Drawing from the Museum’s Ruins By Jan Christian Beringer A THESIS ESSAY SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED ARTS – LOW RESIDENCY in Art EMILY CARR UNIVERSITY OF ART + DESIGN November 29, 2012 © Jan Christian Beringer, 2012 ABSTRACT This   thesis   project   is   based   on   an   examination   and   critique   of   the   cultural   history   museum’s   exhibition   space,   working   outside   of   its   traditional   rules,   functions   and   typologies.     The   imaginative   process  and  potential  of  drawing  is  re-­‐activated  by  a  @inal   installation   based  work  in   the   physical  exhibit  space.    Implicating   the  viewer   within  a   possible  future  for  the  museum,   this   thesis   project   deconstructs  assumptions   of   how   we   view   and   interpret   the   past   in   a   normative   and  embodied  museum  experience. Located   within   my   interrelated   practices   as   an   exhibit   designer   and   artist,   this   thesis   project   focuses  on  my   art  practice,   with  the  concept   of  the  ruin  resonating   as  an   aesthetic   trope  for   re-­‐ imagining   the  museum   exhibition   space.     My  research   functions   within  a   related  temporal   and   theoretical   spiral,   building   the  foundations   for  my   thesis   project  from   such  diverse  drawing  and   installation   based   art   practices   as   Marcel   Duchamp   (1887   -­‐   1968),   Giovanni   Battista   Piranesi   (1720  -­‐  1778),  and  Pablo  Bronstein  (1977). I  am  redrawing  fragments  of  established  discourses  and  exhibit  archetypes  within  the  politicized   and   contested   history   that   frames   our   habituated   expectations   of   the   museum   as   a   cultural   experience.    Through  the   potentiality  of  ideas  and  propositions,  my  @inal  drawing  and  installation   based  work    use  the  blank  space  to  re-­‐imagine  our  blank  relationship  with  the  blank  museum. Both   my   thesis   and   art   practice   are   an   idiosyncratic   response   to   the   physical   and   ideological   thresholds   of   the   museum,   rupturing   a   pictorial   space   within   the   conceptual   ruin   of   the   museological  frame. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ii TABLE OF CONTENTS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! iii LIST OF FIGURES! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! vii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! 1.1 Thesis question(s)! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! 1.2 Thesis Project! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 Chapter 2. RATIONALE! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! 2.1 Overview!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! 2.2 The museum space, a brief history (18th century to present)! ! ! 5 ! Chapter 3. SITUATED PRACTICE! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 13 Chapter 4. METHOD! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 34 ! 4.1 Overview!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 34 ! 4.2 Drawing and Space! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 34 Chapter 5. THESIS PROJECT! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 40 iii ! 5.1 Overview!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 40 ! 5.2 ‘It’s All Over‘! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 41 ! 5.3 Reflection! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 44 Chapter 6. CONCLUSION!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 48 BIBLIOGRAPHY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 49 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 49 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 53 ! ! WORKS CITED! ! WORKS CONSULTED! iv LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1 Jan Beringer. On the One Hand. 2012. 3 Fig. 2 Jan Beringer. Out of the box. 2010. 4 Fig. 3 Jan Beringer. Are you looking at me? 2012. 6 Fig. 4 Jan Beringer. Time Lines. 2012. 6 Fig. 5 Jan Beringer. Inside and Outside the Frame. 2012. 7 Fig. 6 Jan Beringer. Manufacturing Authenticity. 2012. 8 Fig. 7 Jan Beringer. History Marching On. 2012. 9 Fig. 8 Jan Beringer. Dystopia. 2012. 11 Fig. 9 Jan Beringer. Moving on the thresholds. 2012. 12 Fig. 10 Jan Beringer. Working Outside the Extant Space of the Museum. 2012. 14 Fig. 11 Jan Beringer. Outside the Pictorial Frame Inside the Museum. 2012. 16 Fig. 12 Marcel Duchamp, Sixteen Miles of String, 1942. 16 Image by John Schiff. ‘First Papers of Surrealism” Gelatin silver print 16 Philadelphia Museum of Art 16 Fig 13 Frederick Kiesler, Art of This Century Gallery, 1942. 17 Photo by Berenice Abbott 17 Courtesy of Austrian Frederick and Lillian Kiesler Private Foundation. 17 Fig. 14 Marcel Duchamp, Boite-en-valise, 1938-1942. 18 Duchamp, Marcel. The Box in a Valise. c1943. 18 Tate Collection, UK. Tate.org.uk. Mixed Media. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. 18 http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-from 18 -or-by-marcel-duchamp-or-rose-selavy-the-box-in-a-valise-l02092 18 Fig. 15 Jan Beringer. Displaying Duchamp. 2012. 19 Fig. 16 Jan Beringer. Betwixt. 2012. 20 Fig. 17 Jan Beringer. It All Falls Apart Outside the Frame. 2012. 22 Fig. 18 Jan Beringer. Immutable museum display. 2012. 24 Fig. 19 Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Via Appia Imaginaria, 1756. 25 Victoria and Albert Museum, UK. Vam.ac.uk. Print. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. 25 http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/ 25 v OnlineWorkshops/RomingRome/09Piranesi.aspx 25 Fig. 20 Giovanni Battista Piranesi, The Pier with Chains, plate XVI, circa 1749. 26 Courtesy of Boca Raton Museum of Art, Florida. 26 Exhibition Images_Romanticism to Modernism: 26 Graphic Masterpieces from Piranesi to Picasso. 26 Fig. 21 Jan Beringer. Production and Destruction. 2012. 27 Fig. 22 Jan Beringer. Noun and Verb. 2012. 28 Fig. 23 Bronstein, Pablo. Magnificent Plaza. 2007. 31 India ink and wash on paper in artist’ frame 31 92.5 x 114.3 cm / 36.4 x 45 in. Image by Pablo Bronstein 31 Courtesy Herald St, London. 31 Fig. 24 Bronstein, Pablo. 32 The Museum Nearing Completion as Seen from Fourth Avenue. 2009. 32 The Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY. Metmuseum.org. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. 32 http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/ma/web-thumb/DP219709.jpg 32 Fig. 25 Jan Beringer. Out of the Museum’s Ruins. 2012. 32 Fig. 26 Jan Beringer. Drawing Other Spaces. 2012. 33 Fig. 27 Jan Beringer. Cultural Industry. 2012. 34 Fig. 28 Jan Beringer. Perspectival. 2012. 35 Fig. 29 Jan Beringer. Museum Section. 2012. 36 Fig. 30 Jan Beringer. On Work. 2012. 37 Fig. 31 Jan Beringer. Modernist Museum Ruins I. 2012. 38 Fig. 32 Jan Beringer. Modernist Museum Ruins II. 2012. 39 Fig. 33 Jan Beringer. Boxes. 2012. 40 Fig. 34 Jan Beringer. It’s All Over. 2012. 41 Fig. 35 Jan Beringer. It’s All Over. 2012. 43 Fig. 36 Jan Beringer. It’s All Over. 2012. 44 Fig. 37 Jan Beringer. It’s All Over. 2012. 45 Fig. 38 Jan Beringer. Definitions. 2012. 47 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I  would  like  to  thank  the  staff  at  Emily  Carr  University  of  Art  and  Design,  including: Dr.  Cameron  Cartiere  (Dean  of  Graduate  Studies)   Kyla  Mallett  (Supervisor) Dr.  Chris  Jones  (Professor  and  Coordinator  of  MAA) Dr.  Randy  Lee  Cutler  (Professor) Hadley  and  Maxwell  (Professors) Kristina  Lee  Podesva  (Professor) Angeles  Hernandez  Correa  (Administrative) Ken  Lum  (Professor) Megan  Smetzer  (Professor) Larissa  Beringer  (Research  Librarian) Bruce  Grenville  (Professor) In  addition  I  would  to   thank  my   family,   employer,  and  friends   for  supporting   me  through  the  MAA   program: Andrea  Mellor  (My  loving  wife) Bob  Coutts  (Parks  Canada) Erik  and  Katie  Garrett  (Friends) Alexis  and  Nik  Beringer  (Family) Ginger  and  Lucy  (My  patient  dogs) Internal  and  External  Reviewers: Cate  Rimmer  (Charles  H.  Scott  Gallery) Jonathan  Middleton  (Or  Gallery) vii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ! 1.1 Thesis question If  the  museum  exhibition  is  a  liminal  space  existing   between   the  thresholds  of  the  physical   and   conceptual  past,  how  can   a  drawing  and  installation   based  art  practice   re@lect  the  archetypes  of   the  museum   space   as   a   unique  and   contested  way  to   represent   and   interpret   the   past,   present   and  future?   1.2 Thesis Project Emerging  as  part  of  an  interdisciplinary  practice  and  body   of   work,  my  thesis  project  is  informed   by  the   established  rules,   typologies  and  limitations  of  the  traditional  museum   exhibition  space.    I   am   working   from   the  unique  perspective  of  my  position  as   both  an  artist  and  cultural   institution   based  exhibit  designer,   to   examine   and  observe   the  museum   from  parallax  positions   in  order  to   question,  explore  and  imagine   broader  ideas  and   possibilities  surrounding   the  experience  of  our   past,  present  and  future. In   my   thesis   project,   I   query   the   meaning   and   archetypical   forms   of   the   modernist   museum   exhibit   space   within  a  shifting   relationship  to   the   present   and  subjective   interpretations   of  our   past.     Using   drawing   as   a   process   and   medium   to   critique   the   place   of   the   museum   in   a   contemporary   context,   my   thesis   project   incorporates   and   activates   the   drawings   within   a   physical  installation   space  to   re-­‐situate  the  museum’s   ideological   and   didactic   traditions   into   an   embodied  space  for  alternative  forms  of  knowledge  creation  and  ideas. I   am   using   drawing   and   installation   based   works   to   inform   and   realize   an   imaginative   deconstruction   and   exploration   of   the   museum   exhibition   space,   interconnected   with   my   research,   writing  and  museum  exhibit  design  practice.    Based  on  the  museum’s  conceptual  ruins   as   a   visual   potentiality,   I   am   redrawing   and  reconstructing  fragments   of  established   discourses   and   exhibit   archetypes   on   paper   and   within   the   physical   space   of   an   installation.     My   thesis   project   is   a   theoretical,   conceptual   and   studio   based   strategy   to   suggest   alternatives   to   our   habituated  expectations  and  experience  of  the  museum’s  normative  traditions. 1 The   museum   as   a   cultural   institution   is   implicated,   as   political   theorist   Chantal   Mouffe   writes,   where,  “every   order  is  predicated  on  the  exclusion  of  other  possibilities,  but  as  the  temporary  and   precarious  articulation  of  contingent  practices,  each  order  is  always  the   expression  of  a  particular   structure  of  power  relations”  (326). My   research   is   a   survey   back   through   the   museum’s   contested   past,   resulting   in   the   deconstruction  of  its   historically   constituent   parts.     I  examine   the  philosophy   of  the   institution   from  the  18th  century   to  present  and  use  the   museum’s  conceptual  ruins  as  an  aesthetic  trope  to   imagine  the  future  museum   space.     From  inside  this   temporal  spiral,   my  art  practice  emerges  to   reconstruct  and  redraw  the  museum  with  the  point   of  a  pencil.    My   drawings  and  installations   are   interconnected  and  hopeful   forms  of   aesthetic  and  spatial   resistance,   working  with  the  museum   space   foregrounded   against   its   content.     I   am   revealing   predetermined   ideas   and   formal   considerations   embedded  within  the  experience   of  a  cultural  institution  by  writing,  drawing  and   constructing   spaces,   where   the   interpretation   exists   in   the   middle   of   different   aesthetic   and   embodied  engagements. Within  my   art   practice,  the  ruin   is  an  allegorical  process   of  destruction,   re@lecting  and   unraveling   the   traces   and   fragments   of   history,   to   be   critically   reread   and   rewoven   in   and   through   the   experience   of   the   present.     "The   representation   in   ruins   actually   clari@ies   the   structure,   its   previous   history,  the  traces   of  its  past  occupation  and   transformations"   (Allen  76).    Through   the   detritus  and  decay  of  time  left  from  a  tragic  event  in  history,  new  relationships  and  juxtapositions   in   the  museum  are  potentially  revealed  in  my   work,  allowing   for  the  emergence  of  new  ideas  and   memories   to   be  observed  in  the  present  and  reconstructed  as  foundations  for   the  future  (Stead   11). 2 Fig.  1  Jan  Beringer.  On  the  One  Hand.  2012. On  the  one  hand  my   art   practice  is  guiding   and  informing  my  exhibit  design  practice,   however,   it   remains  unencumbered  by  any  of   the  pragmatic  responsibilities.    Within   this  context,   my  thesis   project   is   in@luenced   by,   but   avoids,   the   restrictions   and   accountabilities   that   encompass   developing   a   traditional   museum   exhibit,   such   as   community   and   stakeholder   engagement,   conservation   requirements,   curatorial   concerns,   acquisitions,   loans,   budgets,   timelines,   marketing,   fabrication,   contracts,   legalities   or   approvals   within   an   organizational   structure.     