On the Mythological and the Monographic
The Single-Artist Museum and the Notion of Genius
Master Thesis Author: Megan Mullarky Student number: 10869808 Supervisor: Dr. Rachel Esner Second Reader: Dos Elshout University of Amsterdam Heritage Studies: Museum Studies Word Count: 22,919 2 December 2016
1 Table of Contents
Preface…………………………………………………………..………………………………...…………...…….3
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….…………….….………….4
0. Introduction 0.1 Introduction to Topic…………………….………...………………..….………………………5 0.2 State of the Research………………………………………………….…………...……………6 0.3 Research Question and Framework……………………………..……………....……….7
1. Artistic Genius and its Role in Art Historical Discourse 1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...…………9 1.2 Immanuel Kant and the Definition of Genius…………………………..……..…….10 1.3 Biography, Mythologization, and the Inexplicable……………………..…………15 1.4 The Early Twentieth Century: Diversity and Discontent……..………….…….17 1.5 Barthes: Rupture and Legacy……………………………………………………..……….22 1.6 The Aftermath of the Death of the Author………………………….…..……...…….24 1.7 The Era of Criticism………………………………………...………………………….………28
2. Case Study 1: Musée National Picasso 2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………31 2.2 The Formation of the Musée National Picasso…………………...... ………..32 2.3 The Mythologies at Stake: Narcissist, Misogynist, Mystery…………..……….38 2.4 Mythologies in the Museum: Musée Picasso circa 1985………….……….……42 2.5 Musée Picasso 2014: Renovations and Reconsiderations……………………..46 2.6 Conclusions………………………….………………………………………………………...….49
3. Case Study 2: Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam 3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………55 3.2 The Formation of the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam………………….……….56 3.3 The Mythologies at Stake: Martyr, Lunatic, Saint…………………….……………62 3.4 Mythologies in the Museum: Van Gogh Museum circa 1973…………….…...68 3.5 Van Gogh Museum circa 2014: Renovations and Reconsiderations…...... 72 3.6 Conclusions………..……………..………………………………………………………….……77
4. Conclusion 4.1 Results and Interpretations……………...………..……………………………………….81
Images………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………….86
Literature……………………………………………………………………………………………………….103
2 Preface
During my bachelor’s degree in art history in the United States, I became extremely interested in the problematic aspects of biographical art history and how to deal with the identity of artists in my own practice. I constantly asked myself, why does any of this matter? Can I, or anyone else, really give a good reason for studying the identity or authorship of artists as interpretative material for their works?
It was my continued interest in this problem that inspired this thesis project.
Fascinated by the way in which monographic museums of celebrity artists must deal with the issue of artistic identity, yet slightly frustrated at times that the museum world did not seem to notice the challenges going on in these institutions, I felt compelled to write about these issues. I chose the following case studies specifically according to my interests and expertise. Because I completed an eight-month internship at the Van Gogh Museum, it was a highly accessible choice for me to conduct a case study. The Musée Picasso, on the other hand, was simply an institution which I had previously found both beautiful and problematic, a great combination for my interest in a case study.
I hope in this thesis to provoke more interest and attention towards monographic institutions today, and show also that the issue of authorship and identity in art museums remains an extremely complicated challenge. I thoroughly hope that you enjoy reading my findings.
Megan Mullarky
3 Acknowledgements
During the research period of this project, there were many people at the University of Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, and Musée National Picasso whose assistance enormously improved the results of this study. Most importantly, I would like to thank Dr. Rachel Esner at the University of Amsterdam, whose close guidance and inspirational attitude truly made this project possible. I would also like to thank those who were willing to be sit through long interviews, namely Leo Jansen at the
Mondrian Edition Project, whom I thank for his deep interest in this topic and openness to exchange ideas. However, I would also like to thank Nienke Bakker,
Joost van der Hoeven, Edwin Becker, and Renske Suijver at the Van Gogh Museum for offering assistance when needed and access to the Van Gogh Museum archives.
At the Musée National Picasso I would like to express my thanks to Émilie Bouvard, who was willing to be interviewed and direct me towards the correct information in the extensive Musée Picasso archives. At the University of Amsterdam I would like to thank Dr. Dos Elshout, who guided my internship at the Van Gogh Museum and supported the development of this research idea.
4 0. Introduction
0.1 Introduction to Topic
Art museums dedicated to the work of a single artist are today common occurrences in the landscape of the contemporary art world. Often called “monographic museums,” such institutions are generally dedicated to artist’s of a certain celebrity status. However, often overlooked by contemporary museum professionals and art historians are the fundamental differences in the historical development, ideological identity, and methodological strategies between monographic museums and today’s standard art museums. Most particularly unaccounted for, in fact, is that in comparison to the freedom of a typical art museum to innovatively design their display of a collection originating from a variety of artists, monographic museums lack such liberties due to their investment in the display of the life and work of only a single artist. The development of such institutions, in fact, are intrinsically bound to the historical notion of “artistic genius” and the mythologization1 of the artist in order to justify the veneration of a single historical figure through the establishment of such a museum. As a result, today’s monographic museums are often methodologically indebted to the notion of artistic genius, thereby occluding a variety of other methodological perspectives. This thesis will therefore present an investigation of the role of the historical notion of artistic genius and
1 The term “mythologization” will throughout this essay refer to the way in which biography and the notion of genius can be combined in the consideration of certain artists and therefore instigate the notion of the artist as “mythologized.” This process will be explained further in the first chapter of this thesis.
5 mythologization in two single artists museums: the Musée National Picasso and the
Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam.
0.2 State of the Research
Although the investigation of the ideological presence of the notion of artistic genius in monographic museums is the main topic of this study, the concept itself has been long popularized as a major research topic by the fields of philosophy, art history, museology, and anthropology. Considered the most significant instigator towards the trajectory of this scholarship, Roland Barthes’ 1967 text “The Death of the
Author”2 stimulated throughout the twentieth century a profound interest in the examination of the author (or artist) as creative subject. The largely positive reception of Barthes’ text aroused not only a series of responsive essays, such as
Michel Foucault’s “What is an Author?,”3 but also the interest of academics to continue to analyze the meaning of the author’s death in terms of a variety of methodological situations, identities, and disciplines. This process occurring in the twentieth century will be outlined in the first chapter of this thesis.
In contrast, the broader landscape of monographic museums as institutional category is largely ignored, despite the fact that Europe is home to nearly fifty of such establishments. The single known account of the theoretical foundation of monographic museums is that found in the PhD dissertation of Maarten Liefooghe completed in 2013 at the University of Ghent, entitled, “De monographische factor:
2 Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author,” English translation in Image, Music, Text by Stephen Heath, (1968), 141-148. 3 Foucault, Michel, “What is an Author?” English translation in Authorship: From Plato to the Postmodern, (Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press, 1995).
6 theoretische en architecturale aspecten van kunstenaarsmusea.”4 This PhD project, sponsored by Bart Verschaffel en Wouter Davidts, explores the foundational aspects of the single-artist institution in terms of theory and architecture within the broader scope of the generalized aims of monographic museums. Liefooghe’s project can be considered the first of its type in its development of a theoretical survey of the monographic museum within the field of museology. However, this thesis will nonetheless differ fundamentally from Liefooghe’s in that the focus will not be on architecture, but rather, the specific museological strategies in the broadest sense utilized in the display of the permanent collection within which the notion of artistic genius plays a major role.
0.3 Research Question and Framework
With respect to the state of the research, this thesis will answer the following question:
How do contemporary monographic museums function in relation to the
problematic history of the notion of the artistic genius and the process of
mythologization of the author-figure?
This question will be answered in three chapters. The first chapter will outline the relationship between the theoretical notion of the mythologized artistic genius and art historical practice from the development of art history as a discipline until today, concluding by identifying the broad scope of disciplinary challenges faced by
4 English translation: “The Monographic Factor: Theoretical and Architectural Aspects of Single-Artist Museums.” Maarten Liefooghe, “De monografische factor: theoretische en architecturale aspecten van kunstenaarsmuea,” (Ghent, Belgium: PhD diss., Universiteit Gent, 2013).
7 monographic museums in relation to the contemporary treatment of the notion of genius. The second and third chapters will respectively present two comprehensive case studies dedicated to the historical and contemporary practices of the Musée
National Picasso in Paris and the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam in order to examine the function of both museums in relation to the complexities of the notion of artistic genius as established in the first two chapters. Finally, the conclusion of this thesis will offer the findings pertaining to the research question and further, will reflect on the potential meaning of these results within the context of single-artist museums.
8 1. Artistic Genius and its Role in Art Historical Discourse
1.1 Introduction
The notion of artistic genius has played a significant role in art historical discourse since the development of the discipline itself. Moreover, the relationship between the notion of artistic genius and the practice of art-historical study has undergone a variety of transformations due to the variety of methodological models developed since the eighteenth century. This chapter will examine the history of the notion of artistic genius since the earliest stages of art-historical practice, thereby establishing chronologically both the historical role of this notion in contemporary art history, and by extension, museum practice. Consequently, this chapter will focus first on
Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgment (1790), which was not only widely influential in the art-historical consideration of genius until the twentieth century, but whose characterization of genius is that by which the concept in this thesis will be defined.5
Secondly, this chapter will elucidate the methodological trends occurring in art historical practice in the first half of the twentieth century in order to illustrate the major shifts occurring in the consideration of the notion of artistic genius in the modern period. Finally, this chapter will discuss Roland Barthes’ 1967 essay “The
Death of the Author” in addition to its contemporary reception.6 Furthermore, in characterizing the transformations of the notion of artistic genius throughout art historical scholarship, this chapter will provide a theoretical background for the
5 Immanuel Kant, A Critique of Judgment, English translation by James Meredith Creed, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 6 Barthes, “The Death of the Author.”
9 following case studies in which the ideas here discussed will be applied to the analysis of the museological strategies practiced at the Musée National Picasso and the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam.
1.2 Immanuel Kant and the Definition of Genius
Immanuel Kant’s characterization of the notion of artistic genius was not only widely implemented in early art historical practice, but can be viewed today as the most influential definition of the concept itself. Though the fascination with artists in an individualized and often biographical sense had already been long popularized by figures such as Giorgio Vasari and Karel van Mander,7 Kant’s theorization of the nature of genius in A Critique of Judgment presented for the first time an explanation of genius and how to recognize it. 8 It is within the second section of this text, entitled “Analytic of the Sublime,” that Kant defines the notion of artistic genius and furthermore, illuminates the circumstances under which artistic activity can be considered as such. The topics introduced by Kant in this section include the definition of an artistic object in relation to its maker, the necessary presence of genius in the production of artistic objects, and the means by which artistic genius can be distinguished from other human capabilities.9
7 The founder of the biographical model, Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574), and his Northern Renaissance follower, Karel van Mander (1548-1606), can be considered as several figures who popularized the emphasis on biographical art history and the notion of individuality in terms of artistic ability. Donald Preziozi, “Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects,” in The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology, (London: Oxford University Press, 2009) pg. 22-26. 8 Brigette Sassen,“Artistic Genius and the Question of Creativity,” in Kant’s Critique of Power of Judgment: Critical Essays, (Maryland: Littlefield Publishers, USA, 2003), 171. 9 Sassen, 172.
10 The first significant topic at hand, the definition of an artistic object in relation to its maker, appears as the topic of section 43, entitled “Art in General.”
This section establishes the nature of the relationship between an artistic object and its maker. In order to properly establish this relationship, it is first necessary to define an artistic object by creating a distinction between art and nature. While the two categories are related in that both can at times be considered beautiful, Kant asserts that the essence of artistic objects versus that of natural objects remains fundamentally disparate. Kant contends that objects of art differ principally from nature in that while nature appears of its own accord, the form of artistic objects are determined by the will of their maker.10 Furthermore, the will of the maker manifests specifically in terms of artistic creativity, and cannot be categorized as scientific learning. Therefore, it must also be established that “ability is distinguished from knowledge.”11 While knowledge is generated by education and leads to the production of a known outcome, ability is that which cannot be taught and is generated only by the will of an individual.12 In sum, the assertion insisted on by Kant in section 43 is that firstly, art differs from nature in that it requires the will of its maker in order to come into being, and secondly, that the will of the maker manifests through artistic ability rather than scientific knowledge.
10 In this case, “knowledge” refers to scientific practice, while “ability” refers to the mental facility to create art. Immanuel Kant, “Art in General,” English translation by James Meredith Creed, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 11Ibid., 304. 12 Ibid.
11 Following the establishment of this logic in section 43, Kant explores in section 46 the nature of artistic ability and its resulting limitations. In the first passage of this section, Kant proposes that:
“Genius is the talent (natural endowment) which gives rule to art. Since talent, as an innate productive faculty of the artist, belongs itself to nature, we may put it this way: Genius is the innate mental aptitude (ingenium) through which nature gives the rule to art.”13
This final statement of the passage, that “genius is the innate mental aptitude through which nature gives rule to art,” fundamentally illustrates the consideration with which Kant will further identify genius in this section.14 This statement requires the interrelatedness of three concepts: nature, creativity, and art. These notions are related by means of genius, in that genius itself originates in nature, and furthermore, is the circuit through which nature propels the creation of art. While nature exists indefinitely, it cannot itself generate art. Rather, only the manifestation of nature in the creative faculties of the human mind, described above as genius, allow the production of art.15 Therefore, the final statement of the passage not only generates a relationship between the ideas of art, nature, and genius, but correspondingly privileges genius as the determining factor in the relationship between the additional two concepts. Moreover, with consideration to the assertion of Kant that “nature gives rule to art,” genius can here be defined as that which motivates the ability to produce artistic objects, and furthermore, is essential to the established relationship between the notions of art and nature.
13 Immanuel Kant, “Fine art is the art of genius,” A Critique of Judgment, English translation by James Meredith Creed, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 14 Ibid., 307. 15 Ibid.
12 However, Kant further establishes the nature of genius by identifying the means by which it materializes in human activity. Of all creative faculties available within the limits of human endeavor, not all can be defined as that of artistic genius.16 The first condition of genius presented by Kant is the distinction between natural genius and “learned cleverness.”17 While the latter represents a learned skill whose knowledge may be passed down from teacher to student in a linear fashion, genius leads to a product which is both unexpected and specific to the mental faculties of its maker. This latter qualification can be termed “originality.” To further illustrate this notion, Kant claims that:
“From this it may be seen that genius (1) is a talent for producing that for which no definite rule can be given, and not an aptitude in the way of cleverness for what can be learned according to some rule; and that consequently originality must be its primary property.”18
However, while the presence of originality allows for the possibility of genius, it cannot alone determine its presence. The reason for this shortcoming is that while originality can lead to the creation of art, it can equally contribute to the creation of
“nonsense.”19 Since nonsense can also be deemed original, genius equally requires creative efficacy. Kant therefore insists that artistic objects must not only be original in form, but also generate what he terms “genuine inspiration.”20 Through these qualifications, Kant determines that genius derives not only from nature, but equally from both individual ability and inspired originality.21
The content of sections 43-46 of Kant’s Critique of Judgment are dedicated
16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid.
13 primarily to the explanation of the manner in which genius is specifically related to the creation of artistic objects and furthermore, the ways in which genius differs from other mental capabilities. However, it is significant to note that the question of why genius arises in certain individuals rather than other remains relatively unexplained. In order to address the conspicuous absence of this clarification, Kant claims that:
“where an author owes a product to his genius, he does not himself know how the ideas for it have entered into his head, nor has he it in his power to invent the like at pleasure, or methodically, and communicate the same to others in such precepts as would put them in a position to produce similar products.”22
This passage represents a significant disparity in logic by claiming that the presence of genius within an individual is a mystery both to themself and others. This claim expressly denotes the point at which Kant makes a distinction between what is possible to explain and what remains fundamentally impossible. It is this evasive explanation offered by Kant in this passage which represents the most formative role of Kant’s philosophy in the history of the notion of artistic genius. While artistic objects, the role of genius in their production, and objects of genius can each be identified according to philosophical logic, the origins of artistic genius are rendered fundamentally mysterious.23 In fact, the explanation offered is that genius is itself inexplicable. In other words, inexplicability as an abstract notion stands in for the lack of a true answer. Therefore, the paradox rendered by Kant is that artistic genius can be explained by being termed inexplicable.
