 He focused mainly on the American history, both artistic and political, instead of presenting a European lineage for the movement as he had done earlier on in 1950. During the early fifties, he had provided a family tree for the movement descending from the European founding fathers: Gauguin, Van
72 Strangely enough, on Clyfford Still’s page a photograph of him is missing. See page 76 of the catalog. Perhaps because Still had not been asked about participating in the show, because he was very difficult about the exhibitions in the Museum of Modern Art. See the transcript of an interview with Dorothy Miller by Avis Berman, May 4, 1981, p. 22, The Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. 73 Articles by Clement Greenberg which provide the terminology for the Abstract Expressionist paintings are especially: “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”, Partisan Review (Fall 1939); “Towards a Newer Laocoon”, Partisan Review (July-August 1940); “‘American-Type’ Painting”, Partisan Review (Spring 1955). 74The flatness, Barr explained, “is a consequence of the artist’s concern with the actual painting process as his prime instrument of expression, a concern which also tends to eliminate imitative suggestion of the forms, textures, colours and spaces of the real world, since these might compete with the primary reality of paint on canvas.” About the abstract quality of the paintings, Barr first says that they may “seem abstract”, but actually they are not so ‘in spirit’. In the next paragraph, he acknowledges the “high degree of abstraction”, but explains that the artists are “deeply involved with subject matter or content”, although the content “is never explicit or obvious even when recognizable forms emerge (…)”. He positions their interest outside the “traditional aesthetics of ‘plastic values’, composition, quality of line, beauty of surface, harmony of colour”, and therefore explains that a different approach – other than the traditional - of the public is necessary to be able to communicate. And Barr reassures us that the painters are very conscious of their approach, for he says that the artists “as a matter of principle”, do nothing deliberately in their work to make ‘communication’ easy. Yet the paintings themselves do communicate, is Barr’s message: “the paintings themselves have a sensuous, emotional, aesthetic and at times almost mystical power which works and can be overwhelming”. New American Painting, p. 17. 75 An interesting comparison can be made with Greenberg’s call for less eclecticism and catholicity in the exhibitions of the Museum of Modern Art in a review in The Nation, 10 June 1944, of the Museum’s Art in Progress exhibition in 1944: “The extreme eclecticism now prevailing in art is unhealthy, and it should be counteracted, even at the risk of dogmatism and intolerance. Inevitably, the museum makes enemies. Let it make them for good reasons.”
283 Gogh and the modern master Redon.76 Now in 1958-1959, no mention was made of these old European masters, as had been done in 1950 and so often in earlier years at the Museum in order to provide an honorable European lineage for new developments. The only “old masters” who were cited here were four Americans: John Marin, Edward Hopper, Max Weber and Stuart Davis, who, although not presented as forefathers, are described as individually still going strong in the 1940’s. So, even though Barr still mentioned the European influences, explaining the strong influence the surrealist refugees Ernst, Masson, Duchamp together with the poet Breton, the painter Matta Echaurren and former surrealist associates, Picasso, Miró and Arp, had had on the new movement, the focus was now much more on the American story. The promising young artists were said, according to Barr, to have been “interested” in work of older American painters, notably Ryder, Marin and Dove and influence was said to have come from another indigenous source: “for a time Rothko, Pollock, Gottlieb and Still were influenced by the symbolic imagery of primitive art, especially of the American north-west coast.”77 This shift in the story of historical roots showed the emphasis this exhibition placed on the triumph of the own artistic situation which was presented as authentically ‘new’, ‘indigenous’ and ‘American’. In this same section on the artistic state of affairs of the 1940’s, two political references were made which indirectly comment on the American political situation of the 1950’s. First of all, a sneer was made at the political strategy of ‘America First’ isolationism. This was done by presenting the ‘America First’ isolationism as the “political analogue” to the “bumptious” and “still noisy” Mid-Western regionalism, which was said to be dying along with it.78 This linking of negative qualities to the policy of ‘America First’ isolationism fit in with the change of the Cold War rhetoric of the 1950’s, that had left isolationism behind and was now focused on a new American internationalism with the positioning of America as world leader in all fields and the spreading of the ideology of freedom and democracy.79 The second reference was the mentioning of the fact that most of the artists during the Depression years “had been naively attracted by Communism” but in the 1940’s “had grown disillusioned both with the machinations of the party and with Socialist Realism. This naming of the artists’
76 See Alfred H. Barr Jr.’s section on Gorky, De Kooning, Pollock, in “7 Americans Open in Venice”: “Broadly speaking the movement descends from Gauguin, Van Gogh and Redon, through the fauves, Kandinsky and Klee, and then on through Arp, Miró, Masson and the Americans Dove and Tobey, down to the younger generation today.”, p. 60. 77 Catalog The New American Painting, p. 18. 78 Ibid., p. 17. 79 Brockriede and Scott, Moments in the Rhetoric of the Cold War.
284 relationship with Communism - and excusing it as ‘naïve’ (read immature) - and the linking of it to Socialist Realism emphasized that the American artists now in their maturity had no links anymore with leftwing politics and their art showed it by being far removed from any Socialist Realism idiom which was to be found in the works of art of the Cold War enemy countries.80 It is noteworthy that Barr not only praised the artists who, thanks to “their own extraordinary energy, talent, and fortitude” as he said, “won … recognition as the flourishing vanguard”, but he also listed various groups and a number of individuals who should also be credited for their success. Especially, a number of dealers was cited. He praised these “courageous” New York galleries – listing their names - for their “brilliant pioneering”. Such honorable qualities not only built the ethos of the dealers themselves but reflected on the character of the artists they stuck their neck out for. He also mentioned “enthusiastic critics such as Clement Greenberg, a handful of editors, teachers, collectors, and museum officials” who shared in the triumph of this American avant-garde movement.81 Barr concluded his introduction with a paragraph in which he humbly expressed his feelings of pride – as an American – for the triumph of the ‘New American Painting’: “To have written a few words of introduction to this exhibition is an honour for an American who has watched with deep excitement and pride the development of the artists here represented, their long struggle – with themselves even more than with the public – and their present triumph.” This style of humility and praise was especially effective coming from such an ‘honorable’ authority himself. If such an authority - as Alfred Barr was in 1958 – expressed such humility with respect to the artists, the reader was apt to follow these feelings. This clever paragraph drew the reader in – especially the American reader -, and had him share the same feelings of pride and honor for the struggling and finally triumphant artists. It is as if to say: The artists deserve our praise for their courage and their victory for modern art and for their country. The exhibition installation in the Museum of Modern Art itself displayed the same sense of pride and authority as the catalog and it used the same figure of style: amplification. At the entrance to the exhibition – as an introduction – a mural-size map was shown which sung the praises of the achievements of the International Program of the Museum of Modern Art of the past seven years of its existence in words and images. (fig. 4). The combination of
80 Greenberg’s article “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”, Partisan Review, Fall 1939, provides the perfect dialectical discussion of the opposites: avant-garde (formalistic art-for-art’s-sake) versus kitsch (Socialist Realism). 81 Catalog The New American Painting, p. 18.
285 the geographical map with the United States of America in the middle with lines streaming outward into the rest of the world depicting the entire scope of the Museum’s exchange program and the impressive statistics listed to go with it, portrayed a convincing authoritative organization. Next to it a mural-size announcement of the exhibition was shown with the list of European cities and the art institutions in which the exhibition had been previously shown. (fig. 159) The first gallery featured paintings by Jackson Pollock, who therefore was presented as the leading figure of the movement.82 Just as in the catalog, the paintings received uniform attention: the works of each artist were hung together with a large name tag above one of the paintings. The paintings were hung spaciously and all in the same manner with uniform framing, presenting a clear and therefore confident picture of this celebrated art movement.
Sandberg’s nederlands bijdrage Show
A comparable Stedelijk exhibition that celebrated and promoted a new art movement was the exhibition nederlands bijdrage tot de internationale ontwikkeling sedert 1945 . This exhibition was first shown in the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam before traveling to Canada and the United States.83 It was presented as the summer exhibition of 1962, Sandberg’s last one before his retirement. In many ways it carried Sandberg’s stamp: The exhibition was selected and mounted by Sandberg, the catalog was designed and written by Sandberg in his characteristic manner, and the accompanying poster was not only designed by Sandberg, it also showed a large portrait of him drawn by Karel Appel in the vocabulary of the contemporary art on display in the show (fig. 152). This focus on the director was different from the Museum of Modern Art’s focus on the institute itself. As with The New American Painting exhibition, the nederlands bijdrage tot de internationale ontwikkeling sedert 1945 show tried to define and position a group of – in this case – Dutch artists in the history of modern art. It also attempted to clarify their quality and prove/promote their value for Dutch society. Although it seems to have had the same goals as
82 On the installation of the London show in the Tate Gallery, the director, Dorothy Miller, says in an interview that she “had decided to put some of our great dead painters in that first gallery – Pollock and Tomlin; the first gallery was all Pollock and Tomlin.” Transcript of Interview with Dorothy Miller by Paul Cummings, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, May 26, 1970 – September 28, 1971, p. 146. 83 Between September 1962 and March 1963 the exhibition traveled to: Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, Montreal; National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa; Albright Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo; Institute of Arts, Detroit. The catalog only mentions the Dutch and the Canadian exhibitions.
286 the New York exhibition, the approach was different and therefore the choice and application of rhetorical means shall also show differentiation. The exhibition was remarkable in a number of aspects. First of all, as mentioned above, Sandberg was the major authority for this exhibition, together with his artists. Another interesting aspect is that, the exhibition focused on the ‘now’ as was familiar for the Stedelijk Museum approach, but also had a historical component – an actual historical, almost documentary, exhibition of the important Cobra exhibition the Stedelijk Museum had put on in 1949 – as part of it. Furthermore, it seems to have had a strong chauvinistic presentation, which seems rather un-Dutch . The title of the show projected the same authority as with the American show, the message was clear: we were dealing with the (my italics) worthwhile Dutch art of the period. The title had strong references to the title of Jaffé’s dissertation in 1956 concerning De Stijl as being ‘the Dutch contribution to modern art’.84 The artists included in the exhibition were eight painters: Karel Appel, Gerrit Benner, Corneille, Willem de Kooning, Ger Lataster, Lucebert, Bram van Velde and Jaap Wagemaker, and four sculptors: Constant, Wessel Couzijn, Carel Visser, André Volten. The catalog was written in three languages: Dutch, French and English. The text of the introduction was presented in three parallel columns, which made the absence of the English translation of the first seven paragraphs even more obvious. Most of the titles, listings and comments in the catalog were given in all three languages, often playfully making use of the same words in two languages, as for example on the bottom of the page listing the participating sculptors and painters: “nederlands bijdrage dutch contribution hollandaise”.85 There were however a number of curious ‘slip-ups’ in translations for which there seemed to be no logical explanation. For example, the somewhat informal thanking of the lenders to the exhibition – of which at least eight are prestigious American and English museums and dealers - only in French: “nous remercions de tout coeur les préteurs suivants” and the omission of both the French and the English translation of the titles of the Cobra drawings,
84 See Lampe, “Nederlandse bijdragen tot de moderne kunst”, Vrij Nederland, August 25, 1962; Willemijn Stokvis, ‘De Stijl en Cobra. Nederlands tegenstrijdige bijdrage aan de kunst van de twintigste eeuw – tegenstellingen, parallellen, overeenkomsten’ in: Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 7, Aspecten van het Interbellum, The Hague 1990, pp. 183-213; Roodenburg-Schadd, Expressie en ordening, p. 684. The fact that Sandberg uses nederlands bijdrage instead of de nederlandse bijdrage or nederlandse bijdrage, is interesting. It seems to put even more emphasis on the Dutch aspect. 85 Catalog nederlands bijdrage tot de internationale ontwikkeling sedert 1945, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1962, n.p.
287 gouaches, aquarelles and prints on the last page of the catalog.86 This inconsistent and apparently arbitrary use of the three languages seemed on the one hand a bit unprofessional but on the other, adds to the informal, lively and unconventional character of the catalog. Although the author of the introduction was not given, it was obvious that Sandberg was responsible for the text: the Sandberg trademark of only lower case letters and the poem- like setting of the text are by 1962 recognizable to all in the art world. The first section of the introduction – the first seven ‘stanzas’ – was separated from the following part by a slightly larger gap between the verses. As mentioned above, this ‘introductory’ part of the introduction was only given in Dutch and French: there was no English translation. This was very strange, because it provided an important declaration by Sandberg: an impressive ode to the position and the function of “great artists” and “great art” in society. A message that would seem to concern all great contemporary art and artists, not only the Dutch. This first section will be included in a detailed analysis of Sandberg’s text, which will clarify why they were so acclaimed and persuasive. In a poetic emotional appeal, full of ornamentation, Sandberg displayed his ideology. According to Sandberg, the great artist, who was focused on the essence of things because he was free of considerations of usefulness, was the first in our society to sense and express the changing relationships between people and their surroundings.87 Here Sandberg built the honorability of the artist through amplification by stressing the fact that the artist is the first to pick up signals in our changing society and express them meaningfully. He also seemed to undermine any prejudice against artists being useless in society by explaining that the artist was focused on the essence of things. He explained that the ever changing style of great art could not be measured or judged by existing standards, since it grew according to its own new standards.88 And these new standards, ‘we’ were not capable of setting ourselves. At best ‘a sense of direction’ as to what was happening in society could guide ‘us’. The critic could position this art in his milieu and the ‘museum man’ had the duty to show this art, but both were not able to judge with reason,
86 There are many different examples of the inconsistent inclusion or omission of the different languages in the catalog. A number of ‘slip-ups’ seem to be inaccuracies such as the inconsistent summing up of the abbreviations in the three languages in which the sequence Dutch, French, English is altered. 87 The Dutch text is: “ingesteld op het wezen der dingen / doordat hij vrij is van overwegingen van nuttigheid / kan de grote kunstenaar deze wijzigende verhoudingen / als eerste voorvoelen / verbeelden, verklanken, verwoorden / er uitdrukking aan geven”. 88 The Dutch text reads: “de telkens veranderende vormgeving / kan niet met bestaande normen worden gemeten / maar groeit naar eigen nieuwe maatstaven / / grote kunst geworteld in het maatschappelijk gebeuren / kan bij zijn ontstaan niet worden beoordeeld / bij gebrek aan maatstaven”.
288 although, as Sandberg added, many did.89 In these statements, Sandberg relieved the public from the burden of trying to judge the quality and development of the newest art, for, as he explained, even the knowledgeable authorities were not able to do so. ‘We’ had but to follow great art, since there were no criteria to judge these newest developments. Sandberg then proceeded to build up the image of contemporary art as trustworthy and admirable – art that even though we could not understand or judge, we could use in order to understand the society we live in better. Sandberg used “we” and “our” and thus identified himself with the public, which made it easier for the reader to accept the arguments and gave him a sense of belonging to the art community. In this last stanza of Sandberg’s initial declaration, he clarified that “the great art of the present does not let itself be explained by the creations of the past” and he personified the great art of the present as “one who can guide us in current society if we turn to her”.90 By using personification (prosopopeia), Sandberg gave the art he was defending an authoritative position: a position as guide, as leader in contemporary issues in society. Furthermore, this use of personification enhanced the ‘vital’ aspect of the great art – which was the great quality Sandberg distinguished in art - and boosted the image of the ‘living’ museum. In this important introductory section of Sandberg’s introduction, he effectively used many figures of style which strengthened his message.91 The text was impressive: the language and rhythm were beautiful and strong, and the message was clear, yet empty of real content. The unusual, poetic form of expression Sandberg applied, was appropriate for him as an authoritative artist himself and fitting to the image of what he wanted the Stedelijk Museum to stand for: a lively cultural center, dedicated to social issues, where the contemporary artist could thrive and where a willing public could participate. The next part of the introduction – now in all three languages - consisted of the argumentation and explanation of how this great art developed and who the great artists were and why. The Dutch text is written in the present tense which gives a much more lively account of the historical setting, as it draws the reader in.92 Sandberg starts out by providing the social background of life between the two world wars, describing it as a period of calm -
89 The Dutch text is: “hoogstens / kan een richtingsgevoel ten opzichte / van hetgeen zich voltrekt in de gemeenschap / hier een weg wijzen // de criticus kan deze kunst / in zijn milieu plaatsen / de museum man heeft de plicht haar te tonen / geen van beiden kan met redelijkheid oordelen / velen doen het”. 90 The Dutch text: “de kunst van nu / laat zich niet verklaren / uit de scheppingen van het verleden / zij leidt ons binnen / in de gemeenschap van heden / zo wij ons vragend / tot haar wenden”. 91 For example the text in note 38, through its arrangement draws attention to the ‘essence of things’, of which nobody could argue its importance. The ability of the great artist to sense and express the essential changes in society is expressed in a alliterate repetition: “voorvoelen / verbeelden, verklanken, verwoorden”. 92 The French text is not consistent in its tenses, the English translation is in the past simple.
289 in which Holland lives “pleasantly” - and of belief in linear development, also in art, in which he positions ‘neue sachlichkeit” and abstraction.93 He presents this period, in two short verses, as slow, passive, distant and impersonal. In the first stanza, which is only three lines, he immediately sets the tone: “between the two wars / life in holland was smugly quiet / even the unemployment of the thirties / brought no fierce reaction”94. In the next verses, he says, the second world war changes everything: life becomes “feverish” and because of the daily threat and fear, age-old boundaries disappear and human contact becomes intense. Nobody believes in a victory for fascism: democracy shall win. The relationship between people has changed for ever, and a new world is about to be born.95 In these verses both the content and the form express change, a fast pace, intensity and vitality: the verses are now longer and packed with emotion of, first, fear, then hope and determination, ending in a climax: “the world is born again!”. Then comes the anti-climax. The paradox that with peace a new world is not born, that peace does not immediately bring progress: “but when peace broke out / the respectable citizens / hastily retreated to pre-war positions / looked back instead of ahead”. Sandberg cleverly uses ‘war vocabulary’ to express the negative changes peace brings: ‘peace breaks out’ and the respectable citizens ‘retreat’ (or perhaps as a closer translation, truer to the meaning of vluchten, I would suggest ‘flee’).96 And yet, as Sandberg continues, social conditions do improve, which change the political situation: the class struggle is forgotten and socialism, with its goals nearly attained, loses its appeal. This causes political life to doze off, as Sandberg puts it, “but” he immediately adds in juxtaposition, “not the artists”. 97 Sandberg then describes the rise of the new young group of artists. First, he juxtaposes them with the established artists, stating that the established artists - in contrast to the young group - “went on as if nothing had happened”, stressing the passive and socially uninvolved attitude of the established group.98 In line with this contrast, Sandberg has the established artist ‘go on’ (gaan voort) and the group of young artists ‘come to the fore’ (komt naar voren): a subtle difference in language suggesting a major difference in action.
93 Sandberg calls it ‘concrete kunst’. 94 This English translation was given in the catalog. In Dutch: “tussen beide oorlogen / leeft holland gemoedelijk / zelfs de werkloosheid verstoort de rust niet”. 95 The Dutch text: “hoe onwaarschijnlijk ook / niemand gelooft aan een fascistische zege: / de democratie zal overwinnen / de verhouding tussen mens en mens / is voor altijd gewijzigd / de wereld wordt herboren!”. 96 The Dutch text: “maar als de vrede uitbreekt / hasten de brave burgers / zich naar hun vooroorlogse post / vluchten in het verleden / vergeten vooruit te zien”. 97 “het politieke leven sukkelt in slaap / maar niet de kunstenaars”. 98 Dutch text: “zeker, de geslaagden gaan voort / alsof niet was gebeurd / maar / ineens komt een groep jongeren naar voren / ze hebben iets te zeggen / en ze zeggen het met een nieuwe klank / en met nieuw geweld”.
290 These young artists “have something to say”, says Sandberg, “and say it in a new tone / and with new violence”.99 By using the metaphor of speaking for painting, he not only contrasts these young artists with other artists, but also positions them in opposition to politicians, who, in this period, have nothing to say, as Sandberg has implied earlier. This adds to the social importance of the artists for society and therefore strengthens their ethos for the public. The use of “new violence” seems both to contrast with the ‘old violence’ of the war which, of course, was negative, and at the same time refer to the ‘old violence’ of the political and artistic revolutionaries fighting for social and artistic change which had disappeared. Sandberg continues by describing the artists’ resolute search for a new language, which he describes as “warm” and “living” and with which they can create for us a “whole new world”.100 Here, Sandberg seems to be saying that these young artists are capable of creating ‘a whole new world’ whereas Dutch society, coming out of the war with the same hopes, had not been able to.101 The new world that the young artists create is one “vibrant with energy / screaming, striking out, tearing and torn ”, which “rose all at once before us”. In the Dutch text the statement is even stronger, also because it is in the present tense which makes the image much more vivid, but it also has a stronger element of surprise: the last sentence literally says: “stands suddenly before us” (in Dutch: staat plotseling voor ons). With the choice of the word gewrocht , which has both the meaning of (excellent) creation and monstrosity, Sandberg presents their ‘violent’ works of art as ‘vibrant’ ingenious creations.102 So, even though the museum man is not capable of judging the new art, as Sandberg had stated earlier on, he makes it very clear to the reader that for him the qualities that make this art great are: it’s vitality, it’s new language and the fact that this art is a creation of the artist’s social commitment. After the climax of vividly presenting - in a stanza full of poetic style and imagery - a the new world, the new art, Sandberg seemed to make a sudden switch. The next seven verses provided ‘information’ on the artists, the development of the movement and the Stedelijk Museum’s role, in a more straightforward, much less stylistically elegant language. For the first time now Sandberg mentioned a ‘movement’ and gave it a name. He explained that “the
99 I have used my own translation here, to try to come closer to Sandberg’s text in form and content. The English translation given in the catalog is: “they had something to say / and said it in a new voice / violently”. 100 The Dutch text: “vastbesloten / gaan ze op zoek / naar een nieuwe taal / die warm is en levend // heel een nieuwe wereld / trillend van kracht / schreeuwend en slaand, verscheurend en verscheurd / gewrocht door hun handen / staat plotseling voor ons”. 101 See previous page of Sandberg’s text. 102 The French and English translations use “tout un monde nouveau de monsters” and “a new world of monsters”, which focus on the use of gewrocht as a monstrosity and in this case an actual monster.
291 movement is international / but the young dutchmen / provide an important contribution / in the years 1949-‘51”.103 The factual information on the international movement was transferred via an asterisk to the only note of the text. Here the name ‘cobra’ was mentioned for the first time in the catalog and the international references of its name were explained. Also the other artists – besides the Dutch - of the Cobra movement (1949-1951) were listed.104 As Sandberg had stated earlier in the first part of his introduction, the museum man had the duty to show great art. Now, he demonstrated his role as the museum man of the Stedelijk Museum: “the stedelijk showed confidence in them / by giving the first exuberant demonstration / which led to scandal”.105 This personification identified the Stedelijk Museum with Sandberg and visa versa. It also created a sympathetic feeling towards the museum for it’s human and courageous act. This act – this ‘first loud demonstration’ of the movement in the Stedelijk Museum – was, immediately in the next verse, commemorated by Sandberg as the starting point for a number of the artists in his present exhibition. It is interesting to note that Sandberg in his Dutch text marked the occasion of the first Cobra exhibition in his Museum as the starting point of the artists’ development, which gave him and the Museum a prominent role, whereas in the French and English translation, the whole period 1949-1951 was celebrated as the starting point.106 Of the artists who started then, and of whom the Museum now showed their development were listed: Appel, Constant, Corneille, Lucebert. They were the core figures, so it was presented, for the other painters – other “talents” as they were called - were said to have either joined in themselves (Benner and Lataster) or, as implied, been chosen to exhibit for a number of reasons which only became clear at the end of the text. No clue was given for why Wagemaker was included when he was introduced to the public by Sandberg: “wagemaker
103 The Dutch text says: “de beweging is international* / maar de jonge Hollanders / leveren een belangrijke bijdrage / in de jaren 1949-‘51”. Here I used my own translation. The English text in the catalog is: “in this international movement (cobra)* / of the years 1949-1951 / the young dutch artists / played an important part”. 104 In the English translation, as mentioned in the previous note, the name ‘cobra’ was given in the text in parentheses. 105 The Dutch text: “het stedelijk schenkt hun vertrouwen / en toont de eerste luidruchtige demonstratie / die leidt tot schandaal”. 106 The Dutch text starts with: “die gebeurtenis / nu al geschiedenis / heeft een start gegeven / aan verschillende kunstenaars / waarvan we nu de ontwikkeling tonen “ ... . the French text reads: “cette période / aujourd’hui entrée dans l’histoire / est devenue le point de depart / de plusieurs artistes / dont nous montrons maintenant l’eclosion …” . The English translation says: “that period / is history now / but it was the take-off / for many an artist / whose further development this exhibition traces …”. ‘Die gebeurtenis’, refers directly to the previously mentioned “eerste luidruchtige demonstratie”, which is of course the first Cobra exhibition in 1949.
292 came from a quite different background / and stands by himself in this exhibition”.107 The reason why the two painters who “developed abroad” were chosen, seems to be at first solely the fact that they were Dutch and cosmopolitan, which perhaps explained the happy announcement of their ‘arrival’: “we are happy to add two other painters / who developed abroad: bram van velde (paris) and bill de kooning (new york)”.108 Of the four sculptors in the exhibition, two were related to the cobra-movement in the text. Constant was said to have come from the cobra-movement but had moved away from it, and Wessel Couzijn was said to have come from a different tradition but “has moved closer and closer to cobra”.109 The two other sculptors, Carel Visser and André Volten, were described – in the next verse - as sculptors who “adhere to constructivism”, which was revealed as a tendency that is also (my italics) “firmly rooted in the dutch mentality”.110 The fact that Sandberg wrote ‘also’ (eveneens in Dutch), emphasized on the one hand , the fact that the cobra-movement was to be seen as a movement “firmly rooted in the dutch mentality” and on the other hand, that there were other worthwhile tendencies than cobra. The next verse was an abrupt and strange one, which seemed to have been stuck in between the seven previous informative verses and the last three verses - in which Sandberg gave account for the selection of the artists and praised them – for a reason. In a confident, almost aggressive manner, Sandberg attacked the ‘respectable citizens’ as he had done earlier, by stating the fact that “for sure, the respectable citizens” who had “entrenched” themselves in the past, “will feel a biting criticism in the art of the fiercest of the artists” and “shall take offense”, but as he added at the end, in English, “so what?”.111 This fierce contempt, which Sandberg displayed for the ‘respectable citizens’ who fled and hid in the past, was sharply contrasted in the epilogue of his introduction with the praise and admiration he showed for the selected artists in the exhibition. After explaining that it was not easy to make a restricted choice, for there were others “who would cut a good figure at this exhibition”, he went on to defend his selection: “we are convinced / that the personalities assembled here / notwithstanding their vast differences / are all of them driven to testify / by a strong sense of
107 The Dutch text: “wagemaker komt uit een heel andere hoek / en staat apart in dit gezelschap”. 108 It seems remarkable that Sandberg would refer here to Willem de Kooning as ‘bill de kooning’. It is clear that he here emphasizes the fact that de Kooning was imported into American art. All the other listings in the catalog are of Willem de Kooning . 109 It is remarkable that Sandberg only selected Constant for his sculptures. 110 The Dutch text: “carel visser en andré volten / gaan de richting van het constructivisme / een tendens die eveneens / sterk in de nederlandse aard verankerd is”. The English translation leaves out the ‘also’, the Dutch eveneens, which deflates the ‘Dutchness’ of the cobra-movement mentioned in the previous verse. 111 The Dutch text: “zeker / de brave burger / verschanst in het verleden / voelt een bijtende kritiek / in het werk van de felsten onder de kunstenaars / en stoot zich daaraan / so what?”.