These   potentially   contradictory   yet   ultimately   interrelated   positions   as   an   artist   and   designer   enable   me   to   look   at   the   museum   beyond  previous   artists’  notions   of   breaking   out   of,   or   being   completely  subsumed  within  its  cultural  frame.1 Within   my   thesis   project,   I  am  focusing  on  my   art   practice,   where   the  supporting   research  and   studio   work  uses  the  process  of  drawing   from  the   allegorical  ruins  of  the  museum  as  a  poetic  and   visual  way  of  using  the  blank  page  and  blank  space  to  re-­‐imagine  the  blank  museum. Virtual  Studio:    http://lowresgradstudios.ecuad.ca/janberinger/ 1 The origins and phases of institutional critique as an art historical genre are examined further in Brian Holmes essay, “Extradisciplinary Investigations: Towards a New Critique of Institutions.” from the book Art and Contemporary Critical Practice: Reinventing Institutional Critique. Ed. Raunig Gerald and Genes Ray. 3 Chapter 2. RATIONALE ! 2.1 Overview Fig.  2  Jan  Beringer.  Out  of  the  box.  2010. This   section  precedes  my  situated  art  practice,  establishing  a   formal  context  for  my  thesis  project   with   an  overview  of  the   museum’s   relevant   history  and  traditions  from  the  18th  century   to   the   present. The  museum   space   is  historically  situated  through  a  subjective  interpretation  and  framing  of  our   shared   cultural   beliefs,   constructed   within   the   dominant   ideological   structures   of   the   past.     Despite   the   ongoing   spate   of   spectacular   museum   building   around   the   world   and  blockbuster   exhibitions   being   developed   for   a   burgeoning   interest   in   cultural   tourism,   the   contemporary   institution   still   incorporates   and   reinforces   normative,   contested,   and   traditional   display   practices. My  thesis   project   considers   the  future   museum   space  as   a  concept   that  re@lects  and  responds  to   the   realities   of   changing   cultural   ideologies,   diverse   histories,   and   new   visitor   demographics   within  a  shifting  economic  and  technological  landscape. 4   2.2 The museum space, a brief history (18th century to present) The   museum   space   has   been   de@ined   and   experienced   in   very   different   ways   since   the   18th   century   in   relationship   to   its   role   and   place   within   contemporary   society.     The   early   Western   European   museums   were   conceived   as   privileged   collections,   period   rooms   or   a   ‘cabinet   of   curiosities’  for  the   royal  and  upper  class  citizen.    They  were  constructed  as  presentations  without   the  supporting   didactics  of   objects   that   were  typically   acquired  during  colonial   nation   building   (Coombes  64-­‐65). The  Louvre  Museum  in  Paris  opened  of@icially   in  1793  as  one  of  the   @irst   truly  public  museums,   which  coincided   with  Sir  Charles   Wilson   Peale's  public  museum  in  the   United  States,   established   in  1786  as  a   'School   of  Wisdom'   (Stewart  33).    Peale’s  museum,   conceived  under  his  own   ideals,   was   a   place   where,   "The   study   of   natural   history   will   aid   us   to   escape   from   the   prejudices   of   ignorance,  and   convince  us   that  nothing  was  made   in  vain"  (Peale  qtd.   in  Friedl   5).    At  that  time,   the   typical   contents   of   the   museum   display   case   were   subjectively   organized   into   a   system   of   classes   to  present   the  diversity   and  breadth  of  specimens   representing  the  evolution  of  man  and   nature  in  relation  to   Western  civilization.    This  is   similar  to  Peale's  own  systems  of  taxonomies   and  classi@ications  that   were  observed  through   the  leading  research  and  display   methods  of  his   time  (Friedl   4).    However,   at  the  core   of  my  practice  is   a  critique  of  the  @ictional  appearance  of  a   progressive  totality  and   natural  order  of  history  in  the  traditional  museum  that  is  still   prevalent   in  contemporary  exhibit  spaces. Professor  of  social   and  cultural  theory,   Tony  Bennett,  wrote  about   the  exhibition  as   an  event  and   space  that  had   its  signi@icant  cultural   turn  during   the  1851  Great  Exhibition  held  in  Britain.    This   event  established  some  of  the  lasting   forms,   techniques,   and  experiences  of  the  museum   exhibit   that   are   utilized   to   this   day   (74).     Obvious   examples   of   these   typologies   include   the   physical   display   case,   plinth,   and   curatorial   label   text   within   historically   representative   or   immersive   displays.     However,   I   am   working   outside   the   utilitarian   conservational   requirements   of   these   apparatuses   used   to   protect   and   store   objects   or   art   from   physical   stress,   light,   humidity   and   theft.     My   thesis   project   looks   to   how   Bennett   establishes   the   museum   space   or   complex   as   a   cultural   form   of   normalizing,   ordering   and   placing   the   public   itself   on   display   as   a   cultural   spectacle,   where   the   entire   world   could   be   viewed   in   one   place   as   a   civilizing   and   regulating   structure  for  a  permanent  display  of  state  power  (79). 5 Fig.  3  Jan  Beringer.  Are  you  looking  at  me?  2012. The   resulting   development   of   18th   and   19th   century   museum   spaces   in   Western   Europe   was   premised   on   the   display   and   organization   of   a   linear,   progressive   and   now   contested   interpretation  of   history  within  the   context  of  national   identity   and  political  ideologies.     In  this   period,  objects   or  artifacts  were  no  longer  mere  curiosities  but  representations  of  the  evolution  of   human   and   cultural   development.     The   museum,   “constituted   a   new   space   of   representation   concerned  to  depict  the  development  of  peoples,  states,   and  civilizations   through  time  conceived   as  a  progressive  series  of  developmental  stages”  (Bennett  89). Fig.  4  Jan  Beringer.  Time  Lines.  2012. 6 The   contextualizing   spaces,   grand   facades   and   classic   architectural   styles   continued   to   de@ine   many   of  the  late  19th  and  early   20th   century  museums.    They   were  constructed  as   galleries  of   progress,  period  rooms  and  history   collections  according  to  a  linear  timeline  of  periods  of  history.     These  traditions  were   based  on  the   systems,   orders   and   principles   of   classi@ication  emerging  in   the  academic  @ields  of  anthropology  and  evolutionary  sciences,  and  were  central   to  the  museum’s   early   ideological   tenets   (Bennett  71).    They  functioned   as  a  utopian  promise  for  the  progression   of   culture  in  the  future,   establishing  many   of  the   institutional   spaces   we   experience   to   this   day   (Bennett  74). Fig.  5  Jan  Beringer.  Inside  and  Outside  the  Frame.  2012. Brian  O’Doherty’s   in@luential  writing  from  the  1970’s,  “Inside  the  White   Cube:  The  Ideology  of  the   Gallery   Space”,   focused   on   the   20th   century   gallery   and   museum   space   as   a   closed   system   of   formal  aesthetic   values  that   frame  the   objects   within  as   art  (14).     The   Modernist  gallery  was   to   become  a  highly  regulated  and  politicized  space,  functioning  parallel   to  the   world  around.     It  was   an   aesthetic   ideal,   mediating   the   pictorial   frame   as   part   of   viewing,   interpreting   and   contextualizing   the  objects  on  display   (15).    The   contemporary  cultural   institution  continues   to   use  this  neutral,  ‘white  box’,  as  a  spatial  norm  for  displaying  and  viewing  objects  as  art. 7 The  global   development   of   museum   spaces   has  continued   seemingly  unabated  since  the   1990‘s   with  signi@icant  capital   investment  in  novel   museum  architecture  as  civic  spectacle.    The  present   museum   complex   has   been   further   expanded   as   a   cultural   hub   with   open   access   to   archives,   educational   programming,   professional   lecture   series,   external   partnerships,   retail,   restaurants   and  public  spaces.     In  addition  to  the  exponential   growth  of  virtual   and  online   exhibition   spaces,   the   radical   transformations   of   the   cultural   institution   have   left   the   physical   exhibit   space   as   a   potential  corollary  and  supporting  experience  (Chan  par.  3). Fig.  6  Jan  Beringer.  Manufacturing  Authenticity.  2012. However,   the   onsite   experience   still   remains   physically   intertwined   with   the   architecture   and   content  of  the  museum  as  a  destination  space.     One  of  the  core  issues  surrounding  contemporary   museology   is   the   business   case   of   authenticity   within   a   cultural   and   experience-­‐based   commodity,  which   directly  competes  with  other  tourism,  entertainment  and  retail  economies  for   the  public’s  attention  (Pine  and  Gilmore  17). Articulating   the   formal   role   of   the   museum   space   is   The   International   Council   of   Museums,   ICOM’s  universal  and  pragmatic  de@inition: “A   museum   is   a   non-­‐pro@it,   permanent   institution   in   the   service   of   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   purposes  of  education,  study  and  enjoyment.“  (“ICOM  2007”) 8 Despite   professional   standards   and   corporate   policies   for   the   museum   developed   through   organizations   like   ICOM,   many   contemporary   museum   spaces2   are   still   developed   using   traditional   and  normative  typologies  of  exhibition  design.     These  conventional   museum  formats   are  spaces,   which,   separate   from   the   content,   are   already   politicized   and  controversial   in  their   conception.    Art  history  professor,   Douglas  Crimp,   writes  about  knowledge   discourse   within   the   museum   space   as   an   attempt   to   construct   and   order   meaning   from   a   disparate   collection   of   artifacts  and  historical  assumptions  (Crimp  49).               “The   set   of   objects   the   Museum   displays   is   sustained   only   by   the   @iction   that   they   somehow   constitute  a   coherent  representational   universe.     The  @iction  is   that  a   repeated   metonymic  displacement   of  fragment   for   totality,  object  to  label,  series   of  objects  to  series   of   labels,  can  still  produce  a  representation  which   is  somehow  adequate  to   a  nonlinguistic   universe.    Such  a  @iction  is  the   result   of   an  uncritical  belief  in  the  notion  that  ordering  and   classifying,   that   is   to   say,   the   spatial   juxtaposition   of   fragments,   can   produce   a   representational  understanding  of  the  world.”  (Donato  qtd.  in  Crimp  50) These   traditions   obscure   and   distort   the   interpretation   and   representation   of   content   in   the   present  by  containing  and  imposing  the  organizing  principles  and  ideologies  of  the  museums  own   contested  history. Fig.  7  Jan  Beringer.  History  Marching  On.  2012. 2 According to the International Council of Museums, ICOM, De Gruyter Saur published a study, Museums of the World, in 2010 that documents 55,000 museums in over 202 countries. www.icom.museum 9 Shifting   visitor   demographics,   altered   political   ideologies,   volatile   funding   streams,   and   increasing  competition  for  the   public’s   time   and  support   all   point   to   the   necessity   for  change  in   what  de@ines  the  museum   space.     A  process  for  change  can   be  articulated  in  the   contemporary  art   practice  of  Liam   Gillick,  through  his   “scenario  thinking”,  as  a  way  of  envisaging  future   possibilities   for   the   museum   space   with,   “a   tool   to   propose   change,   even   while   it   is   inherently   linked   to   capitalism   and   the   strategizing   that   goes   with   it”   (Gillick   qtd.   in   Bishop   61).     Gillick   uses   a   grounded   and   theoretical   writing   style   in   discourse   around   his   work.     However,   it   is   through   deferral   and  possibility  that   he  situates  the  viewer  in  his  work,   trying  to  create  future  scenarios   not  as  actualities  but  within  a  @iction  as  open-­‐ended  alternatives  (Bishop  69). While  a  comprehensive  statistical  analysis  of  the  museum’s  historical  transformations  are  outside   the   scope   of  this  thesis,   a  few   issues   do  bear  relevance   in  support  of  my  thesis  project.    