illustrations by Sean Sherwin

pol ola 4 G2 wa Pool ene

the display of

=

\\
e |
Eeoetle.

splay
_ente

the di

by Juan A. Gaitan-Mejia

scratching the walls of the

Upon the numerous debates that have been raised
since the 1960s circling the subject of the ‘monopoly
of high-culture’, and more specifically those touching
fon the programmatic structure of the Modern muse-
um, it has been @ primary concern of the contempo-
rary museum to redirect the insftution towards being
alless restrictive, less exclusive organism. In an arti
cle published in October #54, tentatively named “The.
Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum”,
Rosolind Krauss elucidates the direction in which
museum mapping has been recharted since the late
eighties. Her argument pivots on the liability of the
discourse of Minimalism, and taking account of the
way its methods and materials brought together two
separote realms, she acknowledges the different
ways in which the movement could be self-destructive.
Krauss. “how is it that an art that insisted so.
hard on specificity could have already programmed
within it the logic of its violation?” Even though
Krauss doesn't go this far, itis almost irresistible to
think that POP Artis directly implicated in this discus
sion. Thus, it could be argued, if on one side of the
threshold between modern ond postmodern lies
Minimalism, on the opposite side lies POP Art, for if
the former brought the cultural and the social realms
to terms, the latter, in fact, married them.

‘More recently, Walter Grasskamp, in his introduction
to Projects in Munster, adopts a position that seems to
‘come in conflict with Krauss’ when he writes: “[in] the
selections the museum of ort made, [since the 19th
century], it now shaped a hierarchy of pictures that
was to be fateful .... until
Grasskamp argues that since the museum hod
become a “bunker and a parade-ground for works of
‘art which, left outside of its walls, would have been
in danger” -thus.a sacred space for a
led in public spaces was seen as trivio.”

eyes, it was Pop Art that was the movement to chak

jenge the boundary belween low culture) and, Tuhermore, crmanile the sacred design of fhe insiulion, Bul
if read closely, it becomes more clear that Krauss is contemplating the outcomes of Minimalism and Grasskamp is hold-
ing up one way in which Pop Art succeeded. Further complicating this issue is what Krauss seems to feor from the
nial result of this conflict. If art were to marry high and low culture, it would, at the same time, cross over to the
splay of the spectacle ofthe late capitalist consumer culture. Questioning the boundaries set by the insltution implies,
ringing together lwo separate worlds, itimplies a reassessment of the distribution of power.

in Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship, Carol Duncan explains the museum is not the “neutral and transparent
Sheltering space that itis ofen cloimed to be.” In « political and social context, the museum is “accessible to every:
ne” and in this way “[museums] can function as especially clear demonstrations of the slale’s commitment to the prin-
ple of equality. The public museum also makes visible the public it claims to serve . . . the
political passivity of citizenship is idealized as active art cppreciation and spiritual enrichment. Thus the art museum.
ves citizenship and civic virtue a content without having to redistribute real power.” According to Duncan, and since
1e museum's collection first started from the princely galleries, the museum “converts what were once displays of mate-
jal wealth and social status into displays of spiritual wealth.” Nonetheless, that 'spiritual wealth’ is challenged by the
fay in which the objects inside the museum are referred. |

‘rauss cites an essay published in Art in America, July 1990, titled “Selling the Collection”, “which,” she explains,
describes the massive change in atvde now. in place according to which the objects in a museum's keeping con now
cooly referted to, by its director as well as its trustees, ds ‘assets.’”

BH tectto OUD

This suggests thot the then recent deaccesioning of some

“Ct HF works, including a Kandinsky, was already transforming the
a] aoe Ba eas A gts ae of the collection. Further into her article she writes:
tHOOr cea O¢b'p ‘non invested surplus capital is exactly one way of describ-
oct Sect sO ing the holdings = both in land and in art - of museums. It is
of Do CHM FM¢ 1e way, as we have seen, that many museum figures (direc-
me On ORO. et d ) toe) dese ROI cl
Fs and trustees) are now, in fact, describing their collec-
q + peta 2 OsP, Reasie boii cay ey aeetien cleerean ae
= ig Ks
ch ao e art morket and not the mass market; and the model of
io} wv BO
Pe RIOT @M@MON copitalzation hey have in mind isthe ‘dealership’ and not
O at BS pe Mts industry.” Therefore it con be argued that the collection,
K mg nO o Avhich; os, Carol: Duncen has seid) hadi passed on‘to com
uO Bien DAC OAM forma sort of spirival weoth’, is now, a according othe
FQ BO GEES — anoroma explained by Krouss, reevalucted os osset by
nn QED 0 hg OF. the institution and the museum that no longer belongs to the
tn udeQon ct i
ho oa aos ey G4 + biaie, candi ls run’in a way similar to thot of ai profitable
BO OB eg ct DA enterprise. Then, whal the public is facing when looking at
cUPDHOOB aeok 0 5 collection, is a still image, an instant in the art market
1itiQBkQRoaooor me

——e-— —