293 human responsibility”.112A strong sense of human responsibility, we now learned, was what these artists shared and was what made them great artists. This honorable quality of one who acted on principle for the good of society indeed made a strong contrast with the established citizens and artists who looked out only for themselves and retreated in the past. The use of the metaphor ‘to testify’ (in Dutch ‘getuigen’) for to paint and to sculpt, strengthened the sense of commitment of the artists and of the seriousness of their art, which had often been associated with arbitrary and primitive scribbles. In the very last words of the final verse of Sandberg’s text: “we feel proud / of this dutch contribution / to the vital expression / of today”113, another quality is to be found which united the artists of this exhibition and defended their value: their contribution to the vital expression of today. Sandberg’s word vitaliteit had become by then his trademark and his essential criterion for great art.114 Sandberg’s other trademark, was also mentioned in his last words: his focus on ‘today’, on ‘now’ (nu). The artists’ ‘vitality of now, of today’ once again stood out against, the bourgeois passive acceptance of the past. This last verse showed a great similarity to Barr’s last words in his introduction to The New American Painting, in which he expressed nationalistic pride for the victory of the American artists. Here Sandberg also expressed pride for his fellow countrymen: “we feel proud / of this dutch contribution / to the vital expression / of today”. Sandberg’s epilogue, like Barr’s, called on the public to feel the same admiration and pride as they did. In the last verses of his text, Sandberg frequently used ‘we’. The ‘we’ referred to himself and to his Museum and gave the Museum a human face which made it easier for the public to relate to the Museum’s activities. It also, connected the reader to the same feelings expressed by Sandberg. 115 Sandberg’s introduction is in many ways different from Barr’s. There is the obvious difference in style. Sandberg’s is more philosophical and poetic, Barr’s is more practical and academic. Sandberg’s radical style of prose works effectively because of his message and the way it is presented. We accept it willingly because it fits Sandberg’s character, the Museum’s image as an experimental living center and the style of the living arts. In Sandberg’s introduction the great living artists are presented as liberators of society to whom we can look to for guidance. Sandberg’s argumentation for this is built on their vital
112 The Dutch text: “wij hebben hier persoonlijkheden / bijeengebracht / van wie wij menen / dat ondanks verschillen / een sterk menselijk verantwoordelijkheidsgevoel / hen drijft te getuigen”. 113 The Dutch text is: “en we zijn trots / op deze nederlandse bijdrage / tot de vitaliteit / van nu”. 114 It started with his exhibition de vitaliteit in de kunst in 1959 and continued on in many exhibitions and publications. 115 The first ‘we’ in the text is when Sandberg reflects on the first Cobra exhibition, nine verses from the end.
294 role in the post war years, they succeeded where politicians failed. His argumentation is short but persuasive. The active political role of the artists is built up in Sandberg’s text, whereas in Barr’s introduction the American artists themselves are presented as a-political, but their works of art are shown as symbols of the free-world politics. Sandberg’s argumentation is historical, not art-historical like Barr’s. There are no art historical explanations for the development of the new art, the focus is on their social function. Although Sandberg did not give the artists the art historical bedding that Barr provided, he did present the artists as the authority on art, as they were the only ones who could shape and understand the new language and criteria of the newest art.116 Both authors acknowledged their own roles as well as that of their museums. Sandberg’s introduction is the only text in the nederlands bijdrage tot de internationale ontwikkeling sedert 1945 catalog. After his contribution, the artists were presented. First a page listed the four sculptors’ and the eight painters’ names in alphabetical order. Then an impressive series of photographs of art works were shown: large, mostly full- page photographs. Just as he had done verbally in the introductory section of his text, Sandberg now personified the great art visually. The large photographs of the works of art were like visual personifications: portraits of creations with only the name of the artist listed in the corner and alongside each photograph the year of birth. No titles, no measurements, no listing of owners, nothing to distract from the presence of the work of art itself. These works of art were presented as living creations, extensions almost of the artists, instead of objects, products with a price tag. The works of art are presented from way up close; the reader can almost feel their material, he can almost smell the paint. The first photographs are of sculptures, they are in black-and-white. Constant is represented by one sculpture, Wessel Couzijn by three, and, Carel Visser and André Volten both by two. This ratio almost corresponds to the amount of sculptures actually shown in the exhibition.117 Then, an almost empty page is slipped in between, which once again lists the names of the eight painters now to be shown. Each painter is represented on four pages. The amount of paintings shown on these pages, however, varies per painter: some have more paintings on one page and others have one painting covering two pages.
116 See Sandberg’s text. 117 Constant has three sculptures in the show, Wessel Couzijn , Carel Visser and André Volten each show six. Couzijn receives the most attention in the photographs.
295 The paintings are almost all portrayed in color.118 They, even more than the sculptures, give a strong sense of presence. This is achieved by the fact that the photographs are often not ‘framed’ by blanc strips of page around them, but run right to the end of the page on a number of sides. This makes the viewer almost able to experience the painting itself, in stead of looking at a picture of it. The vibrant colors enhance this effect: the wild, bright paintings seem to jump out of the page. The strong, colorful presence of the photographed paintings provide a strong contrast with the next section of the catalog: the presentation of the Cobra-movement 1949-1951 and the Museum’s first Cobra exhibition in November 1949. With the turn of one page, the reader steps out of the present and back into history: the history of the Cobra-movement. This change is visualized by the immediate contrast between the colorful photographs of the previous pages and the large black-and-white photograph of the in actuality colorful and vibrant Constant of 1949. The use of the black-and-white photograph of this painting visualizes and emphasizes Sandberg’s statement on Constant in the introduction as having moved away from cobra. This first photograph of the historical section and the first photograph of the previous section of the new art make a pair: Constant in the past and Constant now. Sandberg’s message is clear: Constant was once a painter, now a sculptor. Opposite the photograph of Constant’s Cobra-painting is the title-page of the historical part which says : “cobra (Copenhagen brussel amsterstam) 1949-1951 / mouvement international / international movement”. Then, listed below - under the heading “nederlandse deelnemers participants neerlandais dutch participants:” - are the names of the dutch cobra artists of that period: karel appel eugene brands constant corneille lucebert anton rooskens theo wolvecamp. The other foreign artists are not even mentioned. The photograph of Constant’s painting - which had been painted especially for the Dutch Cobra-exhibition in 1949 – and the title-page together give the Cobra-movement a very Dutch face. This face- lifting continues on the next page, where cobra 1949-1951 is written in large bold letters followed by, once again, only the names of the Dutch participants. At the bottom of the page written in three languages is “4 large canvasses painted at the first cobra exhibition” and “stedelijk museum Amsterdam nov. 3-28 1949”. A small arrow points to the opposite page on which black-and-white photographs of the four paintings are shown with the names of the artists: “constant eugene brands karel appel” listed on the bottom. (fig. 160) Here a miniature version of the same Constant as just shown two-pages ago is presented together
118 All photographs are in color except for one De Kooning (zwart en wit, 1951), which is black-and-white and a Wagemaker (hommage a brassai, 1961).
296 with the other miniature black-and-white versions of the enormous wall-size paintings made for “the first exuberant demonstration” of Cobra. The next four pages are full of horizontal rows of small black-and-white reproductions, almost like strips of film, of works of art by the seven Cobra-painters. These small, black-and-white photographs of the ‘older’ works of art present a very different message than the previous large color photographs of the new art. (fig. 161) It is clear that the history of Cobra is being documented for posterity as a Dutch contribution to modern art. The documentary section of the catalog ends with a page full of installation shots of the Cobra exhibition in 1949, a very unusual display for a Stedelijk Museum catalog. In bold letters it says: “docum. cobra expo / stedelijk museum / nov. 3-28 1949 / Amsterdam”. The installation views show a lively ‘modern’ exhibition. A photograph of the Cobra-members is also shown on this page. Of the nine individuals, six are Dutch; their names are the only ones listed. With this page, Sandberg not only documents the Dutch Cobra, but also presents his exhibition and his own museum as important vehicles for great art. (fig. 162) The final section of the catalog provides the actual catalog of the exhibition and the biographies of the artists in three languages. The catalog lists the new paintings first, then the new sculptures – both by artist in alphabetical order. Then under the heading of ‘cobra’, the older works of art of the Cobra-period are listed by artist. The Cobra drawings, gouaches, ‘aquarel’, and prints, are listed together at the end, also by artist.119 The biographies of the artists are short, giving dates of birth, information on education and a few other important experiences and events, like the winning of international prizes. The only movements mentioned in these biographies are the ‘reflex group’, a Dutch experimental group closely linked to Cobra (this link, however, is not mentioned here), and Cobra itself. Compared to the information given on the artists in the New American Painting show, this seems rather meager. No listing is made here of national or international exhibitions in which the artists participated. The exhibition installation of nederlands bijdrage tot de internationale ontwikkeling sedert 1945 was, as the catalog showed, actually two exhibitions in one. In contrast to the ‘Sandberg’ arrangement in the catalog – which began in the present and moved back to the past – the exhibition seemed to start with the historical Cobra-section installed in the old 19th century building in the same type of rooms – close to the entrance of the museum - in which
119 As mentioned previously, the last list is not translated in French or in English.
297 the 1949 exhibition took place and moved on to the present period which was presented in Sandberg’s own modern wing. The installation of the Cobra-section showed great similarities with the ‘original’ 1949 exhibition installation by Aldo van Eyck, who had then created an unusual, lively composition by hanging the paintings and prints on different heights: some very high, others unusually low and by positioning other works on low podia, which were arranged throughout the rooms. Even a replica of the poet’s cage that Van Eyck had made for the group of poets who were associated with Cobra, was installed. It was not an exact copy, but was enough to function as a ‘memory’. The choice to recreate the revolutionary exhibition of 1949, showed that this was not only an exhibition about the artists, but that it was also, and perhaps mostly, a clear statement on the important position of the Cobra-movement and the Museum’s role in backing them.
The Artist’s Experiment
The presenting of living masters in both Museums had always entailed having the artists participate in their own presentations. This was often done within the ‘regular’ museum rituals: the retrospective, group or theme exhibitions and their catalogs. Sometimes the artists were asked to make a specific work within the museum walls either as a demonstration of the artistic process – as in the case of José Clemente Orozco’s removable eight-panel fresco in the Museum of Modern Art in 1940 - or as a functional decoration of the museum itself – such as: Johannes Itten’s Velum for the Stedelijk’s stairwell in 1938 or more recently, Appel’s Mural painting for the Stedelijk Museum restaurant, twenty years later. These presentations of the living artists were all very much still controlled by the museums. In the late 1950’s and 1960’s artists were stretching the boundaries of art more than ever: not only in the expanding use of all kinds of materials including junk materials (which sometimes after use were thrown out or self-destructed), but also in the reaching out to other art forms such as theater, music, poetry. As discussed in the beginning of this chapter, the gap between the public and the living artist and his art was wide: the value, quality and relevance of the newest art was being questioned. Furthermore, the artists were looking beyond their own studios to experiment and were seeking challenging new relationships with the public, the art institutions and society in general. A way for the museums to deal with this new relationship was to let the artists experiment in the museum space itself. In this way the museums – by granting its space -
298 would be actively participating in the creation of art, without having to judge it. This laboratory function of the museum fit the Stedelijk Museum better than the Museum of Modern Art. In Sandberg’s view experimentation by pioneer artists in the museum was necessary if the museum did not only want to reflect the past but also especially become an active element in the development of the art of ‘now’.120 Furthermore, for creativity to develop the play element was to be stimulated; activity was needed. Homo Ludens was even more relevant after the tragedies of War and seemed part of Dutch culture. Besides, according to Sandberg, great artists always experiment in the beginning.121 The Stedelijk Museum, as shall become clear, was to become the atelier of the artist: the artist’s own space in which to work, play and experiment. The atelier had always been highlighted as an important space by the Stedelijk. Already in early exhibitions of living artists such as 13 beeldhouwers uit parijs, the atelier had a dominant position.122 The catalog of the exhibition was dedicated to the ateliers: photographs were made of the ateliers by Emmy Andriesse and presented prominently on the cover and throughout the catalog. In the 1960’s a special exhibition series was initiated to provide space for young artists to experiment in the Museum; the name of the series was ‘Ateliers’. Various rooms throughout the Museum were at the young artists disposal. The Museum of Modern Art kept closer to careful and controlled experiments. In the 1950’s the Museum initiated the concept of having ‘new talent’ shows in which contemporary art could be tentatively presented, predominantly for the Museum members to enjoy and possibly purchase. The Museum presented itself as sponsor of new talent: “our object is to introduce and encourage new talent as it appears throughout the country, by bringing it to the attention or our metropolitan membership”.123 These small exhibitions were presented as try- outs for new, unknown artists who had not yet received a major exhibition in New York City. They still had the traditional set-up of hanging a few pictures on the wall or displaying a number of sculptures and were situated in the remote Member’s area of the Museum. These new talent shows were in no way controversial or experimental though. In 1971 a new series was started which was to answer to the growing protest of the lack of contemporary art in the
120 See also chapter 1. Sandberg explicitly stated this in a volume of Museumjournaal dedicated especially to Sandberg’s work in the Stedelijk, (Vol. 8, no. 8/9 (April-May 1963): p. 59). 121 Sandberg, Nu, as quoted in Petersen, Sandberg, designer+director of the Stedelijk, p. 134. 122 A number of other catalogs of Stedelijk exhibitions, enliven the artist’s working and living space through especially made photographs. In, for example, 6 zwitserse kunstenaars (1950) six personalities and their working space (ateliers) are brought to the public through Emmy Andriesse’s photographs of them in their habitat. The role of photography in the Stedelijk catalogues deserves further research. 123 Press Release 500425-32, April 28, 1950 “Series of Exhibitions showing new talent to open in Penthouse”, MoMA Library, NY
299 Museum and which would provide a controllable format for the position of the often controversial newest art.124 This Project series provided a more prominent – yet carefully restricted - space and system for experimental work of new art: the ground-floor Projects room was located off the Garden Hall on the way to the restaurant, leaving the upstairs galleries of masterpieces untouched. In the sixties there were a number of exhibitions in both Museums that dealt with the artist’s experimentation and the new experimental art and which illustrate the different approaches to this genre very clearly. Comparable in subject-matter and artists involved, were the following exhibitions in the Museum of Modern Art: the experimental Homage to New York in March 1960 and the experimental shows in the Stedelijk Museum: Bewogen Beweging in 1961 and Dylaby in 1962. These shall be analyzed first. Thereafter, Conceptual art shows are compared in both Museums: two shows on conceptual art - Spaces in 1969 and Information in 1970 in the Museum of Modern Art ; and, the conceptual art exhibition Op Losse Schroeven in 1969 in the Stedelijk. The two Museums showed two different approaches. Besides the difference between the Museum of Modern Art’s controlled ‘project’ approach and the Stedelijk’s ‘atelier’ concept, another difference will become apparent. The exhibitions and manifestations in the Museum of Modern Art presented the message that contemporary art was to be admired, was to be thought about, rationally, intellectually and positioned historically. In order to make it understandable it was linked to respectable images such as the machine, science and mass media. Contemporary Art was to be regarded as a serious matter and needed to be defended in times of political and social unrest. The Museum had to show its authoritative position as modern art museum for its influential trustees. The experimental shows in the Stedelijk Museum however, presented the message that for creativity to develop play was to be stimulated. This was also the way to reach the larger public for whom the message was that contemporary art was to be experienced; it was to be approached emotionally: for fun, for excitement, for a moving experience and is to be positioned in everyday life.
124 The Project series was initiated right after the controversial 1970 Information exhibition and was to be directed by the same director, Kynaston McShine.
300 Controlled Experiment in MoMA
Although the Museum of Modern Art was not famed for its experimental exhibitions, it was MoMA that had the premiere of Jean Tinguely’s experimentation in a museum setting: his first self-destructing machine. On March 17, 1960, the Museum of Modern Art housed what perhaps might best be called a ‘private viewing’ of the self-construction and the self-destruction of Tinguely’s Homage to New York. The Museum of Modern Art offered Tinguely space to build and present his machine.125 In three weeks time Tinguely -with the help a number of engineers and artists – collected the junk materials and put his structure together in the dome of the Museum. The demonstration of the machine was to be held after closing one early evening in the Sculpture Garden for a select audience. The press communiqué - which was to be released the day after the event - announced: “A machine, 23 feet long and 27 feet high, conceived and built by the Swiss-born artist Jean Tinguely so that it destroys itself when set in motion, will be shown in the garden of the Museum of Modern Art Thursday evening, March 17 from 6:30 to 7:00 p.m. before an invited audience.126 As described by a participant/witness of the event, ladies with mink coats watched the choreography of the self-destructing machine from the safe restaurant area and saw how the artist moved around his machine like an actor.127 The delivery of this experiment was like the staging of a play or grand spectacle: a numbered audience came to the Museum garden at a set time in the evening, scheduled from 6:30 to 7:00 P.M., to view - in the dark, on a lit stage - the artist and his machine star in a drama of destruction. The choice to make this presentation an exclusive performance enhanced its elite quality and therefore its importance. The outcome of this restricted delivery was that it became, what the artist himself called “a perfect work of art”, with a maximum of upheaval128: “seldom has a work of art been talked about by so many and seen by so few”, as was reminisced a year later in the Stedelijk Museum catalog of the experimental exhibition, Bewogen Beweging.129
125 Apparently Tinguely’s idea had been to use a large Manhattan assembly hall for the demonstration of his self- destructive machine, “but the Museum of Modern Art came into the picture and offered Jean its Sculpture Garden as the site, and the dome to work in.” See Kluver, “The Garden Party” in catalog The Machine as seen at the end of the mechanical age, New York, 1968, p. 169. 126 Press release No. 27 for release Friday, March 18, 1960, p. 1. MoMA Library, NY. 127 See Kluver, “The Garden Party”, pp. 169-171. 128 Tinguely in an interview in L’Oeil, no. 136, April 1966, quoted in the Stedelijk Museum catalog nr. 545: Jean Tinguely, 1973, not paginated , says: “ … everybody was furious, everybody talked about it, nobody had seen it. It was really fantastic. Really a perfect work of art …”. 129 Catalog Bewogen Beweging.
301 The sculpture-spectacle Homage to New York can be described as a safely staged, controlled experiment for an elite public: a show in which the lucky few witness a spectacle in a ‘garden party’ setting.130 The fact that it took place in the garden positions the experiment – literally and figuratively - within the Museum domain yet safely outside its walls. This contained experiment enhanced the Museum’s power (dunamis): it showed the Museum’s potency, its capacity to participate in this new experimental art without actually letting its authority slide. The Museum welcomed the artist, but under its conditions. This ‘participating’ in the artist’s experiment contrasted with the way in which the Stedelijk Museum actively participated by actually letting the artists take over: an actual, lively realization of the process of experimentation.131 The Stedelijk’s style of expression of vitality and activity (energeia) is central in its approach to the participation of the living artist in the Museum. The styles of both museums were strong and convincing and fit the individual museum’s settings. In the Press Release for Homage to New York, which was released the day after the destruction, but prepared beforehand, a clinical description was given of the composition of the machine, frequently stating the exact numbers of the various components such as: “80 bicycle wheels … powered by 15 motors controlled by 8 timers … after 30 minutes the entire machine will collapse to the ground.”132 Then followed a summing up of the machine’s actions: an ‘objective’ description, like a reported narrative, of the various events that were to take place when the machine was set in motion. Although the description was such so as to give the reader a lively account of the happening, it was presented in a technical manner much like a report of an exact, scientific experiment. The fact that the information was provided by the Museum before the event had taken place, actually denies the uncontrolled aspect of Tinguely’s machine, which in actuality constructed and destroyed itself very differently than planned. As announced - and lavishly quoted - in the press release, the broadside, mentioned above, titled Homage to New York was published and distributed by the Museum and contained statements by the authorities: Peter Selz, Curator of Painting and Sculpture Exhibitions; Alfred Barr, Director of Museum Collections; K.G. Hultén, the Director of the Stockholm National Museum; the critic, Dore Ashton; Marcel Duchamp and Richard
130 Billy Kluver, who assisted Tinguely in the building of Homage to New York, wrote an essay on the event shortly after it had taken place. The title of his essay, The Garden Party, he took from a review in The Nation, vol. CXC, March 26, 1960, p. 267. The whole essay and a commentary on it were included in the Museum of Modern Art catalog The Machine as seen at the end of the mechanical age, written by K.G. Pontus Hultén in 1968. Kluver also participated in the Stedelijk Museum exhibition Bewogen Beweging in 1961 as ‘vertegenwoordiger in de V.S.’ (mentioned on the first page of the catalog Bewogen Beweging). 131 Aristotle contrasted dunamis with energeia in his Rhetoric. See ‘Glossarium’ in Aristotles’ Retorica. 132 See Press Release No. 27, Friday, March 18, 1960, p. 1. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY.
302 Huelsenbeck, described in the press release as “one of the original founders of the Zurich Dada group in 1916 and leader of the Berlin Dadaists”.133 This document explained Tinguely’s machine philosophically and positioned this work of art in contemporary society and art history. At the top of the publication a copy of a preliminary drawing of Homage to New York was graphically presented as a working plan with arrows pointing in all directions and indications of a horizontal and vertical axis to give the height and length of the planned construction in meters. (fig. 163) This same sketch, which was presented here as the program of construction and destruction, would later be displayed as a work of art in its own right.134 Selz, the curator responsible for the show, opened his statement – titled Homage to New York - with a philosophical truism which he connected directly to the public and set up his audience for the acceptance of the work of art as a natural outcome of the Heraclitan philosophy of change: “We know that emotion cannot be petrified, that love cannot be bound, that life cannot be conserved and time cannot be held”.135Selz explained that Tinguely’s experiments were “works of art in which time, movement and gesture are demonstrated – not merely evoked.”136 Tinguely, “being very much part of his time”, used machines for his demonstration. Selz personified the self-destroying machine and compared it to New York life which had “maximum concentration of human life and energy, a virility which accelerates its own dissolution”: “Rendered helpless, it (the machine) no longer operates in its normal way. It destroys itself more quickly because it performs more intensely”.137 Towards the end of his statement, Selz confronted his public with a convincing conclusion in which he connected the life and destiny of the work of art with that of his New York audience: “Its dynamic energy as well as its final self-destruction – are they not artistic equivalents for our own culture?”138 Through the use of this rhetorical question Selz once again – as he had done in his opening statement - endeared himself to his public and built his own credibility. In his last sentence he focused on Tinguely’s virtue by pointing to the fact that he selflessly “has conceived and built this sculpture and is eager to witness its loss so that we may witness its choreography”,
133 See Press Release No. 27, Friday, March 18, 1960, p. 2. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 134 Hulten, The Museum as seen at the end of the mechanical age, p. 168: “Felt pen and ink on bristol board, 22 1/8 inch X 22 inch (sheet) The Museum of Modern Art, Gift of Peter Selz”. 135 Homage to New York, a broadside published by the Museum of Modern Art, New York, to accompany the self-construction and self-destruction of Homage to New York by Jean Tinguely, March 17, 1960. 136 Ibid. 137 Ibid. 138 Ibid.
303 implying that this selfless, virtuous deed was done for our sake and that he therefore deserved our respect.139 The theatrical delivery of Homage to New York was emphasized in the next statement of the pamphlet: Barr’s piece made actual references to ancient classical theatre and the spectacle of gladiator fights. Barr delivered this same statement at the opening ceremony before Homage to New York was set in motion. The title of Barr’s – for his doing very unusual and playful - short text was Tinguely ex machina, which clearly alluded to deus ex machina.140 Barr seemed to be stating that Tinguely’s machine brings the solution to the crisis in modern art. At the end of the text, the phrase Tinguely ex machina was repeated – now in bold and capital letters - together with another Latin phrase: MORITVRI TE SALVTAMVS, which hinted at the spectacle of the doomed self-destruction of the heroic fighting ‘machines’, the gladiators of the Roman Empire. At once Tinguely’s machine was personified as a hero: doomed to perish like all life, yet triumphantly. Disguised in playful, lighthearted and lively rhetoric, Barr neatly fit Tinguely into the Dada heritage he claimed for him141: “Forty years ago Tinguely’s grandadas thumbed their noses at Mona Lisa and Cézanne. Recently Tinguely himself has devised machines which shatter the placid shells of Arp’s immaculate eggs, machines which at the drop of a coin scribble a moustache on the automatistic Muse of abstract expressionism, and (wipe that smile off your face) an apocalyptic far-out breakthrough which, it is said, clinks and clanks, tingles and tangles, whirrs and buzzes, grinds and creaks, whistles and pops itself into a katabolic Gotterdammerung of junk and scrap.”142 In a genealogy with Dada granddads - Marcel Duchamp, who scribbled a moustache on Mona Lisa, and Francis Picabia, who portrayed Cézanne as a stuffed monkey - Tinguely was positioned as a Dada grandson who himself toyed with respected artists like Arp and important art movements like abstract expressionism. The comparison of the moustache scribbling on Mona Lisa with the “automatistic Muse of abstract expressionism” not only strengthened the significance of Tinguely as a direct offspring of Duchamp, it also amplified the importance of abstract expressionism which was now presented as dignified and authoritative enough to be toyed with.
139 Ibid. 140 This phrase originated from Greek and Roman theater and is related to a machine – a crane-like device - which would lower actors in their roles as gods onto the stage to resolve a hopeless situation. 141 In epideictic genre the individual to be praised is presented with an admirable genealogy which enhances the individuals virtue. 142 Ibid.
