Whose Muse? A Brief Book Review

Whose Muse is a collection of essays that has been edited by James Cuno. The essays in this book aim to establish the purpose of museums and their function in society. Cuno’s introduction goes through the politics of museum life, and recent cases which exemplify how museums are used as political platforms (Mayor Rudolph Giuliani v. The Brooklyn Museum of Art), centres for education, and also as promotion of a Brand and a name (Guggenheim). In my opinion, this book seems to be searching for a “Museum Identity” if you will, as the essays examine different components of different museums to demonstrate how they operate under varying circumstances. There are quite a few essays in this book, however, I am going to look closely at Neil MacGregor’s essay as I found it the most interesting and informative, and I really enjoyed his view on interpretations of art and the emotional connection of the viewer.

In Neil MacGregors essay, “A Pentecost in Trafalgar Square”, he mentions that the National Gallery in Britain was set up by Parliament, and even in the 19^th century the members of parliament would choose which works would be displayed; the purpose for the Gallery at this point in time was not education but “simply to ensure that the poor could have the consolation of pictures just as the rich did… to cement the bonds of union between the richer and the poorer orders of the state.” It is interesting to read about the original purpose of museum – and I find it fascinating that the museums were used to bring culture together (rather than drive it apart, as we see in today’s world). Originally, the gallery was not intended for artistic purposes but to allow the classes to admire and appreciate something that was free for everyone – something, regardless of education could bring them together. It is somewhat humbling, as after typing that I realize that 200 years ago, the intentions of this museum probably had a better grip on the importance of Cultural Heritage than we do today. Furthermore, in MacGregor’s article he discusses the layout of the National Gallery and how pieces are kept together chronologically so as to show the progression of art, or a specific motif. However, he keeps to the idea that they are not trying to influence how people interpret the art, only to provide them with the context and works with which they can be compared. This seems like a very intelligent way to display art, as it allows the viewer to come to their own conclusion, though displays it in a way that visitors unfamiliar with the timeline can better create context for the image.

MacGregor also discusses how new technology can be used to demonstrate to the average viewer how a painting my have looked originally. As He states on page 32, Jean Baptiste Greuze’s Girl Weeping over her Dead Canary originally brought tears to the eyes of the original viewers, however, over time the pigments have changed (due to vegetable dying) and the yellow canary is now green. Modern viewers look at the Painting and its title and question why the Canary is green, rather than look at the expression on the girls face. He then divulges that if the museum were to put this explanation next to the photo, visitors would be focused on this fact alone and once again neglect to study the pain on the girls face. This problem can be remedied with new technologies as they can alter the images without touching the original – “With digitized imagery we can reconstitute the picture and show a result closer to the artist’s intention.” This again raises ethical questions as MacGregor asks to what extent we should intervene with the visitors experience of a picture. He then goes into a discussion about restorations and to what point is it beneficial or imposing on the artist’s original work.

Neil MacGregor’s article examines the responsibilities of Museums in terms of the pictures, their artists and the public, and then divides this further by asking “If we cannot meet these responsibilities equally, how do we decide which to meet? How is the public’s trust in our decision preserved?” He questions how museums obtain public trust when they separate works of art (such as renaissance alter pieces, which were done in 3 frames), and at the same time, how this is taking responsibility for the artist, which would have intended for the three scenes to be viewed together. I prefer MacGregor’s conclusion that the importance lies for museums to harbour the meaning of these paintings and to bring people into contact with these powerful paintings, deepening their access to the historical and contemporary meanings. In a way, MacGregor demonstrates how the purpose of the National Gallery really has not changed over the centuries, that the rich and poor come together to view a painting and together they feel the same emotions, bringing the space between them that much closer.

Overall this collection of essays aims to discover ways to retain public trust and examines the ways in which museums and galleries can present artefacts and paintings in a way that encourages individual thought but also educates. Sometimes it is worth it to look past the controversies and display art that evokes true emotion as it is the only thing that can bring all viewers together – and it is surely a sign of great art. This book sort of reminded me of an article I read where they examined how museums in recent years have been pouring funds into building bigger and grander facilities in an attempt to generate income and tourism, but due to the recession these investments are not paying off and museums are struggling to stay afloat. This relates to this book, and the opinion I have developed through reading it, that the money would be much better spent going into new acquisitions and funding for research and education. People care more about what is inside these buildings rather than the outer veneer which houses them.

