Hi guys. I thought I would post this because it is kind of relevant. I think we can take a lot of these ideas and use them in our project. Sorry it is so long.
Thanks
Kate
Kate Petrshin
Why Museums?
Researching this essay topic is seemingly easy. However, it seems that every source has its own definition as to what a museum actually is, and its social impact on the world. This step is a very important step in our quest for why museums are a thing of interest in a society that is seemingly abandoning the museum. We are gradually moving towards other forms of entertainment and the traditional museum is being replaced by things like the discover channel, national geographic magazine, and other educational tools. However, museums are on the rise but, the memberships and visitorships are decreasing exponentially (Dubin pg. 9). This is a screaming issue that me must address. In order to do so correctly we must fully understand the function and purpose for museums in general (Hein pg. 4). Not to only single out the art or science museum, however we must address all forms in a general way in order to understand the functions and social impact of the museums fellowship (Conn pg. 66).
So, as I said before it is important that we set a standard about what it a museum actually is before we can begin to analyze its social and economic standards within a modern society. The word museum stems from the Latin word “musea” which means temple of dedication (Conn pg 88). Musea were dedicated to the Roman god of art, and were constructed for the people by the people. This makes the obvious assertion toward the museum being a place to “worship” art. The first “real” museum was said to have been the institute for philosophy and research at the Library established in Alexandria (Conn pg 79). Ptolemy I Soter in 280 BCE constructed the library. This intuition was home to the teachings of the great philosopher Plato ( Doubin pg 5). The library burned in a fire, and was only recently replaced in 2003. The library now serves both contemporary and artifactual texts. The collection was comprised of papyrus scrolls and parchment codices. A single piece of writing was occupied over several scrolls and/or a few self-containing books (Doubin pg 8).
The library in Alexandria was considered the first museum because it was organized or “curated” by Demetrius of Phaleron a student of the philosopher Aristotle. The library was laid out in to be a coherent and open to the general public. It focus was primarily on editing texts. The collection grew very large very fast (Fyfe pg. 78). The Egyption ruler made a law that said all visitors were required to surrender all books, scrolls as well as any from of written work in any language. Scribes would then copy these scripts and then put them in the library. The copies were often so precise that the originals were put into the Library and the copies were delivered to the unsuspecting previous owners (Conn pg 11).
The idea of copying and steeling is still something that happens frequently today. The British Museum’s Parthenon Marbles seems to be the most recent controversy of this kind. The question is; should the works were they were made or should they be located in the museum where they can be admired by the whole world. The plundering of the Parthenon began during the Greek War for independence. Significant amounts of the Acropolis and the other great Greek treasures were taken from Greece to England. Some of the pieces were a result of excavations, however, others were directly taken. The treasures were first housed in Elgin and were placed in a deposit of coral, which helped with the preservations of the pieces. It is speculated if the pieces remained in Greece they would have been destroyed on account of the war.
Elgin tried to sell the marbles to the British Royal Government but the high price prevented the Government from a final agreement. In 1816 they were however, bought by the Royal Government for 35000 pounds and moved to the British Museum (Conn pg. 13). The Museum was obligated by the government to conserve and maintain the artifacts as long as the government held ownership. The Museum responded to the donation from the government by building a special hall for the pieces to be housed and displayed.
At the end of the century some members of the British Government claimed that the treasures should be returned to Greece only after they got official word from the Greek Government. However, either the British Government or the Greek Government never took these claims seriously (Doubin pg. 88).
The struggle between the two countries really intensified in 1983 when Melina Mercouri, Minister for Culture, demanded to return for of the marbles. She said that the country had to unite what was originally theirs. Three days after taking office Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that the marbles would not be returned to Greece. Surprisingly, the Greek government was split. Half of them thought that England had a right to keep the marbles and they would be in better hands, however, the other half thought that they should be returned (Doubin pg. 48).
So we are beginning to see a similar argument toward the Parthenon Marbles as we saw with the Library in Alexandria. The British Government did take the marbles and restore and safeguard the marbles. Just as in Alexadria, the books were taken and placed in the hands of the government in order to help encourage public knowledge and ensure its safety for generations to come. However, those texts and the marbles originally belonged to other individual.