22 Ibid. 23 Ibid.
14 1.3 Biography, Mythologization, and the Inexplicable
Despite the definitive explanation of genius offered by Kant in A Critique of
Judgment, the commentary provided does not encompass the notion of mythologization; in other words, the version of artistic genius which encourages continuous fascination and subsists on the perpetuation of sensational and often biographical anecdotes. As a result, it is the history of the biographical model of art history which stimulated the mythologization of the artistic genius occurring after
Kant. Before the publication of A Critique of Judgment, Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574) had developed the biographical model of art history, and by extension, the emphasis on the notion of artistic individuality.24 The development of the biographical model instigated the heightened attention given to the disposition, biographical circumstances, and individual desires of a given artist, thereby privileging above all other information the personality of the artist in the understanding of an oeuvre. As a result, the increased emphasis on the biography and personal traits of an artist established already by the seventeenth century the possibility of implementing such privilege also in the case of the artistic genius, thereby setting the stage for the process of mythologization upon the implementation of Kant’s definition of artistic genius appearing in A Critique of Judgment.
Because Kant’s text stimulated the implementation of the notion of artistic genius within a period in which art historical practice was already informed by the
24 This model was first introduced in Giorgio Vasari’s 1550 publication The Lives of the Artists, which displayed a distinctly biographical construction of art historical research. Furthermore, Vasari’s model was widely perpetuated also in Northern Europe by Karel Van Mander (1548-1606), whose Painter’s Book further instigated the popularity in the biographical model. Giorgio Vasari, The Lives of the Artists, (trans. by George Bull, Penguin Classics, 1986).
15 personality of the artist, his definition of genius can be seen to have largely instigated the process of mythologization. According to Kant’s text, the presence of artistic genius defies explanation, even by the artist himself. However, the mythologized genius artist manifests under conditions related to not only the artist as maker, but the artist as biographical subject. Consequently, the identification of the mythologized artist stems from the way in which the artist as human subject may present as equally inexplicable as the presence of genius itself. In particular, subjects who display behaviors outside of the “norm,” either a positive or negative sense, are often viewed as mysterious and are thus susceptible to mythologization.
An example of such an instance is that of Auguste Rodin.25 In Rodin’s own lifetime, his major success as an artist suggest already the presence of artistic genius. His sculptures were unlike those of any other sculptor of the period and through this unique quality, suggesting thereby that the faculties required to create them stemmed not from learning, but inexplicable divine inspiration. Furthermore, Rodin was understood as biographically abnormal due to his history as a relatively self- trained artist, resulting in his mysterious identification as an “untaught.”26 The resulting conflation of these two qualities is the identification of Rodin as mythologized genius, in that the nature of genius and the biographical circumstances which led to its manifestations are equally beyond explanation.
As a result, the notion of the mythologized genius continues to demonstrate the paradoxical quality of the aforementioned historical consideration of artistic
25 Sandra Kisters, “Musée Rodin: Thorvaldsen as a Role Model,” Van Gogh Studies 3, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, 2010, 113-135. 26 Kisters, 15.
16 genius as that which is simultaneously both explicable and inexplicable. For instance, the way in which Kant theorized the explanation for the existence of artistic genius as that which is in itself inexplicable renders an innately paradoxical conundrum which can also be applied to the case of the mythologized genius artist in that the mythologized genius must also be able to be explained in terms of inexplicability. Such a paradox can be seen, for example, in the case of the mythologized figure of the untaught genius. In this case, the explanation for the untaught abilities for the artist at hand is itself the myth that the artist is untaught, creating therefore a situation in which the myth (lack of explanation) stands in for the possibility of true explanation. Therefore, the Kantian paradox of the artistic genius is equally relevant in terms of the inexplicability of the mythologized genius.
With respect to these paradoxical terms, the mythologization of the artistic genius renders a figure of utter fascination, whose cryptic personality type and divine artistic abilities have largely captivated the general public and art historians alike up until the start of the twentieth century.
1.4 The Early Twentieth Century: Diversity and Discontent
In the wake of the nineteenth century, which saw the widespread influence of Kant, the first half of the twentieth century marked a period of rapid transformation in the treatment of artistic genius within art history. As artistic production shifted dramatically in terms of materials, reproductions, visual strategies, and medium, the consideration of the artist underwent simultaneous revolution. As a result, a variety of art historical methodologies were developed which spanned throughout a variety
17 of disciplinary and philosophical frameworks, thereby resulting equally in the diversification of the consideration of the mythologized artistic genius. This section will therefore examine several themes and sub-strategies of art historical practice developed in the first half of the twentieth century in order to establish the situation of the notion of artistic genius in the field prior to the appearance of Barthes’ essay
“The Death of the Author” published in 1967.27 The themes hereby examined are: firstly, the interest in deriving meaning from the work of art itself (formalism), secondly, the construction of meaning in relation to the social milieu (Marxism and social art history), and thirdly, the acquisition of meaning from the maker (the biographical or psychological model). The diverse nature of the methodologies will hereby demonstrate the disparate art historical models developed the early twentieth century which on one hand suggested growing dissidence towards the notion itself, yet failed to directly criticize the notion of genius.
One of the major themes emerging in art historical practice during this period was that which emphasized the ability to derive meaning from a work of art as a subject in itself, thereby instigating the close examination of the visual qualities of the object. Knowledge of or about the maker is superfluous in this model. The specific methodologies dedicated to this theme consisted mainly of hard sciences, formalism, semiotics, and connoisseurship. In particular, hard sciences and formalism were largely rooted in the belief that the visual qualities of a given artwork provided the most comprehensive meaning, thereby requiring the close examination of the visual aspects. One of the leading figures of formalism, Swiss art
27 Barthes, “The Death of the Author.”
18 historian Heinrich Wöfflin (1864-1945), even developed a categorical system by which to examine artworks. For example, paintings could be judged in terms of those which were defined as “painterly vs. linear,” rendering, therefore, a binary system of discussing artworks based on their stylistic qualities.28 Wöfflin’s methodological schema can be viewed as largely influential to the art historians of the Vienna school, including Max Dvořák (1874-1941) and Alois Riegl (1858-1905), who equally viewed stylistic developments as categorical systems generated by historical patterns of art making.29 Formalism as a practice excluded the previously established attention given to the artist as subject and instead shifted the consideration to the artwork alone, thereby signaling a departure from the notion of artistic genius.
Another major theme that developed in the discipline of art history was the notion of looking outside of the artwork towards the social environment which contributed to its conception. In particular, social art history and Marxism developed as main methodological frameworks. One of the major figures of social art history was German philosopher Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), who was most commended for his focus on the corresponding progress of industrialization and artistic practice. Benjamin’s work theorized the way in which the understanding of artwork itself was dictated by the conditions of the modern age, thereby situating its meaning in the social circumstances of culture at large.30 Furthermore, the role of
28 Heinrich Wöfflin, “Principles of Art History,” in The Art of Art History, 119-126. 29 Matthew Rampley, “Art History and the Politics of Empire: Rethinking the Vienna School,” in The Art Bulletin, vol. 91, no. 4, (December 2009), 446-462. 30For example, Benjamin focuses often on the notion of reproducibility and the way in which modern techniques of reproduction shaped the way in which the “aura” of the original artwork was understood by its viewer. This notion is a prime example of how Benjamin derives meaning from the
19 Karl Marx played an equally large role in the development of social art history.
Interested in the way in which labor operates in the social field and the determinative relationship between economic class and artistic objects, scholars such as German art historian Max Raphaël (1889-1952) sought to analyze artistic objects under these conditions. As a result, a variety of sociologically indebted art historical models ultimately solidified the role of social art history, and furthermore, the notion of analyzing the social conditions surrounding the creation of an artwork, in the aims of the discipline during this period. Moreover, these models occluded the analysis of the artist as subject, thereby instigating the ideological departure from the notion of artistic genius.
By contrast, a third major theme was developed during this period in which art historians directed their attention even more acutely toward the maker of a given object. Principle among these methodological models is psychoanalysis, developed by Vienna-based psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).
Emphasizing the mystery of the subconscious and its ability to be interpreted through artistic analysis, Freud’s writings often surrounded the hidden layers of the psyche of the artist themselves and the way in which the meaning of the artwork can be determined through this investigative structure.31 Yet furthermore, other methodologies focused largely on the psyche of the maker in addition to
circumstances of modern culture. Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, English translation by Harry Zohn, (New York: Schocken Books, 1969). 31 Freud used this model to write several of his most famous art historical texts, including one in particularly dedicated to the analysis of the work of Leonardo da Vinci. In this essay, Freud defines the meaning of a painting by the artist primarily in terms of the sexual innuendos interpreted from the painting and the likely sexual orientation and desires of the artist himself. Michael Hatt and Charlotte Klonk, Art History: A Critical Introduction to its Methods, (Manchester University Press: Oxford UK, 2006), 1-245.
20 psychoanalysis. For example, phenomenology, developed first by Edmund Husserl
(1859-1938), became attractive to several art historians due to its emphasis on consciousness as that which structures individual experience, providing perhaps, an insight to the psyche of a visual artist. Namely among the followers of Husserl was
Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961), whose analysis of artists such as Paul Cézanne were largely informed by the desire to explicate the circumstances of the artist’s conscious state at the moment of artistic creation, thereby drawing meaning from the notion of the artist’s individual experience.32 As a result, the emphasis on the psyche of the maker fundamental to both psychoanalytic and phenomenological practice suggests the continued relevance of the notion of artistic genius in the twentieth century.
In the early twentieth century, the treatment of the artist as mythologized genius became increasingly inconsistent. While the emphasis on the maker in methodological schemas such as psychoanalysis and phenomenology can be viewed as at least somewhat participatory in the notion of artistic genius, the remaining methods lack clarity in the specific understanding of this notion. However, despite the departures illustrated by the methodological models of formalism and social art history, the notion of artistic genius remained extent due to a fundamental lack of criticism towards the notion. This phenomenon is described in Frederick Antal’s
1949 reflection on the state of the art history, in which he states that
“Although…it has become fashionable to introduce a few historical facts, these may only enter the art historical picture when confined to hackneyed political history, in a diluted form, which gives little indication as possible of the existing structure of society and does not disturb the romantic twilight of
32 Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “Cézanne’s Doubt,” in Sense and Non Sense, (1945), 9-25.
21 the atmosphere. The last redoubt which will be held as long as possible is, of course, the most deep-rooted nineteenth century belief…of the incalculable genius of art.”33
In other words, even within the divergent methodologies of art historical practice at the start of the twentieth century, the notion of artistic genius continued to exist on more or less the same terms as its historical precedent, representing, therefore, a fundamental lack of criticism towards the notion of genius. As a result, Barthes’ seminal 1967 text, “The Death of the Author,” 34 represented a unique moment of ideological rupture in which Barthes punitively criticized the historical notion of artistic genius.
1.5 Barthes: Rupture and Legacy
Following the contributions of Kant, Barthes’ post-modern text can be viewed today as “the single most influential meditation on the question of authorship in modern times.”35 In contrast to his early twentieth-century counterparts, Barthes staged a complex exploration of the historical idea in which the devotion to the artist as figure of genius was exposed as problematic. In fact, according to theorist Seàn
Burke in his book The Death and Return of the Author,
“Barthes…[was] not content with simply sidelining the authorial subject as in earlier formalisms. A phenomenological training had taught [him] that the subject was too powerful, too sophisticated a concept to be simply bracketed; rather subjectivity was something to be annihilated.”36
33 Frederick Antal, “Remarks on the Methods of Art History,” in The Burlington Magazine, vol. 91, no. 551, (February 1949), 50. 34 Barthes, “The Death of the Author.” 35 Ibid., 19. 36Seán Burke, “Introduction: A Prehistory to the Death of the Author,” in The Death and Return of the Author: Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault, and Derrida, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998), 14.
22 In other words, Barthes’ text did not merely sideline the notion of authorship in terms of a specific author or text, but attacked the very concept itself by reformulating the historical notion regarding human subjectivity in terms of creative production. Beginning his text with the revolutionary contention that “the removal of the author…is not merely an historical fact or an act of writing; it utterly transforms the modern text,”37 Barthes claims that the metaphorical death of the author-figure is not simply an optional methodological detail, but rather, revolutionizes the meaning of the “modern” text in lieu of the author’s absence. As the text continues, Barthes further enforces the inherently problematic aspects of genius and the way in which alternative methodologies open the reader to a variety of otherwise excluded interpretations.
Following his conclusive statement cited above, the text charges on by outlining the ways in the author’s death allows the modern text to evolve. Firstly, the modern text is of the present, while in the case that the author is privileged it can only be of the past. Secondly, while “to give a text an author is to impose a limit on that text,”38 thereby “closing” the writing,39 to implement the death of the author is to allow the text a renewed openness of meaning. Thirdly, in closing the territory of the author, the abilities of the reader are unlocked: “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author.”40 Lastly, the author’s death does not instigate a total abandonment of the author’s initiative, but rather, allows the author to return under the conditions of death. As Burke states in his chapter “The Birth of
37 Ibid., 145. 38 Ibid., 147. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid., 149.
23 the Reader,” “It is not that the author may not ‘come back’ in the text…but he then does so as a ‘guest.’”41 The premises cited here demonstrate the way in which
Barthes’ text not only initiated a critical attitude towards the notion of genius, but also suggested that without the notion of genius, when the text is “opened” to the reader, interpretation itself is exponentially multiplied in possibilities.
1.6 The Aftermath of the Death of the Author
In order to fully examine the implementation of Barthes’ declaration in practice, it is necessary to discuss a key example of the adoption of his methodology. The instance examined in this section is with respect to one of the most influential art historians to implement the notion of the death of the author: Rosalind Krauss, whose analysis of biographical art history will be a guiding notion in the examination of the case studies in the second and third chapters. The most notable demonstration of her devotion to Barthes’ thesis appeared in Krauss’ iconic 1981 essay, “In the Name of
Picasso.” 42 Instigated by the 1980 retrospective of Pablo Picasso at the Museum of
Modern Art, Krauss explores in her essay the ways in which this exhibition could be viewed as decidedly problematic in terms of its veneration of Picasso as artistic genius. A highly publicized exhibition occurring at major venue for modern art, this show was the first large-scale Picasso retrospective in the United States.
Furthermore, the curator of the exhibition, William Rubin, had served as curator of paintings and sculpture at the Museum of Modern art since 1968 and was by 1980 a
41 Seán Burke, “The Birth of the Reader,” in The Death and Return of the Author: Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault, and Derrida, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998), 31. 42 Rosalind Krauss, “In the Name of Picasso,” in October, vol. 16, (New York, Spring 1981), 5-22.
24 well-established Picasso scholar.43 However, Rubin’s heavily biographical perspective ultimately catalyzed Krauss’ response and the daring nature by which she implemented the notion of the death of the author, particularly in the case of one of the most famously mythologized artists of the modern era.44
In her essay, Krauss begins by identifying the most prominent ideological flaws demonstrated in the organization of the 1980 Picasso retrospective. More specifically, the text responds directly to Rubin’s explanation of the methodological perspective of the show in which he focused on two paintings of women, 45 presumably based respectively on the artist’s most common models, Olga Picasso and Marie-Thérèse Walter.46 However, Krauss claims that Rubin’s examination of these paintings promoted the notion that
“Olga and Marie-Thérèse provide not merely antithetical moods and subjects for the pictorial contemplation of the same artist, but that they actually function as determinants in a chance in style, we run full tilt into the Autobiographical Picasso. And in this instance Rubin himself was the first to invoke it. The changes in Picasso’s art, he went on to say, are a direct function of the turns and twists of the master’s private life.”47
Krauss’s critique in this passage is twofold. First, she disparages the assumption of a reciprocal relationship between “the Autobiographical Picasso” and his artistic production, which would not only instigate the privileging of the author as subject, but in the case of Picasso would equally utilize biographical elements as explanation
43 “Pablo Picasso: A Retrospective,” MoMA, no. 14, (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, Spring 1980), 1. 44 Ibid., 1-2. 45 Krauss’ response was actually largely catalyzed specifically by Rubin’s lecture about the exhibition at the Baltimore Museum of Art in 1980, which was mainly biographical in content and features heavily in Krauss’ essay published the following year. 46 Olga Picasso was Picasso’s wife, while Marie-Thérèse was young model with whom he had an affair. 47 Krauss, 6-7.
25 for genius. The latter aspect can be understood most clearly in Krauss’ ironic use the word “master” while referring to Rubin’s treatment of the subject, which further indicates the way in which Rubin instigated the notion of genius in his own methodological considerations of Picasso’s work.
As Krauss continues her critical refutation of Rubin’s methodology, she outlines the ways in which the privileging of the genius artist and his biography results in inevitably inadequate conclusions regarding the work at hand. In her view, to interpret the art of Picasso as biographically inspired is to
“wish to achieve signification beyond which there can be no further reading or interpretation. Interpretation, we insist, must be made to stop somewhere.”48
In other words, to privilege the agency of the artist is to close the discussion and claim the success of truthful interpretation. However such an interpretation severely limits the methodological framework in which the artwork is considered, in that the triumph of truthful interpretation by biographical means occludes the consideration of the multitude of other methodologies, including the analysis of social, economic, cultural, gendered, or formal aspects. This ideological process is therefore termed by Krauss as “proper naming,”49 leading her to the most influential conclusion of the text: that while privileging the intentionality or genius of the author cannot be considered indisputably wrong, such a consideration is severely limiting when bearing in mind the possible meanings to be derived from a given artwork. By contending that to allow the author the status of the “master” is to
48 Ibid., 10. 49 As stated above, Krauss will be a guide in the second and third chapters, particularly this notion fo “proper naming.” Ibid.
