In a postmodern world, the knowledge of the museum, the academia, and other institutions are considered one branch of knowledge and language. There is no longer a narration that provides any answers or truisms in the art world because we live in a world with too many choices. In the readings this week, I had was more reserved and critical in the authors' knowledge of the museum and art because I realized the text did not encompass a totalitarian viewpoint. This positive truism I was seeking when I originally started my studies in art history is not dead but has never existed from the days of Vasari all the way to the present day.
With the readings of postmodernism in mind, The Postcolonial Constellation article written by Okwui Enzewor seeks to degrade the renewed vision of the Tate Museum in London. Through all of his finger-pointing and critiquing of the Tate continuing to exhibit in a modernist fashion, Enzewor has forgotten where he is received his training within the arts. Being born in Nigeria does not mean that Enzewor's knowledge is composed of eastern or indigeneous thoughts from his native African homeland. In reality, Enzewor has received a Western education that had defined Modernism during the beginning of the Enlightenment. For Enzewor to berate and attack the Tate Museum is to discount his own education. If it was not for the Western thinking and training in which Enzewor was so privileged to receive, he would never have had the ability to write this article, teach at the University of Pittsburgh, and, presently, be the president of the San Francisco Art Institute. Although we need to look at and analyze art outside the scope of art history and into the realm of cultural, political, religious, and social contexts, it is hypocritical for Enzewor to relegate the exhibitioning of art inside the context of the history of art.
On the other hand, I did enjoy Eilean Hopper-Greenhill's article on What is a Museum? as it discusses the knowledge of the museum within the context of art history. Although museum's have contributed to the commodification of the art object, it has created one form of knowledge that has contributed to the public's education of art. The fact that museums are now being critically looked at and studied is now helping to bring to light the fact that the museum is not the absolute ruler in the judgment of art and its histories, but that it is one source of knowledge within the discourses of a postmodern world. However, the general public has been limited by their art historical knowledge because of the hegemony of the museum as the supreme authority figure. The museum, as the Panopticon, has controlled the surveillance and identities of artists within the different movements of art. But as Foucault points out, there is discourse outside of the museum, such as political and cultural contexts, that remove any chance of their being a universal truth being offerned by the museum. We are made aware that knowledge is composed of factors outside the history of art as defined by the museum, curators, and catalogs that attempt to authenticate their knowledge as being on top of the institutional hierarchy. Therefore, we need to continue an institutional critique of the museum until it accepts historical, social, and cultural contexts with an equal status to aesthetics in order to increase knowledge. However, in postmodernism, there is no way to provide the positive truism that aesthetics and connoiseurship seeks to comfortably provide.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Globalization- A New Challenge for Museums
Enwezor writes, “Here, what marks the critical division between culture and art is that for centuries art as such has waged a fierce battle of independence from all cultural, social economic, and political influences.” Battle waged or not, I do not think there is any denying the relationship between art and culture, not even with the apparent tolls of globalization. Art is still produced by someone, or now, something, but there still remains an inspiration or purpose at the root of production. Enwezor then states that contemporary artists today are driven by the “new forms of governmentality and institutions, new domains of living and belonging as people and citizens, cultures and communities, defined by the post-colonial matrix that shapes the ethics of subjectivity and creativity today.” He contrasts this modern notion with that of “classical European thought . . . informed by its own internal cohesion, without an outside.” I would argue that classical Europe was just as driven by “new” forms of government and institutions as is true with today’s contemporary society. Enwezor uses the word “thought,” “classical European thought”- “thought” implies an active process, a reaction to something in which to first have thought about, meaning that there had to be something to react to. I think that classical Europe, although not faced with the exact governments and institutions as we are occasionally burdened with today, had their own burdens in the form of government, which in many cases was the church. The church took the form of both institution and government.