304 The vivid description Barr gave of Tinguely’s machine as “an apocalyptic far-out breakthrough, … which pops itself into a katabolic Gotterdammerung” was wittily aided by the almost audible summing up of the machine’s noisy actions (onomatopoeia): it “clinks and clanks, tingles and tangles, whirrs and buzzes, grinds and creaks, whistles and pops”. Barr’s use of up-to-date slang like ‘far-out’, and in the last sentence of his statement ‘with it’, positioned Tinguely’s art - and the Museum’s approach to it - smack in the middle of life in 1960. Barr concluded his jokey paragraph with a curious rhetorical question calling on a fictitious brotherhood of what Barr presented as a congenial group: “Oh great brotherhood of Jules Verne, Paul Klee, Sandy Calder, Leonardo da Vinci, Rube Goldberg, Marcel Duchamp, Piranesi, Man Ray, Picabia, Filippo Morghen, are you with it?”143 The use of hip jargon connected the contemporary public to the art of now, the art of Tinguely, and to that of the great kindred spirits of the recent and far past. The remaining contributions to the pamphlet came from outside authorities and add on to the pictures presented by the Museum officials. Hulten, the only other museum authority (and in actuality a personal friend of Tinguely), continued along the same line set out by Selz by describing Tinguely’s art as the personification of Heraclitan philosophy (this time without explicitly referring to the philosopher) - an art that carried with it its opposite: “His machines are not machines, they are anti-machines. They are mechanic and meta-mechanic. … They are pieces of life that have jumped out of the systems: out of good and bad, beauty and ugliness, right and wrong.”144 Hulten awarded Tinguely’s art the human capacity of wisdom, a wisdom which fits right in with Heraclitan philosophy: “This kind of art accepts changes, destruction, construction and chance, that rules anyway.”145 Ashton, the critic, preceded her statement with the title “Tinguely’s art is: ”, which carried in it the promise of a simple definition of what Tinguely’s art actually was, according to Ashton. Her following text consisted of a list of parallel descriptions of his art with each subheading starting with ‘An art of’, followed by (a) characteristic(s): spectacle, artlessness and imperfections, destructions enacted, and, movement. Each sentence was set in a parallel construction: the same structure of wording and punctuation marks which presents a clear and orderly picture. And even though Tinguely’s art was not explicitly defined, it was clear that the public was dealing with art (my italics). The fact that the word ‘art’ was constantly
143 Ibid. 144 Ibid. 145 Ibid.
305 repeated had the effect of stressing the information that Tinguely’s machine is to be considered as real art despite its controversial nature and material. That this was probably a difficult issue for the Museum accounted for the fact that the first quote of Dada specialist Richard Huelsenbeck taken from the pamphlet for the press release read: “So it is senseless to ask whether or not Tinguely’s machines are art. What they show in a very significant way is man’s struggle for survival in a scientific world”.146 Huelsenbeck and Marcel Duchamp were responsible for the last two contributions to the pamphlet Homage to New York. Huelsenbeck explained in a clear style and well-argued text the changing concept of art; that in the present situation of “universal crisis”, “art has come to demonstrate man’s attitude toward his basic problems.”147 He distinguished two types of art: what he called “‘classicistic’ art that relies on tradition, and Dada art that relies on shock for its effects.”148 As an authority on Dada himself, he called Tinguely a “Meta-Dadaist” and finished his statement with his (what the public must have seen as ‘expert’) judgment of Tinguely’s machine: “I think his work is one of the great breakthroughs in modern art. It is a giant step toward la realité nouvelle.”149 Duchamp’s playful contribution was printed in his own handwriting, which establishes, on the one hand, an informal and personal atmosphere, and on the other hand, creates an aura of artistic authority: the ‘actual’ handwriting and autograph of such a famous artist - almost a work of art itself. The text is like a riddle: four lines packed with puns and figures of repetition of letters, syllables, sounds and words. The text is in French and the fact that it is not translated here for the American public (in the press release an English translation is given) added to the quizzical and artistic effect of the poem.150 “si la scie scie la scie et si la scie qui scie la scie est la scie que scie la scie il y a suissscide métallique”
146 Press release No. 27, for release Friday, March 18, 1960, p. 2. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 147 Homage to New York, a broadside published by the Museum of Modern Art, New York, to accompany the self-construction and self-destruction of Homage to New York by Jean Tinguely, March 17, 1960 at The Museum of Modern Art Sculpture Garden. 148 Ibid. 149 Ibid. 150 The press release gives the following translation: “If the saw saws the saw, and if the saw which saws the saw is the saw which saws the saw, there is a metallic suicide.” The translation ignores the witty spelling of “suissscide” which seems to relate to “suisse” as in swiss perhaps referring to Tinguely’s nationality and to the many s’s in the poem and specifically the three s’s of the first three “scie” in the first three sentences which have been neatly positioned in a vertical line-up.
306 The positioning of this clever poetic contribution at the end of the pamphlet, summarized the attributing of Tinguely to the Dada lineage and put the audience in the ‘right’ frame of mind to approach Tinguely’s machine as an ingenious artistic expression, admired by important Museum officials, critics and acknowledged masters of modern art.
The Stedelijk’s Experimental Exhibitions
A year later the Stedelijk Museum presented, in association with the Moderna Museet in Stockholm, Tinguely’s sculpture-machines in a large exhibition Bewogen beweging.151 This exhibition was the first of two experimental shows – together with Dylaby a year later - that were to epitomize Sandberg’s ideas of how to show contemporary art in a living museum and how to draw the public in and encourage them to participate in his living museum. In Sandberg’s view experiment in the Museum was essential: it was necessary, he felt, to give a few important innovative artists whom he trusted carte blanche to make their own exhibition. As a graphic artist himself, he had stated the necessity to be given the freedom and the responsibility in order to create good design. As Sandberg was to voice a year after he retired: this was the only way to really present the newest in art, because, as he argued: “exhibitions show works of art, most often chosen by a museum man; pioneer artists are always a step ahead of the museum man; logical conclusion: grant a few artists whom you trust the freedom and opportunity to make an exhibition.”152 This he had already done successfully in 1949, when he opened his Museum for the Experimental Cobra group. Since then, he had presented this show in many publications as exemplary for his Stedelijk. Now towards the end of his reign, it seemed that Sandberg wanted once again to emphasize the experimental qualities of his exhibitions and present the contemporary artist as the authority to follow. Besides the focus on the necessity of experiment for the development of art, and on building the authoritative position of the living artist, there was also the strong desire to portray the Stedelijk as the bridge between the modern artist and the public: the image which has come down to us of these experimental sixties exhibitions – besides the fact that they
151 The exhibition Bewogen beweging was held in the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam from March 10 until April 17, 1961 before traveling on to the Moderna Museet in Stockholm and Louisiana Museum in Copenhagen. 152 The Dutch text is: “tentoonstellingen tonen werken, meestal gekozen door een museumman; baanbrekende kunstenaars zijn altijd een stap verder dan de museumman; logische gevolgtrekking: laat een paar kunstenaars waarin ge vertrouwen hebt, geheel vrij een expositie maken.” From Museumjournaal 8, no. 8/9 (April-May 1963): p. 59.
307 were ‘Sandberg’ exhibitions – is one of action of energetic artists, of lively participation of a curious public and of interaction between the two parties. This picture was shaped so clearly, thanks also to the series of photographs made of the shows by Ed van der Elsken, which as shall become clear, played an important part in the visualization of the Stedelijk’s image.153 Because of the strong emphasis on the experimental aspect of contemporary art and the interaction of the artists, the works of art and the public, it is often overlooked that the exhibition Bewogen beweging was actually set up as a historical survey of kinetic art in which there would be special room for the ideas and works of art of the contemporary artists interested in movement. The initial idea for a show on kinetic art in the Stedelijk came from Sandberg: he had become inspired by the theatrical art of Daniel Spoerri and asked him to make a plan for a show which would encourage the participation of the public. Hultén, the director of the Stockholm Moderna Museet, had been playing with the same ideas for a show on kinetic art, so the decision was made to make a co-production. The exhibition committee – as acknowledged in the catalog – finally consisted of Sandberg, Hultén, Spoerri and Tinguely, who had also been asked to participate.154 Sandberg let the others take over: even the catalog and poster – his own special interests - were not to be designed by him this time. He was, however, responsible for the clever title of the show. The title of the show ‘Bewogen beweging, has everything a good title needs: it is crisp, clear and catchy and is full of associations. Due to the alliteration and assonance of the two words, the idea of movement is strengthened by the rhythm of the syllables. Bewogen (moved) beweging (movement) underlines the importance of public interaction: the works of art need to be activated by the public in order to move. The title also carries both the past and the present, as does the exhibition itself, and it uses both meanings of ‘moving’: the literal meaning of action and the expressive, poignant quality of feeling. The tone of the exhibition was already set at the entrance to the Museum: A ten meter high mobile made by Tinguely out of waste materials – with lots of bicycle wheels! – welcomes the curious public to the show. (fig. 164) This introduction set the emotions in gear – it excited feelings of curiosity for those who chose to enter. It was clear from the start: the delivery of this new art imitated the art itself. The opening of Bewogen beweging was a moving spectacle full of interactive play. Tinguely, who was actually the star and face of this show in many ways, activated his large
153 To be seen in Sandberg, “Kunstler und Gesellschaft”, pp. 3-18. 154 B. Kluver, the same man who had assisted Tinguely with his Homage to New York was listed in the catalog as representative in the United States of America.
308 drawing machine in the restaurant of the Stedelijk - against the background décor of Appel’s fresco - in front of a large, mixed audience, who got to witness the spectacle from way up close. (This presents a strong contrast with the neat and safe opening of Tinguely’s machine in New York.) After the demonstration of the mass-production of ‘the drawings’(at a rate of 10,000 copies an hour), Tinguely signed and dedicated the drawings like a real movie-star for an excited audience. The arrangement of the exhibition was basically chronological and worked its way up to a climax. The first rooms of the exhibition were for the older masters of movement: Picabia, Malevich and Duchamp, with drawings and the first objects of movement, like the by then famous bicycle wheel, which was to become the icon of the show for the catalog. Duchamp, by then seventy-four year old and an acknowledged authority in modern art, actually actively participated in the exhibition by playing a game of intercontinental chess with a small group of Amsterdam schoolchildren and students. A large demonstration chess board placed up against a wall in the Museum demonstrated the daily movements of the game. Everyday Duchamp telegraphed his move from New York. The counter-move was signaled back to New York where the game could be watched in a real chess studio.155 This long-distance game of chess added to the playful quality of the exhibition and visualized the active participation and interaction between artists and public. Besides Duchamp, Calder was also presented as one of the leading masters of movement of the older generation and he too was prominently positioned in the exhibition – as he was in the catalog: a large number of his works – especially mobiles – were staged so as to ensure that they would mingle with the visitors.(fig. 165) One had to meander through the cheerful nodding constructions, which seemed to greet the public from all angles: the placement of the works of art encouraged participation. The largest number of the over 200 works of art were by contemporary artists and it became clear that their presence set the tone of the spectacle. As promised at the entrance with Tinguely’s big bang, most attention went to the rooms where the artist’s experiments excited and challenged the public: Ultvedt’s mill made of waste wood moved intriguingly between the other works of art and the public; Soto’s room, which was hung with nylon threading, seemed to move when the public encountered his vibrating objects; the dark stage setting for Schoffer’s light-sculptures enhanced the feelings of awe, and of course, Tinguely’s loud and throbbing collection of mechanical sculptures - needing to be activated by the public to
155 The chess studio was Rossolimo in Sullivan Street in New York. See Ree, Een blinde reus, p. 175.
309 perform - excited and entertained the audience the most. Included was the work Homage to Marcel Duchamp of 1960 with its physical references to the Duchamp’s bicycle wheel, which tied the whole show together. The catalog Bewogen beweging was compiled and edited by Hultén, who was also responsible for its extensive introduction. The shape of the catalog reflected the eccentricity of the exhibition’s approach to the subject and the desire to confront the public with new ideas.156 The chosen shape was a real eye-catcher: with its unusually long, oblong format it was impossible to conceal and therefore provided perfect publicity for the exhibition: when the museum public returned home after visiting the Museum, the catalog could be spotted on streets, in trams and in trains, as Sandberg commented months later.157 (fig. 166) On the front and back of the catalog – which was made of rough brown cardboard and therefore recognizable as a Stedelijk product – a silhouette of Marcel Duchamp’s rotatible bicycle wheel stands in a neutral background of blank cover and – on the front – in front of a long row of round targets, which optically suggest movement. On the title page of the catalog both Sandberg and Hultén had written a preface. Sandberg’s short poetic contribution is in French (with no translation) and is spread out vertically on the top half of the page: handwritten words and sentences move irregularly, yet progressively, across the page. The French translation of the title, Bewogen beweging, works just as cleverly as the Dutch, in both connotation as in cadence: Mouvement émouvant. Sandberg’s text is revealing: “ “mouvement émouvant” / le motif: / le mouvement / et l’émotion qu’il mobilize / chez les personnes mouvables / artistes émus / critiques immobiles / mobilisent un public remué”.158 Sandberg’s message seemed to be that this movement in art had the capacity to connect the artists, who were expressing their ideas and emotions in their art, with a public that could be moved by the works of art, a public that could be reached if receptive and willing. Contrary to the open-minded audience: to whom he was appealing, Sandberg criticized critical opponents who were not to be reached and who were bound to revolt against this type of art. By anticipating (and discrediting) this future reaction, Sandberg
156 Hultén acknowledged the fact that the idea to print this odd shaped catalog was indeed eccentric. At the end of the catalog he wrote: “Hubert Johansson en de samensteller waren niet van hun buitennissige (sic) denkbeelden af te brengen en drukten deze lange catalogus in boekdruk … ”. Hultén, Bewogen beweging. 157 See the caption by the photograph by Ed van der Elsken of the young man holding the catalog in Sandberg, “Künstler und Gesellschaft”: text in German, French and English. The English text reads: “The catalog, 57 cms. long, is incapable of concealment. Visitors to the exhibition thus make exhibition propaganda in the street, in trains and trams.” 158 In English this could perhaps be translated by: “Moving movement” / the reason: (or also: the subject: ) / the movement / and the emotion that it mobilizes / in people who are movable / artists who are moved / immovable critics / mobilize a moved audience.
310 cunningly intercepted the expected first response of many. He visually displayed this opposing attitude of the critics (or criticisms) by positioning the words ‘critiques immobliles’ in a steep contrasting direction. The only sentence of the text that was presented level was the last: ‘mobilisent un public remué’; it stated the main reason for the exhibition. In Hultén’s preface, on the bottom end of the page, the emphasis was also on the interaction between the art of the exhibition and the public. The subject of kinetic art was described as one that had the attraction of the offensive, the scandalous, “but” as he said in a rhetorical question: “wouldn’t there be enough energy in kinetic art to actually tighten the bond between art and public.?”159 The content of the catalog provided a varied approach to the audience in order to tackle the generally accepted opinions of the public. The first section was an impressive compilation of quotes and excerpts of text, written by various philosophers, artists, and writers, in five different languages (without any translations): French, English, German, Dutch and Italian. The use of all the different languages proved the broad international setting of this new art. The intellectual potpourri of texts did not provide a clear introduction to the catalog of a show that wished to bridge the gap between contemporary art and the public. It did, however, provide an impressive and studious background for art that was being attacked as being trivial and trashy. Like pieces of a complex puzzle, the different quotes were randomly mixed, so as to stimulate the mental piecing together of this new puzzling art: the public was set in a curious state of mind. The lack of structure and clarity in this first section was somewhat overcome by the insertion of a number of photographs of works of art or artists at work with short captions in Dutch, listed under two headings: De gestolde beweging ( of which there were three examples: I, II, III) and De droom van de irrationele machine (of which there were two: I and II).160 These insertions work as anchors for the reader, providing a sense of grip in the sea of texts. The examples of ‘the solidified movement’(De gestolde beweging) with photographs of artists in action, show Jackson Pollock and his dripping technique, Georges Mathieu’s acting out of painting, and Yves Klein in the process of creating his blue anthropometrics. The two examples of ‘the dream of the irrational machine’(De droom van de irrationele machine) are by Picabia and Rube Goldberg. Both sequences provided welcome visual explanations of concrete examples and singled out two important concepts of the new art: movement and machines.161
159 See Hulten’s preface in the catalog Bewogen beweging. 160 Hultén, Bewogen beweging, pp. 2-6. 161 Ibid., pp. 4-6.
311 ‘The short lexicon of some of the artists who have worked with kinetic art’, was the second part of the catalog, and provided a clear, lively picture of the various artists working with different aspects of kinetic art. In contrast to the first section of the catalog, this part was clearly structured - the artists were presented in alphabetical order - and the accompanying texts were all in Dutch. Hultén’s own contribution to the catalog was a historical survey of the development of the movement in art in the 20th century, which was actually printed as a folded insert.162 It is a well-illustrated exposé of the development of many of the same artists mentioned in the previous sections and established a historical framework for the major artists involved. This aspect of positioning the contemporary artist in history shall be discussed further on. Although the exhibition and the catalog did have a historical component, this was not the image that this exhibition produced. The main theme was the newest development in kinetic art and the playful, activating quality this new art could have to reach the public. This seemed to have been the main objective of this show: to demonstrate that living art could communicate with a broad public and that the Stedelijk was the museum in which both the artists and the public felt at home: a place where the two could meet. This goal of Bewogen beweging was reached by and recorded in the visualization of the show in the photographs by Ed van der Elsken. Sandberg was very aware of the power of these pictures to present a lively atmosphere of the ideal Stedelijk he (had always) wanted to create : “a place where people dare to talk, kiss, laugh and be themselves / a real center for present-day life”.163 These photographs became the living proof that modern artists could communicate with the public and vice versa, and these photographs said more about the relationship between the public and art than any dissertation ever could, according to Sandberg.164 In October 1961, a few months after the Amsterdam showing of Bewogen beweging, Sandberg published an article along with these photographs by Ed van der Elsken in a international magazine Form, documenting the impact of the exhibition.165 By using this visual report, this vivid depiction of the exhibition, the value and meaning of the Bewogen beweging show was set soon after the exhibition had left Amsterdam. Even though this report is not a museum publication, it does provide a clear picture of how Sandberg created the image of this important exhibition and therefore justifies a closer analysis.
162 K.G. Hultén, “Beknopt overzicht van de ontwikkeling der bewegende kunst in de twintigste eeuw” in Bewogen beweging. 163 Sandberg, Nu, n.p. 164 See Sandberg, “Künstler und Gesellschaft”, pp. 3-18. 165 Ibid. Sandberg was co-founder and one of the editors of the magazine.
312 The first page of the article devoted to Bewogen beweging was a collage of newspaper and magazine clippings with reactions from the press. Despite the random appearance of the collage, the choice of the selected printed sections and illustrations is significant; the collage calls upon the public to draw the obvious conclusions. First of all, the references to Sandberg himself are dominant: the prominently placed ‘Stedelijk = Sandberg’, in large, bold, playful print; ‘de smidse van sandberg’ (meaning Sandberg’s forge) at the top, and the cartoon of Sandberg being ticketed by the Amsterdam police. The message could not be mistaken: this was Sandberg’s exhibition. (fig. 167) Furthermore, the fragments of headlines disclosed important signals concerning the excitement and attraction of the museum scandal and the desired image of the museum and of this exhibition: that the Stedelijk had a world premiere of kinetic art; that the Stedelijk was a hands-on museum and that the works of art (fairground- like attractions) aroused emotions.166 Sandberg’s text on the following page starts with a large, bold printed anonymous quote: ‘“der kunstler hat den kontakt mit dem publikum verloren” sagt man.’ (‘ “the artist has lost contact with the public”, it is said’), which is presented as the title of Sandberg’s contribution. Sandberg’s page of text is positioned in between the upheaval of the Dutch press – on the previous page - and the participation and delight of the exhibition public – on the following pages: This juxtaposition of the emotions of the press and the emotions of the public was the visualization of the contrast he foresaw and presented so poetically in the catalog of the exhibition. In his text, Sandberg explained the theme of the exhibition and its emphasis on younger artists, especially Tinguely. No mention was made at all of the participation of the Stockholm museum and the contributions of Spoerri and Hultén. Sandberg even displayed a small copy of the long jacket of the catalog next to his text and, because no mention is made of Hultén, seemed to claim the whole project as an Amsterdam Stedelijk event. On the same page Sandberg announced Ed van der Elsken’s photo-documentation of the exhibition and presented Van der Elsken as an acknowledged expert in photography: “a storyteller in photographs”.167
166 Quotes from the page of clippings: “Wereldprimeur te Amsterdam: “Kunst der bewegende voorwerpen”(World premiere in Amsterdam: “Art of moving objects”); “museum waar men alles mag aanraken” (museum in which one can touch everything); “kermisattracties in Amsterdams museum … boos maken en lachen …” (fairground attractions in Amsterdam museum … make angry and laugh). 167 Sandberg builds the authority of Van der Elsken by writing that Peter Pollack, in his thorough book on the picture history of photography from the earliest beginnings to the present, dedicated a whole chapter to Ed van der Elsken: “Storyteller in photographs” between Brassai and Cartier-Bresson. See Sandberg, “Künstler und Gesellschaft”.
313 The same statement, ‘“der kunstler hat den kontakt mit dem publikum verloren”, sagt man’ – in the same bold printing - was repeated on the next page preceding the photo reportage, which underlined its importance.168 The statement, now, was juxtaposed with the following pictorial statement by Van der Elsken; after viewing these photographs there could be no doubt as to which statement held true. Sandberg had added short captions to accompany a number of photographs, in which he emphasized the real, honest and emotional interaction between the public, the artists and the works of art, such as: “young and old are fascinated by the movement”, “all visitors may operate the machines”, and, “tensed and relaxed – moved through movement”.169 As Sandberg was to comment two years later - looking back on the accomplishments of his Stedelijk career - on the significance of Bewogen beweging: this exhibition was responsible for a number of temporary works of art, made by Ultvedt and Tinguely, “of acute importance”. In the exhibition, “the visitor could activate the movement himself, but stood next to the work”.170 Sandberg wanted to amplify the importance of the living museum and the interaction with the artists and public, so he took the interaction – and the experiment - a step further and pursued the idea initiated by Tinguely for the exhibition Dylaby a year later.171
In many ways Dylaby was a repetition of the message of Bewogen beweging and yet Dylaby amplified it by taking it a few steps further and actually brought the idea to a climax. Dylaby is a prime example of how delivery can persuade: how presentation can reach the emotions through energy in expression, through visual vividness. The Museum now gave the artists carte blanche to experiment: it created the opportunity for the artists to construct - within three weeks - their ‘dynamic labyrinth’ in seven rooms with the assistance of museum personnel. The organization of the exhibition was in the hands of Tinguely and the other contributing artists – of whom a few are known from
168 The fixation with the concept of the interaction of the contemporary artist and the public statement was not a new issue for him at it seems to have come full circle in Sandberg’s career at the Stedelijk. When Sandberg started in the Stedelijk in 1938, he participated in the organization of his first really important exhibition Abstracte Kunst in the same year. In the catalog of this exhibition S. Giedion wrote an article on the relationship between the artist and the public: ‘Hebben wij nog behoefte aan kunstenaars?’(Are we still in need of artists?). One of the subheadings reminds us of the German statement ‘“der künstler hat den kontakt mit dem publikum verloren”, sagt man’: ‘De kunstenaar heeft het contact verloren’, ‘The artist has lost contact’. See catalog Abstracte Kunst, p. 15. 169 See Sandberg, “Künstler und Gesellschaft”. 170 See “Sandberg over zijn werk in het Stedelijk” in: Museumjournaal 8, no. 8/9 (April-May 1963): p. 59. 171 For years Tinguely had been working on ideas and projects similar to this ‘dynamic labyrinth’ – in various European countries - which were often crossovers between theatre and visual art. The projects were all geared towards activating the audience and public.
314 Bewogen beweging – De Saint Phalle, Spoerri, Ultvedt, Rauschenberg, Raysse. The ‘works of art’ to be displayed were non-existent at the beginning of the operation and were specially made for this exhibition of worthless, found or cheaply bought objects and waste materials. The created works of art were not ordinary objects of art, they were installations, environments created for the public to interact with and to be dismantled and disappear afterwards; only a few remnants were saved, either as works of art or as objects to be reused by the artists.172 There were neither explanations nor art historical settings given. The art was to be experienced, as life itself. This does not mean that the Stedelijk was not defining the newest art: by welcoming these experimental contraptions within the museum walls, it was claiming – together with the artists – the new boundaries and functions for visual art. The title of the show ‘Dylaby’ is Tinguely’s. It is a term used previously for other projects, but for the public, who was unaware of this as yet, it worked magically and mysteriously. The idea of entering a ‘dynamic labyrinth’ created expectations of mysterious adventures. (fig. 168) The adventure started with the choice at the entrance: the visitor had to make his first decision, which doorway to take. Rauschenberg’s double arrow, which was painted on a panel and fastened to a tire, hung over the two doorways of the entrance.173 The double arrow became the emblem of the show, it marked the entrance of the exhibition and of the catalog. Immediately on entering the first room, the visitor was set in the dark. With no idea as to what was to come, he had to feel his way around in the literal darkness of Spoerri’s maze. All the senses were activated as the visitor moved his way through the slanting, unstable corridors filled with unexpected objects with various tactile, audible and visual surprises, like wet sponges, warm panels, mircrophones and flashing lights. In this room Spoerri’s “tableau piege”174- hung on one of the walls close to the other entrance to the room (which offers a short-cut through the maze) - felt completely at home. From the experience in this first room, it was at once clear that the visitor was to be entertained in this artistic fairground. Leaving Spoerri’s room, the visitor was greeted by a dwarf-size machine, topped with a feather, which moved randomly and spurted out irregular radio noises: it is Tinguely’s
172 According to C. Roodenburg-Schadd, the Stedelijk bought only one work from the show: Tinguely’s Radio Dylaby. See Roodenburg-Schadd, Expressie en ordening, p. 666. This sculpture had stood at the entrance of the second room of the exhibition before entering Ultvedt installation. See Ultvedt’s groundplan (photo) where it is marked as gedesynchroniseerde radio. 173 For a good description of the exhibition, see Petersen, “Dylaby, ein dynamisches Labyrinth im Stedelijk Museum 1962”, pp. 156-165. 174 Spoerri was making his tableaus pieges (snare pictures) already in 1960. They are tilted fixations of objects – placed for example on tables - in accidental arrangement of everyday situations.
315 Radio Dylaby welcoming the public to Ultvedt obstacle course in the second room, in which the visitors together with everyday objects like furniture and pans had become cogs in this walk-through machine. Spoerri’s second room, the third room in the labyrinth, is a mimesis of his own works of art: just like with his own tableaux pieges the laws of gravity were mocked in what could perhaps best described as this ‘chambre piege’. (fig. 169) Walking through this work of art shook the sense of reality, comparable to the experience of walking through a room of mirrors (a fair favorite): what you see is not real. The world was set up-side-down in quite another way in the following room designed by Raysse. In Raysse beach - as the room was to be remembered, thanks to the neon sign – an overabundance of plastic play toys of beach-time fun (blow-up beach balls, swans and ducks) cramped the little space which surrounded the ‘swimming pool’. The round black tiles worked like designated stepping-stones for the visitor to move through the room like living pawns in a life-size game. (fig. 170) In the next room, the visitor was once again confronted with Tinguely’s machines as he passed to the next attraction: De Saint Phalle’s shooting gallery. In this fairground favorite the visitor participated in the creation of the work of art: if skillful enough he could splatter the pristine white collage of animal and human look-a-likes with colorful paint by shooting the moving plastic bags of paint which hung above the giant collage at the far end of the room. Here the guides were not machines, but museum workers clad in tropical hunting gear, who handed the rifle to whomever wanted a go at it.175 This was of course a perfect attraction for the opening ceremony. And what could be better than to have the alderman De Roos, the city official responsible for cultural affairs in Amsterdam, fire the first shot. This was proof that this art communicated with people from all walks of life. On the way to the last two rooms of the show, the visitor passed through Ultvedt’s corridor of ghosts, who hovered over the passing public and moved when they did. Rauschenberg’s room was perhaps the least interactive physically, but had the estranging quality of an Alice-in-Wonderland world with the clocks running on different times. The last room, Tinguely’s balloon room, left the visitor with the right sense of playfulness and innocent lighthearted fun, that balloons instill in all of us. Here, in an empty space full of balloons marked with the name Dylaby, that floated and bounced through the room - activated by the blowing ventilators and the passing and playful public – the show
175 Petersen, “Dylaby, ein dynamisches Labyrinth im Stedelijk Museum 1962”, pp. 156-165.
316 came to an end. The balloon, which was predestined (and expected176) to pop, was as a contemporary metaphor for the fleeting art experience the visitor has just had. The image that the visitor left with, was the first he was confronted with when opening the accompanying catalog of the exhibition.177 In tune with the whole idea of the artists being in charge, the catalog was not a Sandberg product, but one that carried the stamp of the artists themselves.178 A black double arrow – the same as Rauschenberg’s double arrow that indicated the entrance of the exhibition - covered the white front of the jacket of the catalog, the back of the jacket is the reverse: white on black. The opening statement or introduction of the catalog was written by Sandberg, yet it is not signed, nor is it documented in the catalog that it was Sandberg’s text. The message, however, was unmistakably Sandberg’s with his two central ideas: the idea that this exhibition was all about artists wanting the public to participate and that a museum – and in this case his own Stedelijk - was a place for artists and public to meet. As he said: “artists gathered from several countries / with the aim to let the public / participate in their work / to let you see, feel, cooperate with them”179 He explained how the artists started from daily life, from sensations that we feel when confronted with unexpected situations. About this exhibition, he announced: “six artists in seven rooms / created surroundings full of variety / gay and weird, loud and silent / where you may laugh, get excited / or thoughtful // you are not outside the objects / but constantly within them / as part of the whole.”180 The text of the introduction is in Dutch and a section of it is in English. The statement on what a museum should be was - strangely enough - only in Dutch, perhaps because it had more to do with wanting and needing to convince the Dutch audience and local Amsterdam administrators of the right course of his museum policy. Sandberg defended his museum policy of creating a living museum – a place where people felt comfortable and met others. He said that even though the public might not always find what they expected in the museum, one could find things that one felt comfortable with
176 New balloons were constantly added when the old ones popped. That they were meant to pop, we can see on the meticulously drawn ground plan Ultvedt made as a loose map for the catalog. (see photo) 177 Catalog Dylaby, dynamisch labyrinth. 178 It was compiled and designed by Piet van der Have, from the Printing Cabinet of the Stedelijk Museum. He asked Rauschenberg to design the cover. Everybody loved his double arrow. See Petersen, “Dylaby, ein dynamisches Labyrinth im Stedelijk Museum 1962”, pp. 163-164. 179 The Dutch text is: “nu zijn er een aantal kunstenaars bijeengekomen / uit verschillende landen / die het publiek willen laten deelnemen aan hun werk / mee laten tasten, laten kijken, mee laten doen”. 180 In Dutch it says: “zes kunstenaars hebben in zeven ruimten / een wereld geschapen vol afwisseling / vrolijk, griezelig, luidruchtig en stil / waarin de bezoeker gelegenheid heeft / om zich op te winden, te lachen / na te denken / de bezoeker beschouwt de voorwerpen niet van buiten / maar bevindt zich voortdurend er middenin / maakt deel uit van het geheel”.