So, in my mind two controversies arise. The first is; do the marbles/texts belong to the government that preserves them or the government that creates them? The second question is; is if there is no current hair to pass the work down from in the original artists family, should it really matter if they are in Greece or London? These are just two of many questions that arise with the idea of the museum. They are controversial topics that definitely do not have a precise answer. Just like all things in life nothing is ever that black and white, there is always gray area. It is during times of grey that we must compromise with all parties involved to come up with a solution for all parties involved. This idea is definitely not being done much in the museum or political worlds. Every person wants to be “right”, however, there is no such thing. When people think that either side is right, their vision becomes clouded and they lose empathy for others. We must look at things from both sides and try and make all parties agree on the “right” decision.
Now that we understand the function of the museum we still must address what the job and purpose of the museum is. While we this is another case that we may not see a clear cut answer, we know only a few certain variables. Weather or not the museum is virtual, real, inside, outside, history or science, or for that matter any of the other verities that we find in museums, its purpose is to offer a way of education first hand. It is to inform and culture an advanced a society. It is a long standing, or “permanent institution and serves society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment, for the purpose of education, study and enjoyment (International Council of Museums) .” Another quotes that generalizes the job of the museum is as follows; “Museums enable people to explore collections for inspiration, learning and enjoyment. They are institutions that collect, safeguard and make accessible artifacts and specimens, which they hold in trust for society (Fyfe pg. 10).”
Another source suggests that the museum was intended to take a more “elitist” point of view. It was intended to “uplift” and refine public tastes. And was the first true museum was born in Europe only two hundred years ago. They were intended to substitute parts of a public education by giving a first hand experience to both student and teacher. The idea of a public education for all only existed very recently. So it was undoubly for the “best of the best”. However, this view point definitely applies to a more specific kind of museum and I tend to omit it from my definition of a museum. I prefer to stick with the library in Alexandria as being the first museum, open to the public for anyone and everyone (Fyfe pg 33).
The museum itself has set minimum standards for any institution that wants to call themselves a museum. This is known as the ICOM, Code of Ethics for Museums. This exists as the cornerstone for museums building blocks. “It sets a minimum standard for professional practice and for museums and their staff (ICOM.org).” The code exists to set the standards for museums on all levels and interests of the museum (Fyfe pg. 43). Some examples for topics that the code addresses are as follows:
1. Museums preserve, interpret and promote aspects of the natural and cultural inheritance of humanity.
2. Museums that maintain collections hold them in trust for the benefit of society and its development.
3. Museums hold primary evidence for establishing and furthering knowledge
4. Museums provide opportunities for the appreciation, enjoyment, understanding and management of the natural and cultural heritage
5. Museums hold resources that provide opportunities for other public services to benefit
6. Museums work in close collaboration with the communities from which their collections originate as well as those they serve
7. Museums operate in a legal manner
8. Museums operate in a professional manner
Out of all the guidelines listed above I think it is apparent that number seven is perhaps the most controversial. According to the stories we are hearing relating to the Greek Marbles, I think it is evident that not much legal matter has been set in place for a museum to operate by. If we did have a system of law for the museums it would be a lot easier for all parties involved to determine the “rightful” owner. I think we must think deeper than just saying we must operate legally, I think it should say that we must operate “morally”, and compromise with all parties involved, do not create a clouded vision.
As I have commented before, the museum world is changing dramatically. We are going from a time when museums were intended to operate as uplifting and culture to “the relative positions of the museum and the public will have revolved a full 180 degrees”(Weil pg 195). Museums now hold a role of service to the public and what the public whishes.
Stephen E. Weil writes about the beginning of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston in 1870. Callahan Perkins one of the museums first trusties described the museums purpose to the public, “The museum exists as a modicum of captivity for the improvement in all men, which can be greatly developed by familiarity with such acknowledged masterpieces as are found in all great collection of works of art. Their humblest function is to give enjoyment to all classes; their highest, to elevate men by purifying the taste and acting upon moral nature (Weil pg. 213).”
The Metropolitan Museum of Fine Art, William Cullen Bryant said that the museum would show the public, “entertainment of an… improving character.” Even London’s South Kensington Museum’s superintendent, Sir Henry Cole said, “The working man comes to this museum for one or two dimly lighted dwelling rooms, in his fustian jacket with his collar and little trimmed up trousers (Weil pg. 200).
Stephen E. Weil states that the greatest single factor contributing to the loss of the museums once superior position has been bankruptcy of the underlying ideologies upon which it as founded (Weil pg. 199)” He argues that painting subjects have taken a turn for the worst and what the public thinks about when looking at paintings is less about morality or history and more about line, composition, and color.