26 “close the text,”50 Krauss adopts Barthes’ original contention to the language of the art historical premise, and claims that the meaning of a given artwork should be opened up, naturally at the cost of the “master’s” metaphorical death.
Although Rosalind Krauss serves as an example of one of the first leading art historians to fully substantiate the ideological death of the author, her work can be viewed only as one of the first in a long line of scholars. First and foremost, perhaps, was Michel Foucault in his 1968 response to Barthes’ essay, entitled “What is an
Author?”51 The scholarship of later figures such as T.J. Clark, the author of the 2010 publication Picasso and Truth,52 illustrates the continued rejection of the Author figure, in conscious defiance of biographical art-historical models. Clark’s text concentrates principally on the formal aspects and compositional qualities of
Picasso’s paintings of the mid 1920s. The skeptical attitude towards the historical notion of the genius artist demonstrated in Clark’s text is shared also by scholarship dedicated to other mythologized artists. For instance, social anthropologist Nathalie
Heinich’s 1996 book The Glory of Van Gogh: An Anthropology of Admiration,53 focuses on the mythology of genius surrounding the work of Vincent Van Gogh and the means by which scholarship today could depart from such closed interpretations. Such examples illustrate the widespread influence of Barthes by the late twentieth century in art historical practice, thereby demonstrating a heightened
50 Barthes, 145. 51 Foucault, “What is an Author?” 52 T.J. Clark, Picasso and Truth, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2012). 53 Nathalie Heinich, “The Glory of Van Gogh: The Anthropology of Admiration,” (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997).
27 disillusionment with the notion of artistic genius that would have an effect on the further development of art history as a discipline.
1.7 The Era of Criticism
Most fundamental to the consideration of the role of genius in scholarship today is that Barthes’ declaration initiated a revolution in the examination of creative subjectivity in the wider sense. This inquiry is demonstrated most notably by the rapid increase in the number of publications dedicated to the discussion of authorship as an isolated notion. For instance, often cited in this thesis is Seán
Burke’s 1992 publication The Death and Return of the Author,54 a text entirely dedicated to examining the function of Barthes’ legacy in contemporary thought.
Furthermore, publications such as Dean Keith Simonton’s The Origin of Genius in
1999,55 and Darrin McMahon’s Divine Fury: A History of Genius in 201356 continue to illustrate the unrelenting interest in how this notion reached the historical privilege it was once allowed. Additionally, today’s leading methodological handbooks of art history generally contain a chapter dedicated to the history of authorship and artistic identity, including the widely used handbooks published by Vernon Hyde
Minor57 and Donald Preziosi.58 The variety of examples noted hereby serve to illustrate the widespread influence of Barthes in the contemporary situation and the ways in which the discussion of authorship today remains motivated by the 1967
54 Burke, The Death and Return of the Author. 55 Dean Keith Simonton, The Origin of Genius, (Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 1999) 1-321. 56 Darrin McMahon, Divine Fury: A History of Genius, (New York: Basic Books, 2013) 1-361. 57 Vernon Hyde Minor, Art History’s History, (London: Pearson Publishers, 2000). 58 Preziosi, The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology.
28 declaration of its death. As demonstrated by the many texts dedicated to the examination of authorship, Barthes’ text catalyzed the desire to make visible the notion of authorship itself and to reevaluate its authority, whether deserved or misplaced, in art historical scholarship.
Although Barthes’ continued influence in the contemporary situation is indisputable, the subject of authorship today is by no means dictated entirely by a single ideological perspective. The previously cited statement of Burke, that “the subject was too powerful, too sophisticated a concept to be simply bracketed,”59 serves again here as a reminder that the human subject is a notion in constant flux which is unable to be fully contained by theoretical frameworks, even perhaps, by
Barthes himself. However, because “The Death of the Author” functioned most influentially as a catalyst for the initiation of other art historical methodologies,
Barthes text can be seen as that which opened the discipline to a variety of interpretive structures outside of the primary consideration of the artist as individual subject. Implemented in both art history and museum practice, the post- modern era saw the opening of both the art-historical text and the art museum to a wide variety of previously overlooked meanings due to the demoted status of the author. Museum institutions shifted their ideological interests from the artists themselves to concepts such as the consideration of exhibition practice, the role of the curator, institutional critique, and a variety of other interpretive structures which considered the art world in a wider sense.
59 Burke, “Introduction: A Prehistory to the Death of the Author,” 14.
29 Yet monographic museums, due to their function as institutions dedicated to a single-artist, can be viewed as far more intrinsically bound to the notions of artistic genius, mythologization, and the pre-Barthes concept of the Author. As a result, the strategies practiced within single-artist museums often continue to instigate a single-faceted interpretation of the artist specifically indebted to the historical concept of authorship, thereby problematizing their ability to instigate the variety of methodological perspectives available in the contemporary era. The following two chapters will therefore examine the problematizing nature of artistic genius in terms of the interpretive strategies practiced at two major monographic institutions: the Musée National Picasso and the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam.
These chapters will outline the strategies utilized by each museum in the presentation of the permanent collection at the time of the opening of each institution, as well as the most recent renovations occurring since this time, in order to formulate an analysis of the function of genius during the most influential historical moments of each institution.
30 2. Case Study 1: The Musée National Picasso
2.1 Introduction
While the previous chapter served to illuminate the theoretical transformations of the notion of artistic genius throughout the historical and contemporary practice of art history, the following two chapters will integrate these ideas within the analysis of existing monographic museums. This chapter in particular will focus on the
Musée National Picasso in Paris in order to examine an institution which cannot escape confrontation with the mythologized status of the artist to which it is dedicated. The argument presented in this chapter will rely largely on Rosalind
Krauss’ 1981 text, “In the Name of Picasso,” by not only citing her influence on contemporary Picasso scholarship, but also utilizing her theorization of biographical art history in a broader sense. Therefore, Krauss’ notion of “proper naming” will play a large role. This theory refers to the process occurring under the conditions of art historical practice implementing the notion of genius in which all interpretative techniques refer back to the name of the genius at hand, thereby severely limiting the possible interpretations from a given body of art works.60 This chapter will demonstrate that methodological strategies displayed at the time of the museum’s opening and as well its current practices, the institution has remained subject to its
“proper naming” as an establishment of Picasso himself, thereby limiting the interpretation of the collection to the notion of Picasso as mythologized artistic
60 Krauss, 9-10.
31 genius. As a result, these practices give life to the mythologization of Picasso as venerated Author, thereby discounting a variety of other contemporary perspectives and greatly limiting the potential interpretations of the permanent collection.
2.2 The Formation of the Musée National Picasso
It is rumored that Pablo Picasso once said, “Give me a museum and I will fill it.” The fictionalized nature of this statement aside, this declaration came to fruition shortly after the artist’s death on 8 April 1973.61 While the estate of the immensely wealthy artist was required to pay a substantial death tax, a law had been passed only several years prior stating that death taxes may be paid to the French state in the form of art objects of equivalent value to the monetary sum. Therefore, rather than face the hefty monetary sum, the artist’s surviving wife, Jacqueline Picasso, paid to the French state much of her husband’s personal collection in the hope that it would one day fill its own museum.62 The collection consisted of two hundred paintings, fifteen hundred drawings, and a small number of works by Picasso’s contemporaries.63 Considered an extensive overview of the artist’s lengthy career, the collection itself embodied from the start the holistic oeuvre of the artist.
Following the payment by Jacqueline Picasso, the French Ministry of Culture decided in 1975 that the acquisition of the Picasso collection warranted the
61 “Chronologie du project de l’Hôtel Salé,” Ministère du Culture, 21 October 1982, Archives Musée National Picasso, Box “Historique de l’Hôtel Salé,” Paris, France, July 2016. 62 Jacques Michel, “Les particularités de la collection particulière de Picasso,” in Le Monde des Arts, 25 April 1974. 63 Picasso, in his own lifetime, had acquired works by Henri Rousseau, Paul Cézanne, and Henri Matisse, which are now a part of the collection at the Musée National Picasso
32 development of a new museum in Paris, allowing Picasso’s statement to manifest in the French capital. Only several months later, it was determined that the location of this new institution would be the Hôtel Salé in the eleventh arrondissement (figure
1).64 Requiring extensive renovations, the seventeenth century building would be transformed into the Musée Picasso with the aim of opening its doors in 1981, on the one-hundredth anniversary of the birth of the artist. Furthermore, the museum would be one of the select few “national” museums in France. Such a denotation exhibited the interest in identifying the institution not only as an important collection of modern art, but equally of Picasso as a symbol of national pride.65 This series of decisions paved the way for the final realization of the museum in October of 1985 as the home of an impressive collection and symbol of national French pride.66
The Picasso collection was determined to be housed in the Hôtel Salé in Le
Marais neighborhood of Paris. Originally constructed in 1656, the Hôtel Salé was the property of the wealthy salt tax financier Pierre Aubert de Fontenay.67 Yet over the ensuing decades, the building became intermittently the location for a variety of functions, including that of an “école des arts et manufactures” in the nineteenth
64 On 1 March 1975, the Ministry of Culture created a declaration for the intention to build the museum at the Hôtel Salé, explaining the justification for the location of the museum and the desire for the collection to remain as a whole, in order to “constituer le plus grand Musée Picasso du monde.” 65 Despite the fact that Picasso is of course Spanish (and after being refused French citizenship in 1941 never again sought a French passport), the French public often views the artist as particularly French due to the fact that he spent the vast majority of his life living in Paris, thereby taking ownership of Picasso’s accomplishments and often considering his work as the “French” contribution to the development of modernism. 66 Renovations were severely delayed between 1981 and 1985. Various newspaper articles show clearly the frustration of the French public, similarly, actually, to the reaction to the severe delay occurring in the renovations between 2009 and 2014. 67 The trade of this figure clearly contributed to the somewhat humorous name of building, which has lasted now for nearly four centuries.
33 century, a bronze workshop in the early twentieth century, and the official “École
Métiers de l’art” from 1950 onwards.68 However, in 1961 the Parisian municipality acquired the building69 from the école and by 1968 the structure was named a historical monument of the city of Paris. Held by the city for seven years prior to the
1975 decision to house the Picasso collection, renovations on the Hôtel Salé commenced in 1976 in order to transform the building into a modern museum.
Though the plan was initially to open the museum in 1981, a series of major setbacks in the renovation process delayed the inauguration until 28 September
1985.70 Twelve years following the death of the famous artist, the Musée National
Picasso opened its door to welcome the public into the world of Picasso, a museum which housed not only the personal collection of the artistic himself, but a glimpse into the diverse creations of one of the world’s most important modern artists.
The original organization of the permanent collection largely reflected the aforementioned characterization as a holistic overview of Picasso’s lengthy career.
Due to the stylistics and chronological diversity of the acquired works, the collection represented a comprehensive view towards the variety of elements employed throughout the artist’s career. In order to emphasize the transition between periods and styles, the oeuvre was displayed chronologically. A segment of the project plan reads as follows:
“La présentation de la collection se fera sur trois niveaux et dans l’ordre: premier étage en totalité, rez-de-chaussée en totalité mais réparti en deux
68 “L’Hôtel Salé: Picasso au Musée,” no. 104, 1979, pg. 42-48, Archives Musée National Picasso, Box “Historique de l’Hôtel Salé,” Paris, France, July 2016. 69 The acquisition of the building and later transformation into a museum also required the eviction of around thirty occupants of the building. A full list of the evicted occupants is kept still today in the archives of the museum. 70 “L’Hôtel Salé: Picasso au Musée.”
34 secteurs séparés par un hall donnant sur le jardin, sous-sol. L’ordre choisi constituera un parcours linéaire chronologique mettant en valeur la périodisation dans l’oeuvre de Picasso.”71
The language used to communicate this plan betrays the initial desire to categorize the periods of the artist’s oeuvre in order to stimulate a linear understanding of the life-cycle of Picasso and the corresponding oeuvre. Furthermore, this aim illustrates the intention of the institution to utilize the chronology of Picasso’s career as an explanatory tool for the many styles appearing throughout the oeuvre. This objective is further illustrated by the 1985 Visitor Guidebook, which continued to emphasize the chronological display by describing the function of each individual room as that which corresponded to a specific “era” of Picasso’s career. Such spaces included “The Early Years: The Blue Period, 1881-1903,” “From the Rose Period to
Desmoisells d’Avignon, 1904-1907,” “On the Fringes of Surrealism, 1924-1929,” and
“Mougins: The Last Years, 1961-1973.”72 As a result, the biographical elements of
Picasso’s life took precedence over aspects such as style, theme, or the conditions of the modern era.
The architectural language of the interior space of the Hôtel Salé in 1985 was in many ways not altogether unlike what is considered typical of museums today.
Featuring mainly white walls and open spaces, the renovations occurring between
1976 and 1985 transformed the lavish seventeenth century building into what is
71 English translation: "The presentation of the collection will be on three levels, in order: first floor in whole, ground floor completely, but divided into two areas separated by a hall overlooking the garden, basement. The selected order will be a chronological linear journey highlighting the periodization in the work of Picasso,” in “Memoire au Conseil de Paris,” Direction de l’action Culturelle, 1 March 1975, Archives Musée National Picasso, Box “Historique de l’Hôtel Salé,” Paris, France, July 2016. 72 Hélène Seckel, Musée Picasso: Visitor’s Guide 1985, Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Archives Musée National Picasso, Paris, France, July 2016.
35 referred to today as the “white cube” (fig. 2-4).73 As a result, the crisp white spaces of the display rooms exuded the purified severity of a modern museum space.
Furthermore, within each room were benches designed by Diego Giacometti commissioned specifically for the museum, thereby perpetuating the insistence of the “white cube” by offering the visitor a place of silent contemplation within the given room. The effect of the space rendered can today be read not only as that which aimed to exude the modernity of the institution itself, but also that which provided a strategic container of the collection at hand. The “white cube” space of
1985 can be characterized as an attempt to both unify and neutralize the collection, in that the display technique amalgamated the holistic identity of the oeuvre despite the notable shifts in style, while also neutralizing the acknowledgement of all context unrelated to the oeuvre itself through the “purified” appearance of the
“white cube” space.74
Yet, such a characterization does not apply to all spaces of the Musée
National Picasso in 1985. Though the renovations had implemented a modern,
“white cube” exhibition space, the areas of the museum considered otherwise exterior to the exhibition spaces, such as entry halls, staircases, and passageways, continued to exude the visual language of seventeenth-century French architecture.
For instance, the lavishly decorated grand staircase in the center of the building remained untouched throughout the renovations (fig. 5). As a result, the classically designed central hall stood in juxtaposition with the “white cube” space of the actual
73 Brian O’Doherty, “Notes on the Gallery Space,” in Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space, (The Lapis Press: 1976), 9. 74 O’Doherty, 9.
36 exhibition areas. Furthermore, several seventeenth-century aspects were even incorporated within the largely “white cube” spaces. For example, the passageways between rooms remained often adorned with the classical and ornately carved original wooden doors of the historical structure (fig. 6-8). Such notable contrasts in architectural language rendered the original interior design of the Musée Picasso a conflation of styles, and furthermore, demarcated the intention to render a dynamic experience of moving between classical and modern spaces, perhaps even in an attempt to reflect the simultaneously modern and classical artistic styles of Picasso himself.
With respect to the renovated spaces of the 1985 display of the permanent collection, the hanging can be characterized as a combination of aestheticism and periodization. First of all, each room, as cited previously in the Visitor Guidebook, exhibited a certain period of Picasso’s career. As a result, the works displayed in a given space presented similar formal and stylistic features, thereby generating a sense of visual unity by means of periodization. In addition, the artworks themselves were displayed in a highly aestheticized fashion. Despite the somewhat overcrowded appearance of typical 1980s hanging, the presentation of the paintings nonetheless exuded a highly decisive, geometric quality. This intention was further augmented by the occasional display of smaller works in otherwise unused spaces, such as the empty space above passageways. The use of these otherwise ignored spaces can be understood as that which continued to utilize the “white cube” as a holistic and unified container within which the space in its entirely is viewed as container of the artworks at hand. This display method thus suggested the desire of
37 the museum to utilize aesthetic design as a visual feature in itself, thereby presenting a pleasing geometric spatial relationship between the works displayed, further enhancing the stylistic demarcation in relation to the periodization of
Picasso’s career.