The  Art   Newspaper’s,   Exhibition   and   Museum   Attendance   Survey   2011   (35),   shows   the   larger   museums   around  the  world  with   year   to  year  increases  in  attendance,  for  example,  the  Louvre   Museum  in   Paris   tops  the  list  at  over  8.8  million  visitors,   and  in  the  United  States,  the  Metropolitan  Museum   of  Art   in  New   York  saw   over   6   million  visitors.    However,   these  statistics  distort  the  bleak  reality   for   the   majority   of   museum   institutions   around   the   world,   where   “according   to   a   2000   RAND   study,   the   top   5%   of  US   visual   art   institutions   control   almost   four-­‐@ifths   of   combined   museum   revenues,  endowments,  infrastructure  and  donations”  (Szanto  2). 10 Fig.  8  Jan  Beringer.  Dystopia.  2012. The   Center   for   the   Future   of   Museums   released   a   report   in   2008,   Museums   and   Society   2034:   Trends  and  Potential  Futures,  which  outlines  that  the  majority  of  museums  are  facing  a  potentially   harsh  reality  within  a  radically  changing  global   economy  with  rising   infrastructure  and   operating   expenses,  and  technological  adaptation  lagging  behind  other   culture,  tourism   and  entertainment   based   industries   (10-­‐17).     Rapidly   changing   audience   and   demographic   statistics   within   the   United  States  reveals   our  present  museums   do  not  re@lect  or  represent  the  diverse  socioeconomic   conditions  they  exist   within.    The   changing  demographics  of  age,   gender,  income,   education  and   ethnicities   in   our   various   communities   will   in@luence   how   and   what   museums   exhibit   in   the   future  (Farrell  and  Medvedeva  5). As   revealed   in   the  writings   of  Pierre   Bourdieu,   the  traditional   idea   of  the   museum   visitor   as   an   idealized   subject   or   connoisseur   reinforces   and   perpetuates   the   ideological   and   normative   traditions   that   obstruct   the   ability   to   rethink   and   reassemble   the  museum   exhibit   space   (Lang   436).     These   traditions  maintain   the  nostalgic  aura  of  the  museum  within   certain   cultural  market   segments,  while  reinforcing  its  isolation,  remoteness  and  irrelevancy  for  others. 11             “The   pure   thinker,   by   taking   as   the   subject   of   his   re@lection   his   own   experience-­‐the   experience  of  a  cultured  person  from  a   certain   social   milieu-­‐but   without  focusing   on   the   historicity   of  his  re@lection  and   the  historicity  of  the   object   to   which  it  is  applied  (and   by   considering   it   a  pure  experience  of  the  work  of  art),   unwittingly  establishes   this  singular   experience   as   a   transhistorical   norm   for   every   aesthetic   perception.“   (Bourdieu   qtd.   in   Lang  437) The  future  museum   space   will  have  to   rede@ine   and  re-­‐imagine  both   theoretically  and  in  practice   how  it  presents,  interprets  and  relates  to   history  in  order  to   remain  relevant   and  engaged  within   contemporary   culture.     This   emerging   shift   leaves   a   void   for   my   interrelated   art   and   design   practices   to   work   from   as   a  place  to   explore,   experiment  and   propose  alternative   concepts   and   readings   of  the  museum.    My   thesis  project  is  about   working   at  the   thresholds   of  the  exhibition   space,   where,   “notions   of   originality,   authenticity,   and   presence,   essential   to   the   ordered   discourse  of  the  museum,  are  undermined”  (Crimp  56). Fig.  9  Jan  Beringer.  Moving  on  the  thresholds.  2012. 12 Chapter 3. SITUATED PRACTICE Within   the  process   of  situating   my   art  practice,   I  am  deliberately   and  critically  reading  through   speci@ic   theory,   philosophy,   and   art   historical   references   in   a   non-­‐linear   manner.     I   build   the   foundations   for   my   thesis   project   by   choosing  and   reconstructing   the  theoretical   and  historical   fragments  from  the   museum’s   contested  history   articulated   as  conceptual  ruins.     My  art  practice   emerges   from   these   foundations   through   the   process   of   drawing,   outside   the   museum’s   past,   without   a   predetermined   outcome   and   situated   in   a   unique   struggle   with   my   other,   parallel,   exhibit   design   practice.     First   I   look   back   to   the   iconic   practice   of   20th   century   artist   Marcel   Duchamp  (1887-­‐1968),  followed  by  a  re@lection  on  the  18th  century  to   examine  the  drawings  of   artist  and  architect   Giovanni  Battista  Piranesi   (1720-­‐1778),   and  @inally  I  step   forwards  to   refocus   on  the  21st  century  with  the  works   of  contemporary  artist  Pablo   Bronstein  (1977).    Within  this   temporal   spiral   I   will   integrate   the   relevant   references,   theory   and   philosophy   that   connects   research  and  the  museum  as  integral  to  my  thesis  project. Building   on   the   legacies   of   institutional   critique,   my   thesis   uses   the   conceptual   ruins   of   the   museum   as   an   aesthetic   trope   to   re-­‐imagine   the   exhibit   space.     Within   its   various   phases   and   interpretations  since  the   1960’s,  institutional  critique  can  be  articulated  as  an  artistic  oeuvre  that   critically   examines   and   re@lects   on   its   own   place   alongside   the   ideological   and   cultural   foundations  of  the  museum   and  gallery.    As  will   be  demonstrated,   I  align  the  critical  theory  in  my   research   with   the   process   of   drawing   and   installations   based   work,   to   look   back   through   the   conceptual  ruins  of  the  museum   in  order  to  experiment  with  the   exhibition  space  as  a  spatial  and   historical  experience  in  the  present  moment. My  thesis   project  draws  on  cultural  theory   alongside  the  art   practices  of   Duchamp,   Piranesi  and   Bronstein,   to   examine   the   established   and   contested   space   of   the   archetypical   museum   as   a   cultural  institution.    Within  my  research,  the  current  phase  of  institutional  critique  is  posited  as  a   subjective   and   analytical   critique   for   traversing   and   opening   other   structures,   ideologies,   disciplines   and   practices   around   the   experience   and   interpretation   of   art   within   the   museum.     The   emerging   instituent   and   extra-­‐disciplinary   theories   and   practices   of   institutional   critique   situate  the  artist   as  antagonistic,   self-­‐re@lexive  and  capable  of  betraying   any   established   rules  in   order  to  work  from  and  through  the  previous  phases  of  critical  practice  (Raunig  11;  Holmes  59). 13         “Facing  them  head  on  and  as  compensation,  or  rather,  as  both  partner  and  adversary   to   the   arts   of   governing,   as  an  act   of  de@iance,   as   a  challenge,   as  a  way   of  limiting   these  arts   of   governing  and  sizing  them   up,  transforming  them,  of  @inding  a   way  to  escape   from  them  or,   in  any  case,  a  way  to  displace  them,  with  a  basic  distrust  ...”  (Foucault  qtd.  in  Raunig  4) The  contemporary  ideas  of  exodus  from  the  institution  are  put   forward  by  cultural  theorists  such   as  Gerald  Raunig  and  Brian  Holmes  amongst  others   as  moving  beyond  the  restricting  declarations   made  by   artist   Andrea   Fraser   in  2005,   to   the   effect   that   we  can  never   escape  the   frame   of   the   institution  (Raunig  6).    “With  each  attempt   to   evade  the  limits  of   institutional  determination,   to   embrace   an   outside,   we   expand  our   frame   and  bring   more  of   the  world   into   it.     But   we   never   escape   it”   (Fraser   qtd.   in   Raunig   6).     Within   my   practice   the   museum   space   is   not   a   predetermined,   aesthetic   and   spatial   trap   to   be   broken   out   of,   nor   am   I   subsumed   within   an   expanding  institutional  and  cultural  frame  with  no  way  out.     My  practice  incorporates   working  as   an  exhibit  designer  for   a  cultural   institution  within  my  art  practice,  where  I  pull  apart   and  unravel   my  work   in  the   museum   as   an  embedded  and  habituated   construction   of   beliefs.     This   process   reveals   the   exhibition  space  as  a  perceived  @ictional   whole  that   attempts   to   provide   cultural  and   historical  stability. Fig.  10  Jan  Beringer.  Working  Outside  the  Extant  Space  of  the  Museum.  2012. 14 Within   the   scope   of   my   thesis   project,   my   art   practice,   which   includes   research,   drawing   and   installations,   deconstructs   the   normative   and   logical   systems   of   knowledge   and   information   construction  in  the  museum  while  con@lating  time  and  space  within  a  fragmented  aesthetic.    I  will   discuss   this  aesthetic  based  on  the   process   and  history   of  ruination   as  a  trope  in  relation   to   the   museum   space.     This   process   risks   the   loss   of   formal   and   spatial   perspectival   traditions   and   compositions   in   the  re-­‐imagining   of  the   museum   space.     The  methods   in  my   thesis  project   are   drawing   from   the   @ictional   spaces   of   the   museum’s   ruins,   and   are   constructed   as   possibilities   within  a  visual  and  spatial  medium  for  re-­‐reading  the  exhibition  space. Drawing  is  used  as   an  experimental  process  to   amalgamate  my  research  and   experience  within  a   material  and  aesthetic  frame  using  the  theoretical,   historical  and   visual  language   of  the  museum   exhibit   space.     Without   necessarily   building   dimensional   or   physical   spaces,   my   drawings   are   reminiscent   of  the   conceptual   forms   of  paper   architecture   where   speculation,   imagination   and   the   reality   of   the   built   environment   are   challenged,   reworked   and   proposed   as   future   possibilities.     The   two   dimensional   plane   and   threshold   of   the   drawing   surface   lends   itself   historically  and  in  contemporary  practice  to   art,   design  and  architecture;  however,  my   drawings   are   to   be   considered   @inal   works   and   do   not   exist   as   a   preparatory   study   in   anticipation   of   a   painting,   object   or   architectural   form.     Within   the   @inal   thesis   exhibition,   I   incorporated   the   physical   gallery   space   to   activate   and   embody   the   drawings,   re@lecting   my   intertwined   and   parallax   practices   looking   at   the   museum   from   different   vantage   points   as   both   an   artist   and   exhibit  designer. 15 Fig.  11  Jan  Beringer.  Outside  the  Pictorial  Frame  Inside  the  Museum.  2012. The  crux  of  my  research  and  the  origins   of  institutional  critique  can  be  traced  back  to  the   early   20th  century  through  the  practice   of  artist  Marcel  Duchamp  and  his   concerns  with  museological   reception  including  what   can  and  cannot  enter  the  institutional  space  as  art  (Buskirk  and  Nixon   215).     With  spatial  experiments  still  relevant  today,  some  of  the  ideas  that  emerged  in  Duchamp’s   sculptures   and   installations   have   been   incorporated   within   my   methodology   to   rede@ine   the   concept  and  reception  of  art  within  the  frame  of  the  museum  exhibit  space. Figure 12 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The image removed is of Marcel Duchamp’s String Installation from the First Paper’s of Surrealism show in 1942 Fig.  12  Marcel  Duchamp,  Sixteen  Miles  of  String,  1942. Image  by  John  Schiff.  ‘First  Papers  of  Surrealism”  Gelatin  silver  print   Philadelphia  Museum  of  Art Exhibition   design  through   the   1940’s   was   premised   on   the   utopian  concept   of   aesthetic   unity   within  the  mediation  of  the  museum  space  between  the  viewer  and  artwork.     This  is  evidenced  in   the  historical   avant-­‐garde   artist   and   designer   Frederick   Kiesler’s   practice,   who   was   working  at   16 the  same   time  as   Duchamp.    Through   Kiesler’s  staging  of  the  museum  exhibit,  the  viewing  of  art   or   artifacts  became  part   of  the   physical  experience   in   a  continually  shifting  interaction  between   the  viewer  and   the  space.     However,   Kiesler’s   exhibit   design   subjectively  mediated  connections   between   the   art   works   and   attempted   to   predetermine   the   viewer’s   actions   both   visually   and   physically,   ultimately   working   against   any   intention   to   deconstruct   or   reveal   the   frame   of   the   museum  (Kraus  and  Shulz  10). Fig  13  Frederick  Kiesler,  Art  of  This  Century  Gallery,  1942. Photo  by  Berenice  Abbott Courtesy  of  Austrian  Frederick  and  Lillian  Kiesler  Private  Foundation. Art   history   professors   Martha   Buskirk   and   Mignon   Nixon,   editors   of   the   book,   The   Duchamp   Effect,  write  that   Duchamp’s  questioning  practice  can  be  seen  as   a  response  to   the  shifting  context   of   the   museum   in   the  early   1900’s,   re@lecting   the   cultural   transformations   of  modernity   (210),   where   “...he   resituated   his   work   over   and   over   again   in   relation   to   a   changing   network   of   institutional   structures”   (215).   