I also have to wonder what the difference is between globalization and imperialism that Enwezor refers to. He writes about globalization after imperialism, and then uses the term “post-imperialism” to define his “postcolonial constellation.” What’s exactly is globalization but another form of imperialism? Another way for powers to influence and push ideas? This may be a bit of a generalization, I realize, but what is the museum but another way in which to attempt to convey ideology and construct history- possibly another form of globalization? With that said, I think that what Enwezor is so enraged about in his article is the Tate Modern’s attempt to categorize and globalize its exhibition of African Art. How do you exhibit something that was not made for the purpose of being art, but made for a specific reason, for a specific task, by a specific culture? Are these objects then considered art? Should they be displayed in an art museum known for modern and contemporary exhibitions? The exhibition is then forced to include text about how the objects were used and what their intended purpose was, turning the museum and the exhibition into the curator’s and/or the museum’s own view or take on the history of a certain culture. It is an attempt in which to globalize and categorize, in this case African objects within the context of a museum, displaying them as art, and constructing a history for an entire "Africa" based on only the objects part of the exhibition. The objects that are purposely left out are just as important, and tell just as much about Britain's own views about colonial history. Obviously, Enwezor feels that the Tate Modern failed miserably and has not moved passed colonialism at all. Once again, it seems as though the history of African cultures are falsely reconstructed and dominated by a powerful institution, the museum. I believe that museums and curators today face a huge challenge during a time with it seems like artists and the world for that matter are fighting against and resisting globalization and the old way of categorization and classification.
I also have to wonder what the difference is between globalization and imperialism that Enwezor refers to. He writes about globalization after imperialism, and then uses the term “post-imperialism” to define his “postcolonial constellation.” What’s exactly is globalization but another form of imperialism? Another way for powers to influence and push ideas? This may be a bit of a generalization, I realize, but what is the museum but another way in which to attempt to convey ideology and construct history- possibly another form of globalization? With that said, I think that what Enwezor is so enraged about in his article is the Tate Modern’s attempt to categorize and globalize its exhibition of African Art. How do you exhibit something that was not made for the purpose of being art, but made for a specific reason, for a specific task, by a specific culture? Are these objects then considered art? Should they be displayed in an art museum known for modern and contemporary exhibitions? The exhibition is then forced to include text about how the objects were used and what their intended purpose was, turning the museum and the exhibition into the curator’s and/or the museum’s own view or take on the history of a certain culture. It is an attempt in which to globalize and categorize, in this case African objects within the context of a museum, displaying them as art, and constructing a history for an entire "Africa" based on only the objects part of the exhibition. The objects that are purposely left out are just as important, and tell just as much about Britain's own views about colonial history. Obviously, Enwezor feels that the Tate Modern failed miserably and has not moved passed colonialism at all. Once again, it seems as though the history of African cultures are falsely reconstructed and dominated by a powerful institution, the museum. I believe that museums and curators today face a huge challenge during a time with it seems like artists and the world for that matter are fighting against and resisting globalization and the old way of categorization and classification.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Postcolonialism and the Museum
Enwezor begins with a call for a new and critical look at artistic production and how it relates to the postcolonial global culture that we live in today. But, he also thinks that a look at the artwork itself can give a clearer picture of what our postcolonial world really looks like today than can simply looking at what he calls the “postcolonial constellation.” He says that his article is a response to previous assertions that he made about the content of art being based “around the norms of...postcolonial...forms.” These forms are named as hybridization, creolization, etc., with a cosmopolitan flavor. He also asserts that in order to discuss this art, a discourse has to base itself on modernity and imperialism as well as the postcolonial discourse. He ends the first section by introducing a discussion about the proper role of the curator in our current postcolonial imperialist, modernist based cultural world.
In the next section he begins by talking about the kinds of criticisms on curatorial work today. One is speculative and general and sees contemporary art as a novelty. The second is institutional and is either academic or museological. He says art is scientific and autonomous – not cultural. One of his examples is the appropriation of African sculptures by European artists and a failure to properly and fully address this appropriation. Enwezor contends that the analysis has been largely formal (or scientific).
At this point Enwezor brings in the discourse of Peter Burger who says, “Conceiving of art’s apartness from society as its ‘nature’ means involuntarily adopting the l’art por l’art concept of art and simultaneously making it impossible to explain this apartness as a product of a historical and social development.” I love this “catch 22” aspect that he gives to the formalist approach. Enwezor says this has led to opposing traditions that can be described as the same type of criticism that he calls institutional. Institutional criticism is a domain fought over by traditionalist and progressive groups, who Enwezor says, reject any social function of art. Enwezor gives two examples of this phenomenon; one of which scrutinizes the situation at the Tate Modern. Here the curators had decided to initiate a more dialectical approach to explain the heritage of European modernism, which ends up being troubling rather than “progressive.” Enwezor can only surmise that this failure is due to the Tate’s logical position as the heir to European primitivist discourse.
Enwezor then discusses the ever-multiplying problems of and with museum curatorial work in the postcolonial climate. He then posits that the curatorial response has been to assimilate five historical effects, which are impermanent and contingent. They are the “enlargement” of exhibitions, decolonization and cultural identity, heterogeneity, mediatization of culture, and globalization of economic production and culture.
