In this response paper, I will highlight perspectives of contemporary museology and the manipulation of the viewer experience through recontextualization, fabrication, and influence of the curator—and, the museum effect. Authors Svetlana Alpers, Michael Baxandall, and Susan Vogel discussed in this response contribute to the contemporary theories that explore the function, significance, and fallacies of art and artifacts installations within the museum. This response paper more specifically explores the various connections between artistic implications, audience observation, and curator manipulation by analyzing a collection of narrative essays, and research from various scholars. The conclusion set forth in this reading response values the cultural and educational experiences of the 21st century museums in being a conduit between various cultures; however, museum visitors must be aware of the false-pretense that artifacts and artworks are being displayed.
Museums have been the subject of a heated debate within the art field in regards to the effect that museums have on communicating and creating a false representation of primitive art and artifacts. According to Svetlana Alpers (1991) The Museum as a Way of Seeing, museums have the ability to transform all objects into a masterpiece through a concept known as the museum effect (p. 27). The museum effect is “the tendency to isolate something from its world, to offer it up for attentive looking and thus to transform it into art like our own” (Alpers, 1991, p. 27). In the article, Alpers argues that museums provide a satiating experience for those that are visually hungry. According to Alpers (1991) “museums provide a place where our eyes are exercised and where we are invited to find both unexpected as well as expected crafted objects to be of visual interest to us” (p. 32). However magical the transformation may be, museums often do not display objects in a manner that empowers the objects, Instead, the contextual framework adopted by many museums actually undermines taking a true globally-conscious approach to educating, exposing, and exhibiting artifacts, and relics.
British art historian, Michael Baxandall’s (1991) Exhibiting Intention: Some Preconditions of the Visual Display of Culturally Purposeful Objects compares the museum to that of a “treasure house, educational instrument, and secular temple”. Through the museology experience, primitive objects, relics, and artifacts are being displayed in an organized catalogue state to allow for inspection and appreciation by visitors. However, the labels utilized by the museums can be misleading to the museum visitors in that the labels do not directly provide a truth to the descriptive nature of the artifact, but rather provides a surface level understanding. Curators need to focus on attempting to create as true of a representation without cultural appropriation or creating false-pretenses through installation pieces.
The 21st century museums are shifting the meaning and purpose of art through desacralization, fabricating anti-sacred space, and manipulating an experiential encounter via boutique lighting and set-up. Susan Vogel’s (1991) article Always True to the Object, in Our Fashion, states that “museums…have an obligation to let the public know that part of any exhibition is making of the artists and what part is the curator’s interpretation” (p. 191). To elicit a heightened sensory state, curators use lightening, auditory experiences, and visual images, and labels to reach out and connect to the museum visitors. Sadly, “museum visitors seem practically unaware of…the collaboration between a curator and the artist(s) represented, with the former having by far the most active and influential role” (Vogel, 1991, p. 191). Even if the curators’ intent is to educate, it is impossible for scholars to reconstruct an original, experiential, and universal reaction to objects that allow for and create a true sacred and originally purposed space.
21st century museology strives to provide a museum experience whereby the instantaneous gratification for the viewer is received through the transformation of objects through the museum effect. However, the adverse implications that providing experiential museum experience has both a cultural and social impact on the audience that may not be worth the experience at the risk of creating a falsified experience through the fabrication, and manipulation of the curator. The cultural and educational practices of the 21st century museums provide a conduit between various cultures; however, museum visitors must be aware of the false-pretense that artifacts and artworks are being displayed—and, understand the transformation that the museum provides does not parallel with the truth.
References
Alpers, S. (1991). The Museum as a Way of Seeing. In I. Karp, and S.D. Lavine, (Eds.), Exhibiting Cultures, (pp. 24-49). Smithsonian Institution.
Baxandall, M. (1991). Exhibiting Intention: Some Preconditions of the Visual Display of Culturally Purposeful Objects. In I. Karp, and S.D. Lavine, (Eds,). Exhibiting Cultures, (pp. 229-244). Smithsonian Institution.
Vogel, S. (1991). Always True to the Object, in Our Fashion. In I. Karp, and S.D. Lavine, (Eds,). Exhibiting Cultures, (pp. 191-204). Smithsonian Institution.
Comments