More   in   accordance   with   my   thesis   project,   Duchamp’s   experiential   and   iconoclastic   practice   also   continued   through   the   1940’s   to   consider   the   architectural  frame  in  addition  to  the  ideological  and  problematic  narratives  of  the  museum  itself.     Duchamp   questioned   and   reacted   to   the   framework   of   distribution   and   the   context   of   the   museum   exhibition   space   through  his   various   works   including   the   installation   Sixteen   Miles   of   17 String   for   the  First  Papers   of  Surrealism  exhibition  (1942),   and  the   portable  museum,   Boite-­en-­ valise  (1938-­‐1942). Installation   art,   with   its   roots   in   the   practices   of   Duchamp   and   Kurt   Schwitters,   is   typically   located,   art   historically,   in  the  1960’s  as  a   spatial   interrogation   of  medium   speci@icity  within  art   (Ran  73).    However,   these  concerns  with  the  medium’s  inscription  on  the  exhibition  space  can   be   anticipated  within  Duchamp’s  earlier   practice,   interpreted  as   a  reaction  to  post  war   geopolitical   dislocation   and   the   loss   of   home   as   a   stable   environment   (Demos   Duchamp's   Boîte-­en-­valise:   Between   Institutional   Acculturation   and   Geopolitical   Displacement   7).    The  Sixteen   Miles  of  String   work   literally   displaced  the   viewer   from   the  habituated  exhibit   experience   as   a  response   to   his   present   sense   of   homelessness   (Demos   Duchamp’s   Labyrinth   98).     However,   more   than   a   comment   on   cultural   displacement   or   the  Surrealist   movement,   this   work   was   a   reaction   to   the   museums   normative   systems   and   rules   of  display   for  viewing   objects   in  the   exhibit   space.     By   creating   a  physical  barrier  or  labyrinth  of  string  between  the  viewer  and  the  art,   curator  and  art   critic   Elena   Filipovic   writes   that   Duchamp   brought   critical   awareness   to   the   idea   of   corporeal   vision  within  a  traditional   Cartesian  space   that  held  @ixed   systems,   distances   and   placements  as   critical  components  of  seeing  in  the  museum  (6). Figure 14 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The image removed is of Marcel Duchamp’s Box in a Valise Fig.  14  Marcel  Duchamp,  Boite-­en-­valise,  1938-­1942. Duchamp,  Marcel.  The  Box  in  a  Valise.  c1943. Tate  Collection,  UK.    Tate.org.uk.    Mixed  Media.  Web.  13  Apr.  2012. http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-­from -­or-­by-­marcel-­duchamp-­or-­rose-­selavy-­the-­box-­in-­a-­valise-­l02092 In  a  parallel  project,  Boite-­en-­valise  (1938-­‐1942),  Duchamp  revealed  a  subversive  response  to   the   ‘aura’   surrounding   classical   museum   traditions   and   formalities   by   challenging   issues   of   authorship  and  authenticity  within   the  ambiguities   of   creating   a   portable  museum   for   his   own   works   (Filipovic   7).     This   work   explored   the   limitations   and   thresholds   of   the   established   museum   exhibit  space.    It  achieved  this  through  an  improvisational   undermining  of  the  museums   normative   systems,   orders,  language  of  classi@ication,  and  institutional  narratives   used  in   exhibit   text   and   labels.     Through   Duchamp’s   questioning   and   undermining   of   the   status   quo,   which   challenged   both   the   public   and   the   institution   alike,   he   acknowledged   that,   “Knowledge   is   unstable;  information  is  contradictory;  logic  is  de@ied.”  (Filipovic   13).     By  examining  and  drawing   18 from   Duchamp’s   practice,   I   am   placing   the   museum   exhibit   space   as   a   transitional   threshold   between   the   allegorical   and   shifting   relationship   of   the   viewer,   institution   and   the   objects   on   display. Fig.  15  Jan  Beringer.  Displaying  Duchamp.  2012. Within  my  practice  the   exhibit  space   exists   as  a  liminal  space   or  encounter,  simultaneously  at  and   between   the   limits   of   cultural   norms   within   the   museum.     Liminal   is   de@ined   by   the   Oxford   English   Dictionary  as  a  transitional  stage  of  a  process,  “Occupying  a   position  at,  or   on  both  sides   of  a  boundary  or  threshold”  (“Liminal”).    I  refer  to   cultural   anthropologist  Victor  Turner’s  use  of   the  term  ‘liminal’  to  describe  the  museum   as  a  temporal  and   spatial  experience  or  cultural  ritual   where   the  subject   is  located  between  the  past,  present  and  future  both  in  and  out  of  time  (96).     In   this   context,   the   museum   contains   the   allegorical   fragments   of   history   to   be   reinterpreted,   reordered  and  reconstructed  with  new  meanings  in  my  practice. 19           “The   attributes   of  liminality   or   of   liminal   personae   (“threshold   people”)   are   necessarily   ambiguous,   since   this   condition  and  these   persons   elude  or   slip  through  the   network   of   classi@ication   that   normally   locate   states   and   positions   in   cultural   space.   Liminal   entities   are   neither   here   nor   there;   they   are   betwixt   and   between   the   positions   assigned  and  arrayed  by  law,  custom,  convention,  and  ceremonial.”  (Turner  95) Fig.  16  Jan  Beringer.  Betwixt.  2012. “Duchamp   orchestrates   the   destabilization   of   museal   spaces   and   reorganization   of   display   logics”   (Filipovic   14).     However,   through   the   following   years,   his   art   works   and   ideas   were   subsumed  within  the  traditional   frame  of  the  museum.    By  placing   them  on  plinths,   untouchable   behind   glass   vitrines   and   re-­‐labelled   within   the   institutional   norms   of   classi@ication   and   interpretation,   a  theoretical   space   opened  up   for  the   future  practices   of   institutional  critique  as   an  art  historical  genre  attempting  to  break  free  from  the  institutional  frame. Duchamp’s  in@luence  and  practice   within  Dada  and  Surrealism  anticipated  some  of  the  ideas  and   concepts   integrated  later  into   the  @irst  art   historical   phase   of  institutional   critique   (Buskirk   and   20 Nixon   20).    This  evolving  critical  art   practice  emerged  in  the  1960’s   and  70‘s  through  artists  such   as  Hans  Haacke,  Daniel   Buren,   Michael  Asher,   Marcel  Broodthauers  and   Martha  Rosler.    This   is  a   genre   of   artistic   practices   de@ined   by   various   attempts   to   break   out   of   the   institutional   frame   while   still   believing   in   the   existence   of   the   museum.   These   artists   were   concerned   with   the   dialectical  relationship   between  a   theoretical   ideal  of  the  museum  and  the  actual   practice  of   the   institution.     The   museum   frame   was   perceived   as   a   cultural   medium,   which   reinforced   the   naturalization  of  history.     In   this   context,   the   exhibition   space   implicated   the   institution   in   the   representation   and   support   of   dominant   social   and   ideological   values   inherent   within   speci@ic   class   structures   by   occluding   the   embedded   institutional   processes   behind   the   structure   and   space  of  its  display  (Alberro  and  Stimson  7). The  second   phase   of  institutional   critique   that   emerged   in   the   1980’s   is   typically   attributed   to   artists   such   as   Louise   Lawler,   Fred   Wilson   and   Andrea   Fraser.     These   evolving   practices   were   shifting   away  from  previous  attempts  to  break   down   or  out  of  the   museum  by  moving  towards  a   process   of  working   from  inside  the  museum.    They   were  rede@ining  and  exposing   the  museums   embedded   traditions  in  the   production   of   normalizing   social  values  within  class,  gender  and  race   issues.    In  an  attempt  to   alter  the   viewer’s  perspective,  this  second  phase  of  critique  established   that  theory   and  practice   cannot   exist   outside   of   the  aesthetic   acculturation  inherent  within   the   institutional  frame  (Alberro   and  Stimson  11).  This  phase  of  critique   still  supported  the  institution   as  capable  of  change  without  preserving   the  ideologies  that  permeate  the  museum  structure.     In   retrospect,   the  reality   of  these   critical   practices   is   that  the  institution  appropriated   them  within   its  frame  as   an  art   historical   genre   that  did  not  dismantle  the  museum  but  reinforced  its  values  as   an  embodied  cultural  space  in  society. Although   in@luenced  by   the   ideas   and   artists   of   institutional   critique,   my   practice   stands   apart   from  their  legacies,   to  avoid  unintentionally   reifying,   promoting   or  being  appropriated  back   into   the  museum.     Through   the  process  of  drawing  and  constructing  installations,  I  use  a  re@lexive  and   theoretical   approach   to   reveal   and   reread   the   historical   archetypes   embedded   within   the   museum   exhibit   space,   outside   of   the   conventions,   requirements   and   limitations   within   my   exhibit   design   practice.    My   drawings  are   in   a  form  that   resists   being  implemented  as  plans   by   encompassing  aspects   of  both  production   and  destruction.    Theorist  Brian   Holmes  writes  of   the   third   phase   of   institutional   critique   as   a   present   practice   of   intersubjective   experimentation,   21 interfering  with   and  enabling   the   ability   to  resist  the   traditional  processes  and  limitations  of   the   museum  (55).    Through   the   growth  of  capabilities  and   experimentation,   my  art   practice  focuses   on   the   conceptual   and   melancholic   ruins   of   the   museum   in   an   attempt   to   reconstruct   and   re-­‐ imagine,   from  the  fragments,   a  possible   future   for  the  museum  exhibit  space.     My  drawings  and   installations   are   an  idiosyncratic   response  or  resistance  to  the   thresholds   of   the  museum,  freed   by  the  imagination  and  rupturing  the  pictorial  space  within  the  museological  frame. Fig.  17  Jan  Beringer.  It  All  Falls  Apart  Outside  the  Frame.  2012. In  the   spiral  back   to   the  origins,   fragments   and  ruins   of  the   museum,   I  acknowledge  within  my   practice   that  history   and  memory  do  not  exist  completely  inside  or   outside  the  exhibit   space,  and   that  nothing   can  be   reset  to  the  beginning  nor   removed  from  its  past.    Contemporary  philosopher   Beth   Lord  writes   that   the   architectural   space   of  the   museum   exhibit   is   implicated   in   a   @ield  of   contingent   relations   where   history   is   recorded  as   the   emergence   of  different   interpretations   of   the   past   (Lord   5).     The   idea   of   a   shifting   and   fragmented   interpretation   of   history   being   represented   within  the   museum  space  is   mirrored   in   comparative  literature   professor   Andreas   Huyssen  writing,   where   “Space   and   time  are   fundamental   categories   of   human   experience   and   perception,  but  far  from  being  immutable,  they  are  very  much  subject  to  historical  change”  (24). 22 French   historian  and   philosopher   Michel   Foucault   positioned   the   museum   as   a   heterotopia   or   timeless   space   existing   outside   of   its   own   environment,   while   accumulating   and   enclosing   all   other   times,   eras,  histories   and  objects   (Foucault  Different  Spaces  182).     Lord  places  the  museum   as  a  space  of   difference,   in  direct  relation  to   Foucault’s  notion  of  a  heterotopic   space,  through   its   representation  of  the   changing   contexts  of  interpretation   between  objects   and   concepts.   Within   this   idea,   Lord   situates   the   museum   beyond   the   19th   century   constraints   of   an   immutable   container  for  the  collection,   display   and  experience  of  historically   contingent  objects,   narratives   and  memories  (Lord  3).    In  this  broader  context  a  space  opens  up  within  my  thesis  project  for   the   emergence   of   an   art   practice   that   will   resist   organizing   itself   into   a   new   totality   within   the   museum  and  remain  autonomous  to  any  perceived  authority. Through  Lord’s  interpretation  of  the  museum  as  a  space  of  difference,  based  on  Foucault’s   notion   of   the  Post-­‐modern  critique  as  a  historical  investigation  of  discontinuities,   I  am  incorporating   the   process   of  drawing   as   “a   matter   of  re@lecting   upon   our   own   conditions   of  possibility,   upon   the   historically  determined  limits  that  are   imposed  upon  us,  and  upon  the  possibility  of  transgressing   those  limits”  (Lord  8). 