317 such as: “a cup of coffee, a poster, a book / and one can talk out loud about what has just been seen / or laugh / one no longer finds loneliness / alone or two together”.181 He concluded, in a rhetorical question, at the end of the text: “perhaps one wonders if one is actually in a museum – is a museum then not a place where artist and public meet each other?”.182 There was indeed in this exhibition, no doubt about it. In the Dylaby catalog photographs have a prominent position. It is as if Sandberg – after the experience of documenting the Bewogen Beweging show and using the photographs afterwards in an article to prove that artists do interact with the public – decided to use this method more efficiently and persuasively in the museum catalog itself this time. The Dylaby catalog now actually documented its own exhibition by including photographs of the exhibition itself. Ed van der Elsken, the same photographer who portrayed the Bewogen beweging exhibition, was now one of the participants in the show: he was asked to follow the artists and document the work in progress and the final outcome.183 The pages of the catalog were filled with photographs of the artists: portraits of the artists, the artists working on their installations in the designated museum rooms, and artists experiencing their own installations together with the public. Van der Elsken also documented the works of art, which were destined to disappear within a few weeks. He also captured the emotional reactions of the visitors. Emotional responses such as surprise, delight and excitement - promised by Sandberg in words - were documented by Van der Elsken providing proof of the exhibitions success. The artists, so important in this exhibition, were introduced to us ‘in person’ in the catalog. The reader actually gets to meet them up-close: the individual artists were photographed in such a way that it is as if the reader stands face-to-face with them, and look directly into their eyes. (fig. 171, 172) This intimate approach was enhanced by the ‘personal’ information that was given: the artist’s zodiac sign was displayed next to the name of the artist . Meeting the artists in this way, is as if we were meeting a new acquaintance. At once the gap between the artist and ourselves seemed to disappear, the artist became more ‘human’ and the viewer could sympathize with him (and her). A handwritten diary of the individual artist’s doings of the three weeks of making and installing the works of art was included as a
181 The whole Dutch text of this part is: “het publiek heft een meer of minder vage voorstelling / van wat het in een museum zou moeten vinden - / wanneer het zich werkelijk binnen waagt / beantwoordt de inhoud / soms wel aan de voorstelling maar dikwijls niet / maar men kan er tenminste al wat vertrouwds vinden / een kop koffie, een reproductie, een boek / en men kan hardop praten over het geziene / of lachen / men vindt er niet meer de eenzaamheid / alleen of getweeen”. 182 In Dutch it says: “misschien vraagt hij zich af / of hij nog wel in een museum is - / is een museum dan niet een plaats / waar kunstenaar en publiek / elkaar ontmoeten?” 183 See Petersen, “Dylaby, ein dynamisches Labyrinth im Stedelijk Museum 1962”, 163.
318 foldout in the catalog. This long list of activities gave the reader information on how and when the artists worked on their projects. It also provided a lot of trivial, personal information such as: “rests today and goes to the hairdressers”, “takes a bath”, “argues with Tinguely” or “eats too much”.184 All these day-to-day doings, helped the reader to identify with the artists.185 It also presented art as part of everyday life.
The Stedelijk’s Survey Show of Conceptual Artists
Seven years after the Dylaby exhibition and Sandberg’s retirement from the Museum, the Stedelijk put on another experimental artists’ exhibition: Op Losse Schroeven. The Museum still had its international reputation as a vanguard museum which had been built up by Sandberg and prolonged by De Wilde. Op Losse Schroeven: situaties en cryptostructuren, which was the official title, was held in the Stedelijk Museum in the Spring of 1969, a few months before the Museum of Modern Art’s Spaces exhibition and a year before the Information exhibition..186 Op Losse Schroeven, which was directed by the head curator of the Painting and Sculpture Department, Wim Beeren, was presented as one in a series of Stedelijk survey exhibitions in which new trends in the visual arts were put on display.187 The idea was to describe the “new climate” in art which, according to the catalog, was determined “equally by European and American artists.”188 Of the thirty-four artists in the exhibition, half were European and half were American. The title of the show “Op Losse Schroeven”(which literally means “on loose screws”) is translated in De Wilde’s preface in the catalog as meaning “square pegs in round holes”.189 De Wilde said that “the title gives a suggestion of the informal character of the exhibition. There are no formal characteristics of style: the matter-of-fact character of the recent years has ceded to the intrigue of incident and contrast”.190 The use of “intrigue” here added to the
184 Handwritten diary by Ad Petersen, curator of Stedelijk Museum in catalog Dylaby, dynamisch labyrinth. 185 This type of catalog containing a diary of day-to-day trivial events was to become quite popular. See for example the Sonsbeek catalog. 186 At the same time as the Stedelijk show, a similar exhibition was held in the Kunsthalle in Bern: When Attitudes Become Form: works-processes-concepts-situations-information The exhibition in Berne, Switzerland was directed by Harald Szeeman and was held from March 22 to April 27, 1969. 187 The other exhibitions in that series were American Pop Art in 1964, Nul in 1965, and, Vormen van de kleur in 1966. See preface by De Wilde in Op Losse Schroeven: situaties en cryptostructuren. 188 Ibid. 189 Ibid. It says: “The title “Op losse schroeven” (what means something like: square pegs in round holes) gives a suggestion of the informal character of the exhibition.” 190 Ibid.
319 mysterious, quizzical quality of the exhibition. Beeren provided his own account of the title in his introduction. In his cloudy, circuitous explanation Beeren lifted the corner of the veil by giving a few hints: the title, he said, assumed “a construction with solid connections and a strong relationship of the parts which are brought together as an entity. The one who loosens the screws doesn’t break the relationships, but does disturb them. These relationships then suddenly become a burden, they no longer tend towards unity and harmony. But there are not only parts, entities. One still sees them irrevocably connected to each other. Therefore also the figurative meaning of ‘op losse schroeven’, with the negative specifications of a unity: shaky, insecure, without anything to hold on to.”191 Beeren continued on a more straightforward note by saying that the new art has an active role in challenging (“op losse schroeven zetten”) the old definition of art, in its central structuring and sublimating; it was the art itself that was questioning the many seemingly logical relationships.192 He concluded with his own definition of the development in art, an interpretation which was the base for his exhibition: “In an active way (and for the incorrigible idealists: in a positive way) art acts conflictingly towards static relationships. She preferably acknowledges change and contrast as a designing principle.”193 Although Op Losse Schroeven was a very different exhibition than Dylaby – since it was a survey exhibition with many more artists involved and included works of art which already existed – it was, like Dylaby, very much an artists’ exhibition: a show strongly influenced and shaped by the artists themselves. In the Op Losse Schroeven show the Stedelijk Museum followed the direction of the artists, and even though Beeren was responsible for the title and overall organization of the show, the artists were the guides in the maze of new development, were responsible for the selection of many of the participating artists, and were allowed to ‘shape’ the exhibition and play with the interior, exterior and authority of the Stedelijk Museum.
191 In Dutch it says: “De title ‘op losse schroeven’ veronderstelt een constructie. Met deugdelijke verbindingen en hechte relatie van onderdelen die tot een eenheid zijn gevoegd. Wie de schroeven los draait verbreekt die relaties niet, maar verstoort ze wel. Die betrekkingen worden plotseling tot een last, ze tenderen niet meer naar eenheid en harmonie. Maar er zijn ook niet alléén onderdelen, zelfstandigheden. Men ziet ze onherroepelijk nog met elkaar verbonden. Daarom ook de figuurlijke betekenis van ‘op losse schroeven’, met de negatieve omschrijvingen van een eenheid: wankel, onzeker, zonder houvast. ” See the introduction by Beeren “De tentoonstelling” in the catalog: Op Losse Schroeven: situaties en cryptosctructuren. 192 Beeren said: “Het oude kunstbegrip, in de zin van centrale ordening en sublimering, wordt op losse schroeven gezet. Wat onze tentoonstelling betreft, zien wij vooral de actieve rol die de kunst hierbij spelt. M.a.w. het is niet zozeer de kunst die in de lucht is komen te hangen, maar het is de kunst zelf die vele schijnbaar logische relaties op losse schroeven zet.” 193 In Dutch: “In actieve zin (en voor de onverbeterlijke idealisten: in positieve zin) werkt kunst conflictueus op statische verhoudingen. Zij aanvaardt bij voorkeur de verandering en het contrast als vormgevend principe.”
320 The image of the new art presented by the Stedelijk Museum was one of riddles, of uprooting challenges : the title, the catalog, the artists’ interventions in and outside of the Museum were all part of the challenging enigma of the new developments in art. The Stedelijk’s public was presented with a game in which the rules had changed: the public was invited to a manifestation of unexpected and unexplained curiosities outside and inside the Museum which had become the artist’s atelier. The works of art became the activists of change: taking over and responding to the status quo of art and the museum. The first confrontation with the exhibition were the curious interventions on the sidewalk and terrain outside of the Museum. These subtle intimations of disruption hinted at the changing position of the Museum in the presentation of art. Ger van Elk’s Luxurious streetcorner of green and white tiles and Jan Dibbet’s Museum sokkel met 4 hoeken van 90 graden (Museum pedestal with 4 corners of 90 degrees), and, Mike Heizer’s Negative sculpture, which consisted of a 5 meter long and 1.20 meter deep trench in the sidewalk covered by a grid, all imply more than is actually stated.194 It is up to the public to react to them and fill in the meaning of their commentary. Emilio Prini’s contribution of his tent pitched on the neighboring terrain in order to let him monitor the preparations of the exhibition closely (so as to be able to comment on them in the Museum during the exhibition), intimated the artists’ control over the show. Less subtle and all the more effective was Boezem’s banner of bed sheets (Beddegoed uit de ramen van het Stedelijk Museum te Amsterdam), draped boldly, yet nonchalantly from the Museum’s front windows: a perfect sign for this puzzling artists’ exhibition. (fig. 173, 174) With both references to the provocative demonstration banners of the sixties - of the earlier Provo’s with their “white” projects, and, of the first squatters with their banners hanging from the occupied buildings, active in Amsterdam at the same time as the exhibition was being held195, and, references to the innocent day-to-day hanging out of the wash, the public is left in limbo. Inside the exhibiting artists were granted thirteen consecutive rooms. Some artists had a room of their own, others were positioned and exhibited together. Most of the rooms were organized by the artists themselves without any authoritative, neat design meddling by the Museum, which was definitely the case of the comparative exhibitions in the Museum of
194 Workers from the municipal public works department were called in to assist the artists with the their projects. 195 The Provo movement was active in Amsterdam in the sixties until 1968. Their projects carried the color white, like the white bicycle plan in which everybody could share white bicycles available in Amsterdam. In 1966 Provo’s initiated the ‘White House’ plan in which doors to empty houses were painted white so that all in need of a house were free to enter. The first Amsterdam squatters were active in early 1969, occupying empty buildings and hanging banners from them.
321 Modern Art. The works of art dictated the atmosphere of the various rooms in the Museum. The atmosphere in the galleries was informal: most of the works lay around or stood directly on the floor - often leaving the walls of the different rooms practically empty -, some of the objects, however, leaned casually against the walls .(fig. 175) The estranging effect of these unusual objects was enhanced by this informal positioning. A number of works were placed in other areas of the building, demanding special attention from, and actively entering the discussion with, the Museum and the public. Ger van Elk’s Apparatus scalas dividens occupied the impressive central stairway of the Museum: a huge canvas cloth split the majestic stairwell right down the middle, dividing it in two. In the restaurant of the Museum Van Elk’s hanging wall – made of bricks and cement - hovered over a restaurant table claiming attention by positioning itself between the visitors, prohibiting any one-on-one conversation. In the pond in the Museum garden, Rafael Ferrer, had two rolls of barbed wire unrolled in and above the water. The work of art demanded the assistance of the Stedelijk’s museum personnel (just as the projects in front of the Stedelijk building had commanded the help of municipal authorities): every day, for fifteen minutes, little pieces of the barbed wire were to be cut by a staff member. This resulted in reducing the ‘sculpture’ to a collection of tiny pieces of barbed wire floating on the water or lying on the bottom of the pond.196 This new relationship between the artist, the work of art and the museum was characteristic of the new art activity with changing rules for the art institutions and the public. In addition to the exhibition in and around the Museum itself, the catalog contained a part of the exhibition: a separate section of collotypes - a “shadow-exhibition”, as it was called. This section was added in order to be able to present ideas and projects and not only objects in Op Losse Schroeven. According to Beeren there had to be room for drawings, designs, projects, statements. etc.197 The very different contributions for this shadow- exhibition were made on identical sheets of paper which both unified the contributions but also emphasized their differences. In this shadow exhibition artists were included who had not been chosen to participate in the actual exhibition but who – they themselves - felt that they belonged to this new trend in art, as the curator W. Beeren explained.198 The inclusion of these ‘uninvited’ participants underlined the strong position artists in general were granted in the Stedelijk to shape their own exhibitions.
196 As described in the catalog Op Losse Schroeven: situaties en cryptosculpturen. 197 Introductory statement by Beeren, in catalog Op Losse Schroeven: situaties en cryptostructuren, 198 Ibid.
322 The catalog Op Losse Schroeven gives an informal impression. It is more like a fold- out report than a book. The soft, thick paper cover is a neutral off-white. On one side, the typed lettering gives only the name of the exhibition, on the other side a black-and-white copy of a Dutch weather chart of Western Europe and the Atlantic Ocean covers the whole page. At the bottom of the page a large, bright red ‘SM’ (for Stedelijk Museum) is printed. The weather map seems awkward here, and has a puzzling effect. (fig. 176) The catalog has two sections: one part, which is separately attached at the end, contained the ‘exhibition’ of collotypes, and the other part is the ‘regular’ catalog. The preface by De Wilde is the only text of the catalog that has an English translation accompanying it. In this preface the artists’ large in-put in the initiation and realization of the exhibition is stressed. Attention is called to the many important ‘discussions’ that De Wilde and Beeren had with them. This emphasis on “lengthy discussions” and “profitable talk” demonstrated how complex and puzzling the new art is. It also expressed the position of the Stedelijk as partner of the artists and accomplice of this puzzling art. A number of artists are mentioned in particular who were responsible for calling attention to this new direction in art: Van Elk and Boezem. The works of art of these two artists indeed shaped the face of Op Losse Schroeven: Boezem’s bed linen hanging from the Museum windows and his weather chart on the catalog cover were (and still are) the sign boards of the show , and, Van Elk’s centrally positioned disruptions and obstacles out- and inside the Museum set the tone of the exhibition. These rude and disruptive activists uprooted the Museum and confronted the public directly. In Beeren’s preface and in his introduction ‘De tentoonstelling’, the interaction and dialogue with the artists was also accentuated. In his description of the exhibition he said: “the exhibition is a situation dependent on consultation, decisions, coincidences, friendship and friction.”199 This portrayal of Op Losse Schroeven was like the portrayal of life itself. Just like in Dylaby, the interaction with art and artists is presented as part of everyday life. And just like in everyday life, everybody has their own interpretation of what it’s all about As in a game, Beeren gave his players their own colors: the texts of the two players in the catalog were given a different color. The two players who contributed to the catalog were: Harald Szeeman, who was organizing his own show at that time, a show very similar to this one; and Piero Gilardi, who was hailed as an informant and theorist of this new direction in art. Szeeman’s contribution was printed on blue paper: on “the blue of innocence”, and,
199 In Dutch: “De tentoonstelling is een van overleg, beslissingen, toevalligheden, vriendschap en wrijvingen afhankelijke situatie.”
323 Gilardi’s text was given a red background: “on the red of controversy”, as Beeren explained.200 Szeeman’s text (in German) was a travel log for his own show in Bern in which he has jotted down his (often insignificant) daily doings and thoughts during his travels in preparation for his own exhibition. It is reminiscent of the artists’ diaries in the Dylaby catalog in its sharing of personal doings with the reader, but here it seems to have lost its spontaneity and innocence. Gilardi’s text, which included his personal introductory letter to Beeren, is an opinionated, controversial article on the recent development of art and the role of institutions and politics.201 These different contributions added to the varied and informal approach which was advocated by Beeren. Beeren’s own interpretation was presented in his introduction: ‘De tentoonstelling’. In this text, he first – once again – emphasized the fact that the making of a current exhibition like this one was “at best a negotiation with the daily experiences, meetings, visits, conversations”.202 He compared it to a “discussion”, which afterwards created opportunity for “further discussion”. The style he used in his text is informal; he wrote as if he was thinking out loud: fragments of thought, of discussion, often in telegram style interspersed with statements and questions. Despite the seemingly low barrier of this informal approach, the content of the text seems to not communicate at all, directed solely to the intellectual discussion of an in-crowd. His essay discussed the various contributing artists and their works and ideas, according to his ideas of what this art was about. He discussed the role of the museums, of the Stedelijk of which he stated that it reacted (and is still) adequately to the changing concept of art. He mentioned Dylaby as a complete realization of environmental art.203 Gilardi’s contributions, his ideas and theories, were discussed as being ‘creations’ which had inspired and provoked the makers of Op Losse Schroeven, and that Gilardi’s ‘work’ had therefore been included in the exhibition. This element also emphasized the message Beeren seemed to want to convey: the concept of the exhibition as an open discussion - a discussion between the artists, the institutions and the public. Beeren concluded his essay with the statement that luckily there still remained points to be discussed. But did the public take participate in the discussion?
200 See Beeren’s preface in the catalog Op Losse Schroeven, 1969. 201 The title of the article is: ‘Politics and The Avant-Garde’, dated December 1968. 202 In Dutch: “Het maken van een actuele tentoonstelling als deze is op zijn best een onderhandelen met de ervaringen, ontmoetingen, bezoeken, gesprekken van alle dag.” 203 Beeren says: “Het museum is m.i. ook niet tekort geschoten op het moment dat de environment-kunst ontstond. ‘Dylabie’(sic) (Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 1963) was een volslagen realisatie van de environmental art.”
324 Beeren stressed the fact that the exhibition, the catalog and the various contributions in the catalog were all different interpretations, and, that this new direction in art seemed to invite these different interpretations. Just as the exhibition itself and the works of art in it, Beeren’s explanation must have left the public in limbo. Furthermore, the close connection and interaction of Beeren and De Wilde with the artists in the game of art seemed to leave the public behind. A public which was allowed to play, but which wasn’t really included in the game. The Museum seemed more focused on its artists than on its public. A public that didn’t seem to know or understand the rules so chose to watch or to not play at all. It seems that this siding up of the Stedelijk with the artists tended to exclude the public it had intended to serve.
MoMA’s Experimental and Conceptual Art Shows
In the same year as the Op Losse Schroeven exhibition, and seven years after the Dylaby show, the Museum of Modern Art also put on an exhibition in which artists created ‘works of art’ for selected museum spaces: the Spaces exhibition (1969-70) occupied the Garden Wing gallery of the Museum. In order to accommodate the individual projects of six different artists it had been divided into several rooms. For the Spaces exhibition, which was organized by the associate curator of the Painting and Sculpture department, Jennifer Licht, the participating artists (all male) were asked to make a proposal for a project concerning the issue of ‘space’. Each artist was provided with his own room – his own space in which he was free to develop his project. Even though the artists were given the freedom to deal with the individual museum spaces, this did not mean that the artists took over the direction of the show and certainly did not entail the spontaneous creating that had taken place in the Dylaby exhibition or even in the Op Losse Schroeven show. The Museum of Modern Art maintained control even though the execution of the exhibition did involve a change in curatorial activities: the Museum in its new role became responsible for executing the artist’s plan. As Licht announced in the catalog this exhibition “challenges the usual role of the Museum” - a role, as Licht simplistically described, in which “a museum traditionally houses and conserves objects of art”; the Museum in its new role “becomes responsible for the execution of the artist’s idea”.204 This exhibition was presented as the execution of artists’ ideas. These artists’ ideas, however, had been selected and were described, according to the Museum’s own theme and
204 As expressed in ‘Acknowledgments’ in catalog Spaces.
325 its own goal. The Museum’s goal, with this exhibition and the Information (1970) exhibition which was to follow it, was to present the important new developments in art in order to uphold its leading position in the modern art world. The Museum had been having to deal with growing criticism that it was not keeping up with the newest developments. These new developments in art were not easy for the public and the Museum would have to guide its public into the new role of active, intellectual participant. Furthermore, the new artistic developments – due to their non-object status, and their difficult and controversial nature - were not popular with the Museum’s influential guardians: the Trustees. By presenting the subject of the show ‘Space’ as “the central issue of our time” and linking it to the “Space Age”, the importance and urgency of the exhibition seemed to be legitimated for many.205 The choice of the exhibition format of having the artists create their ‘works of art’ in the Museum space would seem to answer to the demand for a larger participation of the artist in the Museum. The public’s new role as active – intellectual – participant was encouraged. Not only did the Museum explain the background and importance of the new art, the Museum drew the public into the project and made them accomplices in the experiments: by requesting the visitors to remove their shoes and put on paper slippers, the Museum united the visitors and positioned them into the role of assistants in the laboratory in which the artist was “free to influence and determine, even govern, the sensations of the viewer”, as Licht explained in her introduction of the catalog, “the human presence and perception of the spatial context have become materials of art.”206 The public was prepared for the ‘different’ nature of the new art in which the viewer “now enters the interior space of the work of art – an area formerly experienced only visually from without, approached, but not encroached upon – and is presented with a set of conditions rather than a finite object”.207 The Museum chose, as shall become evident further on in the discussion of the catalog, to explain the projects, the “set of conditions”, and position them in an admirable scientific and intellectual milieu, and in a historical lineage. This building of the value of the new ‘objectless’ art was not only necessary for the general public, it was essential to justify the providing of space for ‘a set of conditions’ created by contemporary artists instead of acknowledged objects as ‘works of art’ for the Museum’s trustees; it could be expected to be a difficult issue with trustees who thrive on a high standing and value of the Museum’s
205 See Jennifer Licht’s introduction in the catalog Spaces. 206 Ibid. 207 See the first page of the introduction catalog Spaces, n.p.
326 endeavors and masterpiece collections. That this was not an easy situation for the Museum of Modern Art was apparent from the specific mentioning of “the support and help” of a number of important and influential Trustees in the Acknowledgements of the catalog.208 For their proposed projects, each artist was provided with “an independent and anonymous spatial field, devoid of architectural feature, with which he was free to deal”.209 This idea – and the desire - of providing ‘neutral’ space for art and the presentation of museum exhibitions as ‘neutral frameworks’ was becoming more appealing when dealing with contemporary art and artists and their social, political and economical positions. The paradox was apparent: by presenting the museum space as a neutral zone, the Museum could distance itself from the content of the art on display and yet could remain in control. The Museum in this way merely presented and explained what was going on in the laboratory, yet did not become the laboratory itself. So, just as in the Homage to New York project, the experiment in the Spaces exhibition was contained by the Museum: the Museum housed the experiment without giving up its authoritative, controlling position. Not all rooms were equally ‘independent and anonymous spatial fields’: for example, the space allotted to Franz Erhard Walther had one wall of windows looking out (and in!) to (and from) 54th Street. (fig. 177) This showcase housed the most ‘interactive’ project of the exhibition: the Museum public was invited to participate in Walther’s Instruments of Processes - when the artist himself was there at certain scheduled times. The passing public on the side-walk could witness this new museological, participatory role of the museum public. By displaying this experimental exhibition in its show window, the Museum – which had been under attack for being too conservative – presented itself as being up-to-date with the new developments in art and therefore an active participant in the modern art developments.210 Walther’s process pieces - that here entailed being wrapped up in canvas body wrappings and receptacles - ‘dictated and regulated’ contact between the participant and the work itself or between the participant and others.211 The other space which was far from being ‘independent and anonymous’ was the Sculpture Garden in which the artist group, Pulsa, installed their project: an environment of
208 “The support and help of Walter Bareiss, Trustee and Chairman of the Operating Committee, was most welcome, as also was that of Trustees Philip Johnson and William S. Paley”. See ‘Acknowledgments’ in catalog: Spaces. 209 See Licht’s introduction in catalog Spaces, n.p. 210 During the years 1969 and 1970 there were a number of artist protests against the Museum by the Art Workers Coalition and the Guerilla Art Action Group. See the paragraph: ‘Activism in the Artworld and the Art Workers Coalition’ in Staniszewski, The Power of Display, pp. 263-268. 211 See introduction in catalog Licht, Spaces, n.p.