2.3 The Mythologies at Stake: Narcissist, Misogynist, Mystery
Though the museological strategies described above initially appear not entirely unlike the aims of other modern art museums in the 1980s, the Musée National
Picasso was far more confronted with the notion of genius than the standard art museum. The mythologies surrounding the biography of Pablo Picasso and the way in which the artist was already by the mid-twentieth century perceived as an inexplicable genius played a decisive role in the development of the museum even prior to its inauguration. In fact, certain mythologies had already manifested during the artist’s life regarding his personal habits, individual faults, tumultuous relationships, and prolific working methods. Such stories not only originated from those who came into close contact with him personally, but more tellingly were often propagated by popular biographers of the artist, including Pierre Daix, Juan
Eduardo-Cirlot, and Maurice Raynal.75 Yet the initially innocent development of these mythologies became increasingly problematic in the 1960s and 70s due to their application to the interpretation of Picasso’s artwork which led to a revitalized interest in the biographical method. Moreover, the more the mythologies of Picasso
75 Daix authored his biography on the artist, and presumably his friend, Picasso, in 1964, and then The Life of the Painter Picasso in 1977. In 1972, Eduardo-Cirlot published Picasso, Birth of a Genius, Raynal published in 1953 Picasso: Biographical and Critical Studies.
38 could be connected to the visual language of his artwork, the more appealing they became.
Some of the best examples of this process can be observed with regard to the myths identifying Picasso as both egotistical and misogynistic, characteristics which not only were fascinating to the general public, but equally identified Picasso as somewhat “other” to what was considered normal human behavior.76 For instance, one of the most dramatic mythologies of Picasso is in regards to his tumultuous relationships with a variety of women, whose sensational anecdotes were at one point understood to have manifested directly in his many portraits of women from the 1930s and 40s. In particular, Picasso’s adulterous relationship with his underage model, Marie Thérèse-Walter,77 provided particularly fascinating commentary due to her appearance in a variety of famous portraits in the early 1930s.78 Furthermore, the identification of Picasso as misogynist led seamlessly to the notion of his elevated egotism. A particular anecdote which has since become famous surrounds
Picasso’s 1907 painting of Gertrude Stein. In receiving the portrait, Stein evidently commented that it looked nothing like her, to which Picasso (supposedly) responded, “No, but it will,” thereby narcissistically suggesting the fame of the portrait would later supersede Stein herself. The result of such mythologies is not
76 The interpretation of this characteristic as either positive or negative was of course subject to the times. In the 1930s during his affairs, Picasso was generally considered more of a “bad boy” whose moral deviance in terms of his relationships with women was considered ultra-masculine in a positive way. However, the rise of feminism in the 1970s and 80s led to his identification more as a misogynist. In this thesis he is named a misogynist because it captures the opinion of the times in which the museum was established, despite the fact that it took several decades to reach this more modern conclusion. 77 Marie-Thérèse Walter was a long-time regular model of Picasso with whom he had a relationship while married to his first wife, Olga. It is widely rumored that he began a sexual relationship with her while she was a minor, which was illegal in France during this period. Many portraits of woman during the 1930s are considered today to be of Marie-Thérèse Walter. 78 Megan B. Mullarky, “Space, Reality, and the Will of the Individual: Picasso’s Crucifixion of 1930,” in Bowdoin Journal of Art, (Bowdoin College, MA: June 2015), 25.
39 only the privileging of biographical and likely fictionalized information, but also the distraction from alternative information available in the analysis of a given artwork.
In fact, it could even be claimed that the anecdote regarding the portrait of Gertrude
Stein is perhaps today the most well-known fact about the painting, thereby ignoring the multitude of other notable qualities to be seen in the extraordinary work.
However, the character faults of Picasso, though sensational in quality and highly captivating for a public audience, do not fully explain the mythologization of
Picasso specifically as artistic genius.79 Such an identification stemmed, in fact, from the consideration of Picasso as all-knowing prodigy originating from a variety of factors, including his ability to shift styles at will, invention of international movements such as cubism, and relatively untaught background.80 These characteristics not only served to perpetuate his fame, but equally the consideration of Picasso as superior even to typical artists due to the aforementioned “genius” qualities. Perhaps most influential in his identification as “all-knowing” genius is the consistent shifting of styles throughout the artist’s career, rendering him both exceptional and yet equally unable to be categorized. With respect to the 1980
Picasso retrospective at MoMA, curator William Rubin even went so far as to state:
“More than a great artist, Picasso was a phenomenon…There is virtually nothing in modern art that Picasso has not invented, practiced, or at least widely influenced.”
79 See chapter one for more explanation on transition from artistic genius to mythologized genius. 80 Each of these are of course widespread assumptions which are grounded in truth but not entirely true. Picasso did not singularly invent cubism, but was one of the figures who brought about its invention. Further, he did receive training as a child in Barcelona, although in public thought this training is believed to have been minimal and he is believed to have passed all exams at a very young age.
40 In fact, the artistic decisions by the artist that led to these changes remain even today entirely mysterious. Picasso wrote notoriously little about his own work, and his explanations of his artistic process appeared in the form of succinct but enigmatic proclamations, such as: “I’ve always lived inside myself.”81 The pretentious nature of such proclamations aside, the opaqueness with which Picasso expressed himself functioned to remove him from the category of human endeavor and establish him as not only inexplicable, but almost as a god-like artistic genius.
As a result, the conflation of Picasso as identifiable artistic genius with his mythologization from a biographical perspective renders in effect the presence of the mythologized genius in full.
Yet the identification of Picasso as mythologized genius generated major consequences for the museum institution in 1985, and perhaps even today. As stated in the analysis of Kantian logic, mythologies stand in as fictional explanation for that which cannot be explained. In terms of a monographic museum, this can be defined as the process of “proper naming,” in which the identification of the presence of the artistic genius appears to offer explanation for the artistic ability displayed in the oeuvre. However, such a methodological model is inherently contradictory due to the way in which claiming that “genius” is explanation for the oeuvre at hand only further distorts the understanding of the artwork in that the notion of genius itself is inexplicable. As a result, the notion of genius as methodological framework provides only a single-faceted interpretation of the oeuvre, and a contradictory one at that. Furthermore, the implementation of genius
81 T.J. Clark, Picasso and Truth, 88.
41 and, in the case of Picasso, his associated mythologies, limits the interpretative potential to the contradictory and opaque nature of artistic genius as an art historical method, thereby occluding the variety of other interpretations available in the consideration of the artist’s work. Therefore, the issues at stake in this case study are the implications of the paradoxical nature of genius as a methodological model within the visual practices of the monographic museum and the ways in which such a method renders the museum closed to the possibility of alternative interpretations.
2.4 Mythologies in the Museum: Musée National Picasso circa 1985
A major question therefore posed in this chapter is the way in which the widespread mythologization and identification of Picasso as artistic genius functioned in relation to the ideological aims of the Musée National Picasso at the opening of the institution For examples, several practices of the museum at the time of its opening further perpetuated the “genius status” of the artist. Such instances are particularly apparent in the treatment of the collection during the initial stages of the museum’s development. For example, the project plan of the museum specifically emphasized the significance of the “oeuvre” by creating a comprehensive overview of the artist’s career. In the official project outline by the Ministry of Culture from 1975, the intended treatment of the oeuvre reads:
“Il ne saurait être question de disperser la collection de Picasso, et il n’apparaît pas souhaitable de la regrouper, comme il avait été envisage, dans un salle de Louvre. Au contraire, si les héritiers confirmaient le souhait exprimé par Picasso, l’installation de ses oeuvres dans un musée consacré à Picasso mettrait fortement en lumière le dialogue qui s’établit naturellement
42 entre le maître, son œuvre et les tableaux qu’il avait voulu acquérir et conservé d’autres peintres.”82
The statement above betrays the consideration of the oeuvre of Picasso during the beginning stages of the museum’s development. In this passage, the artist defines a clear distinction between the oeuvre of Picasso, who is even referred to here as “le maître,” and the work of other artists. As a result, what is ultimately suggested here is that the relationship of the work of Picasso to those of his contemporaries can be best understood through its holistic display in a museum dedicated to the artist himself. In other words, the display of the oeuvre as a whole would serve to establish a dichotomy between Picasso and the work of other artists, resulting in the establishment of the superiority and singularity of Picasso in contrast to his contemporaries. Such a notion can be understood as specifically informed privileging of the oeuvre in relation not only to the perceived intimacy of the collection to the “master” himself, but also in relation to the work of other artists.
Moreover, the display practices and research methodology of the Musée
National Picasso in 1985 demonstrated not only the implementation of the notion of artistic genius in the institution, but also the mythologization of the artist. First of all, the chronological display functions innately as biographical display in the case of a holistic oeuvre. As a result, the artworks themselves are understood as points on a timeline in the life of the artist. Furthermore, the biography itself became mythologized due to the methodological strategies utilized for the texts available in
82 English translation: “"There is no question of the dispersal of the collection of Picasso; it does not appear desirable to regroup it, as had been envisaged in room of the Louvre. On the contrary, if the heirs confirm the desire expressed by Picasso, the installation of his works in a museum dedicated to Picasso would strongly highlight the dialogue that occurs naturally between the master, his work and the works by other painters that he wanted to acquire,” in “Memoire au Conseil de Paris,” March 1975.
43 the collection space. For instance, in the 1985 Visitor Guide entry relating to the room entitled “Women at their Toilette,” the text corresponding in particular to
Woman in a Red Armchair (1929), a portrait of Olga Picasso,83 betrays the biographical methodology of the museum in the display of the work, reading:
“What has become of the woman with graceful limbs, of the beautiful Olga? Or even of those antique goddesses with their placid beauty and statuesque immobility? Instead there is a shrieking woman, her head thrown back, with disheveled hair and a gaping mouth full of teeth, limbs like tentacles around a horribly deformed body, displaying her unappetizing charms, flaccid breasts, anus, and gashed crotch, all this against an equally shrill background. This excessiveness reveals the psychological and emotional charge that Picasso’s painting had come to bear. It is no so much an expression of the woman’s despair as that of Picasso despair of her.”84
This text not only positions the viewer to understand the painting exclusively from a biographical perspective, but equally implements the mythology of Picasso as infamous misogynist into the interpretive methodology of the institution itself. Yet furthermore, the mythologies here propagated are communicated to the viewer as not only the motivation for the production of the painting at hand, but simultaneously as explanation for its content, thereby instigating a precedent in the museum that the mythologization of Picasso serves as explanation for the genius factor witnessed in the painting itself.
Moreover, the project plan drafted by the French Ministry of Culture in 1975 continues to suggest the manifestation of the mythologized genius identity of
Picasso even in the earliest proposed ideological aims of the museum. The mission of the museum in this document is stated as that which is “consacré à la vie et
83 Olga was a Russian ballet dancer who was for a time married to Picasso. During their marriage, Picasso had an affair with his model Marie-Thérèse Walter, who was also very young. The typical perception of this situation is that Olga grew extremely jealous, even violent, due to the affair. 84 Seckel, 69.
44 l’oeuvre de Picasso.”85 By illustrating the dual aim of the museum to equally display the life of the artist and the oeuvre with which he is associated, this statement not only renders an indissoluble ideological bond between maker and object, but also the mission of the museum as dependent upon the way in which the life and the work manifests in the institution as a result of the strategies implemented. In other words, the dualistic nature of this mission statement perpetuates the consideration of the mythologized life of the artist (maker) in direct relation to the artistic genius
(work) at hand. As a result, the mythologization of Picasso rendered by the biographical methodology of the museum in terms of both research and display and the notion of artistic genius rendered in the collection of the oeuvre itself are determined to be interdependent ideas in terms of the proposed mission of the institution.
In perpetuating the mythologies of the artist through the practices outlined above, including the maintenance of a biographical focus in textual descriptions and chronological organization, and the devotion to a holistic presentation of Picasso’s oeuvre, it becomes clear that the founding of the Musée National Picasso was by no means removed from the identification of Picasso as mythologized artistic genius. In fact, it is almost impossible to deny that Picasso as genius, as the infamous Author, was simply everywhere in the museum. The notion that the museum was made possible by the highly privileged personal collection of the artist and the refusal to disperse the collection suggested even from the start the perceived bond between the artist and institution. Furthermore, the equal dedication to the life and oeuvre
85 “Memoire au Conseil de Paris,” 1975.
45 established the indefinite amalgamation of artist and artwork, thereby rendering a dependent situation in which one cannot be considered without the other. Even acknowledging that the renovations of the Hôtel Salé and construction of a mainly
“white cube” space may have been attempts to neutralize the mythologies at play, the periodization of the works and the contextual information only further perpetuated the emphasis on the life-cycle of the artist and consequently the myths thereby associated. The strategies here outlined ultimately suggest that the original ideological aims of the Musée National Picasso were in fact subject to Krauss’ definition of “proper naming,” in which the perceived genius factor of the artist subsumes the identity of the institution under a single-faceted interpretation of the collection at hand as that which is of the mythologized Picasso himself.
2.5 Musée National Picasso 2014: Renovations and Reconsiderations
Yet the question remains regarding what has occurred in the museum since its inauguration in 1985 and the many aspects which have shifted in terms of the challenges outlined above in relation to the limiting interpretative function of the notion of genius. Stagnant for many years, the permanent collection did not undergo major changes until the 2009 decision to once again renovate the interior of the
Hôtel Salé. This decision was motivated both by the desire to reorganize the somewhat inactive display from the 1980ss and to also expand the exhibition space further into the building.86 Such a change in organization also allowed for the
86 Émilie Bouvard, interview with Megan Mullarky at the Musée National Picasso, Paris, July 2016. When asked about if the renovations also considered the myths/perception of genius in Picasso’s
46 opportunity to reconsider the methodology of the institution and the ability to explore new strategies by which to display the collection.87 Headed by then-
President Ann Baldessari, the expressed mission of the renovations, which were finally concluded in October of 2014, was to allow the Picasso collection a more dynamic display and thereby reinforce the notion of Picasso’s continuously shifting role in the history of modern art.
In terms of the architectural language of the building and the way in which the artworks are now displayed, the renovated exhibition space differs only slightly from the interior of the 1985 display. For instance, the juxtaposition of the “white cube” space and grand seventeenth-century staircase remains unchanged (fig. 9), and the interest in a purely aesthetic visual language continues to dictate the hanging of the artworks. However, a notable shift in the interior is the even more highly stylized aesthetic arrangement appearing in the museum today. The somewhat crowded arrangement of the works in 1985 is today replaced by a more spacious organization of paintings and sculptures (fig. 10-16).88 As seen in the provided photographs, each frame, box, or sculpture plinth feature the same angular, white design as the surrounding space. Each object fits the larger aesthetic aim of the room as a whole; everything has its place (fig. 14). Even the contextual framework, featuring only a single, generalized text per room, is minimal in relation to the guidebook to the 1985 hanging which contained a text per individual artwork. work, the head curator responded that she believes the Musée Picasso does not have a problem with mythologies of Picasso and therefore did not pay attention to this aspect during renovations. 87 ¡Picasso!, Musée National Picasso, publication for exhibition organized by Emilie Bouvard, Archives Musée National Picasso, Paris, France, July 2016, 530-540. 88 This is not to claim that the overcrowding of the works was purposefully done or that it was seen in 1985 as “overcrowding” at all. The space left between individual works is considered here merely a product of the times and trends in museum hangings in the 1980s versus today.
47 By de-contextualizing the spaces and further aestheticizing the hanging, the museum space itself is today equally aesthetic as the artwork it displays, augmenting the artistic quality of the individual works by rendering an overwhelming Gesamtkunstwerk. The aesthetic container of the Gesamtkunstwerk therefore binds all aesthetic forms into a purified and uniform space in order to create a principally visual experience of the collection. In rendering this aesthetic experience, the “white cube” space is designed to provoke the understanding of the collection as a cohesive oeuvre, integrating the space and artworks into a single entity exuding the singularity of the oeuvre itself.
Yet the arrangement of the oeuvre throughout the museum is perhaps the aspect which has most remarkably shifted since the strictly chronological hanging of
1985. Though not entirely different from the chronological periodization at the time of the museum’s opening, the display at times now aims to highlight diverging thematic adjuncts. For instance, the third floor of the museum features several rooms dedicated to specific interests of Picasso that spanned his career. For example, one room features Picasso’s fascination with non-Western art as inspiration for alternative modes of visual representation, namely African masks and Native American sculptures. This interest remained visible in Picasso’s career from his discovery of African masks at the Trocadéro Museum with André Breton in
1907 until his works of the late 1950s,89 and the room in which this theme is displayed seeks therefore to exhibit the lengthy span of this visual interest. As a result, such a room represents a departure from the strictly linear chronology of
89 Wall text, “Objects d’ailleurs,” room 3.6 Musée National Picasso, Paris, France, July 2016.
48 Picasso’s periodization and suggests therefore the ability to recognize consistent themes despite the constantly shifting styles occurring throughout his lifetime and therefore independent of temporary biographical circumstances.
