Who would we be without museums? This question echoes in Sokurov’s Francofonia, where he explores the essence and timeless nature of art through the lens of the Louvre during its occupation by the Nazis. He suggests that museums often exist in isolation, seemingly oblivious to the world around them. They sometimes shield the wrongdoings of governments and people. This indifference to the museum’s surroundings is reinforced by the idea that it is a grand and powerful space, a gathering point of civilization, and thus, rarely questioned. Even in the darkest perspective, a museum is a splendid fiction where we view cultures and histories, both our own and those claimed by others, as if on a stage. What we encounter in a museum seems inaccessible, as it cannot be separated from the narratives it presents.
The establishment of a museum, in a way, symbolizes the impotence of art. Like religion, which is often confined to weekend rituals, it marks the separation of art from the social fabric. The museum, simultaneously a sanctuary for an elitist religion and a democratic educational tool, grapples with an inherent identity crisis. In response to this dilemma, modern museums emerged as stages for the politically-driven cultural norms of the 19th century, wearing imaginary uniforms to serve a singular purpose — to accumulate the world’s treasures for themselves. The museum’s apparent openness to the public is, in fact, constrained. Visitors can only engage with the museum within the rigid boundaries the museum sets. This practice revolves around the objects, not the visitors themselves. What these objects are and why they are in the museum directly relates to our understanding of art, and it’s the museum’s role to provide those answers.
The modernist movement challenged all assumptions about what constitutes art deliberately. Rejecting the embrace of the bourgeoisie, both within museums and art galleries, was a driving force behind modernism. This attitude continues to influence the pluralism of contemporary art. Modern museums take a decisive stance towards works of art, promoting an expressive approach to art and adjusting its relationship with society. These museums aim to display art primarily by well-known, academically approved artists, aligning their purpose with the current political climate to construct a linear, metaphorical history of art’s development from the past to the present. The museum I describe here is didactic, organized around chronological narratives of art history, and it showcases its magnificent collection. The fact that works of art are housed in a museum, detached from their origins and context, often draws criticism, both in their time and subsequent periods. Some argue that these works, and by extension art itself, should not be subject to the authority of disciplined and, in a sense, “divine” spaces like museums.
The collections amassed by Western modern museums in their exhibition halls serve to establish an inseparable link between the museum and memory. In a modern museum, memory is not tucked away in a distant recess but is an integral part of the present. The museum becomes the embodiment of memory. The meticulous categorization within modern museums is characterized by an aesthetic hierarchy, closely linked to the museum’s physical space. This classification of aesthetics involves the division of memory into distinct sections. Expertise developed in these sections shapes how the museum is experienced, following criteria set by the museum itself. In a way, the museum functions as a stage where new forms are created for object groups and human societies. It is the museum that writes, plays, and directs the play on its stage, leaving the audience merely to observe.
Even when we consider a museum as a sort of mausoleum for artifacts, it cannot stand alone. Even cemeteries, where the departed rest, receive visitors in various ways. A museum, as a pre-established space, can transcend the conventional construction of meaning typically associated with it. The museum’s structure is not just a circumstance, and the presence of visitors is not mere happenstance. The museum serves as an environment that is visited by its audience in diverse ways and continuously experienced in various forms and levels. In a sense, we can view the museum as an open work, a concept Eco discussed when addressing the inherent incompleteness of artworks in his book Opera Aperta.
When we regard the museum as an open work, we acknowledge that it offers performances of meaning, with none being superior or inferior to the others. This perspective fosters the creation of multi-layered museum experiences through different perceptions. Despite its pre-existing and well-structured nature, the museum also possesses voids. Viewing the museum as an open work allows us to forge connections between different experiences and complement the museum. Naturally, this process does not conform to the logic of an open work or the nature of the museum.
As individuals engage more deeply with the museum, they become active participants in shaping their own identities. They meld their existing knowledge and experiences with the museum, drawing subjective conclusions, forming constructive or destructive judgments, organizing thoughts, reconsidering, and continually generating new ideas. The items one brings to the museum enable them to perceive it as an open system. In addition to what the museum offers, a visitor’s willingness to actively engage with the museum emerges. The museum’s audience defines it as a cognitive environment that extends beyond its physical boundaries. Visitors perceive the museum’s space both in parts and as a whole. Thus, becoming a kind of creator of life enriched with new experiences is a role often assumed by museumgoers.
Nevertheless, the task of complementing an open work or a museum varies based on an individual’s interests and desires. The experiences a person gains by following the museum’s narrative and merging it with their own cognitive, emotional, and physical state are unique to that person. At this juncture, it is not unusual to view the museum as a personal development laboratory or a cognitive transformation workshop. Since the museum is open to new discoveries and rediscoveries, it will forever remain incomplete for the visitor. Visitors construct meanings and interpretations that may align perfectly with the museum’s intentions or diverge sharply from them. Just as the audience is not obligated to conform perfectly to the museum’s aims, the museum’s provocation does not always elicit positive responses. Within the perspective of the open work, the audience typically transparently accepts both the museum’s positive and negative facets. However, the thing that captures an individual’s interest may transcend all these aspects.
In assessing the role and nature of museums in terms of how they involve people and convey meaning, it’s important to consider that they can’t be judged solely by their openness. To put it in simpler terms, how a museum interacts with individuals and society depends on certain conditions, where both sides bring their unique qualities, and mutual transparency is a key foundation.
The ideal museum should focus on research and experiences that enhance visitors’ engagement, create events that build on this research, and provide relevant content. However, we need to realize that a museum is a social construct that often veers away from reality. Museums often aim to leave a positive impact on their visitors and promise unique experiences, but this can sometimes create unrealistic expectations.
Whether a museum has acquired its collections through cultural appropriation or is built on notions of national or racial superiority, it tends to cover up its shortcomings and present an idealized image. It may seem like a fairy-tale land of achievements for everyone. Ironically, museums also expect genuine, direct, and open participation from their visitors. This is where the idea of mutual transparency comes into play, as museums should be responsible for setting the example.
For a museum to truly encourage transparent interactions, it should be upfront about its strengths, weaknesses, and its role in society. In many cases, simply attracting new visitors and offering the museum experience is not enough. Museums often have extensive networks for information and communication within organizational and political structures, but they may struggle when their core functions and curatorial authority are questioned.
In a way, the survival of museums depends on acknowledging negative experiences, working in collaboration with the community, and engaging in self-reflection and self-critique. This way, museums can evolve and remain relevant in an ever-changing society.
Eco, U. (1989). The open work. Harvard University Press.
Lundgaard, I. B. & Jensen, J. T. (eds), (2014). Museums: knowledge, democracy, transformation. Danish Agency for Culture.
lead image: Underwood & Underwood, Publisher. Venus of Capua, museum, Naples, Italy. Italy Naples, None. [New york ; london ; toronto-canada ; ottawa-kansas: underwood & underwood, publishers, between 1880 and 1920] Photograph. https://www.loc.gov/item/2020632526/.