While these points are all valid to art museums, what about the other forms? They too have suffered “bankruptcy” of intended morals, and are being replaced rapidly. This begs us to once again ask the question of why our museums are failing miserably, and why we continue to build. Is it really an elite profit, that continues building things that are failing, or is the museum world really not as bad as we think. However, according to my observations at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, I have found that people even when they are in a museum they show little to no interest. Which makes me think that Weil’s point about museums having a lack of substance is right.
On Friday, February 8, 2008, I set out on my experiment. I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City , specifically the American Wing. At first I was unsure whether I should set up in the American Wing, or the Ancient Greek and Roman Wing. Once I got to the museum I realized it would be best to go to the American Wing because it had less traffic and was in a smaller space. This gave me an opportunity to take a close look at how people interacted with the exhibit and their overall surroundings. I think this was a wise decision, because the Ancient Greek and Roman collection would have been too much ground to cover in an eight-hour experiment.
I found a place to sit in the same room as Washington Crossing the Delaware. I made sure I sat directly in the center of the room to ensure that I could see everyone who entered and exited. Every inch of wall space in the room was covered with paintings. This is an interesting point because I began to realize that a lot of people became easily overwhelmed with all of the artwork. This could have made a difference in my experiment, and essentially could have influenced the numbers.
When I first arrived in the American Wing I was unsure how everything was going to play out. I always assumed that everyone interacted with exhibits the same way I do. I go from piece to piece and read almost all the information on the wall about each piece. Then I find a place to sit and take in all of the paintings. Yes, it takes a while, but I thought this was how you were “supposed” to go to a museum. Little did I know that this is not the way that everyone views a museum. I also realized that in order to capture someone’s attention for more than five seconds, it takes a lot more than an interesting painting with some facts slapped up on the wall.
The time of day greatly affected the number of people who entered the exhibit, and how they viewed it. At first I thought more people would come into the exhibit in the morning than in the afternoon. Once again I was completely wrong. The chart titled Number of People in the Exhibit per Hour (attached) shows that more people entered the exhibit between the hours of 2:00 and 5:30 pm, than in the morning. I also noticed a difference in attendance in the morning compared with lunch time. The number of people in the morning hours steadily increased, and this number then fell dramatically during the 12:30–1:30 period. My speculation is that people got hungry and left to get lunch. This makes me wonder whether our society is so scheduled, we cannot break the schedule even on our off time. As little children in elementary school, we are forced to eat lunch between the hours of 12 and 1 pm. I think this rigid scheduling stays with us throughout our lives, and it has become reflected in our underground museum culture.
During my eight-hour stay, it became extremely apparent to me that this museum’s culture is reflected in the types of people who entered the gallery. I think that it would be beneficial to study other museums, in different parts of New York, in order to gain insight into this matter. It is apparent that certain types of people enter the Metropolitan Museum of Art. For instance, age seemed to be a big factor, and Caucasians were by far the leading race that entered the exhibit. Of 297 people who entered during an eight-hour span, slightly more than half, 150, were Caucasian. I was completely shocked when I got home and counted up my tally marks. During my time at the museum it was never really that apparent that there were so many Caucasians. It is sad to say, but I think it is become something I have gotten used to. I never really realized the lack of diversity in museums until I sat down and looked (see chart titled Notable Races during the Day for more information).
Age was another huge determining factor in the types of people that entered the exhibit. Of that same 297 total people, 113 were between the ages of 27 and 45, and 94 were 46 and older. Once again I was not expecting this kind of outcome. I knew that museums attracted an “older crowd”; however, I did not think there would be that much of a bias. This means that slightly more than 53 percent of people who entered that gallery were over the age of 27. Granted, I would not consider 27 to be “older”; however, I am alarmed by the fact that only 38 out of 297 people were between the ages of 12 and 27. So my question is, where is my generation? Have we become a generation that is devoid of museum life? The age composition could have been due to the fact that I went on a Friday and most people are working at that time. I would argue, however, that when I go to the Met on Saturdays it still does not draw an extreme crowd of kids my age—unless, of course, they are tourists there with their families. After a long debate with myself about this matter, I never reached any real conclusion. I think it would have to be further investigated in order to understand what these numbers really indicate. However, I do feel that my generation is losing interest in a strict museum culture because of things like the Internet. I have also done a small investigation on the matter, and it seems that admission to museums among the 20–30-year-old crowd has gone down over the last five years. I think these figures are rather alarming.