With all of these in mind, how does the curatorial process work intellectually? The curator has to think within and outside of the canon. Enwezor suggests that it is impossible for the curator to NOT ally himself or herself with the institutionally ordered experience of art. This is true, although in an ideal world people would use their abilities to think and allow for their own discourse of thought with that which the museum sets forth. Enwezor says, “Another way of approaching the discourse on curatorial practice is to understand the work of the curator as a mode of practice that leads to particular ways of aligning thought and vision through the separation and juxtaposition of a number of models within the domains of artistic production and public reception.” Is this not what the artist does? Artists work in a way that lead to particular ways of aligning thought and vision. Often the work of artists is meant to make us think or to portray a particular point of view. Why is it that the curator or the museum must always have this aura of authority? Why can’t they be seen as an extension of the artist in that their work is there to make us think and talk – not to produce yet another master narrative, but rather “continuous redefinitions” to discuss, reject, act upon, accept, etc.?
Vogel’s article was an interesting account of an exhibition that she put together in an attempt to be as idealistic as possible in the representation of African art within the museum setting. I found her methods interesting, but disagreed with many of the things that she said. For example, “If the audience knows one thing about African art, it knows these objects were never meant to be seen in museum buildings.” That may be true, deep down. But, I think that a majority of the public doesn’t even consider the possible uses of the objects it sees in the museum setting. Most people are trained to look at an object and decide whether they like it or not. Not enough people are educated enough about art to truly be discerning about the social history of any object without some explanation.
I enjoyed Bann’s article and particularly that he addressed the fact that the discourse within a mode of display is largely dependent on the system of knowledge within the period in which the display is made. This related very well to Enwezor’s article and his discussion of the modes of display (and discourse within that display) in the postcolonial period. Bann also asks what it means “to see a culture and to understand it by looking at objects.” I think this is an extraordinarily pertinent question, yet almost impossible to answer. All it really means is that we can never get a full view unless we actually live in the moment of those objects – and even then, the experience is entirely subjective.
Eilean Hopper’s article was very clear and practical and offered some valuable insight into the history of museums and the manner in which they have related to systems of knowledge over the years. But, she also talks about how we look at things by trying to show how they are similar rather than different. She offers a doorway to explore how museums might follow a path that differentiates their goals and methods of conceptualizing themselves that can be quite different from how it has been done in the past.
In the next section he begins by talking about the kinds of criticisms on curatorial work today. One is speculative and general and sees contemporary art as a novelty. The second is institutional and is either academic or museological. He says art is scientific and autonomous – not cultural. One of his examples is the appropriation of African sculptures by European artists and a failure to properly and fully address this appropriation. Enwezor contends that the analysis has been largely formal (or scientific).
At this point Enwezor brings in the discourse of Peter Burger who says, “Conceiving of art’s apartness from society as its ‘nature’ means involuntarily adopting the l’art por l’art concept of art and simultaneously making it impossible to explain this apartness as a product of a historical and social development.” I love this “catch 22” aspect that he gives to the formalist approach. Enwezor says this has led to opposing traditions that can be described as the same type of criticism that he calls institutional. Institutional criticism is a domain fought over by traditionalist and progressive groups, who Enwezor says, reject any social function of art. Enwezor gives two examples of this phenomenon; one of which scrutinizes the situation at the Tate Modern. Here the curators had decided to initiate a more dialectical approach to explain the heritage of European modernism, which ends up being troubling rather than “progressive.” Enwezor can only surmise that this failure is due to the Tate’s logical position as the heir to European primitivist discourse.
Enwezor then discusses the ever-multiplying problems of and with museum curatorial work in the postcolonial climate. He then posits that the curatorial response has been to assimilate five historical effects, which are impermanent and contingent. They are the “enlargement” of exhibitions, decolonization and cultural identity, heterogeneity, mediatization of culture, and globalization of economic production and culture.
With all of these in mind, how does the curatorial process work intellectually? The curator has to think within and outside of the canon. Enwezor suggests that it is impossible for the curator to NOT ally himself or herself with the institutionally ordered experience of art. This is true, although in an ideal world people would use their abilities to think and allow for their own discourse of thought with that which the museum sets forth. Enwezor says, “Another way of approaching the discourse on curatorial practice is to understand the work of the curator as a mode of practice that leads to particular ways of aligning thought and vision through the separation and juxtaposition of a number of models within the domains of artistic production and public reception.” Is this not what the artist does? Artists work in a way that lead to particular ways of aligning thought and vision. Often the work of artists is meant to make us think or to portray a particular point of view. Why is it that the curator or the museum must always have this aura of authority? Why can’t they be seen as an extension of the artist in that their work is there to make us think and talk – not to produce yet another master narrative, but rather “continuous redefinitions” to discuss, reject, act upon, accept, etc.?