In addition, the methodology of the wall texts in the museum today signals a fundamental shift in the research practices illustrated by the previously cited text in the 1985 Visitor’s Guide. The best example of the shift in methodology is the text relating again to a room filled with portraits of women from the period of 1930-40.
The text dedicated to the room reads:
“From 1930-40, the theme of death engulfed all of Pablo Picasso’s work. In addition to the anxiety caused by the political situation, he suffered from personal sorrow with the death of his mother Maria in early 1939.…Alongside the vanitas, a classic motif of this reflection on the transience of life, many woman in armchair paintings, through the evolution of their treatment, reflected all the tensions of these dark years. Deformed bodies, increasingly disjointed members, sharp lines, the pattern of stripes or grid lines and muted or garish tones transposed the imprisonment and psychological violence suffered by the civilian populations into paintings and engravings.”90
This label provides a notable example of the methodology utilized by the museum today. Though it refers to biographical occurrences in the artist’s life between the years of 1930 and 1940, the circumstances outlined neither directly inform the production of his artworks nor perpetuate the mythologies associated with the life of the artist. While the text undoubtedly implements the interest in the biographical circumstances in Picasso’s life occurring in this period, the specific mythologies most often considered in relation to his portraits of women remain absent from this text, suggesting, perhaps, the desire to escape such mythologies altogether.
90 Visitor’s Guide 1985.
49 2.6 Conclusions
The 2014 renovations of the Musée National Picasso significantly shifted the identity of the institution in terms of the treatment of the artist at hand. While the museum in 1985 allowed Picasso the title of the Author, the museum today attempts to occlude the mythologization of Picasso as genius altogether, particularly notable in the implementation of the Gesamtkunstwerk hanging, divergence from a strictly chronological narrative, and the clear shift in methodological treatment of biographical circumstances. However, the historically embedded notion of artistic genius and mythologized status of Picasso established in the twentieth century cannot be so easily ignored. In fact, the lack of self-criticality reflected by the practices of the Musée National Picasso give way to the extant presence of the genius status of the artist and his mythologization as a historical figure, thereby continuing to subsume the practices of the institution under the “proper name” of
Picasso and limiting the possible interpretations of the collection to include only those related to the personality of the artist himself, his mythologized status, and his genius factor.
Firstly, the identification of Picasso as artistic genius continues to permeate the ideological boundaries of the institution today due to the sacred treatment of his oeuvre demonstrated by the implementation of the Gesamtkunstwerk interior. The purified white space and aestheticized nature of the hanging suggests that the works displayed can only properly exist when presented comprehensively. The result of such a stipulation is the continued devotion to the perceived ideological bond between oeuvre and maker, in which creator of the consecrated oeuvre is
50 himself elevated in status. Moreover, the exclusiveness of the oeuvre viewed in the design of the interior functions today as that which inherently is of Picasso.
Furthermore, the manner by which the uniform white interior unifies the numerous shifts in styles seen in the career of Picasso can be equally viewed as the perpetuation of the artist as the “all-knowing” genius who can be identified, as
Rubin stated in 1980, as “a phenomenon”91 through his participation in a variety of endeavors of modern art. The unity of the stylistic shifts rendered in the
Gesamtkunstwerk interior therefore instigates the inexplicable nature of the Author responsible for their creation. In a fundamental way, the “white cube” interior of the
Musée National Picasso does not neutralize the notion of Picasso as all-knowing artistic genius, but rather, instigates it acutely.
Furthermore, in addition to the implementation of the notion of artistic genius, the mythologization of the artist remains persistently present in the institution today. Though the museum does not perpetuate the sensational mythologies of the artist, the very mission statement of the institution itself refutes this aim. Identical to the aim of the museum at the time of its opening in 1985, the institution today remains “consacré la vie et l’oeuvre de Picasso.”92 Due to the way in which the life of the artist is innately interchangeable with the biography of the artist, this statement renders today a mutually embracing consideration of the artwork and the artist specifically in a biographical sense. Furthermore, the organization of the collection within the museum itself continues to emphasize
91 William Rubin, “Exhibition: Pablo Picasso: A Retrospective,” in Museum of Modern Art, (1980), 1. 92 “Rénovation et Extension du Musée National Picasso,” 22 November 2011, Archives Musée National Picasso, Box “Rénovations 2014,” Paris, France, July 2016.
51 biography in terms of the experience of the oeuvre. Though the permanent display is advertised as somewhat “thematic,” the circulation is in actuality largely chronological with several thematic divergences. Due to the single-artist nature of the collection, chronology therefore is in itself biography, in that the chronological display of Picasso’s works inherently reflects the biographical trajectory of his lifetime. In this case, the lifecycle of Picasso manifests as equally mythologized through rooms of female portraits from the 1920s and 1930s which cannot help referencing the myth of the misogynist, while the various Minotaur drawings occurring in the last stage of his career express the existential egotism of an old man. By implementing the equal consideration of the life and work of the artist through the largely chronological display, the museum is subject once again to the overwhelming identity of the mythologized biographical Picasso and the instigation of the notion of “proper naming.”
The situation above illustrates, in fact, the amalgamation of the notion of the mythologized Picasso with that of artistic genius occurring in the museum today.
The way in which Picasso is established as artistic genius through the implementation of the Gesamtkunstwerk interior and subsequent consecration of the oeuvre interacts with the notion of artistic genius in a way which equally sustains both notions in that one serves to explain the other. The mythology of the artist as an enigmatic and god-like historical figure serves to compound his identification as artistic genius, each notion housed within a purified “white cube” space which sanctifies the venerated Authorship of the artist. As a result, the
Gesamtkunstwerk sensation of the institution can be considered more a monument
52 than a museum, commemorating and glorifying the life and work of the “genius” and thereby innately amassing the institution itself under the single name: Picasso. Yet furthermore, the presence of Picasso the mythologized “master”93 within the monument-like Musée National Picasso introduces the constant interplay between genius and mythology, rendering a Kantian paradox in which mythologies of Picasso seem to provide an explanation for the witnessed genius factor. As a result, the museum is bound up within the paradoxical circuit of the mythological identification of artistic genius, consequently restricting the ability of the museum to exercise methodological variety in the interpretations available by limiting the meaning generated to the identity of the Author himself.
This case study has led to the conclusion that the Musée National Picasso represents an institution whose methodological practices continue to be severely limited by the surviving notion of artistic genius and mythologization of Picasso.
Despite several instances in which the institution demonstrates a sense of distance from such mythologies, namely the inclusion of the thematic room dedicated to
Picasso’s interest in non-Western art as well as the display of the work of his contemporaries, the occurrence of “proper naming” overwhelms such departures to the extent that Picasso the Author remains extant within the institution.
Consequently, the dictating nature of the mythologized genius status of Picasso in the museum today not only limits the interpretative strategies of the institution to the consideration of the Author himself, but as a result equally excludes the museum from a variety of methodological frameworks including, for example, the
93 Krauss, 3.
53 consideration of the sociological, economic, formal, gendered, and philosophical aspects of the works in the collection. In conclusion, the reemergence of the mythologized identity of Picasso the Author in the Musée National Picasso functions in a fundamentally limiting manner in that it establishes a single-faceted methodological perspective toward a collection whose interpretations may have otherwise been endless.
54 3. Case Study 2: The Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam
3.1 Introduction
The previous chapter demonstrated that the interpretive abilities of the Musée
National Picasso remain limited by the implementation of the mythologized genius status of Pablo Picasso. This chapter will examine the case of the Van Gogh Museum
Amsterdam in order to evaluate the role that the notion artistic genius plays in a monographic institution under different circumstances. Situated within a different cultural environment, initiated for reasons specific to the legacy of Vincent Van
Gogh, and guided by principles indebted to the individual aims of the museum, the inclusion of this case study presents a different perspective on the function of the notion of artistic genius in single-artist museums. The practices of the Van Gogh
Museum will, however, be evaluated under the same circumstances as the previous case study, and thus will remain largely indebted to the principle introduced by
Krauss as “proper naming,” in order to investigate the way in which the Van Gogh
Museum may be equally subject to the mythology of Vincent Van Gogh as artistic genius. Similarly to the previous case study, this chapter will focus on the practices utilized at the time of the museum’s opening in 1973 in order to evaluate the ideological principles upon which the institution was founded, and the recent renovation and reinstallation of 2014 in order to investigate the most significant shift in ideology occurring at the museum in recent years. The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that although its practice differs vastly from that of the Musée
National Picasso, the Van Gogh Museum represents a monographic institution
55 whose ideological identity continues to be subject to the mythologized genius status of the artist.
3.2 The Formation of the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam
In contrast to the founding of the Musée National Picasso, the desire to create a museum dedicated to Vincent Van Gogh did not materialize until long after the artist’s death. It was not until 1962, seventy-two years after the artist’s suicide, that the official project plan was drafted and it was decided that the Rijksmuseum
Vincent Van Gogh, 94 referred to here simply as the “Van Gogh Museum,” would occupy a place on Amsterdam’s famous Museumplein. The collection intended to fill the museum, which was at the time in the possession of the artist’s nephew, is still today the most extensive Van Gogh collection in the world. Consisting of around two hundred paintings95 and approximately four hundred and fifty drawings by Vincent
Van Gogh, as well as one hundred and fifty paintings by a variety of his contemporaries,96 the extensiveness of the collection represented a major development in the appreciation of the painter in the Netherlands. As a result, the addition of the institution indicated a major increase in the significance of the Dutch artist in the cultural capital of the artist’s own home country.
94 Due to the government’s involvement with the drafting of the project plan and sponsorship of the museum, this name initially shows the involvement of the Dutch government in the museum’s title. 95 The number of paintings and drawings held in the collection at the time of the museum’s opening is extremely contestable. Almost every source, including those in the archive of the Van Gogh Museum itself, contradict each other. The number of paintings mentioned are: 120, 150, 200, 230, and 250. The number of drawings mentioned are 400, 450, and 500. Another record mentions 700 letters yet doesn’t mention their display and nowhere else are the letters mentioned in other sources. 96 The collection held major works by artists such as Corot, Gauguin, and Manet.
56 The collection itself has a long and complicated history. Immediately following the death of the artist, the works belonged to Theo Van Gogh, the brother of Vincent. Because Theo himself was an art dealer and also one of the only active supporters of Vincent’s art, most of the painter’s work was in the possession of Theo at the time of his death in 1890. However, after Theo himself passed away only several months later, the collection was bequeathed to his wife, Jo Bonger. The first person to actively promote Van Gogh’s art, Jo Bonger is largely responsible for much of the artist’s international fame occurring in the decades following his death.97
However, after Jo’s death in 1925, the remainder of the collection passed to the son of herself and Theo, named Vincent Willem Van Gogh. The artist’s nephew, then a resident of Laren, Netherlands, can be considered the first to have actively promoted the need to offer the collection a home in a major museum. Therefore, after encouragement from Mr. Van Gogh, it was determined in 1930 that the collection should be on permanent display in the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, an institution which had long supported the work of Van Gogh, having had hosted one of the painter’s first major solo shows in 1905.98
However, the location of the Van Gogh collection in the Stedelijk Museum
Amsterdam did not remain a permanent solution. After thirty years of display in the museum of modern and contemporary art, it was determined that the collection warranted the development of its own museum. Soon thereafter, a deal was brokered between Mr. Van Gogh and the Dutch state which would allow both for the
97 Jo brokered many of the first major sales of Vincent’s work, particularly at the Thannhauser Gallery in Munich. Therefore, the collection grew smaller when it was in her possession, leaving the remainder of the works to her son in 1925. 98AdLib entry, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, accessed September 2016.
57 artist’s nephew to maintain influence over the treatment of the collection, and yet would leave the paintings indefinitely within the permanent collection display of the
Van Gogh Museum. The result was the development of the Vincent Van Gogh
Foundation (of which Mr. Van Gogh himself was president) (fig. 17), which purchased the paintings from the private collection of Mr. Van Gogh at the incredibly low price of around 18,000,000 gilders,99 thereafter signing an agreement that the collection of the foundation would be kept permanently in the Van Gogh
Museum. With this sale, which was widely considered more of a generous donation than an authentic sale, the collection became permanently housed within the Van
Gogh Museum, establishing a sense of finality in the development of the institution and its role as promoter of the artistic contributions of Vincent Van Gogh.
From 1962 onwards, a variety of factors pertaining to the development of the institution illustrated the ideology upon which the museum would be based. Even the design of the building, in fact, promoted the ideals that the institution aimed to stimulate. Designed by none other than the famous De Stijl member, Gerrit
Rietveld,100 the fashionable design of the museum represented the desire to situate the institution specifically within the progressive aims of the modern era (fig. 18).101
Furthermore, the extremely modern design of the building demonstrated the desire of the museum to represent a democratic institution distinctly involved in issues of
99 Today this equates to around 5 million euros, a ludicrous price to pay for the number of works. In the media, this deal was treated largely as a friendly donation rather than a true sale. 100 It was insisted on by Mr. W. Van Gogh himself that Rietveld be given the commission for the building. 101 Though Rietveld did not live to see the completion of the building, several other architects took over his work throughout the years and the building remained true to the original design by Rietveld.
58 the times, namely the wider scope of visitor inclusion in Dutch museums.102 In an interview with Leo Jansen,103 former long-time colleague and curator at the Van
Gogh Museum, the structure represented “a kind of symbolic gesture,” in which “the accessibility of the building was to reflect the notion of accessibility of the collection.”104 Furthermore, the museum structure represented a monumental addition to already long-established Museumplein in Amsterdam, already then the home of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam (established 1895), the Rijksmuseum
(1885), and the Concertgebouw (1888). Such a gesture represented the investment of the Dutch government in the life and work of Vincent Van Gogh, not only as a famous painter, but also a large contributor to the Dutch heritage of modern art.
From its earliest days, the construction of the Van Gogh Museum symbolized a site of major national importance.
The initial display of the collection itself also can be understood as representative of the methodological aims of the museum in terms of the desired interpretation of the artist’s work. Firstly, the separation of the Van Gogh collection from the “non-Van Gogh” collection, referring to the works of the artist’s contemporaries from the collection of Theo Van Gogh, signified a major interest in the categorization of the collection according to both artist and medium.105 This division is characterized by Andreas Blühm in his 1999 article appearing in the Van
102 Leo Jansen, interview with Megan Mullarky, Stadhouderskade 55, March 2016. 103 Leo Jansen was researcher, Head of Research, and Curator of Paintings at the Van Gogh Museum over the course of many years. He headed the Van Gogh Letters project lasting for fifteen years, and was a main figure in the reorganization of the permanent collection in 2014. 104 Leo Jansen, Interview with Megan Mullarky. 105 “Zitting 1961-62 – 6827,” 21 July 1962, Archives Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, Folder “Museum,” Amsterdam, Netherlands, August 2016. (document otherwise referred to as the project plan.)
59 Gogh Museum Journal as that in which “Vincent’s paintings were strictly separated from those of his friends and colleagues,” implementing a display in which “he was the pole around which all the others circled.”106 As a result, the Van Gogh paintings were displayed as the collection highlight which simply happened to chronologically correspond to the non-Van Gogh collection existing on the periphery. Furthermore, the Van Gogh collection itself was arranged specifically in a chronological format reflecting the trajectory of Van Gogh’s life by outlining the places in which he had lived. 107 This format was also emphasized by the circular floor plan of the museum which served to further instigate the linearity of the chronology presented (fig.
19).108 Consequently, the Van Gogh paintings suggested not only the emphasized aspect of the collection as a whole, but also a demonstrably biographical approach to the organization. Moreover, because Van Gogh had relocated quite frequently throughout cities in the Netherlands, Belgium, and France, the biographical organization of his work and tracing of his geographic timeline also suggested an intimate relationship with the location of the artist in a given period, the events of his life during the time, and the artwork produced.
The original hanging was displayed in a space which can be characterized as a “white cube.” The initial design of the interior consisted exclusively of white walls and open space, allowing the visitor to experience the paintings without further interference of decoration or design (fig. 20-23). The open design and crisp
106 Andreas Blühm, “Displaying Van Gogh: 1886-1999,” in Van Gogh Museum Journal, (Amsterdam: Van Gogh Museum, 1999), 79. 107 It is not explained how the non-Van Gogh paintings were displayed due to a fundamental lack of photographs of this section. It appears that only the van Gogh paintings and drawings were seen as important enough to photograph. 108 The floor plan shown is from 2014, but since the architecture itself has not changed the organization remains relevant to contextualize the floor plan also from 1973.
