DOES CONTEMPORARY ART NEED MUSEUMS ANYMORE? Marina Grzinic Mauhler
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The 90s and the year 2000 show an increasing museums anymore” perhaps would suggest that and the fantasmatic scenario have nothing to do proliferation - a boom of museums: world it is time to bridge the gap between art and life, with something fantastic or unreal, but are, architects compete for a dream amount of transcending Art as the institution of power, despite being constructions and scenarios, money, capital that is reserved by city councils, bringing it down to earth, direct and real. But as almost material. The fantasmatic scenario, a state associations and funds in Western Europe you already know, out there, outside the fantasy, has the power to prevent an action and and America for the third millenium deal-of-a- corrupted “institution of art”, there is no authentic, to sustain, to support, the situation as it is in lifetime in culture, from Texas to Boston, from unspoiled reality of life! Even the community itself reality: unchanged, much better and more Helsinki to Berlin: the building of new museums is an institution of relations, of stratified power effectively than with the so-called hard-boiled for art and the renovation of old ones. In the and dynamics. The institution of modern art, material facts, present and active in this very heart of the city of Berlin, in the so-called Berlin including the whole spectrum of power and reality. inner city island, from 2000 on, five museums will hierarchic relations embodied and comprised in be rebuilt; the cost of such a project is estimated it, shows something more: that our historical Returning to the statement that we are at DM 2 billion. According to various reports, ideas on how we construct the museum are witnessing today the end of the historical never has such a quantity of museums and clearly vanishing in the face of this new situation. definition of the museum, we see, and I refer to galleries, at such a rate of financial support, been Weibel, a shift from author- and object-centered constructed. The triumph of the museum is real, Does this imply the death of the museum, as has work to observer- and machine-operations- and thus it is perhaps more appropriate to ask, been proposed in post-structural theory? centered work. The question is not the machine, reversing the introductory question: does, in fact, No! On the contrary, it is, as Peter Weibel has but the logic of the machine that is transposed in the Western museum of modern art need art stated on the subject, the end of the historical the work of art. Here, we can find a change in the anymore? definition of the museum! This conclusion of historical definition of the museum. A new definition (that has nothing to do with the end of moment that seems crucial is also an artificiality Further, how does this affect or undermine the the museum, as it seems, in fact, that it will live of perception and positioning that is connected set of parameters of the museum in itself? eternally) should be viewed in the context of a with the fictionalization of history. The museum Museums are among those structures that complex set of complementary oppositions: was perceived as a “natural” site, and preserved institutionalized the processes of art and culture between reality and its fantasmatic support, in a locality of surroundings and continuity, but in a way that allows us to think about art as an between law and its inherent transgression. with the new projects and media-orientated institution. It is a public sphere of need, artworks that integrate the public as a production and consumption in art that is I have stated that this conclusion of the definition fundamental element of the work, we can regulated and institutionalized by museums. of the museum today has to be viewed also in experience and recognize the artificial social Museums are institutions that in the modern the context between reality and its fantasmatic construction of the site of art. The museum is an world have codified and structured art. We must support – and, as this reference to fantasy and extension of art, but an artificial one! recognize the redistributed relations of power and fantasmatic support will be used extensively the new inner agents and forces in the very throughout the text, clarification follows herewith. We can argue that today the power of the institution of Art. The audience in art is currently, Fantasmatic support, or scenario, is a Western museum of modern art is real, but we today, turned from res nulius, from something construction of fantasies or, more simply put, of can not move further if we establish the analysis which belonged to no one, into res publica, a thoughts on different situations, relations, etc., exclusively in such a way. I would like simply to public affair, which must be accounted for in that help him, her or the thing, the object, the say that the universe of the museum cannot be every serious analysis of modern art. Not only topic under discussion to resist, to survive grasped only as a means of direct social criticism because of the new tourist logic of the museums, unchanged in so-called everyday reality. S/he – …as the repetitive phraseology about the but because of new art production in the fantasizes about the object, relations, etc., not in museum as an institution of art, co-responsible changing (local) map of Europe, Asia, Africa and order to escape from it or them, but to sustain for the distribution and reproduction of the power so on; museums, and the institution of Art, have them. To sustain them in reality unchanged, as of capital, is a fact confirmed even by those who to reflect the establishment of new relations of these fantasmatic scenarios or thoughts simply run these museums…. I propose that we traverse power between the urban periphery, the center prevent the passage to real action and change. the fantasmatic universe of the museum not only and the institutions. by way of direct criticism, but strictly theoretically Herein lies the power of fantasy, or of the (relying upon philosophy, psychoanalysis, and art The question “does contemporary art need fantasmatic scenario or construction. Fantasy theory and history), reviewing fantasies of the DOES CONTEMPORARY ART NEED MUSEUMS ANYMORE? Marina Grzinic Mauhler 10 DOES CONTEMPORARY ART NEED MUSEUMS ANYMORE? / MARINA GRZINIC MAUHLER current position of the museum, about its museum, as an institution, is giving directly to the work). In the second half of the 90s, this inherent historical power or non-power relations, in order art world what this world has hallucinated over for impossibility is externalized into the positive to reach a possible conclusion. We have to decades, and it seems today that this is the most obstacle which from the outside prevents its slightly change the terms of looking at things. effective way to distort the art world. Constructive actualization: history, progress, chronological diversion or a sabotage of the museum as an time are now seen through anti-historical views. Therefore, we can say that instead of the spectral institution of power is simply not possible, And this move, from inherent impossibility to power that was attributed to the museum in the because a coordinated international action, external obstacle, is the very definition of fantasy, 70s, when the idea of the revolution of the based on solidarity against Art seen as an of the fantasmatic objective position in which the museum arose and the museum had to face a Institution, is not possible either. inherent deadlock acquires positive existence! A- symbolical destruction that imprinted onto the historical exhibitions, ruptures with styles, trends, museum a kind of spectral power –indestructible It is commonly known that as a consequence of classifications, etc. all work with the implication also in the case of its potential destruction – the the ready-made, the system of galleries and that with these obstacles cancelled, the museum of 2000 is, in its constant assertion of its museums changed the modalities of the artistic relationship will run smoothly. The museum is real power, definitely vulgar, cold, manipulative function in the beginning of the past century. presented as an institution, a self-reflecting and almost deprived of any aura. The museum Before the ready-made, all the elements of historical phenomenon which uses its own today is well aware of its own financial, artwork were inherent/internal to the material with means to examine its functions and possibilities economical and symbolic power, at least the which the work was realized. Although the artists in the context of today’s multimedia society. museums of (modern) art in the Western world could have some ideas about norms and values, When all the chronology and history concepts (North America, Japan, etc.), if we think only of these external elements were not part of the work come down to earth, then the re-ordering of the the millions that are invested in the developed of art. This is why an artwork that was designed museum and gallery space is based on the Western world towards reorganizing the as an artwork could be recognized as such out of curator’s geniality and taste; they are seen as a museums, building and rebuilding them. the art context, as well. On the contrary, the possibility for objective random collective content of a ready-made is not the concrete memory (which collective? what memory?) in In the 70s, the museum was perceived as a object, but its context – i.e., the art gallery or images and space. This museum structure is no threat to the art community, with its historical and museum.