23 Fig.  18  Jan  Beringer.  Immutable  museum  display.  2012. My   practice  also  looks  further  back   to  the  18th  century   drawings   of   artist  and   architect  Giovanni   Battista   Piranesi   by   incorporating   aspects   of   their   aesthetic   and   theoretical   origins   within   my   research   to   reconstruct   the   fragments   of   the   museum’s   past.     I   am   looking   through   the   (Postmodern)   ruins   of   the   Enlightenment,   similar  to   how   Piranesi   critically   looked   back   to   the   classical  ruins  of  his  present  past. 24 Fig.  19  Giovanni  Battista  Piranesi,  Via  Appia  Imaginaria,  1756. Victoria  and  Albert  Museum,  UK.    Vam.ac.uk.    Print.  Web.  13  Apr.  2012. http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/ OnlineWorkshops/RomingRome/09Piranesi.aspx Piranesi’s   work   anticipates   similar   concerns   to   the   subversive   practice   of   Duchamp,   both   are   embracing  the   dialectical  relationship  between  subjectivity  or   chance  and   reason  within   science   and  technology  (Allen  76-­‐77).    I  am   interpreting  the  dialectical  as   a  re@lexive  cultural  experience   that  reveals  a   truth  within  itself   while  working  from  a  contradiction  in  our   understanding  of   the   world.     This   experience   deconstructs   the   traditional   philosophic   models   that   separate   the   relationship   between   a   viewer   and   the   museum   space.     I   suggest   we   consider   the   historical   writings   of   German   philosophers   Georg   Hegel   and   Theodor   Adorno,   to   consider   the   dialectical   relationship   as   the   shifting   space   that   exists   between,   and   de@ines   the   subject   and   object   in   relationship  to  one  another  within  the  museum.    Within  this  relationship,  Piranesi’s  drawings  can   be  seen   to  contain  a  constituent   part  of  Duchamp’s  later  practice,   by  working  through  theoretical   projects   where   perspectival   space   resists   the   domination   of   a   rational   and   habituated   composition  or  aesthetic  reception. Although   both   Duchamp’s   and   Piranesi’s   practices   appear   to   defy   being   categorized   or   easily   placed  within  the  (art)  historical  context  of  a  particular   oeuvre,  they  were  both  critically  engaged   with  questioning   their   own   time   and   place   in   history.     Piranesi’s   drawings   deconstructed   and   reinterpreted   the   established   perspectival   and   aesthetic   traditions   of   his   time,   through   “The   simultaneous  negation  and  af@irmation  of  the  value  of  history”  (Allen  75).    His  proli@ic  and  diverse   25 practice   of  drawing  has   been  interpreted   as  challenging  the  perspectival  norms  and  boundaries   embedded  within  his  contemporaries  classical  and  representational   style  of  rendering  landscapes   or  built  environments  (Allen  83). Piranesi’s   18th  century  drawings   represent,   anticipate   and   project   the  passage  of  time  within  a   site  or   speci@ic   architectural  space,  however,  his  projects  also  displace  the  content  or  object  from   any  sense  of   historical  continuity  and  blur  the  memory  of  time.    His  use  of  the  aesthetic  sublime   through   @ictional   or   projected  traces,   fragments   and  ruins   represented  in   a   state   of   decay   and   through  altered  perspectives  is   considered  a  formal  strategy  to  distinguish  his  shifting  concept  of   memory   and  time   through  drawing  as  unique   from  the   popular   picturesque  romanticism  of   the   period   (Allen   74-­‐76).     In   comparison   to   his   peers’   renderings   of   architectural   spaces   or   landscapes,   the   subjects   perspectival   position  and   the   objects   scale   are   dramatically   altered   to   implicate   the  viewer   within  the   imposing   depth  of  his   compositions.    Without   idyllic  settings  or   classical   ideals,   he   also   used  dramatic   chiaroscuro   lighting   and   dark   shadows   in   his   drawings,   evoking  a  feeling  of  the  sublime  (Ek  and  Sengal  23-­‐26). Fig.  20  Giovanni  Battista  Piranesi,  The  Pier  with  Chains,  plate  XVI,  circa  1749. Courtesy  of  Boca  Raton  Museum  of  Art,  Florida. Exhibition  Images_Romanticism  to  Modernism:   Graphic  Masterpieces  from  Piranesi  to  Picasso. Piranesi  interpreted  German  philosopher  Immanuel  Kant’s  writing  on  the  sublime,  while  working   as  his  contemporary,  into  a  visual   and  spatial  language  of  perspectival  drawing.    He  focuses  on  the   26 disposition   or  capacity  of  the  subject   to  perceive  and  be  moved  by  the  sublime.     Kant’s  sublime   is   the   initial   sensory   perception   of   a   formless,   vast   and   overwhelming   space   that   is   eventually   recognized   and   transcended   through   reason   as   encompassing   the   idea   of   in@inity.     However,   where  the  theoretical  sublime   positions  the  subject  above  nature,   the  experience  of  the  ruin  both   reveals  the  past   and  situates  the  subject  back  into  nature  (Ek  and   Sengal  20).    Piranesi  perceived   the  sublime  in  a  unique,  contingent   and  shifting  relationship  to   the  ancient  ruin  as  a   break  from   the  rules  and  norms  of  classicism  and  beauty  in  the  18th  century  (Ek  and  Sengal  27). Piranesi’s   drawings   reveal   a  subjective   process   of   the  reconstruction  of  form   and  site   from   the   fragments   and   ruins   of   history,   time   and   memory.     His   practice   incorporates   the   ruin   both   to   question   and   work   through   the   history   of   a   classical   language   of   architectural   form   that   is   premised   on   repetition  and   regularity  (Allen  29).    The  classical   systems   in   Roman  architecture,   which   Piranesi   believed   as   evolving   from   the   Egyptians,   appear   as   ordered,   however,   his   work   incorporates   the  ruin   as  a  visual  language  to   reveal  the   @ictional  space  that   is   the  foundation  of   classicism,  to   be  reread  and  recon@igured  in  the  present  (Allen  94).    He  established  a  critical  and   experimental  way  of  thinking  that  resonates  within  the  extra-­‐disciplinary  research  and  practices   informing  my  thesis  project. Fig.  21  Jan  Beringer.  Production  and  Destruction.  2012. Philosopher   Walter   Benjamin   wrote   about   the   ‘dialectical   image’   in   his   un@inished   work,   The   Arcades   Project   (1927-­‐40),   as  a  non-­‐discursive  mode  of  thinking   that   emerges   through   language,   27 where   to   understand  the   past   means   it   was   understood  in   the  past   (Friedlander   5).     “It   is   the   inherent  tendency  of   dialectical  experience  to   dissipate  the  semblance  of  eternal  sameness,   and   even  of  repetition  in  history”  (Benjamin  The   Arcades  Project   473).    The   ruin  is  a   phenomena  or   dialectical  image  in  my  practice,  being  that  it  refracts,  and  concentrates   the  expansive   history  and   experience   of   the   museum   in   a   crash   with   the   present,   realizing   a   new   potential   reality,   and   recognizing  that  any  historical  truth  is  @leeting.    Within  the   aesthetic  trope  of  the  museum’s  ruins,   my  drawings  are   situated   at  a  shifting  point  in  tension   between  my  two   opposing  practices  and   the  history  of  the  museum  space. The  space  of  difference  in  the  museum  exhibition  is  further  represented  by  the  allegorical  ruin  in   Benjamin’s   philosophy   of  history,   with   new   meaning   and  history   emerging  from  the   process   of   ruination.    The  ruin  is   situated   through  my   thesis  project,   not   as  the  symbolic   effect   of  the  18th   century   romantic   and   picturesque   aesthetic,   but   within   a   critical   process   to   reveal   historical   truths   through   the   reduction   and   recon@iguring   of   fragments   of   the   past,   in   reference   to   Benjamin’s  philosophy  of  the   ruin   as  a  counterpart  to   allegory  (Stead  12).    “Allegories  are,  in   the   realm  of  thoughts,  what  ruins  are  in  the  realm  of  things”  (Benjamin  178). Fig.  22  Jan  Beringer.  Noun  and  Verb.  2012. 28 The  ruin  both  collapses  and  reveals  historical  distance,   while  fragmenting   and   stripping  away  a   continuous   and   ideal   vision   of   history   and   reality   (Allen   97).     The   process   of   ruination   is   an   aesthetic  and  physical  experience  that  situates  the  transient  and  temporal  subject  in  the  absence   and   incomprehensibility   of   the   past   through   all   its   contingent   political   and   cultural   history,   ideologies  and  memories.    I   am  looking  through  the   cultural   layers  of   romantic   and  picturesque   aesthetics  associated  with  and  evolving  from  the  18th  century  ruin  obsession.    My  thesis  project   is  focusing  on   the  museum’s   ruins,  while  acknowledging  the   present  fascination  of   modern  ruins   and  dystopias,  for  example,   the  Second  World   War  remains  in  Berlin,  derelict  industrial  spaces  in   Detroit,  latent  housing  development  projects  in  Las   Vegas,  Brutalist  architecture   ruins  in  Scotland   and  nuclear   disaster   areas   like   Chernobyl.     Within   the  conceptual   ruin  as   an   aesthetic   trope,   I   have   found   a   temporal,   visual   and   spatial   language   that   can   conceptually   situate,   critique   and   examine  the  museum  exhibit  space  in  my  thesis  project. A   critical   strategy   in  my   practice  looks  at   the  postmodern  in  the  dimensions   of  an  aesthetic  and   historical   experience  that  is  in  a  constant  state  of  @lux  and  becoming,  with  “the  endeavor  to   know   how   and   to   what  extent  it   might  be   possible   to   think   differently,   instead  of   legitimating  what   is   already   known   (Foucault   The   Use   of   Pleasure   9).     Although   the   museum   exhibit   attempts   to   negotiate  and  present  a  collective  idea  or  conception  of  the   world,   the  experience  of  the  museum   will  never  meet  that  concept  nor   convey   any  complete   knowledge  of  our  shifting  realities,  hence,   these   conceived  ideas   are   deemed  unpresentable  (Lyotard  78).     This  is  interrelated  with   French   philosopher,  Jean-­‐François  Lyotard’s  concept  of  the  aesthetic  sublime,   as  part  of  the  postmodern   condition,   where   our   sensibility   tries   to   put   the   unpresentable   into   a   sensible   form,   and   is   overwhelmed  in   the   process  (79).    Similar  to   the  museum   space,  Lyotard  posits  that  modern  art   attempts   to   present  and  make  visible   the  unpresentable,   he  also  asserts  that  for   any   work   to   be   considered  modern  or  new,   it  must  @irst  be   considered  postmodern,  where  the   postmodern  is  in  a   constant   state  of  becoming  as  a  repetition  of  the  modern  condition   (78-­‐79).     From  this  state,  I  am   using   the  ruins   of   traditional   exhibit   typologies   still   existing   within  contemporary  postmodern   museum   spaces,   such  as   architect   Daniel   Libeskind’s   Jewish   Museum   in   Berlin,   to   support   the   production   of   new   ideas   outside   the   rules   and   established  thresholds   of  historical   institutional   norms. 29 The  museum,  similar  to   the  ruin,   cannot  secure  or  preserve  memory,  its  interpretation  will  always   remain   transitory   and   contingent   on   a   contemporary   time   and   culture   (Huyssen   28).     Comparative   literature   professor   and   author,   Andreas   Huyssen,   posits   that   our   contemporary   memory  culture  embodies   the  fear   of  forgetting,   revealed  while  trying   to   situate  itself   within   an   unstable   and   fragmented   modern   world   (24).   A   memory   culture   is   premised   on  the   desire   to   anchor  itself   on   the  past   as   a  place  of  stability   and  continuity,   for   fear   of   losing  itself  within   an   ever   shrinking   present   that   con@lates   the   past,   present   and   future   within   an   indistinguishable   boundary.     “The   museum  compensates   for  this   loss   of   stability   by   offering   traditional   forms   of   cultural   identity   to   a   destabilized   modern   subject”   (Lubbe   qtd.   in   Huyssen   23).   However,   as   Huyssen   argues,   this   is   preserving   a   conservative   and   ideological   concept   of   the   museum   that   does  not  acknowledge  the  museum  itself  as  a  destabilized  or  ruined  experience  that  offers   no  real   security  or  cultural  stability  (24). The  contemporary   foundation   for  situating  my   material  practice  emerges   alongside  artist   Pablo   Bronstein’s   drawings   and   spatial   activations   of   public   spaces,   such   as   museums,   where   the   present   condition   always   reveals   a   palimpsest   of   the   past.     