The progression of postmodernism in the latter half of the 20th century began to challenge the traditional assumptions of the art museum. It questioned the role of an institution that seemed more symbolic in scope than an integral component of modern culture. It was this thinking that encouraged the rise of alternative space. It is not just another place, but one whose existence serves as a forum for spontaneous discourse not marked by the weighted traditions of permanent structures dressed in the static past.
These permanent structures had their traditions born of ideas that the democratic state was a natural progression from the romantic ideals of former inspiring cultures such as Greece and the RomanEmpire. It was a desire to attach the awe of these ancient cultures to buildings that reflected a kind of intellectual superiority while housing plaster-of-Paris reproductions of the real thing. This lack of authenticity prompted artists to think that museums were representing the “symbolism of having theseobjects” (Institutional Critique 333). This is important because it encouraged the approach of alternative space as symbolic in its own right, as well as the consideration that what is contained within a museum changes if the walls of the museum become symbolic.
Fred Wilson, in Constructing the Spectacle of Culture in Museums (1992), suggested that by the simple act of placing art objects in variations of the “four-walls-and-a-roof” scheme of the museum―an ethnographic space, a white-walled gallery space and a turn-of-the-century saloon space―he was able to entirely change the perception of the work through this visual obfuscation (Institutional 332). Theworks became divested of their individuality and became works of historical and ethnographic significance. In some cases the works became entirely unrecognizable as he once told a curator: “No,Valerie, that work you’re staring at was in your gallery a month ago” (332). The intention was that Wilson considered the museum to be symbolic. Change the environment in which the object is placed and one can dynamically change the meaning of the object. Wilson himself pointed out: “…I use the museum as my palette. Curators, whether they think about it or not, really create how you are to viewand think about these objects…” (333).
Another artist who supported the spectacle of the museum was Mark Dion. In Untitled (1999), Dion’s work was about how:
… To better understand the museum, I have at various times had to become the museum, taking on duties of collecting, archiving, classifying, arranging, conserving, and displaying. Personifying the museum condenses its activities and articulates how the museum’s various departments function like vital organs in a living being.(Institutional 383)
Mark Dion was a curator just like Fred Wilson, but, unlike him, introduced individuality into his work. Not that Dion’s work is recognizable as a Mark Dion, but that through his collection and categorization of work, he has attributed an identity while Wilson would have removed it. Thus, the character of Dion’s work was less about how it was placed or displayed in a museum, but more about how the work participated collectively as a “living being” in the greater context of how it is viewed (and not necessarily viewed within a museum).
The Need for Alternative Space
The progression of postmodernism in the latter half of the 20th century began to challenge the traditional assumptions of the art museum. It questioned the role of an institution that seemed more symbolic in scope than an integral component of modern culture. It was this thinking that encouraged the rise of alternative space. It is not just another place, but one whose existence serves as a forum for spontaneous discourse not marked by the weighted traditions of permanent structures dressed in the static past.
These permanent structures had their traditions born of ideas that the democratic state was a natural progression from the romantic ideals of former inspiring cultures such as Greece and the RomanEmpire. It was a desire to attach the awe of these ancient cultures to buildings that reflected a kind of intellectual superiority while housing plaster-of-Paris reproductions of the real thing. This lack of authenticity prompted artists to think that museums were representing the “symbolism of having theseobjects” (Institutional Critique 333). This is important because it encouraged the approach of alternative space as symbolic in its own right, as well as the consideration that what is contained within a museum changes if the walls of the museum become symbolic.
Fred Wilson, in Constructing the Spectacle of Culture in Museums (1992), suggested that by the simple act of placing art objects in variations of the “four-walls-and-a-roof” scheme of the museum―an ethnographic space, a white-walled gallery space and a turn-of-the-century saloon space―he was able to entirely change the perception of the work through this visual obfuscation (Institutional 332). Theworks became divested of their individuality and became works of historical and ethnographic significance. In some cases the works became entirely unrecognizable as he once told a curator: “No,Valerie, that work you’re staring at was in your gallery a month ago” (332). The intention was that Wilson considered the museum to be symbolic. Change the environment in which the object is placed and one can dynamically change the meaning of the object. Wilson himself pointed out: “…I use the museum as my palette. Curators, whether they think about it or not, really create how you are to viewand think about these objects…” (333).
Another artist who supported the spectacle of the museum was Mark Dion. In Untitled (1999), Dion’s work was about how:
Mark Dion was a curator just like Fred Wilson, but, unlike him, introduced individuality into his work. Not that Dion’s work is recognizable as a Mark Dion, but that through his collection and categorization of work, he has attributed an identity while Wilson would have removed it. Thus, the character of Dion’s work was less about how it was placed or displayed in a museum, but more about how the work participated collectively as a “living being” in the greater context of how it is viewed (and not necessarily viewed within a museum).
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Categories
Tags