60 architectural language of the Rietveld building permitted the levels of the museum to remain extremely open and spacious, despite large amounts of visitors. Moreover, the spaces of the museum were equipped with a variety of visitor benches. This decision not only suggested the importance of the works at hand within the pure
“white cube” space, but also illustrated the way in which the museum fundamentally represented a place of silent contemplation of the experience at hand, not entirely unlike that of the Musée Picasso. Through these strategies, the original design of the exhibition space signified an attempt to create a pure space within which to experience the most important aspect of the collection: the Van Gogh paintings.
Alongside the implementation of the strategies outlined above, the Van Gogh
Museum displayed in its earliest years an interest in public programming. Such an objective can be characterized, in fact, as a democratizing mission of the museum aiming to create through accessible events and activities a welcoming environment catered to a variety of visitors. Already in 1973, in fact, the museum aimed to engage the public in specifically creative activities, thereby stimulating within the visitor both art-lover and artist alike.109 Principal among the ways in which this materialized was the artistic “workshop” within the museum, a place where visitors could go to try their own hand at drawing or painting. Such a development represented not only the stimulation of creative activity, but also the ability of the
109 In a brochure for the museum from 1973, this is described as: “Het is de wens geweest van Dr. Ir. V. W. van Gogh om het museum met de kunstwerken van Vincent tot een plaats te maken waar de individu zich niet alleen in aanschouwing van de kunstwerken kan recreeren, maar waar hij zich bovendien zelf kan ontplooien in creatief bezig zijn,” found in “Vincent van Gogh Museum Amsterdam,” English translation: “It is the wish of Dr. Ir. V. W. van Gogh that the museum acts as a place for the artwork of Vincent which is not only meant as a place of contemplation, but where the visitor him/herself can develop in creativity,” January 1973, Archives Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, Folder “Museum,” Amsterdam, Netherlands, August 2016.
61 visitor to design their own experience of the institution. This aim, in fact, is characterized in the 1973 brochure as that in which
“Die vrijheid komt vooral tot uiting in de 'werkplaats,' waar men onder deskundige leiding zelf potlood of penseel ter hand kan nemen om persoonlijk te ervaren wat het betekent te experimenten met kleur, vorm en materiaal.”110
The development of this aspect of the museum betrays the character of the Van
Gogh Museum in 1973 as that which was extremely invested in the involvement of the institution with the viewer. The democratizing aim behind the events produced by public programming can be viewed as only a single aspect of an institution whose logical chronology, biographical approach, and contemplative “white cube” space attempt to establish the space as a museum for everyone.
3.3 The Mythologies at Stake: Martyr, Lunatic, Saint
The original aims of the Van Gogh Museum outlined above appear somewhat standard in terms of the development of a museum in the 1970s. However, similar to the situation of the Musée National Picasso, the institution faced significantly more methodological challenges than a typical museum due to the widespread mythologies regarding the artist himself which had been already deeply popularized by this time. In fact, the historical figure of Vincent Van Gogh had undergone a variety of mythological transformations in the decades between the death of the artist and development of the museum. Named a madman, genius, saint, and even
110 English translation: “This freedom is particularly evident in the ‘workshop,’ in which under expert guidance visitors can themselves take up a pencil or paintbrush in order to experience on a personal level what it means to experiment with color, form, and material.” “Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh Amsterdam,” Brochure, 1973, Archives Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, Folder “Museum,” Amsterdam, Netherlands, August 2016.
62 martyr, such stories not only originated from those who had known Van Gogh during his lifetime, such as Emile Bernard and Paul Gauguin, but were solidified over time by the publications of biographies, medical overviews, and psychological diagnoses of the artist appearing in the 1920s.111 The investigation of the origin of the mythologies surrounding the figure of Vincent Van Gogh has, in fact, since the
1980s become a popular topic in art historical scholarship dedicated to this figure.
As a primary example, art historian Griselda Pollock has extensively investigated the mythologization of Van Gogh from an art historical perspective as well as the extent to which this fascination problematizes the historical scholarship dedicated to this figure.
As Pollock outlines in her 1980 essay, “Artists, Mythologies, and Media
Genius, Madness and Art History,” many aspects of the mythologies surrounding
Vincent Van Gogh were popularized in the artist’s own time.112 In fact, the potential
“madness” of the artist was first highlighted in 1890 by Albert Aurier, whose review of Van Gogh’s work during the famous “Les X” exhibition, entitled “Les Isolés,” highlighted the romantic notion that the paintings appeared to have been rendered by a madman.113 Though Aurier was asked by the artist himself not to continue to characterize his work in these terms, Van Gogh died the very same year, leaving
111 When Van Gogh’s letters were first published in full and became popular in a public sense, psychologists became fascinated by attempting to diagnose the artist based on the intimate letters written by Van Gogh himself. However, this led arguably less to a logical consensus as to the actualities of the illness of Van Gogh and far more to arguments regarding diagnoses and resulting stimulation of the mythology of Van Gogh as a “madman.” Laura Prins, “Wat mankeerde Van Gogh? De diagnoses op een rij,” in De waanzin nabij: van Gogh en zijn ziekte, (Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam: 2016), 122-123. 112 Griselda Pollock, “Artists, Mythologies, and Media Genius, Madness and Art History,” in In Screen, nr. 3, (1980), 57-97. 113 Prins, “Wat mankeerde Van Gogh? De diagnoses op een rij,” 122-123.
63 Aurier and many others to their own mythological interpretations of his oeuvre. In fact, the instigation of writers, particularly Aurier, to record the life of Van Gogh in terms of his emotional situation was catalyzed principally by the artist’s brother
Theo, and following his death, Theo’s wife Jo Bonger,114 who both encouraged the publication of Vincent’s letters in order to generate a better understanding of the man that they considered underappreciated during his lifetime. Already by 1892, excerpts of the letters were published in the Netherlands,115and by 1914, Jo Bonger had secured the publication of Vincent van Gogh; Brieven aan zijn broer, an extensive volume containing the most intimate and famous records of the artist’s personality and life philosophy.
These letters stimulated a variety of mythologies regarding the life of Van
Gogh, including a fascination with the biography of the artist as historical figure, the interest in Van Gogh as a medical patient as stimulated by his anecdotes of hospitalization in his correspondence, and the examination of the selfhood of the artistic in relation to the art historical study of his works. All such outlets manifested throughout the twentieth century through major studies of the artist, ranging from the publications of physician Karl Jaspers, who posthumously diagnosed the artist as schizophrenic, 116 to the sensationalized biographical account of The Tragic Life of
Vincent Van Gogh by authors Louis Piérard and Herbert Garland in 1925,117 and
114 “Publication history,” in the Van Gogh Letters project, accessed 16 September 2016. 115 In 1911, The Letters to Emile Bernard was published, creating an intermediary text between the first excerpts and final publication which served to continue to stimulate the interest in Van Gogh’s life between 1892 and 1914, “Publication history.” 116 Prins, ““Wat mankeerde Van Gogh? De diagnoses op een rij,” 124. 117 Louis Piérard and Herbert Garland, The Tragic Life of Vincent Van Gogh, (London, J. Castle Publishers: 1925).
64 later, to Meier Graefe’s popular biography of the artist published in 1933.118 The widespread fascination with the biography of Van Gogh further perpetuated the identification of Van Gogh within a several specific categories of mythologization mentioned in the first chapter. Due to the correspondence substantiating the possibility of Van Gogh having been a recluse, religious, and mentally unstable personality, the artist can be identified from a biographical perspective with the notion of the isolated hermit, incurable madman, and martyred saint who sacrificed himself for his art.
Furthermore, the mythologization of the biography of the artist is particularly involved with the mythologization of artistic genius in the case of Van
Gogh. First and foremost, perhaps, is the way in which Van Gogh is often considered tragically underappreciated in his lifetime, which instigates not only the biographical mythologization as the struggling artist overlooked by his own generation, but equally his identification as genius in his recognition as undeniable talent in the progressive clarity of the modern era. Furthermore, the biographical identification of Van Gogh as social outcast instigates the notion of the “untaught genius,” in that solitary personality types are not generally associated with participating in art academies or particular artist groups, resulting in the belief that
Van Gogh became an artistic genius merely through individual artistic intuition.
Finally, the notion of the incurable madman falls into line with the equally mythologized identity of the mad genius. In fact, Pollock describes the inclusion of
Van Gogh within this category as “the assimilation of Van Gogh to [a] historical
118 Meijer Graefe, Vincent van Gogh: A Biography, (Courier Corporation, January 1987).
65 representation, the correspondence of ‘madness’ and ‘art’—the myth of the mad genius.”119 Through the characteristics here outlined, the mythological circumstances of Van Gogh’s biography can be considered to have simultaneously stimulated the factors which led equally to his identification as artistic genius.
The unprecedented extent to which there existed a fascination with the biography and genius factor of Vincent Van Gogh have had a significant effect upon the scholarly understanding of his artwork. Due to the fact that “no other western
European artist is so universally familiar,”120 the biography, mythologies, and historical understandings of the artist as genius have often infiltrated art historical analysis of the artist’s oeuvre. Griselda Pollock contends that too often in the case of
Van Gogh,
“Art and the artist become reflexive, mystically bound into an unbreakable circuit which produces the artist as the subject of the art work and the artwork as means of contemplative access to that subject’s ‘transcendent’ and creative subjectivity.”121
In other words, the mythologization of Van Gogh as artistic genius fundamentally stimulates a fixation on the amalgamated theorization of artist and artwork. As a result, Pollock’s analysis can be hereby associated with Krauss’ notion of “proper naming,” in which the implementation of the name of the Author at hand in terms of the corresponding artwork renders a situation in which the art is subsumed by the mythology of the artist. Therefore, interpretative strategies of the artworks identified as outside of the name of the artist are restricted from the schematic at
119 Pollock, 64. 120 Ibid., 59. 121 Ibid.
66 hand, and the artwork remains indefinitely subject to its “unbreakable circuit”122 with the notion of genius.
Yet it is the manner in which the mythologies of Vincent Van Gogh function within the single-artist collection that renders the role of the monographic museum problematic. As previously explained, mythologies of genius function in terms of circular logic in which they both explain and yet avoid explanation for the ability of the artist to create their artistic product. However, such a methodological model is inherently contradictory due to the way in which claiming that “genius” is explanation for the oeuvre at hand only further renders unclear the understanding of the artwork in that the notion of genius itself is inexplicable. In terms of Vincent
Van Gogh and his celebrity status this paradox is especially present. The way in which the “art and the artist become reflexive”123 can be viewed as a situation instigating a methodological framework which indefinitely refers back to the relationship between artist and artwork, biography and genius. Such a model fundamentally limits the interpretative potential to the circular nature of this reflexivity, resulting in the exclusion of a variety of relevant mythologies in the consideration of Van Gogh’s work, including a sociological survey of the late nineteenth century and a formalist perspective removed from biography. Therefore, the issues at stake in this case study are the problematic implications of the limiting function of the notion of the mythologized genius in the methodology of the Van
Gogh Museum Amsterdam.
122 Ibid. 123 Ibid.
67 3.4 Mythologies in the Museum: Van Gogh Museum in 1973
Reflecting on the mythologies outlined above, a major aim of this chapter is to demonstrate the way in which the mythologization of Van Gogh and his identification as artistic genius can be witnessed in the practices and display of the
Van Gogh Museum at the time of its opening in 1973. It is first important to note that the way in which the museum was developed seems to have been in relation to a conscious acknowledgement of the way in which the artist should not be treated as a mythologized monument. In fact, in the first bulletin of the museum after its opening, it is stated that the museum would be
“geen mausoleum voor een mens, maar een functioneel museum voor een kunstenaar, dienstbaar aan zijn kunst en aan zijn publiek.”124
However, despite the self-consciousness demonstrated in this statement, the practices of the museum itself demonstrated the continued infiltration of the mythologized notion of Van Gogh in the function of the museum. First and foremost, in fact, is that the museum was originally dedicated to “het leven en de werken van
Vincent van Gogh.”125 Therefore, similar to the Musée National Picasso, the most significant aim of the museum demonstrated already the assumption of the inherent interrelatedness of the two, thereby setting the stage for the implementation of the mythologies surrounding the figure of Vincent Van Gogh.
124 English translation: “Not a museum for a man, but a functional museum for an artist, subservient to his art and his audience.” E. R Meijer, “Het Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh,” in Bulletin of the Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, Amsterdam, Date not listed, Archives Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, Folder “Museum,” Amsterdam, Netherlands, August 2016. 125 English translation: “The life and the works of Vincent Van Gogh.” “Vincent van Gogh Museum Amsterdam,” January 1973, Archives Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, Folder “Museum,” Amsterdam, Netherlands, August 2016.
68 In the original organization of the museum, the treatment of the collection itself, and more specifically, “the oeuvre,” demonstrated the identification of Van
Gogh as artistic genius. Firstly, the “white cube” space functioned similarly to that of the Musée National Picasso, in which the sense of purity functioned to consecrate the art displayed. Furthermore, the utilization of the white cube space as container for the chronological display of Van Gogh’s oeuvre served to not only consecrate the artwork at hand, but equally Van Gogh himself as a biographically defined historical figure. Moreover, the separation of the Van Gogh paintings from those of his contemporaries perpetuated this notion by rendering a hierarchy in which Van
Gogh’s artworks were viewed as superior. In addition, such a hierarchy not only equally substantiated the mythological identification of the artist as “isolated genius,” but also established Van Gogh as artistic genius due to the way in which his works were intended to be viewed as unique in relation to those of other artists. In other words, his paintings would have been understood as manifesting from his own personal artistic inspiration rather than through interactions with his contemporaries. Consequently, the original organization and design of the space can be considered that which instigated the identification of Van Gogh as genius Author of the superior oeuvre displayed, thereby initiating the methodological model of
“proper naming.”
Furthermore, the organization of the display of the oeuvre at the time of the museum’s opening further instigated the notion of the mythologized genius. This aspect can be viewed mainly in the methodology by which the collection was hung.
Because the Van Gogh paintings were arranged strictly chronologically, tracing the
69 stylistic periods of the artist’s short career in accordance with the locations in which he had lived, the linear organization suggested several key elements in the intended understanding of the artist’s oeuvre in the eyes of the viewer. Firstly, such a display method implied that the artistic developments of the artist were inextricably tied to his biographical circumstances, in this case, the location he was experiencing in the time in which he created a given work. As a result, the understanding of the works was inherently dictated by the biographical timeline of the artist himself. Secondly, the linearity created a slow-building crescendo toward the ultimate end point: the suicide of the artist. Consequently, the display of the paintings directed the viewer towards the dramatic end to the life of the artist rather than a specific moment of artistic production, thereby establishing the precedence of the mythologized events of the artist’s life. Moreover, such an emphasis on biographical linearity established not only the closer bond between the oeuvre and the artist, but also the justification of such a bond due to the emphasis on mythological aspects of the life of the artist.
Moreover, the ideological identity of the museum in 1973 was highly involved with the perceived notion of democratization and the ability to allow the visitor the freedom to dictate their own experience of the institution. However, such an identity served, in fact, only to further the notion of Van Gogh as mythologized genius. The way in which “democratizing” practices continued to generate the mythology of the artist can be viewed in several specific instances. For example, the creativity “workshop” mentioned previously is an example of such an occurrence.
While the ability of the visitor to paint or draw during their visit to the museum seems to have fallen in line with the “democratizing” mission of the institution, the
70 consequential function of such an activity is that the viewer seeks to better understand the artist in an experiential manner, resulting in the assumption that to mirror the activities in which Van Gogh partook would somehow render the experience of the visitor more closely related to the life experiences of the artist himself. Consequently, the manufactured means by which the visitor identified with
Van Gogh himself stimulated the humanistic view of the artist in which the biographical mythologies are rendered in the context of the museum environment as container of the oeuvre. As a result, the “democratizing” aim of the museum, in which each visitor could build her or his own experience and impression of the institution, is entirely undemocratic in the dictating role that the mythologized genius artist plays.