Bronstein   uses   site-­‐speci@ic   installations   in   combination   with   physical   movement   or   dance   to   perform   and   activate   the   public’s   embodied  experience  of   viewing  each  other,   art  and  artifacts  within  a   museum  space.     A   relationship   to   Bronstein’s   contemporary   practice   can   be   seen   in   Duchamp’s   century   earlier     installation   of   1,200   dusty   coal   bags   on   the   ceiling   of   an   art   exhibit   at   the   1938   International   Surrealist  Exhibition  in  Paris,  where  both  artists  are  considering   the  architectural  facade  or  frame   of  the  museum  as  a  sign  of  stability,  rationality  and  power  embedded  within  the  thresholds  of  the   exhibition  space. 30 Fig.  23  Bronstein,  Pablo.  Magnigicent  Plaza.  2007. India  ink  and  wash  on  paper  in  artist’  frame 92.5  x  114.3  cm  /  36.4  x  45  in.  Image  by  Pablo  Bronstein Courtesy  Herald  St,  London. Bronstein’s   work   reveals   the   prevailing   ideologies,   vanities,   mediation,   and   gendered   politics   embedded  and  experienced  within  historical  and  present  architectural  facades,  public  spaces  and   the   organization   of   museum   exhibits.   His   drawings   are   visually   reminiscent   of   18th   century   classical   ruins   rendered   as   the  Sublime   in  Piranesi’s   practice,   and   his   activation  of   the  frame  of   the   institutional   space   can   be   traced   back   to   Duchamp’s   Surrealist   installations   in   the   1940’s.     Bronstein’s   practice   draws   on   and   integrates   architectural   styles   from   both   the   18th   and   20th   century,   revealing   how   the   subject   embodies   or   activates   speci@ic   cultural   values   through   the   regulated   ways   of   seeing   and   moving   within   architectural   spaces.     Working   within   the   architecture   of   public   spaces   and   facades,   he   raises   the   issue   of   how   gender,   politics,   cultural   ideologies  and  power  are  revealed   and  reinforced  in  the  physicality  and  concept  of  built  space  as   a  historical  language  of  dominant  cultural  codes  (Bronstein  and  Mayer  44). 31 Fig.  24  Bronstein,  Pablo. The  Museum  Nearing  Completion  as  Seen  from  Fourth  Avenue.  2009. The  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  NY.  Metmuseum.org.  Web.  13  Apr.  2012. http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/ma/web-­thumb/DP219709.jpg Within  Bronstein’s  2009  exhibition  at  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art  in  New  York   city,  he  used   the  language  of  computer  aided  architectural  drafting  to  propose  alternative  and  dystopic  futures   for  the  museum’s   development   as  a   critique  of  the  lofty  aims  and  goals  of  the   institution  (Hull  3).     "A   couple   of   years   ago,   museums   thought   they   would   exist   for   1,000   years.     Now,   nothing   is   certain"  (Bronstein).    His  work   is  based  on  the  concept  of  playing  on  and  drawing  from  the  @ield  of   architectural  and   cultural  history,   using  the  simulated  classical  ruin  con@lated  with  styles  of  Post-­‐ modern   architecture   as   a   response   to   the   persistence   of   ideology,   colonialism   and   power   structures  embedded  and  preserved  through  spaces  such  as  the  monument  and  museum  facade. Fig.  25  Jan  Beringer.  Out  of  the  Museum’s  Ruins.  2012. 32 My   research   and   thesis   project   resonates   with   the   early   20th   century   artistic   practices   of   Duchamp,  is  informed  theoretically  through  the  18th  century  drawings  of  Piranesi,  and  is   situated   with  the  critical   works   of   contemporary  artist   Bronstein.     I  am  placing  the   traditional   museum   display   archetypes   in   a   dialectical   relationship   between   the   abstract   and   shifting   notions   of   history,   represented   within   the   @ixed   architectural   space   of   the   exhibit.     Historian   and   anthropologist,   James   Clifford,   places   museums   as   ‘contact   zones’,   existing   on   the   disputed   borders  of  cultural,  historical,  political,  and  ideological  relations  (Clifford  Routes  204). My   art   practice   works   within   this   contested   liminal   space   existing   between   the   contingent,     shifting   interpretations   and   representations   of   the   past.     From   this   theoretical   space,   I   am   developing   drawing   experiments   as   a   visual   language   for   altered   ways   of   experiencing   and   reading   the  exhibit   space,  working   outside  the  traditional   limits  or  thresholds.    Within   this  visual   language   the  ruin   is   used  as   an  aestheticized   space  and   trope  in  relation  to   the   museum   space.     "Maybe  only  through  a  reactivation   of  memory  of  a  circumstantial  past  can  the   of@icial  chronicles   of   history   be   opposed   and,   thus,   new   possibilities   for   the   future   imagined"   (Arriola).     The   re-­‐ examination   of   established   traditions,   frames   and   systems   within   the   museum   allows   for   a   process   of  discontinuity   and  transformation  within   my   art   practice,   looking   towards   a   hopeful,   productive   and   meaningful   future   that   remains   interconnected   and   unresolved   (Clifford   Traditional  Futures  165). Fig.  26  Jan  Beringer.  Drawing  Other  Spaces.  2012. 33 Chapter 4. METHOD ! 4.1 Overview Within   my  thesis   project,   I  am  focusing  on  the   process  of  drawing  as  part  of  a   larger  practice   that   critiques  and  works  with  the  museological  exhibit  space.     I  am  working  without   the  constraints  of   my   exhibit   design   practice,   a   practice   that   is   de@ined   by   guiding,   managing   and   producing   anticipatory  studies   and  fabrication  plans  for  other  spaces,  within  the   framework  and  functional   requirements  de@ined  by  the  institution,  committee  and  exhibit  content.    The  drawings  in  my  art   practice  resist  implementation  or   utility  by  revealing  and   destroying  historical   discontinuities,  as   a  marked  resistance  against  the  traditional  museum  archetypes  within  our  contemporary  cultural   institutions.     I  use  this  propositional  and  experimental  form  within  my  practice  to   critically  mine   the   history   of  the   museum  space   in  order   to  suggest   possible   points   of  departure  for  discussion   regarding  its  future. Fig.  27  Jan  Beringer.  Cultural  Industry.  2012.   4.2 Drawing and Space My   material   practice   has   evolved   and   transformed   within   my   thesis   project,   only   to   be   fully   34 realized,  alongside  my  research  and  writing,   in   the  process  of  drawing  and  spatial  installations.    I   have   developed  a  visual  language  for  my  larger  practice  through  the   ongoing  development  of   the   ruin  as  an  aesthetic  trope  for   re-­‐imagining  the   museum  space.    This  process  is   working  outside  of   a  speci@ic  project-­‐based  mentality,   by  using   a  longer  and  discontinuous  time  frame  to  deconstruct   and  work  through  ideas  about  the  museum’s  past,  present  and  future. Fig.  28  Jan  Beringer.  Perspectival.  2012. I  have  experimented  with  various  drawing  mediums,  materials,  forms,   styles,  substrates  and  sizes   in   my  initial   drawings   and  sculptures.    Initially,   I  incorporated  traditional   perspectival   drawing   techniques  to  reference   familiar   architectural  styles  and  formal  studies  for  conceptualizing   a  built   space,   with  one  sculptural  object  being  realized  from   them   for  the  summer   MAA   group  show  in   2011  at  Emily  Carr  University.     The  work,   Museum  Section,  consisted  of  a   one   to  one  scale  section   cut  from  a  @ictional  museum  space  with  the  paintings,  labels  and  architectural  details  mounted  in   place.     The   proportions   of   the   corner   are   similar   to   an   architectural   design   drawing   callout,   highlighting   a  speci@ic  or  complex  detail  on   a  wall  elevation.     The  construction  methods  bridged   and  represented   a   long   history   of  museum   architecture   with   one   side   covered   in  creosote   and   35 rotten  wood  to   represent   an   older   decaying   structure,   and  the   other   was   constructed   as   a  new   white   box  gallery  space  addition.     Proportionately,   it  was  a  corner  of   an  untitled  gallery  with   two   sections   of   wall,   8’   and   10’   long,   sliced   at   24”   high   from   the   @loor.     The   framed   paintings   of   unknown  origins  or   authorship  were  traumatically  sliced  through,  and  meant  to   be  interpreted  as   a   defamation   or   blatant   assault   on   history   and   culture   itself,   challenging   our   preconceived   notions  of   value  and   the  museum’s  role   in  society.    This  L-­‐shaped  section  was  displayed  tilted  on   its  side  within   another  gallery  space  to  upset  the  pictorial  and  experiential  space   of  the  museum.     On   re@lection,   this   sculpture   was   a   way   of   opening   up   a   space   for   drawing   and   form   to   communicate  and  activate  aspects  of  my  thesis  project. Fig.  29  Jan  Beringer.  Museum  Section.  2012. The  preparatory   drawings  leading   up  to   this   sculpture   also   had   critical   potential   to   disrupt   the   historical  norms  of  the  museum  space  by  anticipating  the  process  of   drawing  as  a  key  part  of  my   thesis  project.    These  drawings   re@lect  my  observations   and  experiences  from  working  in  various   cultural  institutions  as  an  exhibit   designer.    However,  they  juxtapose   familiar  drawing  techniques   with   unexpected   or   contradictory   messages   that   simultaneously   reveal   and   rupture   traditions   within   the   museum,   as   a   way   of  constructing   and   deconstructing   the   exhibit   space   within   the   same  image. A   following   series   of   drawings   used   the   idea   of   display   cases   at   war   or   in   the   state   of   being   36 thrown   away   as   a   re@lection   or   dialectical   image   of   our   attempts   to   interpret,   discard   and   document   the   past.     The   drawings   are   intended   to   reveal   the   historical   systems   and   forms   of   representing  cultural  identity   in   the  museum  as  subjective,  contested  and  discontinuous.    I  utilize   the  museum  as   both  the  subject   and  object   of  critique  by  incorporating  historical   narratives  and   abstractions  in  the  form  of  a  drawing. I   place   the   objects   and   spaces   in   a   struggle   for   the   foreground,   premised   on   an   idea   that   the   interpretation  and   representation   of  the   space   might   be   more   signi@icant   or   revealing  than   the   content.    Using   imaginative   scenarios   such   as  the  morphological   study  of  Duchamp’s  1912  work,   Nude  Descending  a   Staircase,  No.  2,   I   am   drawing  an  interruption  of   the  logical   ideal  of  the  @igure.     The   anthropomorphized   museum   display   cases   reveal   the   viewer   and   artifact   as   being   in   complicity  with  the  historical  museum  space. Fig.  30  Jan  Beringer.  On  Work.  2012. My  recent  drawings   use  simple,  black  pen  line  drawings   to   politicize  and  challenge  the  rituals  and   habituated  ways  of  seeing  and  moving  within   the  frame   of  the   exhibit  space.    This  form  of  casual   and  distracted  drawing   is   being   done   at  the  of@ice  during  my  work   as  an  exhibit  designer.    I   use   the   process   of   doodling   or   sketching   while   I   am   supposed   to   be   doing  other   things,   physically   drawing   through,   over  and  within  my   ‘productive’  design  drawings.     In  the  context   of  my  thesis   project,  drawing   acts  as  satire,  humour  and  critique  of  the   formal  museum  space.     This  process  of   37 squiggling  and  mark  making  works  against  the  thresholds  of  familiar  forms  and  volumes  de@ining   its  traditions   and  architecture.     Within  these  works  I  am  critiquing  the  cultural  institution  as  a  site   for  the  normative  viewing  and  creation  of  ideological  values,  where  the  museum  is  meant  to  be  a   neutral  space. Fig.  31  Jan  Beringer.  Modernist  Museum  Ruins  I.  2012. In   addition   to   these   projects,   my   recent   drawings   incorporate   the   use   of   standard,   disposable   of@ice  computer   paper  for   detailed  and   re@ined  pencil   sketches  based  on  @ictional  narratives  and   ruin  aesthetics  that  combine  classical   forms  with  contemporary  critiques.     These  drawings  re@lect   a  commitment  of  time  and  skill  that  contrasts  with  the  cheap,  thin,  and  familiar  letter,   tabloid,  and   legal  sized  institutional   printing  substrate.    