Stop thinking about the economy and expansion... and enjoy the art.

Today there was an article on the New York Times website titled Moscow Cultural Landmark is Seen as Threatened, which outlines how the Prime Minister signed a decree that would allow developers to demolish a Soviet-era cultural landmark, the Central house of Artists, which houses paintings by Malevich and Kandinsky among others. Although the title is more of an attention grabber than the actual problem at hand, seeing as there have been no rumours of the destruction of this place, just the idea that now that this decree has been signed it is a possibility, it brings into question what society really values.

Without getting too political, it is clear that when it comes to governments, there is a lot more emphasis on the economy and ways to generate money, than on museums and preservation. This article demonstrates how the Prime Minister signed this decree which would essentially allow a billion-dollar real estate company to come in, demolish a well know monument which houses many Russian works that serve as symbols of their culture, only to be rebuilt as housing complexes and shopping malls. It is a sad truth that heritage sites and funding for the arts are often overlooked as governments choose to invest tax payer money in the economy and health related fields. While this is fine, governments need to realize how important cultural landmarks are – cities, provinces, countries would lack an identity if they were to be stripped of the arts, focused solely on science and money-making.

This can also be related to the world heritage list set out by UNESCO, as well as the 1970 UNESCO conventions wherein it outlines the importance of the protection of cultural property. Firstly, although the artwork would be displaced for a while, it would certainly find a home, but who is to say that the government or private sectors will fun a new museum? Together these works stand as a testament to Russia’s artistic history, but apart they are merely fragments – masterpieces, but fragments to the big picture. I’m not insinuating it is necessary to keep all of these works together, but obviously this is something citizens feel strongly about as when the information was released, critics jumped at the opportunity to find problems with it. In short, why ruin a good thing? I’m sure these big companies could find somewhere else to build, without destroying the home of so many great works.

Reputation... what reputation?

The case study I received yesterday told the story of an academic up for tenure, who is writing his publication on archaic work in the USA. He is being pushed to publish by his department head, but he is concerned because some of the data he has, or more so, what his paper is based on is a collection of objects which a collector, Mr. Judge, allowed him access to. He is confident that the pieces he used for his paper have the proper provenance, but he has heard rumours that parts of Mr. Judge’s collection have in fact been looted. He is ethically torn because the information he has is good and has led him to conclusions that he otherwise would not have come to, but he fears that his association with a collector will tarnish his reputation; therefore he is willing to risk tenure because he does not want to give the wrong impression to the field, which by the way, he is not even a part of yet.

I know that you may already be able to anticipate what I am going to say – and I don’t think it’s fair to say that I encourage to breaking laws. Sometimes breaking the rules needs to be done in order to move forward and show people that things can work a different way. Hey – the Taliban has laws… the Nazi’s had laws – those are rules we are willing to break. Not comparing Archaeological laws to the Taliban or Nazi’s… but, I’m just extending the argument to its extreme to show that sometimes – it needs to be done. But I digress…

I would say that this academic should publish the work, based on the fact that there are only rumours that parts of the collection have been looted, not solid proof. If every rumour we heard was the truth – Hollywood would be much more messed up than it is at the moment. In addition, the objects that this academic is using have a provided provenance, so their study should not be limited based on the collection they come from. As I say repeatedly, the knowledge that we can gain far outweighs personal conflicts of whether or not it will damage someone’s reputation – that is frankly selfish – and as I mentioned before as well – Archaeologists are the ones that create these rifts and classes within their own field… what’s that word again? Elitist. I can see the portion of this argument that suggests maybe he shouldn’t publish – because yes it could be viewed as supporting looting, but the fact is looting happens anyways, we may as well learn what we can from it. It is the archaeologist’s academic responsibility to publish everything on the subject. You know, historians will complain about not having enough from the past to study, but then they go and discount objects based on where they came from – it’s ludicrous!

On a side note… I really enjoyed Lana’s presentation, and I agree with much of what she has to say. Maybe because I am a bit of a naïve optimist myself – but I think that everyone needs to let go of things for the greater good of everything running smoothly. There has to be a middle road!