In continuing to instigate the mythologies of the artist through the practices outlined above, the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam can be considered even in its earliest days as bound to the identification of Van Gogh as mythologized genius artist. The way in which the Van Gogh collection remained fundamentally separate from his contemporaries and the “white cube” setting in which the Van Gogh paintings hung signified not only the isolated significance of the artist’s work, but also the consecration of his oeuvre. Furthermore, the “democratizing” public programs which stimulated the notion of “experiencing” Van Gogh’s own life ultimately served only to romanticize the life of the artist, thereby entirely contradicting the “democratic” function of the institution itself. Lastly, the linear methodology displayed in the museum, in which Van Gogh’s life is the guiding principle, continued to solidify the mythological identity of the artist by displaying
71 the art objects merely as evidentiary counterparts to his biography. Stemming from the equal dedication of the institution to both the life and the oeuvre, these factors each suggest that from the first days of the museum’s existence, there developed an conflation between artist and artwork, thereby allowing all objects in the museum to be categorized under the name of “Vincent Van Gogh” and fundamentally permitting the entrance of Vincent the Author into the museum.
3.5 The Van Gogh Museum 2014: Renovations and Reconsiderations
Despite the way in which the original practices of the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam implemented the notion of Vincent Van Gogh as mythologized genius, the museum as an institution underwent a variety of changes in the decades to follow.
Principally, in fact, are the varying aims of the institution that have often embodied the vision of the director in a given period. For instance, in the 1990s director
Ronald de Leeuw (from 1986-96) attempted to establish the Van Gogh Museum
Amsterdam as a Dutch institute for nineteenth century art. Acquiring a variety of new works by famous nineteenth century artists, even those unrelated to the work of Van Gogh,126 the museum’s mission shifted for a significant period. However, the appointment of current director Axel Rüger (from 2006-current) has led to the development of an entirely different mission. It is his vision and its materialization in the renovations occurring in the museum in 2014 that will be analyzed in this section. These were due in large part to the vast amount of scientific research conducted by the museum during this period and resulted in shifts in display
126 Such acquisitions can be considered unique in the history of the Van Gogh Museum. Today, all acquisitions must be justified on the basis of their relationship to the work of Van Gogh.
72 methodology. As a result, the 2014 renovations will be discussed in order to reevaluate the current practices of the museum and to demonstrate that despite the transformation of the museum, the notion of the mythologized artistic genius continues to permeate its institutional identity today.
The renovations of the permanent collection, headed by then-curator Leo
Jansen and current curator of Van Gogh paintings Nienke Bakker,127 focused namely on the reorganization of the works and reconsideration of the interior design.
Similar to the situation of the Musée National Picasso, the motivation for the changes were based largely in the prevention of the institution from “becoming static.”128 Such an aim was particularly embodied in the decade leading to the renovations which consisted of the initiation of several major research projects and a fundamental reevaluation of the methodological perspective of the museum towards the life and work of Van Gogh. For example, the early 2000s marked a period in which the Van Gogh Museum had conducted extensive scientific research on the collection of Van Gogh paintings, drawings, and letters, thereby marking a new future for the institution due to the knowledge discovered in these studies. As a result, the renovations of 2014 represent not only a reevaluation of the design of the interior, but equally a reconsideration of the research methods regarding the work of Van Gogh and how such findings are portrayed within the museum institution.
However, as in all museum renovations, the interior design underwent several changes nonetheless. In contrast to the original “white cube” aesthetic of the
127 Also significant involvement from Renske Suijver (associate curator), Teio Meedendorp (senior researcher), and Louis Tilborgh (senior researcher) 128 Leo Jansen, interview with Megan Mullarky.
73 interior in 1973, the 2014 renovation features a variety of colored walls (fig. 24).
Though colored walls had been present earlier in the history of the museum, first introduced in 1987 with the implementation of colored strips upon which horizontal rows of paintings were hung (fig. 25),129 the color scheme of the interior was a fundamental aspect of the 2014 reorganization of the collection. The resulting effect was the creation of a dynamic, colorful, and grounded presentation of the collection. Because the walls of the museum ranged from bright blue to dark olive green, often reflecting the color palette of the paintings in the corresponding spaces, the assumed permanence of the “white cube” interior was replaced by the interest in stimulating a sense of temporality. This was primarily accomplished due to the relationship of the color scheme to the geographical location in which Van Gogh was painting during a given period. For instance, the dark olive green walls in the room displaying Van Gogh’s earliest paintings while still living in Holland (fig. 24), including the famous Potato Eaters (1885), seems to attempt to render the experience of the city of Nuenen itself and the colors associated with the location, situating the viewer within the temporality the artist’s life.
Moreover, the organization of the collection today also significantly differs from the original museum in terms of the intermixing of the Van Gogh and non-Van
Gogh collections. While the museum still follows a largely chronological trajectory, the development of Van Gogh as a painter is depicted as corresponding to the work of his contemporaries, thereby suggesting the active participation of the artist in the artistic milieu of the late nineteenth century. For instance, the text appearing in the
129 Blühm, 80.
74 space dedicated to Van Gogh’s time in Paris specifically outlines his interactions with other significant artists of the period (fig. 26):
“He eagerly absorbed the many new impressions. He experimented with colour, brushwork, line and planes. And , he became friends with artists of his generation, including Paul Gauguin, Émile Bernard, and Henri Toulouse- Lautrec. They worked together and exhibited their art in the cafés of Montmartre, the artists’ district. Van Gogh’s time in Paris proved extremely fruitful, and thanks to his contacts with other artists he discovered the possibilities for developing his expressive style.”130
The room corresponding to this text represents a significant example of a space in which Van Gogh paintings are hung alongside those by figures such as Paul Signac and Claude Monet, thereby functioning as a space that not only overcomes the hierarchy previously established in the first years of the museum between the Van
Gogh and non-Van Gogh collection, but also significantly establishes the artist as a member of the late nineteenth century artistic milieu.
In addition to the contextualization of Van Gogh’s role in the wider scope of nineteenth century art, far more text than ever before was incorporated into the museum in order to more extensively educate the viewer with regards to the Van
Gogh painting collection. Main features of this included contextualizing graphics such as timelines, blow-up photographs, family trees, and a variety of lists and charts (fig. 27-28). As a result, the walls of the museum became home not only to art objects, but equally to the educational visual aids to the aims of the museum.
Moreover, non-art objects were also implemented into the display of the collection in order to enforce certain aspects of the artworks themselves. For instance, a preserved bat is displayed next to Van Gogh’s study of the animal during his early
130 Wall text, “New Perspectives: 1886-1888,” Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, August 2016.
75 period while still working in Holland (fig. 29). The inclusion of such objects as educational tools within the presentation of the collection further suggests the desire to situate the viewer within the historical moment in which the paintings themselves were created, and by extension, to make visible the tools, practices, and influential figures in the life of the artist.
As a result, the renovated display of the permanent collection demonstrates an entirely reevaluated methodological perspective towards research than had been previously established in the first years of the institution. Due to the extensive scientific studies conducted on both the paintings and letter collection, the renovated display demonstrates an emphasis on the increased accumulation of knowledge regarding the circumstances of Van Gogh’s life and art. For example, the mythologized events of the artist’s bout with mental illness, namely his suicide and ear-severing incident, are addressed in the collection and explained in detail according to the research conducted in relation to these events (fig. 30).
Furthermore, the working methods of Van Gogh are vastly more illuminated in the new hanging. For instance, the mixture of the artist’s colors and the careful planning of each painting he produced are displayed in the museum, thereby generating the notion of Van Gogh as systematic workman rather than inexplicable genius (fig. 31).
The result of the implementation of scientific findings is such that the museum takes on a distinctly self-reflective role in terms of the mythologies surrounding the artist.
Therefore, the institution today represents the desire to render a contextualizing space, which, unlike the “white cube” schematic, aims to demonstrate the ability to
76 transform the mythologized genius into an explainable historical figure whose life and work are accessible to a variety of visitors.
3.6 Conclusions
The renovations occurring at the Van Gogh Museum in 2014 suggest a significantly more self-reflective attitude towards the problematic notion of the mythologized artistic genius than ever before. However, the changes occurring in the museum continue to lack genuine self-criticality in terms of the perpetuation of the mythologization of the artist. First and foremost, perhaps, is that the mission of the museum today remains as equally dedicated to the life and work of Vincent Van
Gogh as in 1973, thereby already falling subject to the establishment of a reflexive relationship between artist and oeuvre. Furthermore, the specific aims of the renovated collection today continue to stand in tension to the suggested self- reflective attitude towards mythologization, in that
“het museum staat voor het eerst het volledige verhaal centraal: Van Goghs kunstenaarschap, de context, de persoonlijke ambities, de emoties, de mythes en zijn invloed tot op de dag van vandaag.”131
The outlining of a mission so deeply indebted to the personality and life-cycle of the artist betrays the function of the museum as nevertheless indebted to the notion of
Van Gogh as mythologized genius, thereby problematizing the changes occurring even in the recent renovations.
131 English translation: “The museum represents for the first time a complete story: Van Gogh’s career as an artist, the context thereof, his personal ambitions, his emotions, and the myths which still hold major influence today.” Axel Rüger, in “Jaarverslag 2014,” (Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam: 2014).
77 The aim cited above is embodied in several major aspects of the renovations.
Most significantly, perhaps, is the development an introductory ground floor room entitled, “Face to face with Van Gogh,”132 which features a variety of self-portraits
(fig. 32). In the yearly report of 2014, this space is described as that in which “the visitor comes literally face to face with the master,”133 thereby not only suggesting that Van Gogh himself is a “master,” but equally that the visitor can experience the artist himself by viewing the paintings134 and therefore continuing to perpetuate the aim that the visitor identifies personally with the artist. Furthermore, this aspect establishes the continued mythological interest in the biographical selfhood of Van
Gogh as celebrated historical figure. Moreover, the design of the space today continues to feature a chronological hanging corresponding to the life of the artist, thereby maintaining the linear biography of the artist as guiding feature. In fact, despite the attempt to integrate Van Gogh’s work into the wider scope of nineteenth century art, the circulation or the collection today continues to be guided to the pinnacle of the myth: the suicide. Furthermore, because of the circular organization of the museum space itself, diverting from a strictly linear chronology is largely problematized (fig. 19). As a result, the trajectory of the permanent collection, from self-portraits to suicide, continues to suggest biographical nature of the hanging, thereby implementing the mythologization of the artist as historical figure and amassing the function of the institution under the proper name of Van Gogh.
132 The native Dutch phrasing of this is: “Oog in oog met van Gogh.” 133 Axel Rüger, “Jaarverslag 2014,” (Amsterdam: Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, 2014). 134 Ibid.
78 Furthermore, the techniques utilized to illuminate the life of the artist function to instigate the related notion of artistic genius. The dualistic presence of mythologization and the notion of the unrecognized artistic genius is in this case accomplished by the acknowledgement of the manifestation of the artist’s genius qualities despite biographical hardships. For instance, a highlight of the permanent collection today is the correspondence between Van Gogh and his friends and family
(fig. 33). Often intimate as well as educational in content, these letters are utilized to allow the visitor a glimpse into many biographical (and mythologized) aspects of the artist’s life, including his unrequited love affairs, long-lasting poverty, lack of professional success, and battle with mental illness. Furthermore, the display case outlining the events of the artist’s suicide and ear-severing incident compound the already-established notion of the artist as a person who faced adversity, thereby solidifying the mythologized nature of the artist’s biographical existence. Yet the inclusion of the letters and explanation of these incidents in this case stimulates not only the mythologization of the artist from a biographical perspective, but equally the notion of Van Gogh as artistic genius by framing him as a figure whose unique artistic abilities manifested themselves even in the face of adversity. Because the artist managed to produce his art against all odds, the reason behind his abilities is in fact an enigmatic in itself, thereby attributing them to the only explanation possible: that of genius.
The situation explained above illustrates, in fact, the extant presence of the mythologized identity of Van Gogh as artistic genius manifested in the Van Gogh
Museum Amsterdam, and as a result, the implementation of the methodological
79 model of “proper naming.” Interdependent and often amalgamated in the case of this museum, mythologization and genius intertwine throughout the practices of the institution, overwhelming the contextualizing information presented and fundamentally limiting the interpretations perceived to include only those concerned with the Author himself. Even in light of the self-reflection demonstrated by the 2014 renovations of the permanent collection, appearing perhaps most acutely in instances such as the attempt to explain the genius through the factual re- telling of the ear-severing incident, the notion of artistic genius continues to appear in the practices of the museum and defines the institution as methodologically indebted to mythologization and the notion of genius. Consequently, the institution today continues to allow the notion of genius a dictating role, and an unquestioned one at that. Therefore, the practices occurring today in the museum function to establish the institution single-faceted in interpretation, thereby limiting the methodological abilities of the museum and the breadth of potential readings of the collection displayed.
80 4. Conclusion
4.1 Results and Interpretations
This thesis aimed to characterize the function of the notion of artistic genius and its intricate engagement with the mythologization of the artist in two monographic museums by analyzing the state of the idea itself in contemporary discourse and examining case studies of museums dedicated to celebrity artists Pablo Picasso and
Vincent Van Gogh. Although this research focuses mainly on the examination of the practices occurring exclusively in the case studies at hand, there are striking similarities in the methodological function of the notion of artistic genius in the two institutions from which certain provisional conclusions can be drawn. For instance, the studies hereby presented suggest that the practices of monographic museums face a series of methodological challenges which are specific to the continued manifestation of the privileged Author-figure appearing in such institutions today.
Though this research does not aim to provide an essential definition of the monographic museum, the function of the notion of genius discovered in the Musée
National Picasso and the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam can be viewed as key examples of the way in which such artistic identities are monumentalized, nationalized, and memorialized by the contemporary public, thereby identifying the figure at hand within the Kantian paradox of the mythologized genius and consequently limiting the discursive strategies practiced by the institution at hand.
In relation to this paradox, what can be viewed as ultimately missing from the discourse of the two museums in the creation of their missions is a self-critical
81 perspective towards the relationship established between the life of the artist and the artwork itself when the mythologized Author-figure remains present within the institution. Because the interaction between the mythologization of the artist and notion of artist genius renders a complexly interwoven ideological relationship between maker and artwork, subsuming the practices in the museum under the
“proper name” of the given artists, the museum is identified as an institution subsisting on the potential of a single interpretation: that which is concerned with the biographical circumstances, personality, and identity of the artist themselves.
Therefore, to lack a self-critical perspective means to allow the artist the title of
Author and to close the possibility of alternative methodological understandings. In fact, to passively allow the museum the presence of the Author is to, as Barthes states, “impose a limit,” to “furnish it with a final signified.” As a result, the lack of criticality portrayed in the methodologies of the museum appearing as effects of the implementation of the mythologized genius figure renders a situation in which the interpretative methods of the institution itself remains not only limited, but indefinitely stagnant.
Moreover, the implementation of this historical construction of the notion of the mythologized artistic genius not only severely limit the available interpretations of the museum, but also situates the museum itself within historical rather than contemporary discourse. As Barthes so poignantly noted in his 1967 text, “the
Author, when believed in, is always conceived as that past of his own book.”135 If applied to the situation of the monographic museum, this statement can be
135 Barthes, 145.
82 translated as that in which the artist is always perceived as the past of his work.
Therefore, in the case that the artist is privileged with the title of Author, the mythologized genius, then the museum is indefinitely situated within the “pastness” of the artist, unable to remove itself from the stagnant historical existence to which it is dedicated. Furthermore, the implementation of the notion of the mythologized visual artist equally introduces the historical discourse presented in the first chapter of this thesis. For example, the way in which each museum serves to further establish the superiority, singularity, and mythological inexplicability of the artist at hand instigates the indefinite presence of Kant’s historical paradoxical theorization of artistic genius within the museum. As a result, the single-artist museum is subject not only to the historicity of the artist themselves, but equally the historical identity of the discourse implemented, situating the museum within an indefinitely historical institutional identity.
Yet in the face of the problematizing aspects of the incorporation of the notion of artistic genius in the monographic museum, the rejection of this method is not, admittedly, in the best interests of the museum. In many ways, this notion is too deeply integrated into the fabric of the museum’s identity to renounce. Both mission statements of the case studies, in fact, as dedicated to the life and the artist instigated the equal treatment in the display of the life and work of the artist at hand. As a result, the displayed interest in the life of the artist adhere to the ideological boundaries established by the museum itself, thereby suggesting an inherent sense of authenticity in the practices occurring within the institution.
Furthermore, the notion of artistic genius itself can be viewed as necessarily
83 implemented in that it justifies the very existence of the museum. Such a function is particularly useful in today’s contemporary milieu, in which art museums are striving to justify their existence in the face of their perceived decreasing social value in comparison with fields such as business and technology. Yet most fundamentally perhaps, is that in today’s cultural milieu the notion of the mythologized genius is largely responsible for the annual number of visitors at each museum. Particularly with respect to the severe funding crisis occurring throughout the European museum world, the implementation of a museological strategy emphasizing artistic genius is perhaps a practical solution to the struggle of the cultural sector. The aforementioned aspects of the continued manifestation of the notion of artistic genius render the most complex paradox of the contemporary situation of the monographic museum, in that the implementation of the mythologized Author is as problematic as it is beneficial.
