Space’ 7 Gs epee of the possi- ality of the immediate interaction between: contained inside’ the museum (galleries, shops, hallways, and so on), so that the milti- ple reasons why people visit the museum can be condensed in a unified structure, and the expe- rience of art becames inmediate; furthenmre, this idea of ‘hetero- topia’ also contemplates The transformation of the infrastructure of high-art into dl consumerist spectacle began to take shape further into the nineties. The museum was reassessing its program, shaqing itself into a more specific content. According to Krauss, Tom Krons, the director of the Guggenheim museums, Had arrived at the conclusion that the “encyclopedic nature of the museum was ‘over.’ What museums must do nov}, he said he realized, was to select a very few artists from the vast array of modernist aesthetic production ond to follect and show these few in depth over the full amount of space it might take to really experience the cumulative impact of a given oeuvre.” Two recent events can be par- alleled os examples: The exploration of a further expansion of the Museum of Modern Art in New York and the building of the Gehry;Guggenheim in Bilbao (1991-7). In 1995 the Museum of Modern Art, New York, began the research info an further expansion. In 1997 the chief durator of the Department of Architecture and Design at the MoMA was approached by four of the editors of Hollier and Hal Foster). The Gehry-Guggenheim, built ject and Frank Gehry behind the architectural design MoMA and the Guggenheim represent different issues ‘Heterotopic space’ came up as one one of the main ‘Museum of Modern Art. This idea of ‘heterotopic spacp’ focuses on the exploration of the poss diate interaction between spaces contained inside the multiple reasons why people visit the museum can be ‘becomes immediate; furthermore, thi 20 of “heters mings in the museum. The Guggenheim, on the other that was to have a space that would be able to hold ber magazine (Silvia Kolbowski, Rosalind Krauss, Denis n 1991 and 1997, with Krens at the head of the pro- 1 bound to come up in this conversation. Nonetheless, the jithin their own context. rms in the charting of the new expansion of New York's lity ofthe imme- wwseum (galleries, shops, hallways, and so on), so that the indensed in a unified structure, and the experience of art ia’ also contemplates the possibilty of future reprogram. 1d, cimed at a more ombitious and less userriendly gool: scale of a specific modern work and the increasing scale of future: ‘of contemporary works and exhibitions. But the two gases differ both in concept and in background. As Riley states, the project of the MoMA is founded on a “seyenty-year insfitution”, let alone the fact that it is only one of the TMLUSGUIM. mony in New York. On the other hand, the Gehry-Guggenheim is ex novo, meaning that no history is behind it, ‘and it "becomes the base upon which the institution grows” thereafter, in that sense it can be structured according its base. Not only has the museum token the place of has become the ‘background’ to this emblematic post in two by Gehry's creation. If before it was on indus situations, now it holds one of Spain's biggest tourist at ‘country’s main economic and cultural centres. Non ‘MoMA: both of them have exposed their intention to c of its nature, Of course this endeavor can only be vial ‘ted inside the museum? Furthermore, how, then, will ‘grammatic structures? ln. 1998 Forbes published an article by Sylvia Sansoni rot art? With Tom Krens showing the way, the museum Not only is the writer playi Guggenheim hos been so criticized, ‘example the Boston Museum of tions and has succeeded in placing itself as one of the less, one thing is shared by the Guggenheim and the Jate a space able to hold any future work of art, regardless ble in terms of scale, for what “other solution can be medi- the institution come to terms with its concerns about pro- that wos headlined: “If you can franchise hamburgers, why ror is learning the advantages of globalizing the brand.” ‘around with the controversial trope of the museum-as-corporation, for which the but she is also plag ‘Arts: "Krens’ appréach is catching on. Nex! year the Boston Museum of Fine ing the rest of the museum world as followers, taking os an ‘Acts will open a sister museum in Nagoya, Japan.” Alter reading such a headline, we might be tempted to think that the solution is to be found outside of the institution, but in reading these articles we have to bear in mind the nature of a magazine like Forbes and who it is ‘targeted’ to. Even if we feel compelled to look outside the institu- tion, there are two facts that have to be taken into acc “alternative” nature they claimed at the beginning; and) more open criticism from within. int. First, not all the alternative exhit have kept that second, the museum has, since the eighties, allowed for a ‘One example of the former is ‘Documenta’, which, haying begun as an alternative, even local, exhibit, has now become the single largest event in Germany, and it cla to five years, the curator for the future Documenta (Doc by the state in order to build the show for 2002. ims to be the largest in the world. Taking place every four mmenta X\), Okwui Enwezor, was granted unlimited budget ‘On the other hand, an example of the way museums hpve allowed to be criticized from within, is the show done at the Longwood Arts Project in the Bronx by Fred Wil Between Cultural Content and the Context of At, “took the white cube; one [was] redesigned to look like o sm [was] made to look like « turn-ofthe-century salon spac cube, half had work in the ethnographic space and hal space they were inhabiting. Therefore, for example, the if they were archeological findings. The labels wouldn| given by Wilson, they were labeled: “Found, Willim pn. Fred Wilson’s show Rooms With a View: The Struggle three rooms; one room looked like a contemporary gallery, I ethnographic museum, not very well oppointed; the third .” Thirty artists participated, all having works in the white IFin the salon. The works were exhibited according to the ‘ones exhibited in the ethnographic space were labeled os have the name of the artist, so fo take the same example burg section, Brooklyn, late 20th Century.” This work is appealing because it throws light on the control by bohh curators and museum programs of the way in which the objects are viewed or perceived by the public.