Extending  from  this  idea,   I  use  existing  paintings  on   canvas   as   foundations   for   my   drawings,   the   canvases   are   painted   over   with   a   pure,   cool   white   interior  wall  paint  similar  to  that  used  in   the  contemporary  gallery  space.    I  draw  on  them  with  a   38 graphite   medium   as   formal   perspectival   studies   of   traditional   museum   display   typologies,   revealing  a  subjective  method  of  organizing,  representing  and  interpreting  historical  objects. As   a  group  displayed  together,   these   drawings  can  be   interpreted  on  various   levels   of  aesthetic   engagement.     The   works   are   situated   alongside   and   informed   by   my   theoretical   research   and   writing   as   part   of  a   larger   artistic   practice   working   with  the   museum   space.     My   studio   work   leading   up  to  the  @inal  exhibition  has   been  a  critical  response  to   the   embedded  traditions  within   the  museum,  using   a  contradictory   visual   language  of  established  exhibition  design  processes  and   methods  of  drawing  to  deconstruct  and  suggest  alternative   scenarios  for  viewing  and  imagining   the  future  museum. Fig.  32  Jan  Beringer.  Modernist  Museum  Ruins  II.  2012. 39 Chapter 5. THESIS PROJECT ! 5.1 Overview My  @inal  thesis  project  was  part  of  the  exhibition,   Here  +   There,  which  opened  on  July  19,  2012,  at   the  Charles  H.  Scott  Gallery   on  Granville  Island  in  Vancouver,   British  Columbia.     This  group  show   consisted  of  nine  artists,  including   myself,  as   part   of  the  inaugural  2012  cohort’s  @inal  exhibition   in  the  Low  Residency  Masters  of  Applied  Arts  program  at  ECUAD. My  parallel  profession  as   an   exhibit   designer  inspired  my  efforts  to  assist  in  the  early   process  of   designing  and   laying  out  the  gallery  space.    This  familiar  design  process  informed  how   my  @inal   thesis  project  would  eventually  evolve  and  respond   to   both  the  architecture  of  the  gallery  space,   and  the  disparate  works  of  the  other  artist’s.    My  @inal   work,  It’s  all   over,  consisted   of   a   sculptural   form  and  architectural  intervention  to   activate  a  previously  developed  series  of  diverse  drawings.     When  viewed   in   its   entirety   from   both  inside   and  outside   the   gallery   space,   the   work   directly   addressed   the   deconstruction   of   historical   ideologies   and   archetypes   embedded   within   the   contemporary  experience  of  the  museum’s  physical  exhibition  space. Fig.  33  Jan  Beringer.  Boxes.  2012. 40 Related   to   the   research,   writing   and   studio   process   within   the   MAA   program,   my   @inal   studio   project   referenced  the  immediacy  of  drawing  as   speculation  or   possibility  with  the   seduction  of   form   and   materials.     Drawing   from   the  modernist   museum   archetype  in  ruin,   the   work,   It’s   all   over,   used  the  blank  space  of  the  gallery  corner  with  blank   drywall  and  blank  sheets  of  paper  to   re-­‐imagine  the  blank  museum. Fig.  34  Jan  Beringer.  It’s  All  Over.  2012. ! 5.2 ‘It’s All Over’ The   realization   of   my   @inal   installation   based   work,   It’s   all   over,   was   a   direct   response   to   the   architecture  of  the   Charles  H  Scott  gallery,  speci@ically  the  interior  and  exterior  of  the  South   West   corner  window.    Utilizing  the  thresholds  of   the   physical  display  space   is   inherently  linked  to  my   art   practice   and   thesis   project.     I   am   examining   the   implications   of   embedded   histories   and   complicities  within  fragments  of  the  conceptual  ruins  of  museological  spaces. 41 This   work   was  a  response  to   the  normative   and   inscribed  rules   of  display  by   using  the   interior   and   exterior   of   the   gallery   space   for   the   same   work,   and   switching   the   subject   and   object   relationship  between  the  viewer  and  artwork.     When  the  two  sliding  panels  meant   to   occasionally   cover   the  windows   where  left   open  by   1”  on  each   side,   it  allowed   for  a  small   vertical   split   that   would   connect  and  conceal   the  exterior  from  the  interior,  leaving  a   bright  splinter  of  natural  light   to  slice   through  into  the  interior   gallery   space.    My  work   incorporated  the  existing   engraved  lines   on   the   concrete   @loor,   the   recessed  interior  window   frame,   the  20”  depth   between  the   windows   and  the  sliding  panels,  the  white  painted  walls  and  the  verticality   of  the  interior  ceiling   height.     In   addition,  my  work   responded   to   the  standard  56”   center   hanging  height  used  for   other  works  in   the   gallery   including   Galia   Kwetny’s   large  canvas   painting,   Community,   directly   to   the   left,   and   David   Miller’s   24’   long   photographic   work,   Exits   (Gas  chamber   and   Crematoria,   Auschwitz,   July   2008,   located   to   the   right   of   my   drywall   sculpture.     I   recognized  this  corner   of   the  gallery  as  a   natural   threshold,   or   liminal   space   to   work   from   for   a   site-­‐speci@ic   installation   to   support   and   activate  my  drawings.     I  spent   the  week   leading   up  to   the   show   at   the  Home   Depot  warehouse   on  Terminal  Avenue  in   Vancouver   as   my   appropriated   corporate   studio   space,   to   prepare   the  sculptural   component   of   the   @inal   work.     Within   a   delineated   aisle   space,   under   the   buzzing   metal   halide   commercial   lamps,   I  used  their  knives   and  t-­‐squares  to   cut,  snap  and  stack  ½”  –  4’  x   12’  drywall   panels  into   112  -­‐   16”  x  56”   panels.     The  @inal  minimalist  and   anthropomorphic   form  was  located   within   the   interior  gallery  space  demarcated   by  the   recessed  corner  window  and  engraved  lines   in  the  @loor.     It  consisted  of  a  simple  56”  high  freestanding  stack   of  these   un@inished,   interior   drywall   pieces,   with  an  interruption  of  vertically  stacked  panels   in   the  lower   right   corner,   and  the   entire  piece   was   @loating   off  the   ground   at  the   same   height   as   the  gallery  walls   from  the   @loor.     The  drywall   material   was   exactly   the   same   as   that   used  to   construct   temporary   walls   within   the  exhibition   space. A   blue  chalk   line  was   snapped  56”   across  the  inside  of  the  right   sliding  panel   at   the  typical  56”   high  gallery   standard  center   line  for   hanging  artwork.    This   line   acted  as   a   drawn   gesture   both   implicating   and   related   to   the   proportions   of   the   sculpture,   the   display   and   content   of   the   drawings,  the  positioning  of  other  artist’s  works  in  the  show,  and  the  viewer’s  average  eye  height. 42 Fig.  35  Jan  Beringer.  It’s  All  Over.  2012. The  drawings  were  mounted  and   remained  only  visible  on  the  outside  of  the   two   sliding   panels   that  covered  the   corner   window  of  the  gallery.     Acting  as  a  hopeful   form  of  resistance,  the  process   of  drawing   remains  free  from  the  museum’s  contested  past  and  existing  without  a  predetermined   outcome.     Consisting  of  sketches,  doodles,  renderings,  drafting  plans,  elevations,  and  dimensional   models   they   exist   in   various   states   of   completion   and   on   various   types   of   paper   and   drywall   substrates.    Based  on  and  re@lecting   the   layout  on  the  wall   in  my  studio,  they  were  provisionally   pinned   and   organized   below   56”   to   disrupt   the   normative   ideals   of   display   by   leading   the   audience   to   peer  in  awkwardly   close   to   the  glass,   look   around  the  window   frames   and  bend  or   squat  down  on  the  paving  bricks  to  see  the  drawings  clearly  and  in  their  entirety. 43 Fig.  36  Jan  Beringer.  It’s  All  Over.  2012. The  lighting   of   the  installation   was   a   combination   of   @ixtures   including   overhead  PAR-­‐30  bulbs   inside  the   gallery  space,   MR-­‐16  bulbs   in  the   enclosed  window  well  tracks,  and  the  ever  changing   natural   sun   light   from   outside.     The   drywall   sculpture   was   lit   from   overhead   and   interrupted   during   the   day   by   a   vertical   slice   of   natural   light   coming   in   from   the   gap   between   the   sliding   panels,   the   intense   line   of   light   moved   across   the   form   throughout   the   day   and   played   off   the   textures,   colour   and   location   of   the   sculptural   form.     The   drawings   were   intentionally   lit   from   inside  the  window   well   with   a  wash  of  warm   light  from   10   bulbs   on  the  track  @ixtures  mounted   above,   in  combination  with   the   distracting   glare,   re@lections,   and   changing   intensity   of   natural   sunlight  on  the  window  glass  from  outside. ! 5.3 Reflection 44 In  relation  to   my  thesis   and  research,  this   @inal   installation  used  the  gallery  space  and   sculptural   form  to  activate  and  embody   the  imaginary   potential  of  the   drawings.    The  location,  materials  and   scale   of   the   installation   were   idiosyncratic   responses   to   the   @ixed   systems   and   traditional   archetypes   of  exhibition  spaces,   which  are   still   used   as   the  critical   components   of   a   normative   and  embodied  museum  experience. French  philosopher  Gaston  Bachelard  wrote  in   his  introduction  to  ‘The   Poetics  of  Space’,   that  “By   the  swiftness  of  its  actions,  the  imagination   separates  us  from  the  past   as  well   as  reality;  it  faces   the   future”   (XXXIV),   referring   to   the   imagination   or   ‘unreality’   as   a   signi@icant   part   of   human   nature  where  “space  calls  for  action,  and  before  action,  the  imagination  is  at  work”  (12). Fig.  37  Jan  Beringer.  It’s  All  Over.  2012. 45 To   avoid   the   drawings   being   read   and   interpreted   by   the   viewer   as   familiar   and   precious   art   objects  within   the  gallery  space,  I  did   not  display   a   select  few  of  the  most  resolved  works.    It  was   critical   that  they   be   seen  as   a   theoretically-­‐based   visual   commentary   on   the  individual  viewer’s   own  normative  expectations  for  the  ideal   exhibition  experience.     These  expectations  might  have   included  mounting   them   in  a  linear   series   that   were   typically   matted,   framed   and  hung   at  56”   centers.     Although   the  drawings   were  protected   behind  the   corner   glass   window   of  the   gallery,   they  were  still   directly  exposed  to  the   detrimental   effects  of  direct  sunlight  and  the   possibility  of   water   damage   from   water   coming   into   the   window   well   on   the   lower   sections.     Although   the   works  were  a  critical  part  of   the   overall  installation,   they  were  removed   and  separated  from   the   experience  inside  the  gallery  space   by   sliding  the  solid,   temporary  window   cover  panels   almost   closed  to  act  as  their  physical  support. The  interior   drywall   sculpture   and  blue   chalk   line  were   also   a   potentially   separate  and   unique   work  from  the  drawings.    However,  the   completeness   of  this  work  was  dependent  on  the  viewer’s   experience   of   its  perceived  inaccessibility   from   both   inside   and  outside   the   gallery   space.     The   layout   was   a   challenge   to   the   viewer   to   articulate   the   intent   of   the   work   by   having   to   move   between   a  public  and  institutional  space,   between  a  subject  and  object  relationship,  and  between   materiality   and  imagination.    This  liminal  state  of  the  work  was  a   critical   part  of  the   experience,   by   opening   or   rupturing   a   physical   and   theoretical   space   between   our   present   realities   and   habituated  expectations,   the  work   would  reveal   embedded   histories   and  archetypes   within   the   gallery   space.     The  work  implicates   the  viewer  through  the  imagination  of  a  possible  future  for   the  museum  exhibition  space  by  deconstructing  our  expectations   of  how  we  view,  experience  and   interpret  the  past. In  a  virtual  presentation   by  the  artist  Carey  Young  during  the   @inal  summer  residency  of  the  MAA   program   at  ECUAD,   she  articulated  her   de@inition  of   an  interesting  and   successful  contemporary   art  practice  as   one   that  re@lects   on  and  responds   to   one  of  the  worlds   inherent  ambiguities   and   paradoxes.     An   example   of   this   can   be   seen   in   one   of   her   earlier   works   from   2004/05,   Consideration,  looking  at  theories  of  social   conditioning  being  manifested  through  social  behavior,   and   speci@ically  in  this  work   through  contractual  law.    