Despite the beneficial aspects outlined above, however, the implementation of the notion of artistic genius nonetheless functions to severely limit the potential interpretations of the permanent collection of the institution at hand. The results of the case studies of the Musée National Picasso and Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam suggest that the beneficial aspects of artistic genius are in these institutions far more actively implemented in the display strategies of the permanent collection than a critical perspective toward the various problematic ideological aspects. In these cases, the notion of genius and the mythology of the artist is utilized to bring visitors to the doors of the museum, while as a concession the ability of offering same viewer dynamic and evolving interpretations of the collection is
84 fundamentally problematized. The lack of self-criticality displayed particularly in the current practices of each museum can be characterized as those which not only dismiss Barthes’ declaration of “The Death of the Author,” but equally the heightened level of criticality towards this idea generated throughout post-modern discourse in a general sense. As a result, these institutions represent not only the extant presence of the notion of artistic genius in the contemporary situation, but one that also goes entirely unchallenged. In other words, while contemporary scholarship continues to contest the nature of creativity, authorial agency, the biographical model, and the historical notion of artistic genius, the results of this thesis suggest that monographic institutions today remain home to the unchallenged existence of the mythologized genius.
85 Images
Figure 1: Exterior L’Hôtel Salé in the neighborhood of Le Marais, Paris, France, July 2016.
Figure 2: Interior of the permanent collection featuring sculpture, paintings, and Giacometti bench, Musée National Picasso,1985, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
86
Figure 3: Interior of the permanent collection, Musée National Picasso, 1985, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
Figure 4: Interior view of the permanent collection, Musée National Picasso, 1985, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
87
Figure 5: Central staircase after renovations, Musée National Picasso, 1985, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
Figure 6: Interior view of the renovated building prior to hanging of the collection, featuring historic doorways and renovated walls, L’Hôtel Salé, circa 1976, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
88
Figure 7: Interior view, showing the combination of modern and historical architectural elements, L’Hôtel Salé, circa 1976, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
Figure 8: Interior view of permanent collection featuring historic wooden doors combined with contemporary hanging, circa 1976, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
89
Figure 9: Central staircase post-renovations in 2014, Musée National Picasso, 2014, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
Figure 10: Permanent collection post-renovations, Musée National Picasso, 2014, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
90
Figure 11: Permanent collection post-renovations, Musée National Picasso, 2014, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
Figure 12: Permanent collection post-renovations, Musée National Picasso, 2014, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
91
Figure 13: Permanent collection post-renovations, Musée National Picasso, 2014, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
Figure 14: Permanent collection post-renovations, Musée National Picasso, 2014, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
92
Figure 15: Permanent collection post-renovations, Musée National Picasso, 2014, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
Figure 16: Permanent collection post-renovations, Musée National Picasso, 2014, Musée National Picasso Archives, July 2016.
93
Figure 17: Willem Vincent van Gogh holding Van Gogh’s The Yellow House during the hanging of the permanent collection of the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, 1973, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam archives, August 2016.
Figure 18: Exterior of the Rietveld building, 1973, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam Archives, August 2016
94
Fig. 19: Floor plans of the Van Gogh Museum (architecture was unchanged between 1973 and 2014), November 2014.
Figure 20: Interior view of the Rietveld building of the Van Gogh Museum, 1973, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam archives, August 2016.
95
Figure 21: Interior view of the hanging of the permanent collection of the Van Gogh Museum, 1973, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam archives, August 2016.
Figure 22: Interior view of the permanent collection of the Van Gogh Museum featuring the open floor space, 1973, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam archives, August 2016.
96
Figure 23: Interior view of the permanent collection of the Van Gogh Museum featuring visitor benches, 1973, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam archives, August 2016.
Figure 24: Interior view of the post-2014 renovated permanent collection space, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, August 2016.
97
Figure 25: Interior of the Van Gogh Museum featuring colored strips as background for rows of Van Gogh collection of paintings, photograph from 1987.
Figure 26: Interior view of the post-2014 renovated interior space featuring the inclusion of Van Gogh’s time in Paris in the “Modern Art in Paris” section alongside artists such as Signac, Monet, Rodin, and Degas, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, August 2016.
98
Figure 27: Interior view of the post-2014 renovated permanent collection space featuring the introductory timeline and map tracing the life and movements of the artist, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, August 2016.
Figure 28: Interior view of the post-2014 renovation space featuring the diagram connecting Vincent to his friends as determined by letter correspondence, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, August 2016.
99
Figure 29: Interior view of the post-2014 renovations featuring the painting of a bat by Vincent displayed next to the preserved bat, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, August 2016.
Figure 30: Interior view of the post-2014 renovations featuring the section “Illness and ear,” Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, August 2016.
100
Figure 31: Interior view of the post-2014 renovations featuring the display of paints and working materials that likely resemble those used by Van Gogh, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, August 2016.
Figure 32: Interior view of the post-2014 renovated interior featuring the “Oog in oog met Van Gogh” space filled with self-portraits, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, August 2016.
101
Figure 33: Interior view of the post-2014 renovations featuring displayed letter from Vincent to his brother Theo, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, August 2015.
102 Literature
Antal, Frederick. “Remarks on the Methods of Art History,” The Burlington Magazine, 1949, vol. 91, nr. 551, 49-52.
Bakker, Nienke, interview by Megan Mullarky, Stadhouderskade 55, February 2016.
Bal, Mieke. “The Discourse of the Museum,” Thinking about Exhibitions, London: Routledge, 1996, 201-220.
Barolsky, Paul. “The Burlington Magazine and the Death of Vasari’s Lives,” Arion: A Journal of Humanities and the Classics, vol. 20, no. 2, 2012, 63-80.
Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author,” Translated by Stephen Heath, Image, Music, Text, 1968, 141-148.
Bätschmann, Oscar. The Artist in the Modern World: the conflict between market and self-expression, Dumont Buchverlag, 1998.
Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, English translation by Harry Zohn, New York: Schocken Books, 1969.
Bennet, Nicole. “Social Art History,” Academica.edu, 2016, p. 1.
Bennett, Tony. “The Exhibitionary Complex,” Thinking about Exhibitions, London: Routledge, 1996, 81-113.
– “The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics,” London: Routledge, 1995.
Blühm, Andreas. “Displaying Van Gogh: 1886-1999,” Van Gogh Museum Journal, Amsterdam: Van Gogh Museum, 1999, 63-83.
Bouvard, Emilie, interview with Megan Mullarky, Offices of the Musée National Picasso, 18 Rue de la perle, 13 July 2016.
Burke, Seán. Authorship: From Plato to the Postmodern, Edinburgh University Press, 1995.
Burke, Seán. “Introduction: A Prehistory to the Death of the Author,” The Death and Return of the Author: Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault, and Derrida, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998, 8-20.
– “The Birth of the Reader,” The Death and Return of the Author: Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault, and Derrida, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998, 20-62.
103
“Chronologie du project de l’Hôtel Salé,” Ministère du Culture, 21 October 1982, Archives Musée National Picasso, Box “Historique de l’Hôtel Salé,” Paris, France, July 2016.
Clark, T.J., Picasso and Truth, Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2012.
“Concept tekst folder Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh,” no date given, Archives Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, Folder “Museum,” Amsterdam, Netherlands, August 2016.
Daix, Pierre. Picasso, Frederick A. Praeger, December 1964.
– La vie de peintre Pablo Picasso, Seuil Publishers, 1977.
De Leeuw, Ronald. “Introduction: The Van Gogh Museum as National Museum 1973- 1994,” Van Gogh Museum Journal, Amsterdam: Van Gogh Museum, 1995, 8- 23.
Eduardo-Cirlot, Juan. Picasso, Birth of a Genius, Frederich A. Praeger, 1972.
Esner, Rachel. “Beyond Dutch: Van Gogh’s Early Critical Reception 1890-1915,” Vincent Everywhere: Van Gogh’s (Inter)National Identities, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010, 137-147.
Fernie, Eric. “Giorgio Vasari: The Lives of the Artists 1568,” Art History and its Methods, Phaedon Press, 1995, 22-42.
– “Karel van Mander: The Painter’s Book 1604,” Art History and its Methods, Phaedon Press, 1995, 43-60.
Foucault, Michel. “What is an Author?” Authorship: From Plato to the Postmodern, Translated by Seán Burke, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1995.
Guyer, Paul. “Exemplary Originality: Genius, Universality, and Individuality,” Values of Beauty: Historical Essays in Aesthetics, Cambridge University Press, 2005, 242-265.
Graeffe, Meier. Vincent van Gogh: A Biography, Courier Corporation, January 1987.
Hatt, Michael; Klonk, Charlotte. Art History: A Critical Introduction to its Methods, Oxford: Manchester University Press, 2006.
Hauser, Arnold. “Greece and Rome,” The Social History of Art, 1951.
104 Heinich, Nathalie. The Glory of Van Gogh: The Anthropology of Admiration, Princeton University Press, 1997.
Jansen, Leo, interview with Megan Mullarky, Offices of the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, Stadhouderskade 55, March 2016.
Kant, Immanuel. A Critique of Judgment, 1790, Translated by J.C. Meredith, 1911, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 303-308.
Kisters, Sandra. “Musée Rodin: Thorvaldsen as a Role Model,” Van Gogh Studies 3, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, 2010, 113-135.
Krauss, Rosalind; Buchloh, Benjamin; Foster, Hal; Alain-Bois, Yves. “Introduction 2: The Social History of Art: Models and Concepts,” Art Since 1900, Thames & Hudson publishers, 2005, 22-32.
– “Introduction 3: Formalism and Structuralism,” Art Since 1900, Thames & Hudson publishers, 2005, pg. 22-32.
Krauss, Rosalind. “In the Name of Picasso,” October, vol. 16, Spring 1981, 5-23.
Le Bon, Laurent. “Le Musée National Picasso-Paris,” in Dossier de Presse de l’ouverture, 25 October 2014, 4.
“L’Hôtel Salé: Picasso au Musée,” no. 104, 1979, pg. 42-48, Archives Musée National Picasso, Box “Historique de l’Hôtel Salé,” Paris, France, July 2016.
Liefooghe, Maarten. “De monografische factor: theoretische en architecturale aspecten van kunstenaarsmuea,” PhD diss., Universiteit Gent, 2013.
Mansfield, Elizabeth. “Art History and Modernism,” Art History and its Institutions: Foundations of a Discipline, Routledge Publishers, London UK, 2002, 11-27
McMahon, Darrin. Divine Fury: A History of Genius, New York: Basic Books, 2013.
Michel, Jacques. “Les particularités de la collection particulière de Picasso,” Le Monde des Arts, 25 April 1974.
Minor, Vernon Hyde. “Ancient Theory,” Art History’s History, Pearson Publishers, 2000, 31-45.
Meijer, E. R. “Het Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh,” Bulletin of the Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, Amsterdam, Date not listed, Archives Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, Folder “Museum,” Amsterdam, Netherlands, August 2016.
105 “Memoire au Conseil de Paris,” Direction de l’action Culturelle, 1 March 1975, Archives Musée National Picasso, Box “Historique de l’Hôtel Salé,” Paris, France, July 2016.
Mendelsohn, Leatric; Kramer, Alice B., Goldstein, Carl. “Vasari’s Rhetoric,” The Art Bulletin, vol. 74, no. 3, Sep. 1992, 521-522.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. “Cézanne’s Doubt,” Sense and Non Sense, 1945, 9-25.
Nesbit, Molly. “What was an Author?”, from Authorship: From Plato to the Postmodern, Edinburgh University Press, 1995.
“Objects d’ailleurs,” text label room 3.6 Musée National Picasso, Paris, France, July 2016.
O’Doherty, Brian. “Notes on the Gallery Space,” Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space,The Lapis Press, 1976, 9-35.
“Pablo Picasso: A Retrospective,” MoMA, New York, The Museum of Modern Art, no. 14, Spring 1980, 1.
¡Picasso!, Musée National Picasso, 2015, organized by Emilie Bouvard, Archives Musée National Picasso, Paris, France, July 2016.
– “Exhibitions,” 534-35.
– “Acquistions,” 536-39.
Piérard, Louis; Garland, Herbert. The Tragic Life of Vincent Van Gogh, London, J. Castle Publishers, 1925.
“Photographies Historiques de l’Hôtel Salé,” 1972-85, Archives Musée National Picasso, Box “Photographies Historiques,” Paris, France, July 2016.
Pollock, Griselda. “Artists Mythologies and Media, Genius Madness and Art History,” In Screen, Oxford University Press, 1980, vol. 3, 57-97.
–“History versus Mythology: Reading Van Gogh for Dutchness,” Vincent Everywhere: Van Gogh’s (Inter)National Identities, Amsterdam University Press, 2010, 49- 62.
Preziozi, Donald. “Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects,” The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology, London: Oxford University Press, 2009, 22-26.
106 Prins, Laura. “Wat mankeerde Van Gogh? De diagnoses op een rij,” in De waanzin nabij: van Gogh en zijn ziekte, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, 2016, 122-128.
– “Van Gogh and his Illnesses,” lecture at the symposium for the exhibition De Waanzin nabij: Van Gogh en zijn ziekte, organized by the Van Gogh Museum, 15 September 2016.
Rampley, Matthew. “Questions of Method,” The Vienna School of Art History: Empire and the Politics of Scholarship 1847-1918, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2013, 40-50.
– “Art History and the Politics of Empire: Rethinking the Vienna School,” The Art Bulletin, vol. 91, no. 4, Dec. 2009, 446-462.
– “Max Dvořák: Art History and the Crisis of Modernity,” Art History, Wiley- Blackwell Publishers, vol. 26, no. 2, 214-237.
“Rénovation et Extension du Musée National Picasso,” 22 November 2011, Archives Musée National Picasso, Box “Rénovations 2014,” Paris, France, July 2016.
Riding, Alan. “Picasso in Paris: A Suspect, never a Citizen,” New York Times, 28 May 2003.
“Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh Amsterdam,” Brochure, 1973, Archives Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, Folder “Museum,” Amsterdam, Netherlands, August 2016.
“Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh Amsterdam Wandelgids bij de schilderijen,” date not listed, Archives Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, Folder “Museum,” Amsterdam, Netherlands, August 2016.
Rubin, William, “Exhibition: Pablo Picasso: A Retrospective,” Museum of Modern Art, 1980, 1-2.
Rüger, Axel. “Jaarverslag 2014: Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam,” Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, 2014.
Rutherglen, Susannah. “Merleau-Ponty’s Doubt: Cézanne and the Problem of Artistic Biography,” Word & Image, 2004, 219-227.
Sassen, Brigette. “Artistic Genius and the Question of Creativity,” Kant’s Critique of Power of Judgment: Critical Essays, 2003, 171-181.
Seckel, Hélène, Musée Picasso: Visitor’s Guide, 1985, Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Archives Musée National Picasso, Paris, France, July 2016.
107 Shapiro, Meyer. “Paul Cézanne,” Harry N. Adams Inc., New York, New York, 1952, 1- 24.
Simonton, Dean Keith. The Origin of Genius, University of Oxford Press, 1999, pg. 1- 321.
“Sommaire du project par le ministière du culture,” 1985, Direction des Musées France, Archives Musée National Picasso, Box “”Historique de l’Hôtel Salé,” Paris, France, July 2016.
– “Création du Musée,” 2.
– “Les Collections,” 8-10.
Thomas, Greg M. “Instituting Genius: The Formation of Biographical Art History in France,” Art History and its Institutions: Foundations of a Discipline, London: Routledge, 2002, 11-27
Van Bueren, Truus. “ ‘de beste schilders van de gantsche Nederlandt’ Karel van Mander en het Haarlemse cultuurbeleid 1603-1606,” Oud Holland, vol. 105, 1991, 291-305.
Vasari, Giorgio. The Lives of the Artists, 1568 Translated by George Bull, 1986.
“Vincent van Gogh Museum Amsterdam,” January 1973, Archives Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, Folder “Museum,” Amsterdam, Netherlands, August 2016.
Voorhies, James. “Pablo Picasso: 1881-1973,” in Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, October 2004.
Wöfflin, Heinrich. “The Principles of Art History,” The Art of Art History, London, Oxford University Press, 2009, 119-128.
Zeidler, Sebastian. Form as Revolt: Carl Einstein and the Ground of Modern Art, 2015.
Zemel, Carol. Van Gogh’s Progress: Utopia, Modernity, and Late Nineteenth Century Art, University of California Press, 1996.
“Zitting 1961-62 – 6827,” 21 July 1962, Archives Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, Folder “Museum,” Amsterdam, Netherlands, August 2016.
108
109