327 light, sound, and heat programmed by multi-sensory perception and electronic technology.212 This project involved the placing of speakers, microphones, amplifiers, infrared heaters and strobe lights which were activated by stimuli such as noises from the public, the streets and the weather. The technical equipment – the instrumentation – was not to be concealed, as the group explained in the catalog.213 In order to ‘show’ all the ultra modern equipment used, a see-through glass gallery – like a large museum display case - was set up next to the Sculpture Garden, close to the busy entrance of the cafeteria, for all to witness. (fig. 178) This display of the operating room containing high-tech materials was presented as a work of art titled: Untitled.214 It exuded the atmosphere of an experimental technical laboratory, which the public could admire. The projects of the other four artists were housed in more ‘neutral’ settings of four- walled rooms. Each artist transformed his room according to the submitted proposal: Michael Asher created a silent void by lining his room – walls, lowered ceiling, and floor - with white acoustical panels; a room in which the light was dim and a muffled sound was generated. Larry Bell’s room was transformed into a dark empty space in which large vacuum-coated glass panels were installed that ‘reflected’ a distant, sparse line of light.215 Dan Flavin designed his space with large green and yellow fluorescent light tubes. In Robert Morris’ room four large Cor-Ten steel cubes – at eye-level height - were positioned in the corners of the room leaving only space for two trenches crossing each other in the middle. The Steel cubes were filled with soil and planted with miniature trees which diminished in size the further back they stood, creating a lifelike vista view. The trees were kept alive by fluorescent “grow” lights and a refrigeration system, which created a cool atmosphere in the room. As discussed above, this ‘experimental’ show was much more controlled by the Museum and the curator responsible for the show than the Dylaby exhibition had been by the Stedelijk, where the six artists worked together on the concept and fruition of the exhibition. Furthermore, in the Spaces exhibition the artists themselves were not centrally staged as in the Dylaby show: in Spaces the projects as examples of the chosen theme ‘space’ were prominent
212 Ibid. 213 As voiced by the group in the section on their project in the catalog: : “We’re using technology – the computer, sensors, etc. – to produce sensory phenonema (sic). The instrumentation is not concealed. Whatever we learn how to do can be done by others.” Licht, Spaces, n.p. 214 See caption for fig. 5.11 in Staniszewski, The Power of Display, p. 283. 215 Apparently the panels were installed a month after the opening of the exhibition. See Staniszewski, The Power of Display, p. 282. This seems to have not been made public; in a review by Hilton Kramer in the first weeks of the show ( ‘Participatory Esthetics’…) mention is made that “he is told that in this space there are huge panels of vacuum-coated glass. I believe it, but I have no first-hand evidence in the matter. … Why it requires the expensive and complex technology of vacuum-coated glass to create a black space of this sort, I have no idea.”
328 and the artists themselves were presented as the minds – the tools - responsible for the intellectual projects, with a minimum of personal information given on the individual artists and their other work. This is also reflected in the catalog of the exhibition. The catalog of the Spaces exhibition is a neat slender catalog, which besides the Acknowledgments and the listing of the Museum of Modern Art Trustees, has an introductory essay by the Curator, and four pages for each artist for the presentation of his project. At the end of the catalog, on one single page, information is given on the artists in compact blocks of text (no photographs of the artists), giving year and place of birth, listings of one-man and group exhibitions, place and residence, and the name of the Gallery that represented the artist’s work. In comparison, there was also one page devoted to the corporations who donated materials for the projects. This separate page of thanks – which followed the Acknowledgements – listed spaciously, the twenty-one business companies who supported the projects by donating materials and services. These corporations and their specific donations were named again on the first page of each project description. The catalog introduction presented the art projects as important, serious contributions to modern society, which would justify public and such strong corporate support. Licht’s introduction was one in which – as mentioned above - the concept of the exhibition and the individual projects were explained and positioned in an admirable scientific and intellectual milieu and in an art historical lineage. Licht emphasized the fact that the concept of the show ‘Space’ was of the utmost importance and was indeed part of “a larger context of modern thought”: “Space – sensorial, social, ecological, extraterrestrial – has become the central issue of our time”. 216 The reference to extraterrestrial – which was repeated in mentioning of the ‘Space age’ in the conclusion of Licht’s introduction – linked the art projects, which Licht called “contemporary investigations”, to the admirable advanced technological development of the Space program, that since the first man-on-the-moon episode had gained worldwide respect and was an easy and attractive concept to relate to for many different audiences.217 The neat, glossy catalog jacket, which is completely covered – front and back - by a celestial dark blue starry sky as seen through a telescope and enveloped by a shiny see-through casing with the title ‘Spaces’ on it in large 3-dimensional letters, clearly referred to this popular aspect of ‘Space’. (fig. 179) The cover of the catalog was contributed by the Celanese Corporation, one of the twenty-one corporations to play a part in the realization of the Spaces exhibition.
216 Introduction in Spaces catalog. 217 Ibid.
329 Besides the scientific references, the new art was positioned in a larger intellectual development of modern thought together with philosophers such as R. Buckminster Fuller and Gaston Bachelard, the composers John Cage and Karlheinz Stockhausen, and the architects Frank Lloyd Wright and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.218 Presenting these intellectual and artistic personalities as sparring partners legitimated the new projects presented in the exhibition as important examples of contemporary concerns. Licht even went as far as to say that the new art “might be developing a new humanism in its incorporation within its context of man and his actions and reactions”.219 Licht explained that the new development in art not only came through this larger context of modern thought, this “intellectual milieu congenial to art”, but that it was also “an outgrowth of an amalgamation of larger artistic traditions”, in other words the result of art historical developments.220 As in all the catalogs of the Museum of Modern Art, the new developments were placed in an art historical setting. And even though “the history of this concept does not manifest itself through a coherent sequence of forms”, as Licht explained, “one can determine some antecedents and present relevant theories that may have shaped attitudes and prepared the ground for its development”.221 In a clear lineage starting with a statement and a work of art by the Futurist Boccioni, down to the mixed-media activities of the Environments and Happenings of the late 1950’s, Licht presented a logical development, growth, - with a prominent place for Schwitters’ Merzbau - towards the new art of the exhibition. The individual projects were each highlighted by Licht in her introduction and explained according to the selected medium and material of each project. Although the artists were described as the active initiators of the projects, the installations themselves were personified as the activating contemporary investigating forces. When, for example, describing Walther’s Instruments for Processes, the catalog gave a lively description of the action of the works of art themselves saying that they “dictate and regulate contact, either between the participant and the work itself, … or between the participant and others in a new spatial relationship that the object has forced upon him.”222 Or when describing Bell’s space with its glass panels, Licht said: “The illusory and self-effacing qualities of the planes of
218 Catalog Spaces, n.p. 219 Ibid. No references are made to the writings of Pierre Restany, who interpreted Nouveau Realisme as the artistic beginning of a new technological humanism. See Gilardi, ‘Politics and the Avant-garde’ in Op Losse Schroeven, situaties en cryptostructuren. 220 Ibid. 221 Ibid. 222 See the discussion of the six projects in the introduction of the catalog Spaces, n.p.
330 glass, the action of light cast in the space around them, and their new scale, allow the work a command over areas beyond itself”. Following the introduction, the artist’s projects were granted four pages each. Each contribution of the six artists starts with a full-page photograph. These photographs of the ‘works in progress’ were made and donated by Claude Picasso (who is thanked for his generous gift in the Acknowledgements). They are different from the photo-sessions in the Stedelijk catalog in which the reader could witness the active artist and the participating public. In MoMA’s exhibition the ‘spaces’ were the focus of attention and in most photographs the artist was absent or could only be seen from the back or anonymously between other workers. After the full-page photograph, each of the artists’ pages continued with a page with the artist’s name, the title of his ‘space’, his work of art, which in most cases is Untitled. Then a barren description of the used materials and size followed by a precise description of the donated or lent materials and services with the names of the corporations responsible for the contributions. The pages of each of the six artist’s contributions were very different, but they all had in common that the project was the main character and not the artist himself.223
The Information exhibition, which opened a few months after the closing of Spaces, was far more ambitious in size and purpose, and seems to have been the American answer to the European exhibitions: Op Losse Schroeven and When Attitudes become form. The exhibition and the accompanying catalog – which, very similar to the concept of the Stedelijk catalog was considered and presented as an actual part of the exhibition – contained work by more than one hundred and fifty artists from fifteen countries. Made under the auspices of the International Council of the Museum of Modern Art, this summer exhibition presented itself as an ‘ “international report” on recent activity of young artists’.224 Although the curator responsible for the show, Kynaston L. McShine, admitted in the catalog that “to demonstrate in any one exhibition the varied and valuable work of so many artists from so many countries becomes Herculean”, he seemed to imply that
223 The different pages of the artists entailed: sketches of the empty space and the required materials fill Asher’s pages, three pages of overlapping snapshots of people (almost all men) from different walks of life for Bell, sketches and photographs of previous work for Flavin, proposal sketches for the MoMA project and one other (not realized) project for Morris, the written proposal for the MoMA project and photographs and statements concerning previous projects for Pulsa, and, for Walther, the listing and photographs of demonstrations of previous ‘process pieces’, and explanatory statements with one starting with “Somebody has written .” See Licht, Spaces, n.p. 224 Described as such in the catalog and press releases. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1970. MoMA Library, NY.
331 - as with the Herculean labors - the making of such an international report can be accomplished: as McShine said, “The choice had to be narrowed down to what seemed to be the strongest “style” or international movement of the last three years”.225 He didn’t provide this “style” with an actual name though. As to what justified the selection of artists, McShine said in his acknowledgements in the catalog and a press releases: “Those represented are part of a culture that has been considerably altered by communications systems such as television and film, and by increased mobility”226. The popular modern communication systems he referred to here, became the icon of the show: photo prints of modern communication and transportation machines, such as tape recorders, televisions, typewriters, radios, film projectors, and, cameras, trains, planes, cars (the Volkswagen Beatle was becoming very popular in this period and was an emblem of hip modernity) fill the front and back of the Information catalog and tall Plexiglas screens with the same photo prints marked the entrance to the exhibition. (fig. 180) Featuring these modern machines and relating them to the “recent activity of artists” lowered the barrier between the public and the new art: by connecting the recognizable modern objects to this new art which in actuality consisted less and less of actual objects made this new “style” more tangible. After McShine gave the cause for the new art, he then presented the results: he explained that because of these communication systems, “photographs, documents, films and ideas, which are rapidly transmitted, have become an important part of this new work.”227 This step-by-step reasoning was part of the clarity the Museum tried to give in order to reach its audiences and convince them of the value of the new art, which no longer was an ‘object’ of value, was difficult to comprehend and was often controversial. The audience needed to be convinced of the seriousness and respectability of the artist involved and the artist’s desire to communicate with them. Although the artists dealt with political and social issues which needed to be shown and explained, they were not to be focused on too much, in order to not cause too much commotion with the influential trustees. This would explain the main focus on the communication and transportation machines, which were safe, neutral issues of modern life. The Museum’s approach was one of positioning this new art in contemporary life and making it valuable and understandable for their audiences. The role of film in the development of the new art was emphasized. The film section of the exhibition – promoted and sponsored by The International Council of The Museum of
225 See Acknowledgements in the catalog. McShine , Information. 226 Ibid. and, Press Release ‘Photography Featured in MoMA Summer Exhibition, no. 691, August, 1970. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 227 Ibid.
332 Modern Art - was presented as “very essential” for the exhibition and many of the films were to be added, “as a unique archive” to the well-established Film collection of the Museum after the show.228 Film was a medium many American artists worked with (more than half of the films shown at the exhibition were by Americans) and one the American public could relate to. Presented in a large “visual jukebox” – the “information machine”- in the first gallery of the exhibition, the films received special attention. Both film and photography – both with significant collections in MoMA - were given emphasis in the Information exhibition as important media for the new artistic developments. A special press release was issued on the prominent role of photography in the Information show, in which photography was promoted as “evidence”, as the only form in which some earth works and examples of conceptual art existed.229 Not only was photography exhibited as documentation of the artist’s ideas and activities, it was presented as a pioneering medium in its own right: the holograms by Bruce Nauman were called one of “the most innovative aspects of the show”.230 The introduction the installation of the exhibition set the public in a modern mood and mobilized them to participate and convinced them through an aesthetic and authoritative presentation, conditioned not only by the innovative artists but also – but then less obvious – by the Museum itself. The entrance to the Information exhibition exuded modern life and design and caught the publics attention. Besides the floor-to-ceiling Plexiglas panel, which presented the title of the exhibition on a patchwork of photo prints of modern - for the public - recognizable communication and transportation machines, the large, slick, shiny “visual jukebox” or “information machine” designed by Ettore Sottsass jr. and sponsored by Olivetti drew the public into the show. This UFO-like machine - with its 40 individual openings for viewing more than 40 different films - excited the public’s curiosity and beckoned the viewer’s participation. (fig. 181) Another apparatus at the entrance, the introduction to the show, called for public participation. It was Hans Haacke’s MoMA Poll in which the artist asked the visitors to cast their ballots concerning a critical question about Governor Rockefeller’s political position.231 This work of art was not only critical of American politics, but challenged the Museum’s
228 See Acknowledgments in McShine, Information, p. 1. 229 Press Release “Photography Featured in MoMA Summer Exhibition”, No. 69I, August, 1970 p. 1. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 230 Ibid, p. 2. 231 The Question asked was: “Would the fact that Governor Rockefeller has not denounced President Nixon’s Indochina policy be a reason for you not to vote for him in November? Answer: If ‘yes’, please cast your ballot into the left box; if no, into the right box.”
333 social en economical position.232 Nelson Rockefeller - the son of Abby Aldrich (Mrs. John D. Rockefeller, Jr.), who was one of the Museum’s founders – had been closely connected to the Museum from 1932 on, and even though not every visitor was aware of this connection many visitors were familiar with the fact that the Rockefellers had often been the target of demonstrations against the Museum.233 Haacke’s MoMA Poll incorporated the Museum and its personnel in its application of the poll: the ballots, designed by the artist, were printed by the Museum as Museum ballots and handed out by museum guards. By bringing the Museum itself into play, the work of art would seem to bring the public into a paradoxical position: the presentation was authorized and conducted by the Museum itself which gave the visitor the confidence to participate, but by participating the visitor contributed to a critical demonstration against this same authority. Due to the neat, efficient and aesthetic presentation by MoMA, the Museum seemed to remain untouchable for the criticism and seemed to retain its authority. When analyzing the main body of the exhibition, the clarity of the presentation is apparent. The exhibition design presented a clear, neat, and orderly arrangement which underlined the seriousness of the art and the analytical approach to make this new development in art intelligible. The large Museum spaces were divided by wide floor-to- ceiling partitions, which were positioned symmetrically. Each of the white gallery walls was lit by an identical line-up of spotlights. (fig. 182) The contributions by the artists were neatly arranged: the texts, photographs, drawings, written instructions and other documentation were hung like paintings and identical white tables presented objects such as books and writing equipment. A number of the artist’s contributions required the public’s participation: this was also neatly and professionally arranged. For example, Adrian Piper’s contribution, titled Context # 7, was a black notebook with attached pen and a text panel inviting anyone to express their response to this situation in the pages of the black notebook.234 The notebook and pen were positioned on a pedestal and replaced whenever needed by a Museum guard, who was himself positioned next to the work of art. Group Frontera from Argentina had a television tape recording booth set up in the Museum in which the visitors answered personal questions. The
232 Although Rockefeller’s relationship to the Museum of Modern Art was not specifically stated, it was clear to many. The Rockefellers had been the aim of previous demonstrations at the Museum. See Staniszewski, The Power of Display, p. 271. 233 Nelson Rockefeller was a trustee from 1932 until his death in 1979 (with a break between the War years 1941 and 1945). During his long period as trustee, he had been president and chairman of the board. 234 See Checklist of Information exhibition, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1970, p. 16. MoMA Library, NY.
334 outcome of these recordings were displayed – on delayed tape - in a Museum gallery on 6 televisions which together had been neatly fit into a wall at eye-level showing only the six screens. This polished, professional presentation contradicted and compensated for the informal, ‘valueless’ works of art, which in many cases were expressions of ideas; it contributed to a serious approach to this new ‘immaterial’ art. And yet, to make the artists’ activities comprehensible, the ‘game’ aspect for the public to participate in was introduced. To emphasize the democratic and ‘game’ aspect of the contemporary art – which McShine actually referred to directly in his catalog essay - the curator colored the exhibition by adding contributions which focused on the playful, democratic concept of the artist-in- everyone : one statement – in large print - by Andy Warhol: “In the future everybody will be world famous for fifteen minutes” which together with Warhol’s name was hung like a painting on a wall and was centrally positioned to also be viewed from the large adjoining room. (fig. 183) And, next to Warhol’s statement, McShine also hung a poster from the Moderna Museet in Stockholm stating: “Poetry must be made by all! Transform the world”.235 These contributions by McShine, chosen to underline the theme of the show, were not recognizable as curator contributions such as wall labels but seemed to melt into the exhibition as equal contributions. For the Information exhibition, the regular museum benches in some areas were replaced by white beanbags for the viewers to sit on. (see fig. 182) These together with the other design furnishings created a modern atmosphere. By including the ‘hip’ bean bags, the Museum presented itself as in tune with the modern way of life and stimulated an informal, relaxed attitude in the Museum galleries and yet by placing the bean bags it actually shaped the desired approach to the works of art on display: devoted contemplation. This idea of taking time to think about the works of art on display fit in with the explanation of - and approach towards - this new art as more “cerebral”, as the products of “highly intellectual and serious young artists”, which was stimulated by the catalog and the information presented to the press.236 The catalog Information had, as the show itself, the same combination and contradiction of informality and play on the one hand, and, professional formality and seriousness on the other. As mentioned above, the jacket of the catalog was covered with a patchwork of photographs of modern mass communication and transportation machines. The
235 See catalog Information , pp. 143, 181. 236 Ibid., p. 139; and, Press Releases, Information, No. 69, Thursday, July 2, 1970, p.1 and 4; No. 69-A, Tuesday, July 21, 1970; No. 69-D, Thursday, July 30, 1970, p. 2. MoMA Library, NY.
335 two-color photographs (green and black) are almost like negatives or newspaper photographs: the lighter, green areas are flat and the black sections have green benday dots in them which emphasize the ‘mass media’ character of these modern machines. The bright red capital letters of the title ‘Information’, of the date, and of the name of the Museum of Modern Art New York on the front and back of the catalog jacket, contrast with the complementary green background creating an agitated effect which seems to highlight the desire that the catalog – besides being “illuminating and informative” - be “provocative” for the public.237 (fig. 184) The paper, lettering and lay-out of the catalog display an informal, report-like approach which contrasts strongly with the glossy, groomed catalogs of many of the modern master’s and master movement’s exhibitions, and which will only be seen again in catalogs of more controversial shows such as Artist as Adversary a year later. In its down-to-earth, nonchalant make-up, the Information catalog resembled European catalogs of that period (which are listed in the reading list of the catalog), like the catalog of the its Dutch counterpart Op Losse Schroeven.238 In contrast to Information’s informal aspect of the catalog, a serious, lengthy and rather pretentious “recommended reading list” was added at the end. The first section of the list was “Books” and had over one hundred entries including – besides books by well-known artists and art historians – books from the wide spectrum of philosophy, biology, anthropology, psychology, psychiatry, ecology, game-theory (including in this section Huizinga’s Homo Ludens!), information theory, political theory etc.239 Two other sections of the list with ‘Periodicals and Articles’ and ‘Exhibition Catalogs’ followed, and at the end a note by the curator stressed the importance of reading as a guide to understanding this new art: Mc Shine explained that even though the list was necessarily incomplete – as he stated: “an equally long list could be prepared for each person mentioned in this book” –, he recommended “most of these publications as essential and important clues to the artists’ thinking.”240 So, the key to appreciating and valuing this new style of art seemed to be reading; this art had to be approached intellectually in order to unlock the secrets of the artists’ intentions. This serious, intellectual attitude was stimulated together with the encouragement to accept the new art as a game in contemporary life.
237 See Acknowledgements in catalog Information, p.1. 238 Catalog Op Losse Schroeven/ Situaties en Cryptosculpturen, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1969. 239 See ‘Recommended Reading’ in catalog Information, pp. 200-205. 240 Ibid., p. 205.
336 The Information catalog was presented as part of the exhibition, as “an anthology” and a “necessary adjunct to the exhibition”.241 The largest section of the catalog is taken up by the contributions of the artists participating in the exhibition and of a number of artists not in the Museum show itself, but only participating in the catalog. On the very first written page – after a full two-page photograph of the famous anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC.– the names of all the artists are listed, including the ones only contributing to the book., followed by pages for the listing of the Trustees and Acknowledgments. Each artist was then granted space in the catalog and invited to contribute according to their own ideas, either relating to the work in the show, or independent of it.242 Their contributions were presented in alphabetical order. After this section McShine’s own contribution was presented: a written essay and a photo essay, with in between two “blank pages for the reader” to fill in, with the subtext “Please provide your own text or images” and at the bottom of the second page Warhol’s statement: “In the future everybody in the world will be world famous for fifteen minutes”, signed Andy Warhol - the same quote presented on the walls of the Museum.243 The photo essay was a photographical potpourri of artistic, social, political, economical and ecological impressions, which was included in the catalog by McShine to “document his essay”. In the press release the addition of the photographs was explained: “The photographs, strong in visual imagery, depict 1970 life styles that greatly influence INFORMATION artists.”244 The arbitrary choice and positioning of the images - which were presented without commentary – diminished their power as controversial statements, turning them into merely aesthetic, neutral background curiosities. In his essay McShine built the character of the new artists by describing their desire to contribute to contemporary society and explaining the chosen material and themes for their work which is “considerably varied, and also spirited, if not rebellious – which is not very surprising, considering the general social, political, and economic crises that are almost universal phenomena of 1970.”245 McShine cleverly put the reader in the role of the artists from different countries and encouraged the reader to identify and sympathize with the searching artists: “If you are an artist in Brazil, you know of at least one friend who is being tortured; if you are one in Argentina, you probably have had a neighbor who has been in jail
241 See “Essay” by K. McShine in catalog Information, p. 138. 242 Jan Dibbets, one of the contributing artists uses the form sent by the Museum asking how he wanted to be represented in the catalog. See catalog Information, p. 43. Supposedly each artist was to have one page. Some artists, however, had more. 243 Ibid., pp. 138-192. 244 See Press Release ‘Photography Featured in MoMA Summer Exhibition’, No. 69I, August, 1970, p. 2. Press Releases, MoMA Library, NY. 245 See “Essay” by McShine in Information, p.138.
337 for having long hair, or for not being “dressed” properly; and if you are living in the United States, you may fear that you will be shot at, either in the universities, in your bed, or more formally in Indochina.” And to explain the choice of the artist’s material and the artist’s desire to contribute to modern society in a meaningful way, McShine continued, concluding with a rhetorical question: “It may seem too inappropriate, if not absurd, to get up in the morning, walk into a room, and apply dabs of paint from a little tube to a square of canvas. What can you as a young artist do that seems relevant and meaningful?”246 McShine then went on to explain that the new artists have come up with an alternative for art for art’s sake, which had been “to extend the idea of art, to renew the definition, and to think beyond the traditional categories – painting, sculpture, drawing, printmaking, photography, film, theater, music, dance, and poetry. Such distinctions have become increasingly blurred.”247 McShine explained that the works of art are no longer “products” or “objects”; he described the artists’ work in terms of the outcome of a ‘cerebral’ process of reevaluating and reacting to the complex situation of modern society. Furthermore, McShine positioned the artists in a competition with modern media. This concept of competition was one the American public could relate to and respect. The artists were trying to reach a public who “is constantly bombarded with strong visual imagery, be it in the newspapers or periodicals, on television or in the cinema. An artist certainly cannot compete with a man on the moon in the living room”.248 As McShine seemed to indicate, the artists’ search for possibilities to create ‘work’ which could win in the difficult contest with the modern media, had brought them to appropriate the contemporary media themselves and work beyond the boundaries of the art gallery.249 McShine positioned the artists in an intellectual and artistic milieu which enhanced their importance and the sincerity of their work: as McShine said: “An intellectual climate that embraces Marcel Duchamp, Ad Reinhardt, Buckminster Fuller, Marshal McLuhan, the I Ching, the Beatles, Claude Lévi-Strauss, John Cage, Yves Klein, Herbert Marcuse, Ludwig Wittgenstein and theories of information and leisure inevitably adds to the already complex situation”. The list is indeed notable: broad, up-to-date, and, academic. And, to position the new art within its own history, McShine added a brief historical background “of Dada, and more recently happenings and Pop and “minimal” art.”250
246 Ibid. 247 Ibid. 248 Ibid., p. 139. 249 Ibid., p. 139. 250 Ibid., p. 140.
338 McShine continued to build up the artist as one to be admired for his intellect and dedication to the public, without the pretense with which the artist was often associated: “Many of the highly intellectual and serious young artists represented here have addressed themselves to the question of how to create an art that reaches out to an audience larger than that which has been interested in contemporary art in the last decades. Their attempt to be poetic and imaginative, without being either aloof or condescending has led them into the communications areas that INFORMATION reflects.”251 In one of the closing paragraphs of the essay, two ways of understanding the communication with the artist were presented. One way was to view the interaction with the new art as a “game” in which the artist was portrayed as a reliable sparring partner with a keen game plan to help the public who was new to this particular play: “The general attitude of the artists in this exhibition is certainly not hostile. It is straightforward, friendly, coolly involved, and allows experiences which are refreshing. It enables us to participate, quite often as in a game; …”.252 And, as McShine continued, he presented the second way of viewing the communication with the artist: “ … at other times it seems almost therapeutic, making us question ourselves and our responses to unfamiliar stimuli. … There is always the sense of communication. These artists are questioning our prejudices, asking us to renounce our inhibitions, and if they are reevaluating the nature of art, they are also asking that we reassess what we have always taken for granted as our accepted and culturally conditioned aesthetic response to art”.253 In this passage, the curator not only provided ways of understanding the communications with the artists, he also positioned himself as the perfect mediator between the artists and the public: on the one hand McShine presented himself as being close to the artist by knowing and understanding the artist’s attitude, whereas, on the other hand - by using “we”, “us” and “our” - the curator identified himself as one of the public, making it easier for the reader to relate to, to want to participate, to join the game. Immediately following the text of the essay, there was a direct invitation to play along, to participate, by contributing your own text or images to the two empty pages in the catalog. Like the objective of the game, Warhol’s text at the bottom of the last page - promising fame for all for fifteen minutes - encouraged participation and yet at the same time put the whole game in perspective.
251 Ibid., p. 139. 252 Ibid., p. 141. 253 Ibid., p. 141.
339 McShine’s concluding statement of his text explained that his essay was “purposely made short and very general”.254 He encouraged the public to analyze the exhibition itself, which he presented as ‘his actual essay’: “INFORMATION will allow for a more careful and thorough analysis of all the aesthetic and social implications of the work. My essay is really in the galleries and in the whole of this volume”.255 It is noteworthy that McShine presented the exhibition and catalog as his construct, ‘his essay’, positioning the Museum as director above the artists, whereas as we saw in the comparable exhibition in the Stedelijk Museum, Op Losse Schroeven, the Stedelijk had given the artists control and had presented itself as a partner in the dialogue of the developing new art. The changing role and position of museums in relation to the new developments in art was announced and examined in both exhibitions. In the Information catalog, McShine acknowledged that “there are unpredictable implications for the established systems” and listed a number of questions concerning the traditional museum roles.256 The Information exhibition itself was still very much a Museum controlled exhibition even though the controlling elements – such as the design of the galleries and furniture - were not always ‘visible’ or explicit. The Museum of Modern Art aimed at explaining the new developments in art and making them comprehensible for their audiences. The visual image chosen by the Museum of Modern Art in its Information exhibition and catalog to represent the new activity in art was one of understandable modern icons: mass communication and transportation machines. The difference in communicative strategies of both Museums in their positioning and promoting of living art has become visible. The laudatory approach to the living arts dictated the Stedelijk’s communications. The living masters were honored as creative leaders for future change, in matters even beyond art, and the public was persuaded by the Museum’s own artistic reputation and endeavors, due to its closeness to the artists. The initial playful approach stimulated creativity and participation. The Stedelijk became the place in which the artist thrived. The art was to be enjoyed and experienced by the public; the Museum was to expose, but not to explain nor to judge. The Museum’s praise seemed to develop into intimacy with the artist and artistic matters, which eventually seemed to weaken its communicative desires to reach the public.
254 Ibid., p. 141. 255 Ibid. 256 Ibid.
340 The Museum of Modern Art used pathos to persuade its public of the seriousness of living art. The artist was to be admired for his selfless pursuit of initiating change in art. The success of the artist was to be seen as proof of his virtue. MoMA instilled admiration for the newest art and living artist, but remained in power on art matters. The Museum continued to provide explanations for its different audiences and attempted to secure the newest developments by anchoring them into historical development.