Young  stressed  the  importance  of  asking   questions  that  elicit  ongoing  discussions   instead   of  resolving  de@initive  answers.     By   working  to   open   up   a   space   for   dialogue   around   the   history,   experience   and   meaning   of   the   museum   46 exhibition,  I  can  propose  alternative  ways  to   rethink  its  future  without  having  to  make   subjective   judgements  from  a  @ixed  ideological  position. Looking   beyond   my   @inal   thesis   project,   a   possible   trajectory   for   my   art   practice   might   incorporate   projects   from   within   the   studio   process   and   outside   the   gallery   space,   while   continuing   to   reference   and   question   the   place   of   the   exhibition   within   the   theoretical   foundations  and  changing  facets  of  the  museum  as  a  cultural  institutional. Fig.  38  Jan  Beringer.  Deginitions.  2012. One  of  these  works   could  potentially  be  video   documentation  of   a  performance   piece,   occurring   within  the   appropriated  Home   Depot   commercial   studio   space   where  I  experimented   with  and   built   the   @inal   drywall   based  sculpture.     In   addition,   the   realization   of   building   a   monumental   stack,  in   one  to   one  scale,   of  display  archetypes   including  cases,  vitrines,   benches,   plinths,  labels   and  frames   would  take  the  work   in  a  more   formal  and  architectural   direction   that  questions   its   47 own  location,  origins  and  intentions   in  context  with   the  viewer   in  the   future  present.    In  relation   to   the   research,   writing   and   work   developed   for   my   thesis   project   based   on   the   museum’s   exhibition  space,   the  form  and  content  of  future  related   work  could  be  reinterpreted  and  realized   in  various  and  unexpected  places,  contexts,  mediums  and  processes. Chapter 6. CONCLUSION The  conceptual  ruin  of  the  museological  space  is  used  in  my  thesis   project  as   an  aesthetic  trope,   to  rede@ine   and  redraw  the   museum’s  role   and  relevancy  within  changing  societies.     My  research,   writing  and   studio   projects   critically  examine   embedded   ideologies   and   archetypes   in  order   to   deconstruct   the   monumentalizing,   historicizing  and   normalizing   traditions   of   the  museum   that   persist  in  contemporary  culture.    Drawing  from  the  archetypes   of  the  modernist  museum,  I  am  re-­‐ imagining   and   reconstructing   fragments   of   the   institution’s   conceptual   ruins.     By   placing   the   exhibit   space  as  a   transitional   threshold  between   the  allegorical   and   shifting  relationship  of   the   viewer,   institution  and   objects   on   display,   I   intentionally  obscure  the   content   by   foregrounding   the  viewer’s  position  with  the  methods  of  display. My  drawings  are  informed   by,   but   unrestricted  by  any  institutional  constraints   or  thresholds,  and   are   used   for   the   growth   of   both   my   own   and   the   viewer’s   capabilities   to   subjectively   resist,   rupture   and   respond   to   the   limiting   traditions   of  museological   space.     The   act   of   drawing   is   a   visual  language   and  process  of  potentiality  in  a  constant  state  of  @lux  and  becoming,  re@lecting  my   intertwined  and  parallax  practices  looking  at   the   museum  from   different   vantage  points  as   both   an  artist  and  exhibit  designer. Through  drawing  I  can  continuously   select   and   reconstruct   fragments  from   the  museum’s  ruins   to  propose   alternative  concepts  and  scenarios  for  the  future  museum  space.     Where  the  museum,   similar   to   the   ruin,   cannot   secure   or   preserve   memory,   its   interpretation   will   always   remain   transitory   and   contingent   on   a   contemporary   time   and   culture   (Huyssen   28).     Although   the   drawings  in  themselves   form  a  large  and  complete   part  of  my  thesis  project,  my  artistic  tendency   to  construct  and  manipulate  physical  space  was   realized  in  the  @inal  project.    However,  form  was   not   the   end  result   of  the   drawing   process,   it   was   used  in   reverse,   as   a   way   in   to   negotiate   the   48 drawings   and   to   engage   the   viewer   in   the   experience   of   looking   back   at   their   own   normative   behaviors  in  the  anticipation  and  engagement  with  the  museum  exhibition  space. My   @inal   work   for   the   MAA   thesis   exhibition  responded   to   and  incorporated   the   gallery   space   within   a   sculptural   installation,   a   process   that   acknowledged   my   interrelated   art   and   design   practices.     The   work   was   realized   to   activate   a   diverse   series   of   drawings   that   situate   the   archetypical   museum   exhibition   space   as   an   unstable,   contested   and   discontinuous   cultural   apparatus  acting  as  a  facade   for  the  display   of  historical   progress.     Acknowledging   that  within  my   evolving  art  practice   I  have  the  freedom  to  question  and  re-­‐imagine  the  thresholds  of  the  museum   beyond   the  scope  of  my  work   as   an  exhibit  designer,  a  space  is  opened   up  for  future  works  to   be   informed  by  the  art  historical,   theoretical  and  physical  museum  space  as  a  potential  medium  and   corollary  experience. BIBLIOGRAPHY ! WORKS CITED Alberro,  Alexander,  and  Blake  Stimson,  eds.  Institutional  Critique:  an  anthology  of  artists’  writings.     Cambridge,  Massachusetts:  The  MIT  Press,  2009.  Web.  14  Feb.  2012. Allen,  Stanley.  “Piranesi’s  ‘Campo  Marzio’:  An  Experimental  Design.”  Assemblage  10.10     (1989):  70-­‐109.  Web.  13  Mar.  2012. Arriola,  Magali.  “A  Victim  and  a  Viewer:  Some  Thoughts  on  Anticipated  Ruins.”  RUINS.  Ed.  Brian     Dillon.  London:  Whitechapel  Gallery  and  The  MIT  Press,  2011.  173-­‐180.  Print. Bachelard,  Gaston.    The  Poetics  of  Space.  Trans.  Maria  Jolas.  Boston:Beacon  Press.  USA,  1994.     Print. Benjamin,  Walter.    The  Origin  of  German  Tragic  Drama.  Trans.  John  Osborne.  NY:  Verso.  USA,     2003.  Print. Benjamin,  Walter.  The  Arcades  Project.  Ed.  Tiedermann,  Rolf.  Cambridge:  Belknap  Press.  USA,     1999.  Print. 49 Bennett,  Tony.  “The  Exhibitionary  Complex.”  New  Formations  Spring.4  (1988):  73-­‐102.  Web.  26     Apr.  2012. Bishop,  Claire.  “Antagonism  and  Relational  Aesthetics.”  October  110  (2004):  51-­‐79.  Web.  22  Apr.   2012. Bourdieu,  Pierre.  "The  Historical  Genesis  of  the  Pure  Aesthetic,"  Journal  of  Aesthetics  and  Art     Criticism,  XLVI,  1987,  202. Bronstein,  Pablo.  “Guide  to  Drawing:  Artist  Pablo  Bronstein  on  drawing.”  Guardian.co.uk.  Sept.     2009.  Web.  10  Feb.  2012.   Bronstein,  Pablo,  and  Katrin  Mayer.  “Re-­‐Reading  Space.”  Displayer  03.July  (2009):  37-­‐49.  Web.  5     Mar.  2012. Buskirk,  Martha  and  Mignon  Nixon,  eds.  The  Duchamp  Effect.  Cambridge:  The  MIT  Press  and     October  Magazine.  USA,  1996.  Print. Chan,  Carson.  “Measures  of  an  Exhibition  Space,  Not  Art,  Is  the  Curator’s  Primary  Material.”  Fillip     13.  Spring  (2011):  n.  pag.  Print. Clifford,  James.  Routes:  Travel  and  Translation  in  the  Late  Twentieth  Century.  Cambridge:  Harvard     University  Press.    USA,  1997.  Print. Clifford,  James.  Traditional  Futures  in  Questions  of  Traditions.  Phillips,  Mark  and  Gordon     Schochet,  eds.    Toronto:  University  of  Toronto  Press.  CA,  2004.  Print. Clifford,  James.  The  Predicament  of  Culture:  Twentieth-­century  ethnography,  literature,  and  art.       Cambridge:  Harvard  University  Press.  USA,  1998.  Print. Coombes,  AE.  “Museums  and  the  formation  of  national  and  cultural  identities.”  Oxford  Art  Journal     11.2  (1988):  57-­‐68.  Web.  10  Dec.  2011. Crimp,  Douglas.  “On  the  Museum’s  Ruins.”  October  13  (1980):  41. 50 Demos,  TJ.  “Duchamp’s  Labyrinth:  ‘First  Papers  of  Surrealism’,  1942.”  October  97  (2001):  91-­‐119.     Web.  6  Mar.  2012. Demos,  TJ.  “Duchamp’s  Boîte-­‐en-­‐valise:  Between  Institutional  Acculturation  and  Geopolitical     Displacement.”  Grey  Room  8.8  (2002):  6-­‐37.  Web.  15  Apr.  2012. Farrell,  Betty,  and  Maria  Medvedeva.  Demographic  Transformation  and  the  Future  of  Museums.   Washington:  The  American  Association  of  Museums,  2010.  Print. Ek,  Fatma  İpek,  and  Deniz  Şengel.  “PIRANESI  BETWEEN  CLASSICAL  AND  SUBLIME  (  1  ).”  2007.     17-­‐34.  Web.  8  Jan.  2012. Filipovic,  Elena.  “A  Museum  That  is  Not.”  e-­glux  journal  #4.  March  (2009):  n.  pag.  Web.  8  Mar.     2012. Foucault,  Michel.  The  Use  of  Pleasure:  The  History  of  Sexuality,  Volume  Two.    Trans.  Robert     Hurley.  New  York:  Random  House.  USA,  1985.  Print. Foucault,  Michel.  “Different  Spaces.”  Michel  Foucault:  Aesthetics,  Method,  and  Epistemology.  Ed.     James  Faubion.  NY:  The  New  Press,  1998.  175-­‐186.  Print. Friedl,  Peter.  “The  Impossible  Museum.”  e-­glux  journal  #23.March  2011  (2011):  n.  pag.  Web.  10   Apr.  2012. Friedlander,  E.  “The  Measure  of  the  Contingent:  Walter  Benjamin’s  Dialectical  Image.”  Boundary  2     35.3  (2008):  1-­‐26.  Web.  23  Feb.  2012. Holmes,  Brian.    “Extradisciplinary  Investigations:  Towards  a  New  Critique  of  Institutions.”    Art     and  Contemporary  Critical  Practice:  Reinventing  Institutional  Critique.  Ed.  Raunig,  Gerald     and  Genes  Ray.  London:  MayFly  Books,  2009.  53-­‐61.  Web.  20  Jan.  2012. Hull,  Timothy.  “Pablo  Bronstein.”  MUSEO  magazine.  #14  (2010):  n.  pag.  Web.  10  Mar.  2012. Huyssen,  Andreas.    Present  Pasts:  Urban  Palimpsests  and  the  Politics  of  Memory.    California:     Stanford  University  Press,  2003.    Print. International  Council  of  Museums.  “Museum  De@inition.”  Statutes.  2007.  Web.  20  Jul.  2011.     51 Kraus,  Eva  and  Tilo  Schulz.    “Correalism.”  Displayer.  03  (2009):  7-­‐14.    Web.  15  April  2012 Lang,  Karen.  “The  Dialectics  of  Decay:  Rereading  the  Kantian  Subject.”  The  Art  Bulletin  79.3   (1997):  413-­‐439.  Print. Lord,  Beth.  “Foucault’s  museum:  difference,  representation,  and  genealogy.”  Museum  and     Society  4.  March  (2006):  11-­‐14.  Web.  4  Jan.  2012. Lyotard,  Jean-­‐Francois.    The  Postmodern  Condition:  A  Report  on  Knowledge.  Trans.  Bennington,     Geoff  and  Brian  Massumi.  Minneapolis:  University  of  Minnesota  Press,  1984.  Print. “Liminal.”  Oxford  English  Dictionary.  Oxford  English  Dictionary,  2012.  Web  12  Mar.  2012 Merritt,  Elizabeth.  “Museums  &  Society  2034:  Trends  and  Potential  Futures.”  American     Association  of  Museums.  December  (2008).  Web.  20  Jul.  2011. Mouffe,  Chantal.  “The  Museum  and  Radical  Democracy.”  Artforum  International  2010  :  326-­‐384.   Print. O’Connor,  Kim.  “Dialectic.”  The  Keyword  of  Media  Theory.  University  of  Chicago,  Theories  of     Media,  Keywords  Glossary.  2003.  Web.  1  Apr.  2012.   O’Doherty,  Brian.  Inside  the  White  Cube.  California:  University  of  California  Press,  1976-­‐1986.     Print. Pes,  Javier  and  Emily  Sharpe.  “Attendance  survey  2011:  Brazil’s  exhibition  boom  puts  Rio  on  top.”     The  Art  Newspaper,  23  March  2012.  Web.  05  Apr.  2012.   Pine  II,  Joseph,  and  Gilmore,  James.    The  Experience  Economy:  work  is  theatre  and  every  business  a     stage.  2011.    Harvard  Business  School  Publishing.    Massachusetts  USA. Ran,  Faye.    A  History  of  Installation  Art  and  the  Development  of  New  Art  Forms.  New  York:  Peter     Long  Publishing,  2009.  Print. 52 Raunig,  Gerald.    “Instituent  Practices:  Fleeing,  Instituting,  Transforming*.”    Art  and  Contemporary     Critical  Practice:  Reinventing  Institutional  Critique.  Ed.  Raunig,  Gerald     and  Genes  Ray.     London:  MayFly  Books,  2009.  3-­‐11.  Web.  11  Feb.  2012. Stead,  Naomi.    “The  Ruins  of  History:  allegories  of  destruction  in  Daniel  Libeskind’s  Jewish     Museum.”    Open  Museum  Journal.  Volume  2:  Unsavoury  histories,  August,  2009.  Web.  Oct.     19,  2011. Stewart,  Susan.    “Death  and  Life,  In  That  Order,  In  the  Works  of  Charles  Wilson  Peale.”  Visual     Display.  Ed.  Cooke,  Lynne  and  Peter  Wollen.  New  York:  First  New  Press,  1995.  Print. Szanto,  Andras.  “Will  US  museums  succeed  in  reinventing  themselves?”  The  Art  Newspaper.  Issue     209,  January,  2010.  Web.  15  Jan.  2012. Turner,  Victor.  The  Ritual  Process:  Structure  and  Anti-­‐structure.  Chicago:  Aldine  Publishing,  1959.     Print. ! WORKS CONSULTED Dillon,  Brian,  ed.  RUINS.  Cambridge  Massachusetts:  Whitechapel  Gallery  and  The  MIT  Press,   2011.  Print.  p.18 Raunig,  Gerald  and  Genes  Ray  (eds.)  Art  and  Contemporary  Critical  Practice:  Reinventing     Institutional  Critique.  MayFly  Books,  2009.  Print. 53