Vogel’s article was an interesting account of an exhibition that she put together in an attempt to be as idealistic as possible in the representation of African art within the museum setting. I found her methods interesting, but disagreed with many of the things that she said. For example, “If the audience knows one thing about African art, it knows these objects were never meant to be seen in museum buildings.” That may be true, deep down. But, I think that a majority of the public doesn’t even consider the possible uses of the objects it sees in the museum setting. Most people are trained to look at an object and decide whether they like it or not. Not enough people are educated enough about art to truly be discerning about the social history of any object without some explanation.
I enjoyed Bann’s article and particularly that he addressed the fact that the discourse within a mode of display is largely dependent on the system of knowledge within the period in which the display is made. This related very well to Enwezor’s article and his discussion of the modes of display (and discourse within that display) in the postcolonial period. Bann also asks what it means “to see a culture and to understand it by looking at objects.” I think this is an extraordinarily pertinent question, yet almost impossible to answer. All it really means is that we can never get a full view unless we actually live in the moment of those objects – and even then, the experience is entirely subjective.
Eilean Hopper’s article was very clear and practical and offered some valuable insight into the history of museums and the manner in which they have related to systems of knowledge over the years. But, she also talks about how we look at things by trying to show how they are similar rather than different. She offers a doorway to explore how museums might follow a path that differentiates their goals and methods of conceptualizing themselves that can be quite different from how it has been done in the past.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Enwezor's article, "The Postcolonial Constellation: Contemporary Art in a State of Permanent Transition" presents the idea that globalization has rid cultures of their "temporal and spatial distance" and has standardized cultures for the sake of capitalism. Since globalization has blurred the lines between cultures has it done the same for art? He introduces the idea of postcolonial constellation as being a "set of arrangements of deeply entangled relations and forces that are founded by discourses of power. The idea of the globalization of art fundamentaly refutes the traditionalist approach to art history. One thing is not directly leading to another, but instead it is a convergence of ideas and cultures and images that lead to progession of art.
Enwezor discusses the type of commentary that surrounds an exhibition. There are two different types. The first regards the exhibition as a novelty. The critique is sensationalist and treats the exhbition as a type of fashion show in which one is more concerned with whats "new" than with the art itself. The second type of critique is institutional. It revolves around the principle that "art has meaning and cultural value only when it is seen wholly as art and autonomous. That is any encounter with art must relate to that art scientifically, not culturally, in order to understand the objective conditions of the work in question".
Enwezor then goes on to discuss the way in which art is presented to the viewer in museum setting. I don't know that a visitor at a museum would ever stop to think about the way in which the art is presented to him by the curator. The typical viewer would most likely consider the work in and of itself and consider the artist, and although his experience and understanding would certainly be affected by the way the art is presented to him by the curator, he probably wouldnt realize it. In a way Enwezor is examing the extent of the curator's power and the ramifications of it. He says, "...it is of significant interest to see in the curator a figure who has assumed a position as a producer of certain kinds of thought about art, artists, exhibitions, and ideas and their place among a field of other possible forms of thought that govern the transmission and reception of artistic production; to think reflexively also about museums".
Enwezor discusses the type of commentary that surrounds an exhibition. There are two different types. The first regards the exhibition as a novelty. The critique is sensationalist and treats the exhbition as a type of fashion show in which one is more concerned with whats "new" than with the art itself. The second type of critique is institutional. It revolves around the principle that "art has meaning and cultural value only when it is seen wholly as art and autonomous. That is any encounter with art must relate to that art scientifically, not culturally, in order to understand the objective conditions of the work in question".
Enwezor then goes on to discuss the way in which art is presented to the viewer in museum setting. I don't know that a visitor at a museum would ever stop to think about the way in which the art is presented to him by the curator. The typical viewer would most likely consider the work in and of itself and consider the artist, and although his experience and understanding would certainly be affected by the way the art is presented to him by the curator, he probably wouldnt realize it. In a way Enwezor is examing the extent of the curator's power and the ramifications of it. He says, "...it is of significant interest to see in the curator a figure who has assumed a position as a producer of certain kinds of thought about art, artists, exhibitions, and ideas and their place among a field of other possible forms of thought that govern the transmission and reception of artistic production; to think reflexively also about museums".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)