341 Conclusions and Outlook: The Prize and Price of Rhetoric
Comparing the verbal and visual rhetoric of the Museum of Modern Art and the Stedelijk Museum has exposed and clarified the ways in which both Museums created their own images and how they contributed to the representation and canonization of modern art. By analyzing the two Museums as individual ‘orators’, differences and similarities in their persuasive strategies come to the fore. This analysis reveals that from their different goals and positions in society, the Museums – consciously or unconsciously – used different dominant persuasive strategies in defining and defending as well as in categorizing and canonizing modern and contemporary art. Both Museums presented their ideologies as truths, but often with different persuasive means. Due to their successful persuasive images and stories, each of them acquired its own characteristic and influential status. But there was also a price to be paid for their rhetoric.
The Ethos of the Two Museums The Museum of Modern Art built its ethos to match its goal: to become the greatest museum of modern art in the world. With these high ambitions and standards of excellence – set by both the Museum’s influential trustees and the Museum’s first director Barr – the credibility of the Museum’s image and stories had to be established so as to exude the necessary authority. The ethos the Museum created was one of knowledge, excellence, leadership, trust, stability and continuity – all traditional characteristics of a respected academic institution. Befitting the educational role of museums in America, the Museum of Modern Art became a ‘historical’ orator: as a discerning art historian it provided the world with a convincing history of modern art. The Museum’s ethos was designed after Barr: he was the excellent, ambitious art historian who lead the way in stabilizing and normalizing the erratic field of modern art by providing it with a position in the continuum of history. His ethos became the Museum’s ethos and all Museum presentations, during Barr’s period - in which a growing number of individuals became responsible for the Museum’s presentations - and after, were to convey this ethos. By the time the captain finally left his ship, it had become a supertanker that almost automatically continued full steam ahead under the same flag. The growth of the Museum both followed and triggered growing ambitions. ‘Ever bigger and better’ seemed to be the driving force of the expanding institution. The organization and financial means provided a strong motor which enabled the Museum to live up to its ambitions and its desired image. The Museum was run like a business: meeting its
342 targets of audience and media attention with its early PR endeavors, attracting wealthy partners, while producing and ‘selling’ its growing field of art historical, educational products. Its knowledge of and interest in the values and expectations of its various audiences determined its success in communicating their art history at different educational levels. The works of art were the focus of attention, more specifically the ‘masterpieces’. They were central in the Museum’s presentations, more than the artists, and were presented as unique, valuable treasures. It was important for the Museum to present them as such in order to ensure continual participation of rich collectors, donors and trustees. The Museum’s amplification was both vertical and horizontal: qualitative and quantitative. The Museum acquired an ever better, an ever more representative collection, but also broadened and diversified its concept of modern art by splitting up the collection into separate collections and departments. The Museum’s presentations communicated this growing body of authenticated material. Already early on, the Museum’s publications were acknowledged as their most influential output which helped establish and spread the Museum’s authority. Their status as scholarly, art historical contributions was heavily promoted. The amplification of the Museum was also reflected in and strengthened by the climactic sequence of amplifying anniversary exhibitions. These exhibitions display the broadening, deepening and stabilizing of the Museum’s history of modern art. The first important anniversary in 1934 tentatively suggested “what an ideal permanent collection for a museum of modern art in New York should contain”, while thirty years later the presented collection was announced as “an unrivalled review of the art of our time”.1 Besides the physical founding of the Museum’s colossal story of modern art in this climax of anniversary exhibitions, the Museum’s art historical, social and political leading position was augmented from first local, then national to finally international importance with the appropriate authorities to testify for its accomplishments: the Mayor of New York, the President of the country, and finally the Secretary General of the United Nations were all to be present at successive openings of the different exhibitions. During the period of research the supertanker had continued to stack its containers, increasing its wealth and superiority: the bigger it got, the further it reached, the more attention it demanded as giant of the sea, yet it was soon to become clear that its flexibility was diminishing and its ability to go with the flow of new art was lost.
1 See page 60 and 77 of chapter 1.
343
In contrast to the Museum of Modern Art, The Stedelijk Museum had to change its image as modern art museum during its course. Starting from the position of municipal warehouse which housed and exhibited modern art and which traditionally focused mainly on conservation, it sought to become ‘a living center of visual art’. Already under the first director Baard the first steps were taken. This living center was not to have the image of a traditional museum, it was ideally, according to Sandberg, to be “a work of art” itself, which bore “the imprint of the man who organizes it”.2 Its authority to become one was thus built on the persona Sandberg. Sandberg determined the Stedelijk’s ethos, like Barr had done at the Museum of Modern Art. Sandberg was an artist, not an art historian. Being an artist himself made him a credible authority on artistic matters nevertheless. As a graphic designer he created the right atmosphere, design and housing to attract and radiate experiment and creativity. His social standing as a nobleman ensured good taste for the elite, whereas his leftist sympathies connected him to the revolutionary artists and guaranteed the Stedelijk’s social position as a municipal center. As a member of the resistance during the war, he gained respect as a national hero, who stood for daring and adventure. The ethos the Stedelijk thus created was one of creativity, knowledge of art, standing, flexibility and contemporaneity which provided credibility and authority for the Stedelijk Museum as ‘living center’. The Stedelijk became the laudatory orator, focusing on the present and the future. An orator who could communicate the value of living art and its contribution to the community: who praised and catered to the great artists and provided ‘propaganda’ for the living arts. Following the example of the Museum of Modern Art, the Stedelijk’s living museum was to house all the visual arts. In the Stedelijk, however, these arts were to be experienced, brought to life, instead of studied as part of art history: they were to be viewed through contemporary eyes in stead of historical spectacles. The image of the living museum was one of flexibility, change and openness: a meeting place where art was to be appreciated and where the artist was able to experiment. The Stedelijk’s actual growth did not match Sandberg’s ambitions, nor the image he presented of the Stedelijk as a center for all the visual arts. This inclusion was never fully realized, due to lack of financial possibilities. The desires and demands to increase collections, staff and departments were never sufficiently met. As an adventurous steersman
2 See page 12 chapter 1. De Wilde who followed in Sandberg’s footsteps also saw the role of the director as dominant for the Museum’s image.
344 on his sailboat, Sandberg often navigated successfully in rough waters, but eventually lacked the favorable wind in the sails supplied by government support required to reach many of his goals. The image of the Stedelijk, nevertheless, prevailed. Through the strong decorum of the image presented during the Sandberg’s era, the living center for visual art was to become a myth. After Sandberg debarked, the sailboat proved so maneuverable that it was able to adapt its course to the new director in charge, De Wilde. The image which had given the Stedelijk its international authority was built on the artists with Sandberg as their representative rather than on the collection of works of art. The Stedelijk publications were laudatory propaganda for the artists and their value for society. The exhibition catalogs were not meant to be scholarly art historical books. Sandberg stressed the fact that the public should preferably not read about art. If they insisted, they should only read what artists themselves had to say, and certainly not what was written by art historians.3 The exhibition catalogs were to be seen as ‘memories’ of the museum experience - like calling cards – and in themselves little works of art which, due to Sandberg’s unmistakable style of design and lettering, personified the Stedelijk experience. They were laudatory artistic expressions, reflections of what the Stedelijk stood for: contemporary, experimental statements on concepts concerning modern artists, art and society. The Stedelijk’s anniversary exhibitions as ethos-building exhibitions, exposed the dynamics of the living museum. There was no climax of anniversary exhibitions following the growth of the museum and its growing collections as in the case of the Museum of Modern Art, but individual celebrations praising the Stedelijk as a living work of art. Each anniversary exhibition can be read as a laudatio in praise of the Stedelijk as living center. Although the Museum’s collections were part of the anniversary praise, they never played a major role as they did in the Museum of Modern Art. In the Stedelijk, the main actors to be praised were the directors whose ‘imprint’ was what made the Museum ‘alive’, the artists and the Stedelijk itself operating as an open forum.
Defining and Defending modern art: Logos and Pathos As acknowledged authorities on modern art, both museums were expected to define and defend modern art for a general public – a public that very often conceived modern art to be difficult to understand and its value to society dubious. Both museums underscored this conception of modern art as being difficult to appreciate thereby emphasizing the value of the
3 He made an exception for “a few” good art historians of which Hans Jaffé, his right hand, was undoubtedly one.
345 works of art. Their approaches to dealing with this recognized fact that modern art was not easy, contrasted. The Museum of Modern Art acknowledged it, but claimed that if the public was willing to learn, it would come to understand it, whereas the Stedelijk claimed that true modern art had to be difficult, otherwise it wasn’t good modern art. It did not take up its role to explain the art to the public – the Stedelijk saw its role as to be one of passionate promoter. In both museums, the need for persuasive presentations was pertinent. The Museums had to deal with the paradox that their rhetoric as authoritative institutions built on tradition and history clashed with the rhetoric of modern art which broke with tradition and history, and was often anti-authority. How both Museums dealt with this situation became clear when analyzing their different communicative strategies. The Museum of Modern Art valued and stimulated its own position as leading authoritative educational institution. Actually, it needed to promote this position in order to establish and maintain the financial support and to ensure gifts for its collections from wealthy trustees. The Museum considered it its primary duty to educate the public, to provide the knowledge which positioned the new art in history and society. As became clear from studying the Museum’s presentations, it was aware that it needed to use the past to explain the present: it needed to embed modern art in a historical tradition and provide persuasive argumentation to do so. As an historical orator the Museum of Modern Art sought to define modern art and explain its position in the ongoing history of art in a scholarly manner. It dissected the issue of modern art into separate definitions and explained them in a clear, scholarly style in educational series of books and exhibitions, while constantly anchoring the modern in the solid base of history in its argumentation. There was a great diversity in educational approaches, meeting the demands of the various audiences. In defending modern art, the Museum relied on history also to persuade the public of its value: as a real orator it argued that modern art in the past had contributed greatly to society. In defending modern art the Museum also maintained that each individual could benefit daily from modern art – a claim which seems to be typically American. Both in defending and defining a plain style was used. The clear simple style was appealing to a large public and although the style was easy, it was never condescending, which strengthened the decorum and made the Museum’s rhetoric work.
The Stedelijk Museum, however, had a price to pay for its rhetorical strategies where the defining of modern art was concerned. The Museum’s rhetoric seems to have failed here,
346 whereas it did prove persuasive in the defending of modern art. Instead of presenting itself as a distant partner, the Stedelijk actively took part in modern art. As laudatory orator, it considered it its duty to delight the public, to share the excitement of the new and arouse powerful emotions, instead of to define or explain art. There were a few exhibitions which were designed especially as educational exhibitions. They were, however, primarily associated with school classes and were conveniently tucked away in a corner gallery for the youth. If the public was to learn in the Stedelijk, it was by looking: in this living museum the public was to learn from modern art instead of learning about it. In the living museum, the works of art were presented as speakers themselves: shouting out to the world, calling attention to contemporary life, as Sandberg pointed. Lively, dynamic presentations with a minimum of text characterized the Stedelijk’s style. The texts were often associative, even elitist and much less straightforward than in the Museum of Modern Art. The Stedelijk did not attempt to explicitly define modern art in general terms for a large public like the Museum of Modern Art. Many of the presentations, however, implicitly qualified or disqualified certain art as modern, often in vague, poetic terms and being almost always diverse in its message - such in contrast to the Museum of Modern Art which repeated its clear message constantly, to amplify its argument.
Promoted Themes to Define and Defend Modern Art In their defining and defending of modern art both Museums promoted it as part of modern living and as an art that transcends boundaries of time and culture. By comparing their various exhibitions on the same themes, the similarities and differences in persuasive means have surfaced. On the theme of ‘Modern art as part of modern life and living’ both museums used comparison and contrast to clarify the message. Both used enargia as persuasive strategy. To convince the public what good modern design was, for example, good and bad modern interiors were brought to life and competed on the Museums’ floors in a biased competition. The styles and approaches differed, however. The Stedelijk’s approach was often steered by pathos, convincing its public by arousing excitement and the sense of beauty of good modern design. When it used logos in its presentations, the argumentation was based on emotional response instead of rational arguments. It’s tone was often curiously patronizing and even elitist, which contrasted with the presented image of the Stedelijk as an open living center for all.
347 The Museum of Modern Art’s approach was always based on logos. Modern art and design in modern living fit in the argument of ‘progress’ as a natural and logical development of history. The metaphors used for the modern artists, such as scientists and inventors, were linked to progress. The Museum’s explanations were carefully constructed with well chosen exempla. Its tone was cleverly adapted to the different audiences, but was never condescending or elitist. It did use pathos to arouse emotions in its public, but they were often ‘rational’ emotions. Modern Art was also defined and defended by the claim that modern art was of all times and all cultures. In the analysis of the presentations of this theme, both Museums used comparison to highlight the issues, although their strategies differed. Once again the Museum of Modern Art primarily used logos to convince its audience. This time it was to convince its public that modern art was rooted in the history of the world and in human creative development (children’s art). In its presentations it visually and verbally anchored modern art in a lineage. Through comparison it argued the affinities and analogies between the various works of art. The Stedelijk’s presentations held on to its contemporary viewpoint – viewing all art through contemporary eyes instead of positioning it in history. In its exemplary exhibition ‘modern art new and old’, it did attempt to ‘explain’ the rationale behind the presentation, but the ‘reasoning’ was more personal commentary and philosophy which only seemed to confuse and mystify the message.
The Representation of the History of Modern Art : Logos Through analyzing the Museum of Modern Art as historical orator, it became visible just how the Museum created its history of modern art. A history in which the masterpieces became historical facts, like markings on an art historical timeline. By creating masters, masterpieces and master movements, and positioning them in a persuasive art historical lineage, the Museum successfully positioned itself as Master art historian: a scholarly authority on the history of modern art. By organizing many symposia, lectures, and round table discussions, and publicizing these events, the Museum nestled itself in academic discourse. The history of modern art was presented as an evolutionary continuum and process: a family lineage and a survival of the fittest – in this case: the most influential works of art and artists. The development of modern art was presented as an evolution logically driven by progress.
348 In the Museum’s argumentation, the persuasive strategies used can be recognized as common to a rhetoric of scientific argumentation. Besides the basic figures of reasoning such as the use of, for example, metaphors, opposites, division, series and repetitions, the Museum used visual devices such as charts, diagrams, mathematical equations, timelines and maps. Each presentation of the history of modern art built on the other, so that the same story was continuously repeated and augmented. The Museum’s publications mirrored scholarly books: besides the historical argumentation arranged in a persuasive sequence, the inclusion of citations, annotations and extended bibliographies gave the Museum’s publications academic appeal.
The Stedelijk’s approach to art history was different. It seems to have been but a marginal aspect of interest in this living museum. Art History was presented as something that was meant for museums of older art; the Stedelijk’s image was that it presented the present and pointed to the future. Although this was the Museum’s image, there were of course historical exhibitions in the Stedelijk. They were to provide a better understanding of contemporary art and life. The art historian Jaffé, Sandberg’s right hand, was responsible for many of them. A rhetorical reading of a series of five summer exhibitions and their catalogues exposes how the Stedelijk approached the history of art. Five different stories represented five different approaches to modern art. These five stories seem to have been presented to delight the public, packed with metaphors and analogies setting the tone for each tale. These persuasive strategies delighted the public, yet often clouded the messages instead of clarifying them. Although the verbal and visual strategies complemented each other, the stories often lacked persuasion due to inadequate argumentation and an elitist approach. The constant factor in all the presentations was the praise for the artist and his value for society. Here, once again the Stedelijk showed itself to be a laudatory orator.
Founding Fathers of Modern Art Both museums declared their own group of ‘founding fathers’ and selected one particular patriarch, who they persuasively presented – through argument and praise – as the fundamental figures of modern art. Both museums’ selections of their patriarch were determined partly by coincidence and partly by choice. Each museum’s choice reflects their ideology. The selection of Cézanne by the Museum of Modern Art was particularly convenient since one of the founding mothers of the Museum, Lillie P. Bliss, bequeathed a magnificent collection of Cézannes very early on in the Museum’s history. The choice for
349 Cézanne seemed further motivated by and presented with rational arguments befitting the Museum’s ethos: Cézanne was the most influential artist (the fittest!) of his time and was a key figure in a continuum of the history of modernism. The Stedelijk’s choice for Van Gogh was based on the loan of the ‘world famous’ Van Gogh collection. The Stedelijk’s motivation for Van Gogh seems to have been based on his human qualities, which were documented so passionately and conveniently in his letters, and which fit the topos of artist as martyr completely. The Stedelijk’s ideology of the artist as self- sacrificing contributor to and leader in society was perfectly personified by Van Gogh. Van Gogh’s art exuded the vitality which the Museum itself stood for and which was to become a leading criterion for contemporary selection. The fact that Van Gogh was Dutch became increasingly part of his promotion.
Positioning and Promoting The Contemporary: Ethos and Pathos In presenting the history of modern art, the Museum of Modern Art seems to have been very persuasive: the whole raison d’etre of the Museum was linked to successfully providing a convincing story of modern art. Dealing with contemporary art was a different thing and here it becomes apparent that the rhetoric of the Museum of Modern Art contradicted the rhetoric of the contemporary art. With the help of the critic and the living artist – as new authorities – to boost their own ethos, the Museum attempted to persuasively incorporate and present the contemporary in its historical survey. It needed to be especially persuasive for its public and above all for its trustees and financial backers because the newest art was often less ‘attractive’: often controversial, less material and less ‘valuable’. The Museum’s own rhetoric concentrated more on pathos now. To persuasively promote and position new ‘masters’, the Museum first boosted the ethos and built the image of the living artist as hero, as champion, as star or as savior and martyr, to then institutionalize him and write him into history, as in the case of Jackson Pollock. Pollock died during these highlight years which perhaps made it easier to rhetorically promote him. Although art’s own language was becoming more international, the Museum claimed superiority for American contemporary art. The promotion of it nationally and internationally resembles a triumphal procession backed by leadership - and cold war – rhetoric of praise. At the time when artists turned to experiment and conceptual practice, the rhetoric of the artists and the Museum clashed. The Museum seems to try to adopt the artist’s strategies, but appears to struggle with handing over its role as orator. It attempts to translate the newest art in terms acceptable to a large audience and conservative financers. In presenting this
350 newest art, the Museum of Modern Art turned to metaphors of progress and value: science, machines and media. These important and ‘honorable’ aspects of modern life would, so it seems, make the experimental, new art more acceptable for the more conservative, influential trustees and donors. By drawing analogies with the past, associating it with honorable aspects of the present and presenting the experiments as valuable masterpieces, the Museum anchored contemporary art into history but on its own conditions and not those of the artists, which would eventually lead to conflicting positions.
The Stedelijk’s rhetoric matched - instead of clashed with - the rhetoric of contemporary art. Analyzing the Stedelijk’s rhetoric in promoting and positioning living art, it becomes clear why the Stedelijk proved to be an excellent mediator for the (‘good’) living artist and a persuasive orator for its own position in the international art world as partner of the artist. The Stedelijk’s dominant persuasive strategies when dealing with contemporary art were once again ethos and pathos. Like the Museum of Modern Art, the Stedelijk boosted the ethos of the living artist by also presenting him as a hero or an ally in the humanitarian cause, or more dramatically as martyr or leader in a social revolution. The Museum praised the living artist and appealed to the public to honor, admire and enjoy his invigorating answers to and insights in contemporary life. The Stedelijk presented itself as the perfect partner for the living artist: the Museum became the artist’s ‘atelier’. There was not the same constant need to persuade its financial backers, as in the case of the Museum of Modern Art. Sandberg had managed to convince the Amsterdam City Council that freedom to set out one’s own course was essential to operate successfully as internationally acknowledged living center of the arts. The persuasive strategies to approach the larger public were backed by the conviction that the public had but to follow and learn from the living artist for he was ahead of them all. No attempt was made though to explain or translate the contemporary art for the layman, as in the case of the Museum of Modern Art. In the Stedelijk one was expected to experience art. The promoting – and eventually canonizing - of leading artists was also done in the Stedelijk, albeit differently from the strategies in the Museum of Modern Art. Befitting the Stedelijk as living museum, the leading living artist, Karel Appel, became the face of the Museum. In the Stedelijk’s rhetoric of praise for Appel, the style of the verbal and visual presentations fit the message it wanted to convey. Appel’s art stood for the post-war art and at the same time the post-war Stedelijk, personifying vitality, protest and freedom. His omnipresence in the Museum made him a living icon of contemporary art. In promoting and
351 positioning the Dutch post-war art that contributed to the international art scene, the Stedelijk’s ethos is promoted alongside that of the artists. The praise goes both to the artists and to the Museum. When the artists turned to experiment and their conceptual art, the Stedelijk as laudatory orator fully blossomed. The rhetoric of the artists and of the Museum were one and the ethos and style of both fit the subject. If the public was willing and persuaded to participate as in the case of the Dylaby exhibition, the decorum was perfect. For quite a while the Stedelijk was a successful orator for the large public persuading it to ‘experience’ the new art, but finally it was to start to lose contact. Eventually the Stedelijk had to pay a price for letting the living artist take over, and for its lack of convincing logos: the public was to feel more and more excluded from the partnership between the museum, the artist and the international art world elite: a partnership which in itself was becoming more and more problematic when the artist decided to experiment elsewhere.
The Supertanker and the Sailboat As the deconstruction of the Museums’ rhetoric has demonstrated: both Museums were prizewinners in persuasion, but both also had a price to pay for their rhetoric, which has determined the positions of both museums today. Since 1975 the vessels of modern art have continued on their different routes. The Museum of Modern Art has meanwhile grown to huge proportions and has held a strong position, although it no longer solely rules the seas. Its scholarly ambitions have remained while in the meantime also incorporating the reflection on its own position.4 At the beginning of the new century, the Museum attempted to alter its course a bit as exemplified in the MoMA 2000 exhibitions: their “three-cycle reconsideration of modern art”. This reshuffling of its content, however, has not been able to shake the Museum’s dominant story, which is one of the prices to be paid for its own rhetoric. The Museum’s publications still boost the Museum as authority on modern art and promote its dominant history and the Museum’s own role in it.5 Furthermore, as to its ability and motivation to follow the constant course changes of the new developments in art, the Museum of Modern Art seems to lack the flexibility.
4 The series Studies in Modern Art published by the Museum is promoted as: “the acclaimed illustrated journal published annually by the Museum of Modern Art is the only scholarly periodical devoted exclusively to the discussion of topics in modern and contemporary art.” See information on inside of the cover of Philip Johnson and The Museum of Modern Art. Studies in Modern Art, edited by John Elderfield, 6. New York, 1998. 5 Two publications from 2004 demonstrate this: the photographic history of the Museum in Bee and Elligott, Art in Our Time: A Chronicle of The Museum of Modern Art, and Elderfield, Modern Painting and Sculpture: 1880 to the Present at the Museum of Modern Art.
352 The Stedelijk had established itself as a director’s museum for which there was a price to be paid. After 1975, the Stedelijk Museum still under De Wilde held on to its internationally positioning itself as partner of the artist. Already under De Wilde, it was becoming clear that times were changing and the artist was looking beyond the Museum as atelier. In the years that followed with each new director setting his own idiosyncratic course, it seemed that Sandberg’s Sailboat had been designed for certain waters and the concept of living museum seemed adrift, having trimmed its sails according to the wind. In addition, the Stedelijk’s rhetoric seemed less concerned with and less persuasive for its different audiences. For years now the Stedelijk’s identity has been on hold with the constant currents of indecision on how to resurrect the Stedelijk’s international standing, with the constant remodeling of the ‘new’ Stedelijk-to-be as outward signs of the crisis. Meanwhile, the desire to position itself much more in the art historical discourse and to document its own history in the debate has become apparent through the growing number of publications, symposia and its cooperation with universities and other research institutes.6 Furthermore, the awareness of - and desire to reach – its audiences seems to have grown, which will probably alter its communicative strategies. The Stedelijk’s strength in the choppy waters of contemporary art has been challenged and stimulated by its temporary housing situation. The Stedelijk can perhaps once again benefit from its flexibility. Not only does the continual change in art demand it, but also the changing demands on museums in the 21st century call for an open and flexible living museum. As to how the Stedelijk’s image will be rebuilt when it opens in 2009 and if it will be able to regain its internationally renowned position, we are all at sea.
6 For example, cooperation with Stichting Behoud Moderne Kunst/Instituut Collectie Nederland (Foundation for the Conservation of Contemporary Art/ the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage), Onderzoekschool Kunstgeschiedenis (Dutch Post Graduate School for Art History) and the Amsterdam Universities.
353 Bibliography
Archives and Their Abbreviations
The Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York. Cited as MoMA Archives, NY. Alfred H. Barr Jr. Papers, The Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York. Cited as AHB[AAA: # reel; # frame], MoMA Archives, NY. Records of the Department of Circulating Exhibitions. Cited as CE, Exhibition Title, series #/ box #. MoMA Archives, NY. Records of Curatorial Exhibition Files. Cited as CUR, Exh. #. MoMA Archives, NY. Records of Registrar Exhibition Files. Cited as REG, Exh. #. MoMA ARchives, NY. Reports and Pamphlets. Cited as R&P… MoMA Archives, NY.
The Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam Archives. Cited as SMA Archives, Amsterdam. Records of files. Cited as Dossier.
Works Cited
Adrichem, J. van. De ontvangst van de moderne kunst in Nederland 1910-2000: Picasso als pars pro toto. Amsterdam, 2001.
Adrichem, J. van, and L. Dosi Delfini. “Furniture in the Stedelijk Museum.” In L. Dosi Delfini. The Furniture Collection Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 1850-2000, From Michael Thonet to Marcel Wanders. Rotterdam, 2004.
Alexander, V.D. Museums & Money: The Impact of Funding on Exhibitions, Scholarship, and Management. Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1996.
Alloway, L. “Field Notes: An Interview” In Abstract Expressionism, The Critical Developments, edited by M. Auping. New York, in association with the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo, 1987.
Altshuler, B. The Avant-Garde in Exhibition: New Art in the Twentieth Century. New York, 1994.
American Art of the 1960’s. In the series: Studies in Modern Art, no. 1, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1991.
Annual Report, “The 19th Annual Report of The Museum of Modern Art”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art, (December 1948).
Aristotle. Treatise on Rhetoric. Translated by T. Buckley. Amherst, NY, 1995.
Aristoteles. Retorica. Translated by M. Huys. Groningen, 2004.
Aronovici, C. “Housing and Architecture.” The Museum of Modern Art Bulletin 2, no.1 (October 1934), p. 2.
354 Baard, C. “Introduction”. In Monumentale kunst: 40 jaar Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1935, pp. 5-9.
Baard, C. “Preface”. In Monumentale kunst: 40 jaar Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1935, pp. 13-14.
Bal, M. “The Discourse of the Museum”. In Thinking about Exhibitions, edited by R.Greenberg, B.W. Ferguson and S. Nairne. London and New York, 1996, pp. 201-218.
Barents, E. “Foto’s in het museum”. Kunstschrift, no. 5 (September-October 1995): pp. 44-45.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Foreword”. In Cézanne, Gauguin, Seurat, Van Gogh. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1929, pp. 11-27.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Foreword”. In Paintings By Nineteen Living Americans. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1929, pp. 9-10.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Foreword”. In Painting in Paris. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1930, pp. 11-16.