I found the movement of people through the museum to be quit ironic. It seems as though people in New York are caught up in having their own personal space, but when it came to the way people used the museum, this sense was definitely not apparent. The chart titled Flow of People during the 2:30-3:30 hour indicates that people enter the exhibit in “waves.” It seems that many people enter the exhibit at the same time, and trickle out at the same time as well. I do not think that people like to be in the exhibit by themselves. Perhaps they are intimidated about being alone with pieces of art.
Another matter that I found surprising was the number of people who actually read the wall information. The new trend in museums seems to be the audio guide. I found that significantly more people used the audio guides instead of reading the information on the wall, and the people who did not have audio guides hardly ever read the wall information. This begs us to ask: are people just lazy? Or do they learn more from having the audio guides? I feel that the audio guides are good for certain situations but bad for others. For example, I was in France a few summers ago, and I found the audio guide in English to be very beneficial there, because all the wall information was in French. It gave me a better understanding of what it was I was looking at. However, at the Met you see people who can obviously speak English very well, and they insist on carrying one of these audio guides. In a way I feel the audio guide gives the viewer more information than the artist intended to give. It takes away from the mystery of “what did he really mean by this?” and instead spills everything. It is hard to sit back and just look at the art for what it is—art. Instead, people are so intrigued with finding meaning, they forget to admire a piece for its artistic beauty.
In addition to major use of audio guides, people never stayed in the exhibit for more than ten minutes. They seemed to rush from one thing to another, as if they had some place they would rather be. It made me wonder why people paid twenty dollars to come into the museum in the first place. Either people do not care about art, or the museum is to blame. Perhaps the Met has not been able to successfully capture the attention of its audience. I think that too many paintings were shown in one room, and it became overwhelming to people. Or is it that we live in such a fast-paced world, we do not know when it is time to slow down and enjoy the finer things in life?
A recent survey says that modern museums are more acceptable in the eyes of the public than other form of museums to date. In Mark Wigley’s essay, Emperor’s New Paint, he speaks about the recent phenomenon of white paint in modern architecture. This old color has the to transform buildings into places of innovation progression and inspiration for the future. The idea of white paint is to scrape away the old “dirty, dark colors (Wigley pg. 10).” And peel back the truth and show everything as it is without interruption of color to hide behind.
In Marks Essay he explains, “Whitewash purifies the eye rather that the building. Indeed it reveals the central role of vision in hygiene. After all, the “clean white surface is not such a simple thing (Wigley pg. 19).” This was a very interesting way of looking at the white-wall phenomena. It is easy to build buildings that are not perfect but hid it behind frilly decoration and color. It is much harder to make a perfectly built building, keep it clean without decoration to cover up the marks in the walls and scuffs on the floors. Whitewash is a push toward quality, something that I think may attract many new museum comers.
When you compare two museums like the Cooper Hewitt National Design Museum and the Carnegie house it is easy to see the stark contrast. Instead of ornamentation the Cooper Hewitt gives the galleries a more contemporary modern look. This portrayed that they, although still holding onto their historical roots were moving toward the future of design, and what it had to offer. However, when I took a tour of the Cooper I asked the guide about this phenomena and she said that, while the white-wall theory holds true right now, she predicts that the future will bring decoration and color. It is like anything else just a response to modern views, of what people like and don’t like dictated by society.
At the Museum of Modern Art everywhere you turn you see a reflection of modern design, and that includes the walls. When I asked advising personnel about this, I was told the walls are left white because they do not have the time or funds to paint the walls a new color after every show. In addition white is an enhancing color to most pieces of art, which creates a “distraction” free zone surrounding the work.
So the question still remains is all the efforts the museums are putting in paying off. Or, are we they just looking for an excuse to get out of painting the walls? I think a little of both. Modern museums are now being seen as 60’s classic, so they are dated, however people are still responding more to the modern museum rather than the traditional.
I think the phenomenon will continue to grow, until we find something bigger and better. Much like the Library in Alexandria it was innovative for its time, and did bring in the upper curst of society, however there are accounts where the museum brought in “lowlifes in search of knowledge.”
Bibliography
Conn, Steven. Museums and American Intellectual Life. 1st . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Dubin, Steven. Displays of Power. 2nd. New York: New York University Press, 1999.
Dubin, Steven. Transforming Museums. 1st . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
Fyfe, Gordon. Theorizing Museums. 1st . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1996.
Hein, Hilde. 1st . Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2006.
Weil, Stephen. Museum and the Public. 1st . Boston: MIT Publishing , 2002.
Wigley, Mark. The Empoeror's New Paint . 1st . Boston: MIT Publishing , 2001.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment