Role of the Institution

[art4net]

Daniel Buren, 'Function of The Museum' pub. 1970 in October magazine:

“1. Aesthetic. The Museum is the frame and effective support upon which the work is inscribed/composed. It is at once the centre in which the action takes place and the single (topographical and cultural) viewpoint for the work.
2. Economic. The Museum gives sales value to what it exhibits, has privileged/selected. By preserving or extracting it from the commonplace, the Museum promotes the work socially, thereby assuring its exposure and consumption.
3. Mystical. The Museum/Gallery instantly promotes to “Art” status what it exhibits with conviction, i.e. habit, thus diverting in advance any attempt to question the foundations of art without taking into consideration the place from which the question is put. The Museum (the Gallery) constitutes the mystical body of Art.”


Posted by: ignorAmouse

[ignorAmouse]

I suppose what I was hinting at when I originally posted this quote was to ask whether or not this tripartite schema still applies today?
Certainly Danto and (it won't let me write the name of his compatriot in Institutional Theory so think "white cube") would agree that, to paraphrase Danto, the museum/ gallery 'transfigures' that which is accepted by it at an institutional level automatically to the higher 'otherness' of Art. How does this sit with, for example, Land Art or Performance Art (even around the time of Buren's paper) where documentation is the only real evidence of the Art Act? Does this role somehow justify the ever increasing move towards Installation Art or the fad for Outsider Art? Does the exhibition of a supposed art-object within the art institution justify the status that is then conferred?
Rose Selavy has a lot to answer for Ê

[Sterud]

Very tough question!

My thoughts go back to the origins of the gallery, which were the cave, temple and church. The art found there was extremely valuable, but not always for monetary reasons, and were more than likely priceless and/or unavailable to the public. The art available to the masses was more craft-like: clothing, jewelery, containers and weapons.

I'm speaking very generally, but perhaps the gallery and museum are a continuation of art-worship, descendant from the altarpieces of cathedrals and the personal works afforded only by nobility, while even "high craft" maintains its secure position among the populace.

Seems more likely than the other obvious option, which is that art performs a service, in which case it is housed by necessity and capitalized upon by society similar to a grocery store or a post-office.

S.

[ignorAmouse]

Thanks for the interesting reply Sterud.
I would certainly agree that the mysticism that surrounds all facets of, even the modern, artistic process does in some way reflect upon the pre Art For Art's Sake worship of the representative image as a symbol of religion and/or status, but is it really fair to say that Art has little or no service to society?
Okay so its not a necessity for daily living per se, but I do think that Art does have a valuable role to play in the wider societal context and that the institutional structure facillitates that role.
From a personal viewpoint the museum/ gallery functions as a cultural depository, if you like, of the physical (and conceptual) results of successive culturally imbued/ aware induividuals.
Though it may be fair to say that Art of late has lost its reactive edge I would argue that that is the specific outcome of a wider Western society that is itself largely unreactive, even apathetic, to what goes on around it.
Whether or not these items do justify their Art status by simply being exhibited within the institutional context is another matter. But the 'What is Art?' question is one that will never be satisfactorily answered.

[Treefrog]

I may be wrong, but I also feel that the institution can act as a barrier. By housing 'art' in its own special building, you effectively remove it from the everyday experience of the common man.

Again it touches on the 'what is art?' question.

I think institutions either passively or actively promote a snobbery about art and what constitutes good or bad art.

[ignorAmouse]

Valid point.

But if there weren't these places - museums/ galleries/ libraries - depositories of culture and/ or Art how would the common man experience it (modern art) up close and personal?

These institutions (as well as, admittedly, creating their own heirarchy of worth for reasons other than purely for the sake of 'art' as you point out) do make accessible what might otherwise be hidden away in a private collection somewhere, or what may even have been discarded over time.

Certainly there is an overarching snobbery within the Artworld, but the 'common man' can be just as snobbish in his ideas about what Art should be.

Take the typical British tabloid reaction to modern art, the Turner Prize, for example. Every year you can expect the same headlines about whether or not it's art or just a big load of - pardon my French - rap with a capital C. Lights going on and off in a room can't be Art, someone's bed can't be Art, the cast of the inside of a house can't be Art.
Even now Equivalent 8 is just a pile of bricks and how could the Tate buy it?
It was bought in 1972.

I hate to say it but it would seem that there has to be some degree of snobbishness if the art of today is to be acknowledged as such and that the larger institutions do have the difficult job of trying to exhibit, to a greater or lesser degree, that which is of interest/ worth/ value (?) to the public at large as well as those with some sort of deeper interest.

Then there always is the kicker - how do I begin to know what is Art if there isn't someone or someplace to point me in the right general direction?

[hitoast]

I though i'd mention that I heard a lecture by David Hickey at the Montclair art museum a few weeks ago - and he brought out the interesting view that Art History follows the Art almost as a rationale for defending our 'liking' something.
- after the lecture I overheard him telling someone that
"the art dealer makes his living by being obnoxious."  (something along those lines) and the ones you are raising.
- I have worked in luxury good sales (and rare art books) and didn't see the benefits of snobbery, although many may defend their view that it is necessary to make a living in eliteism - I feel that is strictly for the nouveau riche who desperately need to feel superior (of which there are plenty).
The overall atmosphere of 'better than the rest' surely helps to open up the wallets of shoppers/collectors.  The 'collector' - what a perfect example of a next-level term for shopper. -better educated .... better funded ... better ...
collection.  (of course I am brainwashed to agree and am starting to babble)
The bottom line is the product will sell - or be remembered over the centuries for its quality - which will be admired across many social sectors.  
I do feel that the museum blesses pieces with an authority stamp of approval as do galleries.  Surely there are mistakes, like the world itself, but I still try to enjoy them and what they do - which is largely to propound creativity.