Barr, A.H. Jr. The Public as Artist, The Museum of Modern New York, 1932. R&P1930’s Box 3, MoMA Archives, NY.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Report Loan Exhibitions: Ten Year Schedule (complete)”. May 1933. AHB[AAA: 3266] MoMA Archives, NY.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Present Status and Future Direction of the Museum of Modern Art”(confidential report for Trustees only). August 6, 1933. AHB[AAA: 3266;121-135]. MoMA Archives, NY.
Barr, A.H. Jr. Report on the Permanent Collection, November 1933. R&P 1930’s, MoMA Archives, NY.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Foreword”. In Machine Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1934, n.p.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Modern Works of Art”. In Modern Works of Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, 1934, pp. 11-19.
Barr, A.H., Jr. A Museum of Modern Art in New York, 1934. R&P 1930’s, MoMA Archives, NY.
Barr, AH., Jr. and W. Kuhn, Lectures on “A Museum of Modern Art in New York”. February 7, 1934. R&P: 1930’s. MoMA Archives, NY.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Modern and ‘Modern’”, The Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 1, no. 9 (May 1934): pp. 2-3.
Barr, A.H. Jr. A Brief Survey of Modern Painting. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1934.
355
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Foreword”. In Machine Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1934, n.p.
Barr, A.H. Jr. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1936. Report made by Barr. R&P, Box 3 1930’s. MoMA Archives, NY.
Barr, A.H. Jr. Cubism and Abstract Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1936 (edition 1986).
Barr, A.H. Jr. A Brief Guide to the Exhibition of Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism, Ex. guide. Museum of Modern Art, New York, January 1937.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Preface and Acknowledgment”. In Prehistoric Rock Pictures From Europe and Africa. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1937, pp. 9-11.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Preface and Acknowledgment”. In Masters of Popular Painting: Modern Primitives of Europe and America, ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1938, pp. 9- 11.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Art in Our Time: The plan of the exhibition”. In Art in Our Time, Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1939, pp. 13-15.
Barr, A.H., Jr. The 1929 multidepartmental plan for the Museum of Modern Art: its origins, development, and partial realization. Greensboro, August, 1941. AHB[AAA: 3266;68-80]. MoMA Archives, NY.
Barr, A.H. Jr “Modern Art Makes History, Too.”, College Art Journal 1, no. 1 (November 1941): pp. 3-6.
Barr, A.H. Jr., ed. Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art. The Museum of Modern Art , New York, 1942.
Barr, A.H. Jr. What is Modern Painting? Introductory Series to the Modern Arts 2.The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1943.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Preface”. In Romantic Painting in America, by J.T. Soby and D.C. Miller. New York, 1943, pp. 5-6.
Barr, A.H. Jr. ‘Notes on Museum Policy’, Fall, 1944. Barr Papers: Writings: chronicles. Series 9a-30. MoMA Archives, NY.
Barr, A.H. Jr. The Museum Collections: A Brief Report, 1944. AHB[AAA:3260]. MoMA Archives, NY.
Barr, A.H. Jr. ‘Notes on Special Showing of Collection for Trustees’, Jan. 1945. Barr Papers: Writings: chronicles. Series 9a – 28 A. MoMA Archives, NY.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Preface to the first edition”. In Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism, edited by A.H. Barr Jr., New York, 3rd edition 1947, pp.7-8.
356
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Introduction”. In Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism, edited by A.H. Barr Jr., New York, 3rd edition 1947, pp. 9-13.
Barr, A.H. Jr., ed. Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1948.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “7 Americans Open in Venice.” Art News 49, no. 4 (1950): pp. 22-60.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “An Important Change in Policy”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 20, no. 3-4 (Summer 1953).
Barr, A.H. Jr., ed. Masters of Modern Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1954.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Introduction”. In Masters of Modern Art, edited by A.H. Barr Jr., New York, 1954, pp. 9-10.
Barr, A.H. Jr. ‘Introduction’. In “The Museum of Modern Art, Paintings from Private Collections. Six Important Gifts. A 25th Anniversary Exhibition”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 22, no. 4 (Summer 1955): pp. 3-4.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Painting and Sculpture Acquisitions June 1, 1953 Through June 30, 1955”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 23, no. 3 (1956): p. 3-4.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Introduction”. In New American Painting: as shown in eight European countries 1958-1959. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1958, pp. 15-19.
Barr, A.H. Jr. Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art: A Catalog, the Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1958.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Works of Art: Given or Promised and the Philip L. Goodwin Collection” , October 8-November 9, 1958, The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Press Release No. 71, for Wednesday, October 8, 1958. R&P, Box 5. MoMA Archives, NY.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Painting and Sculpture Acquisitions, 1960.”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 28, no. 2-3-4 (1960): pp. 3-5.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Paragraphs from Wall Label.”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 28, no. 2-3-4 (1961): pp. 6-7.
Barr, A.H. Jr. Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art, 1929-1967. The Museum of Modern Art New York, 1977.
Barr, A.H. Jr. “Chronicle of the Collection of Painting and Sculpture”. In Painting and Sculpture in The Museum of Modern Art 1929-1967, by A.H. Barr Jr. New York, 1977, pp. 619-650.
Barker, E., ed. Contemporary Cultures of Display. New Haven and London, 1999.
357 Bee, H.S. and M. Elligott, eds. Art in Our Time, A Chronicle of the Museum of Modern Art. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 2004.
Beeren, W. “Introduction”. In Op Losse Schroeven: situaties en cryptostructuren. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1969, n.p.
Bennett, T. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London, 1995.
Bernays, E.L. Crystallizing Public Opinion. New York, 1934 (1st ed. 1923).
Bernays, E.L. Propaganda. New York, 1936 (1st ed. 1928).
Blaaderen, I. van, ed.Kinderen uiten zich. Vol.1, Purmerend, 1951.
Blair and Gerber. Better Reading 1: Factual Prose: introduction to explanatory and persuasive writing. Chicago, 1963.
Blotkamp, C., M. van Haspel and F. Haks, eds. Museum in motion, Het museum voor moderne kunst ter diskussie, The Hague, 1979.
Booth, W. The Rhetoric of Rhetoric: the Quest for Effective Communication. Malden MA. and Oxford, 2004.
Bois, Y. “Exposition : Esthétique de la distraction, espace de démonstration.” Les Cahiers du Musée National d’Art Moderne, supplement catalogue 5, no. 29 (Autumn 1989), pp. 57-79.
Bonnard and his Environment. Ex. cat. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1964.
Braden, T.W. “I’m Glad the C.I.A. Is Immoral.” Saturday Evening Post (May 20, 1967): pp. 10-14.
Brautigam, G. “ ‘Foei’ – ‘Goed zo’ en ‘sfeerkamers’ in het Stedelijk”, Het Vrije Volk (July 6, 1954).
Brockriede, W. and R.L. Scott. Moments in the Rhetoric of the Cold War, New York, 1970.
Bromberg, P. “V.A.N.K.-tentoonstelling: “wonen””. Prisma der kunsten 1 (February 1936): pp. 29-42.
Brooks, C. and R. Penn Warren. Modern Rhetoric. New York and San Diego, 1979.
Bryant, D.C. Rhetorical Dimensions in Criticism. Baton Rouge, 1973.
Burke, K. A Rhetoric of Motives. Englewood Cliffs (NJ), 1950.
Buys, H. “Abstracte Kunst”. In Abstracte Kunst. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1938, pp. 5-6.
Cahill, H. American Sources of Modern Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1933.
358
Carbonell, B., ed. Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts. Malden (MA) and Oxford, 2004.
Clark, K. “Foreword”. In Twee Eeuwen Engelsche Kunst. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1936, pp.17-21 (Dutch translation pp. 23-28).
Claus, H. Karel Appel, schilder. Amsterdam, 1964.
Clifford, J. The Predicament of Culture : Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge, Mass., 1988.
Coates, R. “Mondrian, Kleenex, and You”, New Yorker (October 15, 1949): p. 61.
Cockcroft, E. “Abstract Expressionism: Weapon of the Cold War.”, Artforum 12 (June 1974): pp. 39-41.
Cohen-Solal, A. Naar levend model: De opkomst van Amerikaanse kunstenaars Parijs 1867- New York 1948. Amsterdam, 2001.
Conn, S. Museums and American Intellectual Life, 1876-1926. Chicago, 1998.
Corbett, E. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. New York, 1965.
Crane, S.A, ed. Museums and Memory. Stanford, 2000.
Crimp, D. On the Museum’s Ruins. Cambridge (MA), 1993.
D.C. “Circulating Exhibitions”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 7, no. 5 (September 1940): pp. 3-11.
D’Amico, V., F. Wilson and M. Maser. Art for the Family. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1954.
Les Demoiselles d’Avignon. In series: Studies in Modern Art, no. 3, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1994.
Desjardijn, D. Voer voor Miljoenen. De Aktie BBK en Sonsbeek buiten de perken. Amsterdam, 1989.
Dippel, R. “het ‘stedelijk’ na 75 jaar”Museumjournaal 15, no.5 (November 1970): pp. 268- 269.
Doran, P-M., ed. Conversations avec Cézanne. Paris, 1978.
Dorothy Miller, interview by Paul Cummings, 1970-1971, transcript, Archives of American Art Smithsonian Institution.
Douglas, F.H. and R. d’Harnoncourt. Indian Art of the United States. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1941.
359
Duncan, C. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. London, 1995.
Eck, C. van. Classical Rhetoric and the Visual Arts in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, 2007.
Editorial, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 1, no. 3 (November 1933): pp. 1-2.
Editorial, “Publicity Department”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 2, no. 1 (October 1934): pp. 3-4.
Editorial, “Gaston Lachaise”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 2, no. 5 (February 1935): pp. 3-4.
Editorial, “Publicity Department”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 5, no. 1 (January 1938): p.12.
Editorial, ‘Americans 1943’. In “Museum Notes”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 10, no. 3 (February 1943): p. 22.
Editorial, ‘New Trustees’ in: “Museum Notes”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 11, no. 4 (February-March 1944): p. 11.
Editorial, “Press Comment on Modern Drawings Exhibition”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 11, no. 5 (April 1944): pp. 19-20.
Editorial, “Press Comment on Art in Progress Exhibition”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 22, no. 1 (August 1944): p.14.
An Effort to Secure $ 3,250,000 For The Museum of Modern Art, New York City. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1931. R&P 1930’s. MoMA Archives, NY.
Eijkhout, E. and M. Simon Thomas. “1895-1935 Het museum als galerie en als volksopvoeder”.In 80 jaar wonen in het stedelijk, edited by E. Bergvelt. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1981, p. 13 ff.
Eisenhower, D. “Freedom of the Arts”. Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 22, no. 1-2 (Fall-Winter 1954), p. 3.
Elderfield, J. “The Precursor”. American Art of the 1960’s, in the series: Studies in Modern Art, no. 1. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1991, pp. 65-95.
Elderfield, J., P. Reed and M. Chan, eds. Modernstarts: People, Places, Things, New York, 1999.
Elderfield, J., ed. Modern Painting and Sculpture: 1880 to the Present at the Museum of Modern Art. New York, 2004.
Elliott, J. “Bonnard and his Environment”. In Bonnard and his Environment. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1964, pp. 22-29.
360
Emde Boas, M. van. “Herinneringen aan Hans Jaffé: Over het belang van een goede tweede viool”. Kunstschrift, no. 5 (September-October 1995): pp. 24-27.
Essays on Assemblage. In the Series: Studies in Modern Art, no. 2. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1992.
Fahnestrock, J. Rhetorical Figures in Science. New York and Oxford, 1999.
Farrell, T.B. Norms of Rhetorical Culture. New Haven and London, 1993.
Ferguson, B.W. “Exhibition Rhetorics: Material Speech and Utter Sense” In Thinking about Exhibitions, edited by R.Greenberg, B.W. Ferguson and S. Nairne. London and New York, 1996, pp. 175-190.
Fisher, P. Making & Effacing Art: Modern American Art in a Culture of Museums. Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1991.
Florisoone, M. “Essay”. In Rondom Rodin. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amstedam, 1939, pp. IX-XVII (Dutch translation pp.XVIII-XXVIII).
Foss, S.K. “Framing the Study of Visual Rhetoric: Toward a Transformation of Rhetorical Theory”. In Defining Visual Rhetorics, edited by C. A. Hill and M. Helmers. London, 2004, pp. 304-306.
Fitzgerald, M.C. Making Modernism: Picasso and the Creation of the Market for Twentieth- Century Art. Los Angeles and London, 1995.
Frobenius, L. Prehistoric Rock Pictures From Europe and Africa. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1937.
Galassi, P., R. Storr and A.Umland, eds. Making Choices: 1929, 1939, 1948, 1955. New York, 2000.
Giedion, S. “Hebben wij nog behoefte aan kunstenaars”. In Abstracte Kunst. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, pp. 14-16.
Gilardi, P. “Politics and The Avant-Garde”. In Op Losse Schroeven: situaties en cryptosculpturen. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1969, n.p.
Gogh, V.W. van. “W.J.H.B. Sandberg, directeur van het Stedelijk”. In kunst van heden in het stedelijk, by W. Sandberg and H. Jaffé. Amsterdam, 1961.
Goodyear, A. Conger. “1929-1934”, Bulletin of The Museum of Modern Art 2, no. 3 (December 1934): pp. 2-3.
Goodyear. A. Conger. “Preface”. In Art in Our Time. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art New York, 1939, pp. 11-12.
Goodyear, A. Conger. The Museum of Modern Art: The First Ten Years, New York, 1943.
361
Goldscheider, L. Towards Modern Art or King Solomon’s Picture Book: Art of the New Age and Art of the Past Shown Side by Side. London, 1951.
Goldwater, R. (in collaboration with René d’Harnoncourt), “Modern Art in Your Life.” Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 17, no. 1 (1949). (1953 2nd edition).
Goldwater, R. What is Modern Sculpture?. New York, 1969.
Gowing, L. Turner: Imagination and Reality. Ex. cat. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1966.
Greenberg, C. “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”, Partisan Review (Fall1939). Reprinted in J. O’Brian ed. Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, Vol.1, Perceptions and Judgments, 1939-1944. Chicago, 1986, pp. 5-22.
Greenberg, C. “Towards a Newer Laocoon”, Partisan Review (July-August 1940). Reprinted in J. O’Brian ed. Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, Vol. 1, Perceptions and Judgments, 1939-1944. Chicago, 1986, pp. 23-38.
Greenberg, C. “A New Installation at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and a Review of the Exhibition Art in Progress.”, The Nation (June 10, 1944): pp. 212-213.
Greenberg, C. “Review of Exhibitions of Mondrian, Kandinsky, and Pollock; of the Annual Exhibition of the American Abstract Artists; and of the exhibition European Artists in America”, The Nation (April 7, 1945). Reprinted in J. O’Brian ed. Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, Vol. 2, Arrogant Purpose, 1945-1949. Chicago, 1986, pp. 14- 18.
Greenberg, C. “Review of an Exhibition of Joan Miró”, The Nation (June 7, 1947). Reprinted in J. O’Brian ed. Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, Vol. 2, Arrogant Purpose, 1945-1949. Chicago, 1986, pp.153-155.
Greenberg, C. “Review of Exhibitions of Jean Dubuffet and Jackson Pollock”, The Nation (February 1, 1947). Reprinted in J. O’Brian ed. Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, Vol. 2, Arrogant Purpose, 1945-1949. Chicago, 1986, pp. 122-125.
Greenberg, C. “The Role of Nature in Modern Painting”, Partisan Review (January 1949). Reprinted in J. O’Brian ed. Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism 2, Arrogant Purpose, 1945-1949. Chicago, 1986, pp. 271-275.
Greenberg, C. “American-Type Painting”, Partisan Review (Spring 1955). Reprinted in O’Brian ed. Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism 3, Affirmations and Refusals, 1950-1956. Chicago, 1986, pp. 217-236.
Greenberg, C. “The Later Monet”, Art News Annual, no. 26 (1956).
Greenberg, R. “MOMA and Modernism: the Frame Game.”, Parachute, no. 42 (1986): pp. 21-31.
362 Greenberg, R., B.W. Ferguson and S. Nairne, eds. Thinking about Exhibitions. London and New York, 1996.
Gruyter, W.J. de. De Europese Schilderkunst na 1850, Amsterdam, 1954.
Guilbaut, S. How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art: Abstract Expressionism, Freedom, and the Cold War. Translated by A.Goldhammer. Chicago, 1983.
Halbertsma M. “Hans Jaffé, zijn visie op moderne kunst en moderne kunstgeschiedenis”, Jong Holland, no. 2 (1988): pp. 22-30.
Harnoncourt, R. d’. “Preface”. In Masters of Modern Art, edited by A.H. Barr Jr., New York, 1954, p. 8.
Harnoncourt, R. d’. “The Museum 1929-1954”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 22, no. 1-2 (Fall-Winter 1954): pp. 11-24.
Harnoncourt, R. d’. “Foreword”. In New American Painting: As shown in eight European countries 1958-1959. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, p. 5.
Hess, T.B. “Of Arts and the Man”, Art News, no. 48 (October 1949): pp. 14-19.
Hess, T.B. “The Modern Museum’s fifteen: Where U.S. extremes meet”. Art News. (April 1952).
Hill, Ch.A. and M. Helmers, eds. Defining Visual Rhetorics. Mahwah NJ. and London, 2004.
Hitchcock, H.R. and P. Johnson. The International Style: Architecture Since 1922. New York and London, 1995. (1st ed. 1932).
Hoffmann, E. “Expressionism at the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam”. Burlington Magazine, (1949): pp. 344-348.
Hommage to New York. Broadside published to accompany the self-construction and self- destruction of Homage to New York by Jean Tinguely. (March 17, 1960).
Hooper-Greenhill, E. Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. London, 2000.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. Museums and the Shaping of Knowlegde. London, 1992.
Hugnet, G. “Dada and Surrealism”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 4, no.2-3 (November-December 1936); pp. 3-32.
Hugnet, G. “Essays”. In Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1947 (1st 1936, 2nd revised and enlarged edition 1937), pp. 15-52.
Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens. London, 1949.
363 Hulshoff, Dr. Ir. A.R. “Wat met de tentoonstelling voor Woning-inrichting wordt beoogd.” In Amsterdamsche Tentoonstelling van Woninginrichting. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1921, p. 17.
Hultén, K.G. ed. Bewogen beweging. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1961.
Hultén, K.G. The Museum as seen at the end of the mechanica lage. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1968.
Hunter, S. “Jackson Pollock”. Bulletin of The Museum of Modern Art 24, no. 2 (1956-1957): pp. 4-36.
Hunter, S. The Museum of Modern Art, New York; The History and the Collection. The Museum of Modern Art New York, 1984.
Huyghe, R. “Foreword”. In Honderd Jaar Fransche Kunst. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, 1938, pp. IX-XXVII.
Imanse, G. “Het Stedelijk Museum: Honderd jaar beleid ten aanzien van moderne en eigentijdse kunst.” Amstelodamum 82, no. 5 (1995): pp. 129-140.
Imanse, G., ed. De Nederlandse identiteit in de kunst na 1945. Amsterdam, 1995.
20 jaar verzamelen. aanwinsten Stedelijk museum Amsterdam 1963-1984. Acquisition cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1984.
Jaarverslagen Gemeentelijke Musea Amsterdam, 1935-1975. SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
“Jackson Pollock. Is he the greatest living painter in the United States?”, Life 27, no. 6 (August 8, 1949), p. 42.
Jaffé, H. “L’art abstrait a Amsterdam” (typscript). Dossier Abstracte Kunst, SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
Jaffé, H. “De Verzamelaar van 1940” de 8 en opbouw 12, no. 8 (1941): pp. 110-111.
Jaffé, H. “Ter Inleiding”. In Vincent van Gogh. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amstedam, 1945, pp. V-XII.
Jaffé, H. “Introduction”. In expressionisme: van gogh tot picasso. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1949, n.p.
Jaffé, H. “van holbewoner tot Picasso”, Goed Wonen 6, no. 3 (1953): pp. 47-50.
Jaffé, H. “wonen en wonen.” Goed Wonen. 7, no. 7 ( July 1954): p. 109 ff.
Jaffé, H. “Europa 1907, naar aanleiding van de zomertentoonstelling in het Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam” Museumjournaal 3, no. 2 (June 1957): pp. 30-35.
364 Jaffé, H. “De renaissance der XXe eeuw, Naar aanleiding van de gelijknamige tentoonstelling in het Stedelijk Museum te Amsterdam.” Museumjournaal 4, no. 2 (July 1958): pp.21-28.
Jaffé, H. “Introduction”. In 50 jaar verkenningen in de beeldende kunst. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1959, n.p.
Jaffé, H. “50 jaar verkenningen in de beeldende kunst.” Museumjournaal 5 (July 1959): pp. 1-9.
Jaffé, H. “Inleiding”. In 3 leeftijden. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1960, n.p.
Jaffé, H. “De drie phasen der artistieke creativiteit.” Museumjournaal 6, no. 1 (1960): pp. 10-14.
Jaffé, H. “Polariteit, zomertentoonstelling in het Stedelijk museum te Amsterdam.” Museumjournaal 6, (Summer 1961): pp. 27-33.
Jaffé, H. ed. 20,000 years of world painting. London, 1967.
Jansen van Galen, J. and H. Schreurs. Het huis van nu, waar de toekomst is. Amsterdam, 1995.
Jensen, R. Marketing Modernism in Fin-de-Siecle Europe. Princeton, 1994.
Jewell, E. “The Realm of Art: Abstract Pennants”, The New York Times (March 8, 1936). AHB[AAA:3146;1058-1060]. MoMA Archives, NY.
Jewell, E. “The Anatomy of Cubism and Abstract Art”, The New York Times (June 7, 1936): p. 8.
Johnson, P. “History of Machine Art”. In Machine Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1934, n.p.
Johnson, P.. “Architecture and Design Collections”. Masters of Modern Art, edited by A.H. Barr Jr., New York, 1954, pp. 214-227.
H.K. “Schrootfraude”, Leids Universiteitsblad, no. 27 (May 5, 1961).
Kantor, S.G. Alfred H. Barr Jr. and the Intellectual Origins of the Museum of Modern Art. Cambridge, MA. and London, 2002.
Kapteyn, C. and G. van Tuyl. “Introduction”. In Binnen en buiten het kader: Environments en situaties van jonge Nederlanders. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1970, n.p.
Karp, I. and S.D. Lavine, eds. Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display. Washington, D.C, 1991.
365 Katriel, T. and R.E. Sanders. “The Meta-Communicative Role of Epigraphs in Scientific Text Construction.” In Rhetoric in the Human Sciences, edited by H.W. Simons. London and New Dehli, 1989, pp. 183-194 .
Kaufmann, E. Jr. What is Modern Design? Introductory Series to the Modern Arts 3. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1950.
Kaufmann , E. Jr. What is Modern Interior Design?. Introductory Series to the Modern Arts 4. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1953.
Kennan, G.F. International Exchange in the Arts. The International Council of the Museum of Modern Art, 1956.
Kennedy, G.A. Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Cross-Cultural Introduction. New York and Oxford, 1998.
Kennedy, G.A. Classical Rhetoric & Its Christian and Secular Tradition, from Ancient to Modern Times. Chapel Hill and London, 1999.
Keuze uit de Verzameling van het Stedelijk Museum. Catalog Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1970.
Klein, J. “New Catalog by Modern Art Museum Praised”, New York Post. AHB[AAA:3146;1045]. MoMA Archives, NY.
Klein Essink, S. and B. de Baere, “ ‘Op losse schroeven’ een gesprek met Wim Beeren”, Kunst & Museumjournaal 6, no. 6 (1995): pp.42-51.
Kloet, L. “De Bibliotheek”, Museumjournaal 2, no. 7/8 (febr. 1957).
Kluver, B. “The Garden Party’ in the Museum of Modern Art”. In The Machine as seen at the end of the mechanical age. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1968, p. 169.
Klüser, B. and K. Hegewisch, eds. Die Kunst der Ausstellung. Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1991.
Korte uiteenzetting van het doel der Tentoonstelling van smaakmisleiding. (Vereniging Kunst aan het Volk). Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1910-1911.
Kouwenaar, G. et al, de collectie sandberg. Amsterdam, 1962.
Kozloff, M. “American Painting during the Cold War”, Artforum 13 (May 1973): pp. 43-54.
Krabbe, C. and J. Smit. “Architectuur in dienst van de kunst: Het Stedelijk Museum”. Jaarboek Monumenten & Archeologie 3, Amsterdam, 2004, pp. 62-85.
Lampe, G. “Nederlandse bijdragen tot de moderne kunst.” Vrij Nederland (August 25, 1962).
Lanham, R.A. A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1991.
366 Leeman, A.D and A.C. Braet, Klassieke retorica: haar inhoud, functie en betekenis, Groningen, 1987.
Leeuw-Marcar, A. Willem Sandberg: portret van een kunstenaar. Amsterdam, 1981.
Leggio, J. “Alfred H. Barr, Jr., as a Writer of Allegory: Art History in a Literary Context”. In The Museum of Modern Art at Mid-Century: Continuity and Change, Studies in Modern Art 5, New York, 1995, pp. 105-149.
Leith, D. and G. Myerson. The Power of Address: Explorations in Rhetoric. London and New York, 1989.
Lieberman, W.S., ed., Modern Masters, Manet to Matisse. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1975.
Licht, J. Spaces. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1969.
Lord, D. “Honderd Jaar Fransche Kunst: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam” Burlington Magazine 73 (Summer 1938): pp. 131-132.
Louchheim, A. “Modern Art? Not So Modern.”, The New York Times (November 21, 1948): pp. 26 ff.
Lubow, A. “Re-Moderning”, The New York Times (October 3, 2004).
Lynes, R. Good Old Modern, An Intimate Portrait of the Museum of Modern Art. New York, 1973.
Lynes, R. The Lively Audience: A Social History of the Visual and Performing Arts in America, 1890-1950. New York, 1985.
Macdonald, S., ed. A Companion to Museum Studies, Malden MA. and Oxford, 2006.
Mailloux, S. Rhetorical Power. Ithaca and London, 1989.
Maleuvre, D. Museum Memories: History, Technology, Art. Stanford, 1999.
Martis, A. “Een opvoeder verliest zijn greep: Hoe het Stededlijk zijn voorhoedepositie kwijtraakte”. Kunstschrift, no. 5 (September-October 1995): pp. 39-42.
Marquis, A. Alfred H. Barr Jr.: Missionary for the Modern. Chicago and New York, 1989.
Mather, F.J. Jr. Modern Painting. New York, 1927.
Mather, F.J. Jr. “Old Art or New.”, College Art Journal 1, no. 2 (January 1942): pp. 31-33.
McAndrew, J. “Modernistic and Streamlined”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 5, no. 6 (December 1938): pp. 2-3.
McShine, K., ed. Information. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1970.
367
McShine, K., “Essay”. In Information, ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1970, pp. 138-141.
Messer, H.R. MOMA : Museum in Search of an Image, (diss. Columbia University, NY.), 1979.
Miller, D.C. “American Popular Art”. In Art in Our Time, edited by A.H. Barr Jr. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art New York, New York, 1939.
Miller, D.C. “Foreword”. In Modern Masters: From European and American Collections. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1940, pp.
Miller, D.C. “Foreword and Acknowledgment”. In American Realists and Magic Realists, edited by D.C. Miller and A.H. Barr Jr., ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1943, pp. 5-6.
Miller, D.C. “Foreword and Acknowledgment”. In Romantic Painting in America, by J.T. Soby and D.C. Miller. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1943, p. 4.
Mondriaan, P. “Kunst zonder onderwerp”. In Abstracte Kunst. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1938, pp. 6-8.
Montijn, I. “In Holland staat een huis: Een tentoonstelling van stijlkamers in 1941”. Kunstschrift no. 5 (September-October 1995): pp. 14-17.
Modern Art 5,000 Years Ago.., Modern Art Yesterday…and Modern Art Today. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1947. R&P, box 2. MoMA Archives, NY.
Modern Masters, From European and American Collections. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1940.
Morse, J. “New Books.” Magazine of Art 37, no. 5 (May 1944): p. 198. AHB[AAA: 3151;0744] MoMA Archives, NY.
Morris, G. e.a., “What Abstract Art Means to Me.”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 18, no. 3 (Spring 1951): pp. 3-15.
“Museums and Unesco”, Museum 2 (1949), pp. 14, 27.
The Museum Builds. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1962. R&P, box 2. MoMA Archives, NY.
The Museum of Modern Art Progress Report , October 1932 – October 1933 p. 3. The Museum of Modern Art. Barr Papers: Writings: chronicles. Series 9A – filing unit 6. MoMA Archives, NY.
A Museum of Modern Art in New York, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1934. R&P 1930’s. MoMA Archives, NY.
368 The Museum of Modern Art As An Educational Institution. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1960. R&P, Box 2. MoMA Archives, NY.
The Museum of Modern Art at Mid-Century: At Home and Abroad. In the series: Studies in Modern Art, no. 4, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1994.
The Museum of Modern Art at Mid-Century: Continuity and Change. In the series: Studies in Modern Art, no. 5, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1995.
Museumjournaal 6, no. 8-9 (1961). (themanummer 65 jaar Stedelijk Museum)
Nash, W. Rhetoric: The Wit of Persuasion. Oxford, 1989.
Newhall, B. ‘The Library – Some Books on Modern Art’, in “The Library – with a Reading List on Modern Art”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 3, no. 6 (May 1936): pp. 2-8.
Newhouse, V. Art and the Power of Placement. New York, 2005.
Nijhoff, M. 50 jaar Bibliotheek Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam. Amsterdam, 2007.
Noyes Platt, S. “Modernism, Formalism, and Politics: The “Cubism and Abstract Art” Exhibition of 1936 at The Museum of Modern Art” Art Journal (Winter 1988): pp. 284.
O’Brien, J., ed. Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, Perceptions and Judgments 1939-1944. Vol. 1, Chicago, 1993.
O’Brien, J., ed. Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, Arrogant Purpose 1945-1949. Vol. 2, Chicago, 1993.
O’Brien, J., ed. Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, Affirmations and Refusals 1950-1956. Vol. 3, Chicago, 1993.
O’Brien, J., ed. Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, Modernism with a Vengeance 1957-1969. Vol. 4, Chicago, 1993.
O’Connor, F.V. Jackson Pollock. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1967.
Oldenburg, R. “Foreword”. In Painting and Sculpture in The Museum of Modern Art 1929- 1967, by A.H. Barr Jr., New York, 1977, pp. IX-XI.
Ong, W.J. Ramus: Method, and the Decay of Dialogue. Chicago and London, 2004.
Ong, W.J. “Ramus and the Transit to the Modern Mind.” The Modern Schoolman 32 (May 1955): pp. 301-311.
Packard, A. A Report on the Development of the Museum of Modern Art. 1937-1938, R&P 1930’s. MoMA Archives, NY.
Paintings From the Museum of Modern Art New York. Ex. cat. for Museum of Modern Art exhibition in the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC, Dec. 17, 1963- March 1, 1964
369
Patin, T. Discipline and Varnish, Rhetoric, Subjectivity, and Counter-Memory in the Museum. Hermeneutics of Art Vol. 7, New York, 1999.
Penning, R.K. “In Amsterdams Stedelijk Museum Renaissance der xxe eeuw een saaie kunsthistorische les”, Haagse Courant (July 20, 1958).
Perelman, Ch. The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame, 1982.
Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, 1969.
Perry, G. and C. Cunningham, eds. Academies, Museums and Canons of Art, New Haven and London, 1999.
Petersen, A. and P. Brattinga. sandberg: een documentaire/ a documentary. Amsterdam, 1975.
Petersen, A. “Het Stedelijk van Sandberg: ‘de toekomst als maatstaf’”. Kunstschrift no. 5 (September-October 1995): pp. 18-23. Petersen, A. Sandberg, designer+director of the Stedelijk , Rotterdam, 2004.
Petersen, A. “Dylaby, ein dynamisches Labyrinth im Stedelijk Museum 1962”. In B. Kluser and K. Hegewisch, eds. Die Kunst der Ausstellung, Eine Dokumentation dreissig Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt and Leipzig,1991, pp. 156-165.
Philip Johnson and The Museum of Modern Art. In the series: Studies in Modern Art 6, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1998.
Pointon, M., ed. Art Apart: Art Institutions and Ideology across England and North America. Manchester, 1994.
Prelli, L.J. A Rhetoric of Science : Inventing Scientific Discourse. Univeristy of South Carolina Press, 1989.
Prelli, L.J., ed. Rhetorics of Display. Columbia SC., 2006.
Present Status and Future Direction of the Museum of Modern Art. Report for Trustees only, August 6, 1933. AHB[AAA: 3266;] MoMA Archives, NY.
A Presentation to the Rockefeller Foundation proposing the establishment of an international center for study and research at the Museum of Modern Art. Confidential report, October 21, 1960. Museum Reports and Pamphlets, Box 5a. MoMA Archives, NY.
Press Release, “Three Famous Museum of Modern Art Books to be Issued in Paperback”, Press Release: June 5, 1974, No. 46. AHB [AAA:3146; 764], MoMA Archives, NY.
Preziosi, D. “Collecting/Museums”. In Critical Terms for Art History, edited by R.S. Nelson and R. Shiff. Chicago and London, 2003 (2nd edition), pp. 407-418.
370 Preziosi, D. “Museology and Museography”, Art Bulletin 77, no. 1 (March 1995): pp. 13-15.
Preziosi, D. and C. Farago, eds. Grasping the World: The Idea of the Museum. Aldershot, 2004.
A Problem Created by Success. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1960. R&P box 2. MoMA Archives, NY.
Quintilian. The Orator’s Education. Edited and Translated by D.A. Russell. Cambridge and London, 2001.
Ratton, C. “African Negro Art”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 2, no. 6-7 (March- April 1935): pp.2-3.
Read, H. Art Now, London,1933.
Read, H. “Preface”. In 40,000 Years of Modern Art: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern. Ex. cat. Institute of Contemporary Arts, London, 1948, pp. 6-7.
Ree, H. Een blinde reus: columns. Amsterdam,1989.
“Report to the Trustees Ad Hoc Planning Committee”. The Museum of Modern Art, September 1969. R&P 5b. MoMA Archives, NY.
Rewald, J. The History of Impressionism. New York, 1946 (4th edition 1973).
Rewald, J. Post-Impressionism: From Van Gogh to Gauguin. New York, 1961.
Riley, T. “Portrait of the Curator as a Young Man”. Philip Johnson and the Museum of Modern Art, Studies in Modern Art 6, The Museum of Modern Art New York, 1998, pp. 34- 69.
Rindge, A. “Educational Activities of the Museum of Modern Art”, College Art Journal 3, no. 4 (May 1944): pp. 132-136.
Ritchie, A.C. Abstract Painting and Sculpture in America. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1951.
Roëll, D. “Ter Inleiding”. In Twee Eeuwen Engelsche Kunst. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1936, pp. 13-15.
Roëll, D. “Ter Inleiding”. In Rondom Rodin. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1939, pp. VII-VIII.
Roodenburg-Schadd, C. Expressie en ordening: Het verzamelbeleid van Willem Sandberg voor het Stedelijk Museum 1945-1962, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 2004.
Roodenburg- Schadd, C. Goed Modern Werk’. De collectie Regnault in Het Stedelijk. Zwolle, 1995.
371 Roodenburg-Schadd, C. “De museumdirecteur als gastheer: Cornelis Baard en de bruikleengevers.” Kunstschrift, no. 5 (September-October 1995): pp. 8-13.
Roosevelt’s address on The Museum of Modern Art, as printed in the Herald Tribune on May 11, 1939. Reseach Resources, The Museum of Modern Art Archives, NY: Monroe Wheeler Papers
Rosenblum, R. “Foreword”. In Cubism and Abstract Art, by A.H. Barr Jr., New York, 1986 edition.
Rubin, W.S. Dada, Surrealism, and Their Heritage. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1968.
Russell, J. The Meanings of Modern Art (First published as 12 parts of Book-of-the-Month- Club). New York, 1974 (Single edition 1981).
Sachs, P. “An address to the Trustees by Professor Paul J. Sachs of Harvard University”. Bulletin of The Museum of Modern Art 6, no. 5 (July 1939): p. 3-12.
Salomonson, H. “Wonen in het museum.” Goed Wonen 7, no. 8 (August 1954): p. 121.
Sandberg, W. “De Amsterdamse Musea”. Report May 15 1944. SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
Sandberg, W. “Ontwikkelingsmogelijkheden van de beeldende kunsten”. Report May 1946. SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
Sandberg, W. “Vernieuwing Museum voor Moderne Kunst”. Report 1947. SMA Archives, Amsterdam.
Sandberg, W. “réflexions disparates sur l’organisation d’un musée d’art d’aujourd’hui.” Art d’Aujourd’hui 2, no. 1 (October 1950).
Sandberg, W. “Gedachten over een museum van hedendaagse kunst.” De Groene Amsterdammer (December 20, 1952),
Sandberg, W. “functie”. In 9 jaar stedelijk museum Amsterdam 1945-’54. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1954, n.p.
Sandberg, W. “er is wonen en wonen.” Goed Wonen 7, no. 12 (December 1954): pp. 115- 116.
Sandberg, W. “De nieuwe vleugel van het stedelijk museum te Amsterdam” Museumjournaal 1, no. 1 (July 1955): pp. 8-9.
Sandberg, W. “de vitaliteit in de kunst”. In De Vitaliteit in de Kunst. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Venice, 1959, pp. 8,9,10.
Sandberg, W. “de moderne kunst op zoek naar een woning.” Museumjournaal 4, no. 8/9 (March-April 1959): pp.137-138.
372
Sandberg, W. “De Vitaliteit in de kunst.”, Museumjournaal 5, no. 5 (November 1959): pp. 94- 96.
Sandberg, W. nu. Hilversum, 1959.
Sandberg, W. “dix artistes, trios étapes”, L’Oeil 69, 1960, pp. 42-51, 73.
Sandberg, W. “Künstler und Gesellschaft.” Form, Internationale Revue 8, no. 4 (October 1961): pp. 137-138.
Sandberg, W. and H.L.C. Jaffé. Kunst van heden in the Stedelijk. Amsterdam, 1961.
Sandberg, W. and H.L.C. Jaffé. Pioneers of Modern Art in the Museum of the City of Amsterdam. Translated by I.F. Finlay. New York and Toronto, 1961.
Sandberg, W. “introduction: international art since 1950”. In Art Since 1950. Ex. cat. Seattle World’s Fair 1962, 1962, pp. 86-88.
Sandberg, W. “sandberg over zijn werk in het stedelijk” Museumjournaal 8, no. 8-9 (April- May 1963).
Sandberg, W. “woord vooraf”. In Karel Appel, schilder, H. Claus. Amsterdam, 1964, pp. 13- 14.
Sandberg, W. “museums at the crossroads” . (Herbert Read Lecture at Institute of Contemporary Art, London, Nov. 22, 1973) In Museum in motion, Het museum voor moderne kunst ter diskussie, edited by C. Blotkamp, M. van Haspel and F. Haks. The Hague, 1979, pp. 320-331.
Sandler, I. and A. Newman, eds. Defining Modern Art, Selected Writings of Alfred H. Barr,Jr., New York, 1986.
Schmidt, G. “Constructivisme”. In Abstracte Kunst. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1938, pp. 12-14.
Schumacher, R. Museumjournaal en de ontvangst van de neo-avant-garde in Nederland 1961-1973. PhD diss.,
Seitz, W.C. Claude Monet: Seasons and Moments. Ex. cat. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1960.
Seitz, W.C. “Monet and Abstract Painting” College Art Journal 26, no. 1 (Fall 1956): pp. 34- 46.
Serota, N. Experience or Interpretation: the Dilemma of Museums of Modern Art. London, 1996.
Sloane, Th.O., ed. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. New York, 2001.
373 Shapiro, D. and C. Shapiro. “Abstract Expressionism: the Politics of Apolitical Painting.” Prospects, no. 3 (1976).
Sherman, D. J. and I. Rogoff, eds. Museum/Culture: Histories, Discourses, Spectacles. London and Minneapolis, 1994.
Simons, H.W., ed. Rhetoric in the Human Sciences. London and New Delhi, 1989.
Simons, H.W., ed. The Rhetorical Turn: Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry. Chicago and London, 1990.
Soby, J.T. and D.C. Miller. Romantic Painting in America. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1943.
Stam, M. “De stoel gedurende de laatste veertig jaar”. De 8 en Opbouw 6, no. 1 (January 1935): pp. 1-8.
The Stedelijk MuseumCollection 1963-1973. Acquisition cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1974.
Staniszewski, M.A. The Power of Display: A History of Exhibition Installations at the Museum of Modern Art, Cambridge, MA. and London, 1998.
Steichen, E. “Photography Collection”. In Masters of Modern Art, edited by A.H. Barr Jr., New York, 1954, pp. 183-198.
Stokvis, W. “De Stijl en Cobra. Nederlands tegenstrijdige bijdrage aan de kunst van de twintigste eeuw – tegenstellingen, parallelen, overeenkomsten.” In Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, Vol.7. Aspecten van het Interbellum. The Hague 1990, pp. 183-213.
Storr, R. Modern Art depite Modernism. New York, 2000.
Sweeney, J.J. ed. African Negro Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, 1935.
Sze, M. “Chinese Children’s War Pictures”, Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art 11, no. 5 (April 1944): pp.15 –17.
Szeemann, H. “Reisebericht von den Vorbereitungen und nur von diesen für die Ausstellung When attitudes become form (Works, concepts, processes, situations, information).” In Op Losse Schroeven, ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1969, n.p.
Tapié, M. “karel appel”. In the catalog karel appel, Galerie Rive Droite Paris/ Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1955.
Teaching Portfolio Number Three: Modern Art Old and New (A Portfolio Based on the Exhibition “Timeless Aspects of Modern Art” held at the Museum of Modern Art in New York). Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1950.
374 Thomajan, P.K. “New York’s Museum Modern Art and Its Books that Set Precedent in Creative Publishing.”, Direct Advertising 46, no. 3 (1969): pp. 25-29.
Today and Tomorrow. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1960.
Toward the New Museum of Modern Art. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1959.
Tuyl, G. van “Binnen en buiten het kader, environments en situaties van jonge Nederlanders” Museumjournaal 15, no. 5 (November 1970) pp. 238- 239.
Uitert, E. van., L. van Tilborgh and S. van Heugten, Vincent van Gogh: Paintings, Amsterdam, 1990.
Uitert, E. van. “Het Stedelijk van De Wilde: Hoe een directeur zijn keuzes maakt”. Kunstschrift, no. 5 (September-October 1995): pp. 30-38.
Varnedoe, K. “The Evolving Torpedo: Changing Ideas of the Collection of Painting and Sculpture of The Museum of Modern Art.” In The Museum of Modern Art at Mid-Century: Continuity and Change. Studies in Modern Art 5. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1995, pp. 12-73.
Veblen, T. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York, 1899.
Vellekoop, M. Het Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam: Oprichting, Bouw en Opening. Amsterdam, 1995.
Vergo, P., ed. The New Museology. London, 1989.
Vickers, B. In Defense of Rhetoric. Oxford, 1988.
Vincent van Gogh. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1945.
Vincent van Gogh en zijn nederlandse tijdgenoten. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1948.
Visser, H. “Wat kunnen wij van de Amerikaanse Musea leren?”, Phoenix 3, no.3 (April 1948): pp. 73-76.
Waal, H. van der. “Kanttekeningen bij ‘zijn er nog kunsthistorici?’” Museumjournaal 12, no. 3-4 (1967): pp. 98-101.
Werlemann, C. 5 generaties, tentoonstelling van schilderijen van 1800 tot heden in het Stedelijk Museum te Amsterdam. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1946.
W.G.C. “British Art at Amsterdam”, Burlington Magazine 69 (August 1936): pp. 87-88.
What is Modern Architecture? Introductory Series to the Modern Arts. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 2nd edition 1946.
375 Wheeler, M. Modern Painters and Sculptors As Illustrators. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 3rd edition 1947.
Wheeler, M., ed., Modern Drawings. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1947.
Whitney, J.H. “Foreword: The Collections of the Museum of Modern Art”. In Masters of Modern Art, edited by A.H. Barr Jr. New York, 1954, p. 7.
Wilde, E. de. “Notities over de functie van het museum van hedendaagse kunst” Museumjournaal 15, no. 4 (August 1970): pp. 19-24.
Wilde, E. de. “Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.” Museumjournaal 11, no.9-10 (1966): pp. 251- 258.
Wilde, E. de. “Preface”. In Op Losse Schroeven: situaties en cryptostructuren. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, n.p.
Wilde, E. de. “Introduction”. In De collectie van het Stedelijk Museum 1963-1973. Amsterdam, 1974, n.p.
Wilenski, R. The Modern Movement in Art. London, 1935.
40,000 Years of Modern Art: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern. Ex. cat. Institute of Contemporary Arts, London, 1948.
Zijlmans, K. “Duitse tentoonstellingen in Nederlandse musea en kunstenaarsverenigingen.” In Berlijn-Amsterdam 1920-1940: wisselwerkingen, edited by K. Dittrich, P. Blom and F. Bool. Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 287-293.
Exhibition Catalogs Stedelijk Museum
Tentoonstelling van Smaakmisleiding. (Vereeniging Kunst aan het Volk). Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1910-1911.
Amsterdamse tentoonstelling van woninginrichting. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1921.
Tentoonstelling van oude negerplastieken. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1927.
Monumentale Kunst: 40 jaar Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1935.
Moderne Fransche kunst uit het Museum van Grenoble. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1935.
376 Twee eeuwen Engelsche kunst. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1936.
Abstracte Kunst. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1938.
Honderd jaar Fransche Kunst. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1938.
Rondom Rodin. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1939.
In Holland staat een huis. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1941.
Vincent van Gogh. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1945.
5 generaties, tentoonstelling van schilderijen van 1800 tot heden in het Stedelijk Museum te Amsterdam. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1946.
Vincent van Gogh en zijn Nederlandse tijdgenoten. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1948. kunst en kind. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1948. het museum thuis. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1948. expressionisme: van gogh to picasso. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1949. kunst van het Zuidzee gebied. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1949.
6 zwitserse kunstenaars. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1950. expressionisme: werken uit de verzameling van haubrich in het wallraf richartz museum te keulen. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1951.
Van Gogh’s grote tijdgenoten. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1953.
Eeuwfeest Vincent van Gogh. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1953.
9 jaar stedelijk museum Amsterdam 1945-’54. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1954.
Vincent van Gogh. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1955. karel appel. Ex. cat. Galerie Rive Droite Paris/ Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1955. moderne kunst nieuw en oud. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1955. europa 1907. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1957. renaissance der xxe eeuw. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1958.
Jong Amerika schildert. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1958.
50 jaar verkenningen. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1959.
377
3 leeftijden. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1960. bewogen beweging. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1961. polariteit, het apollinische en het dionysische in de kunst. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1961.
Dylaby, dynamisch labyrinth. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1962. pioniers: 50 meesterwerken/ masterpieces uit: stedelijk museum amsterdam.Ex. cat. Curacao’s museum, Willemstad, 1962. nederlands bijdrage tot de internationale ontwikkeling sedert 1945. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1962.
Op Losse Schroeven: situaties en cryptosculpturen. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1969.
Binnen en buiten het kader: Environments en situaties van jonge Nederlanders. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1970.
Jean Tinguely. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1973.
80 jaar wonen in het Stedelijk. Ex. cat. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1981.
Exhibition Catalogs Museum of Modern Art
Cézanne, Gauguin, Seurat, Van Gogh. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, 1929.
Paintings By Nineteen Living Americans. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1929.
Painting in Paris. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art New York, 1930.
American Painting and Sculpture 1862-1932. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, 1932.
American Sources of Modern Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1933.
Modern Works of Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1934.
Machine Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1934.
A Brief Survey of Modern Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1934.
African Negro Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1935.
Cubism and Abstract Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, 1936.
378
Modern Painters and Sculptors as Illustrators. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, 1936.
Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, 1936.
Prehistoric Rock Pictures From Europe and Africa. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1937.
Masters of Popular Painting: Modern Primitives of Europe and America. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1938.
Art in Our Time. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1939.
Modern Masters from European and American Collections. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1940.
Twenty Centuries of Mexican Art. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1940.
Indian Art of the United States. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1941.
American1943: Realists and Magic Realists. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1943.
Romantic Painting in America. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1943.
Art in Progress. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1944.
Arts of the South Seas. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1946.
Timeless Aspects of Modern Art: The First of a Series of Exhibition Marking the Twentieth Anniversary of the Museum of Modern Art. Ex. pamphlet. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1948.
Modern Art in Your Life. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1949.
Abstract Painting and Sculpture in America. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1951.
Jackson Pollock. Ex. cat. (in Bulletin) Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1957.
Works of Art: Given or Promised. Ex. cat. (in Bulletin) Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1959.
The Philip L. Goodwin Collection. Ex. cat. (in Bulletin) Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1959.
New American Painting: As shown in eight European countries 1958-1959. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1959.
Claude Monet: Seasons and Moments. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1960.
379
Homage to New York: a self-constructing and self-destructing work of art conceived and built by Jean Tinguely. Ex. broadside Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1960.
Bonnard and His Environment. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1964.
Jackson Pollock. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1967.
Dada, Surrealism, and Their Heritage. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York.
The Machine as seen at the end of the mechanical age. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1968.
Spaces. Ex. cat Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1969.
Information. Ex. cat. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1970.
380
Biography
Nana Leigh was born in New York on May 25, 1958. After obtaining her BA degree (concentration economics) from the University of Michigan in 1982, she went on to study Art History at the University of Leiden and graduated (cum laude) in 1988. Since then she has been teaching at the Department of Art History of the University of Leiden. Initially she set up and taught a new extra curricular program Art Management: Art, Artist and Society. After five years, the curriculum of the different courses of this program were blended into the regular curriculum with the beginning of a Cultural Heritage program within the Art History Department. For the last fifteen years she has been teaching a broad range of subjects focusing on the history of museums, the exhibiting of art and modern art history.
381 Samenvatting
De beeld- en canonvorming van moderne kunst (1935-1975):de retorica van twee musea, het Stedelijk Museum te Amsterdam en het Museum of Modern Art te New York
Uitgangspunt bij dit onderzoek is de stellingname dat musea voor moderne kunst door hun bijdrage aan de beeldvorming en canonvorming in sterke mate de koers van de kunstgeschiedenis bepalen. Mijn onderzoek richt zich op de verschillende vormen van presentatie van beeldende kunst in het Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam en het Museum of Modern Art te New York in de periode van ongeveer 1935 tot 1975. De presentatievormen die bestudeerd worden zijn tentoonstellingen met bijbehorende catalogi en andere publicaties waarin de musea hun ideeën en standpunten ten aanzien van moderne kunst aan verschillende publieksgroepen kenbaar maken. Gekozen is voor een comparatieve benadering omdat door een vergelijking van verschillende musea meer aan het licht komt over de verschillende mechanismen van beeld- en canonvorming en de instrumenten die daarbij van invloed zijn. Dat musea voor moderne kunst een cruciale rol spelen lijkt algemeen aanvaard, maar over hoe ze deze rol vervullen is nog veel onduidelijkheid. Om beter inzicht te krijgen in het proces van beeld- en canonvorming richt mijn onderzoek zich op de ‘retorica’ in dit proces. Musea van moderne kunst bieden het publiek een visueel en verbaal verhaal van de moderne kunst. Op dit glibberige terrein moeten de musea verschillende publieksgroepen overtuigen van het belang van moderne kunst, die in de ogen van het publiek moeilijk en controversieel is. Retorica is de kunst van doeltreffende en overtuigende communicatie. Hierbij gaat het zowel om de vorm als de inhoud: om de stijl én de argumentatie. In mijn onderzoek worden aspecten van de verbale en visuele retorica ingezet om de presentaties van de musea te analyseren. Hierbij vormen de drie retorische persuasiemiddelen: ethos, pathos en logos het uitgangspunt. In het eerste hoofdstuk wordt beschreven hoe de musea hun eigen imago als autoriteit op het gebied van moderne kunst hebben gecreëerd. Hun verschillende doelstellingen en ambities - en het daaruit voortvloeiende verschil in hun ontwikkeling en organisatiestructuur - worden geanalyseerd door te laten zien hoe beide musea zich als een soort redenaar profileren: het Stedelijk Museum als een lofredenaar gericht op het hier en nu en het Museum of Modern Art als didactische redenaar gericht op de geschiedenis. Als belangrijke
382 voorbeelden van tentoonstellingen die het ethos van de musea creëren en versterken worden de jubileumtentoonstellingen bestudeerd. Het tweede hoofdstuk behandelt hoe beide musea moderne kunst definiëren en verdedigen. Hun verschillende houding ten opzichte van educatie in het museum vloeide voort uit hun verschillende instellingen en ambities. Aan de hand van twee thema’s – moderne kunst als onderdeel van het moderne leven en moderne kunst als kunstvorm van alle tijden en culturen - worden de overeenkomsten en verschillen in de aanpak van beide musea onderzocht. Het Stedelijk Museum lijkt pathos zwaarder te hebben ingezet en hanteerde daarbij een wat meer mystificerende en pathetische stijl. Het Museum of Modern Art, aan de andere kant, bouwde zijn presentaties voornamelijk op logos waarbij een eenvoudige en heldere stijl gebruikt werd en bewust meerdere publieksgroepen werden bediend. De presentatie van de geschiedenis van de moderne kunst wordt in het derde hoofdstuk geanalyseerd. Door het Museum of Modern Art te bezien als redenaar met kunsthistorische pretenties wordt zichtbaar hoe zij het verhaal van de moderne kunst opgezet hebben als een lineaire geschiedenis van meesters, meesterwerken en stromingen. De ontwikkeling van moderne kunst werd gepresenteerd als een evolutie voortgestuwd door vooruitgang. De persuasieve communicatiestrategieën waren die van de retorica van wetenschappelijke argumentatie. De publicaties van het Museum of Modern Art presenteerden zich als academische publicaties. Het Stedelijk Museum, daarentegen, stelde de geschiedenis van de moderne kunst in dienst van het heden. Verschillende verhalen werden verteld waarbij een constante factor in alle presentaties een lofzang aan de kunstenaar was en aan zijn maatschappelijke waarde. De verhalen blonken niet uit in argumentatie en helderheid, maar waren onderhoudende en visueel aantrekkelijke presentaties. Ten aanzien van hun belangrijkste voorvader van de moderne kunst zetten beide musea overtuigende strategieën in. In het laatste hoofdstuk wordt zichtbaar hoe beide musea de levende kunstenaar gepositioneerd en gepromoot hebben en de contemporaine kunst hebben ingebed in de kunstgeschiedenis door relevante overtuigende communicatiemiddelen. De retorica van het Museum of Modern Art kwam in botsing met die van de levende kunstenaar en zijn experimentele kunst, terwijl die van het Stedelijk Museum harmonieerde met die van de experimentele kunstenaar. Tot slot worden in de conclusies en vooruitblik de belangrijkste bevindingen van de retorische analyse van de museale presentaties van beide musea belicht en worden de consequenties voor hun huidige positie kort uiteengezet.
383