L'art en Guerre

Musee de Art Moderne

L’art en Guerre (Art at War) exhibition at the Musée d’art Moderne is a handful to say the least. The context of the show deals with several issues involving the way artists and surrealist were treated and how they survived during this period of destruction. The exhibit takes the visitor through the different stages of war. Starting with the pre war art and then finishing post war art. The exhibition discusses how the war affected and created artwork and its artists.

Almost every exhibit deals with the themes of visibility and invisibly, what is appropriate to show, and what will make a statement. In this specific exhibit it is hard to say what was hidden and what was visible. With over a hundred different artists it seems that each one had their own opportunity to express themselves equally, and whatever was meant to hidden during the war, now had its own space and was allowed to be visible. The space was designed by separating the artworks into different rooms. The amount of light in each room was dependent upon the subject. There were a few items behind glass such as documents, and photographs. But for the majority of work the visitor had a chance to get to know the artwork. It felt as though the curator really wanted the visitor to get personal with the art collection, and feel some form of emotional reaction.  

The exhibition tackles several historical contexts. Upon entering the exhibition the visitor is struck by the context of surrealism before the war. This was a time where artists were branching out of the acceptable subject matter of the impressionist, and post-impressionist and delving into more abstract topics. Above the visitor giant sandbags hang from the ceiling that gives a feeling of suffocation and security. The idea was to transport the modern day audience back in time. As you continue to move through the first room large photographs and paintings come at you. When the exhibition was originally shown in the 1930’s it was done in complete darkness and the visitor had to use a flashlight to see what the piece of artwork they were looking at. Another example of historical context within the space was the depiction of fascist sculptures, the iconic and ideal man. The rooms twist and move with the art pieces and as you arrive half way through the exhibition you are greeted by a small section of commissioned artwork that depicts propaganda sculpture and painting. It was an interesting break to put in the exhibition which at that point was starting to feel a like intense. The most striking part of the exhibition I found was an entire room dedicated to artwork constructed during the artist’s time in captivity. The walls were printed with the artists names and had the time and place of their captivity next to them. Sober music drifted into the room to create an eerie feeling as you walked along the wall looking at sketches of daily life whilst in captivity.  In the article Visual Archives as Preposterous History by Ernst Van Alphen he discussed the genre of artwork as an archival source. The artwork produced by these artists in captivity was extremely archival. Not at first glance, but after walking around the room it was clear to see that they were depicting their daily lives and what they saw and dealt with. The article also mentions Christian Boltanski’s artwork his subject matter often deals with the holocaust and he uses archival artwork to depict it. As tough as this subject matter is, the use of medium is actually quite fitting. It deals with the thought of regarding people, and children as a number. Thousands of clothes stacked upon one another, but who do they belong too? It gives the audience a feeling of emptiness that once a person wore this item of clothing, but no longer do we know them or what happened to them.

The whole exhibition is a memory when dealing with such an intense topic the artwork is history which brings with it memory. For this exhibition the work hails back to a time when the museum was created and founded. It is a compliment to the infrastructure because it reminds the audience of the memory of the building, and the historical context behind it. The museum serves as a civic function to the audience the exhibition. It reminds Paris of its history and gives it a proud place to be shown.

What’s beautiful about being an artist is the ability to speak through artwork. Sometimes when people speak words can come in and drift out again. However, a painting or a photograph is there and unless destructed will not back down or go away. The justice for this time period was given through the artwork. The anger and the pain is seen on the canvas but also is allowed to be expressed and released from the artist. A primary example of this is Jean Fautrier la Juivre. This was an artist who spent the days of war hidden in a mental asylum under the protection of the director. The asylum was outside of Paris but situated right next to killing ground where Nazi troops would bring people to be shot. The artist constantly heard and saw this happening outside of his window and he created a new form or medium. He would create pictures using plaster; it was a hard medium for a difficult topic. His pictures are extremely abstract, but after hearing about who he was the audience or at least I was able to understand his message a little better.  

Below: Jean Fautrier La Juivre. 

Pompidou

Pompidou 

The Centre Pompidou is a statement building. Either loved, or hated its purpose as a building is too allow people to demonstrate and perform their talents. Its purpose as a museum is to educate and enthuse the visitors that come through everyday.

One of the issues with the Pompidou, because it is such a large building is how to fill the space. “A fluid commutative exterior-cool and modern- and an interior uptight with old values” (Baudrillard, 4) This statement that Baudrillard makes, I personally feel to be quite bold. However, upon closer examination it is somewhat true. The architecture of the museum is interchangeable, its inviting, imposing, and speaks to the youth announcing that it is what it is, and you can love it or hate it. Upon entering the museum the vibe of modernity continues until you reach the gallery spaces. Suddenly this young, hip, relaxed feeling goes away and the formality that an old prestigious museum carries sinks in.

This raises the question of visibility versus invisibility. What the curator wants us to see and what information they want us to be privy too. No museum wants their audience to think that they are “hiding” information from them. However, they do want their audience to consider them the best. The points that were raised during our visit I had never thought about before. Firstly, out of the thousands of art pieces we saw there was only one small room dedicated to one specific artist. Secondly, the amount of information released on the tag next to the painting, or presented in the entranceway of the museum. Often this little piece of information will highlight an artist and praise their donation or omit information about the museum to make it seem more acceptable. Such is the case with the tag about the Pompidou. The Pompidou collection was originally housed in what is now called Palais de Tokyo. It was the original modern art museum of Paris. However, when the Pompidou was inaugurated in 1977 the collection moved across town to be under the same roof.

Baudrillard argues that the Pompidou is a mass space filled with artwork that goes unnoticed. “ If Beaubourg really had to contain something, it should be a labyrinth, a library of infinite permutations, a game or a lottery for the chance reparceling of destinies- in short, a Borgesian world” (Baudrillard, 6) Yet, doesn’t the contents of the museum make the visitor feel like their in a labyrinth. The artwork is constantly changing and offering new ideas. It changes the landscape of the space, and offers new hidden secrets. An example would be Jean Dubuffet, Le Jardin d’hiver it is a room decorated in the Jean Dubuffet style, which is psychedelic without the colors and leaves the feeling that you’ve just travelled to wonderland. This piece made me laugh, because it’s not overtly obvious that it exists. The visitor has to look to find it, but once you step inside I noticed that everyone inside of the space regressed in age a little. All of us were giggling and running around. It felt as though we were children in our own secret hiding space. The Pompidou could have made this space more pronounced, but I think they did the right thing in allowing to be hidden. It contributes to what the artist wanted as well. Another example is Joseph Beuys, Plight this instillation piece carries the same idea of the little hidden room. The visitor must walk through a small hallway and then into a large room that is covered with rolled up carpet, and a large piano. I didn’t like this piece of work. I struggled to see the meaning in the artwork and the reaction that as a viewer I was suppose to receive. Artwork like this can be created and recreated in different places.It works with the Pompidou because the work creates reactions like I have to the piece, which is exactly what the curators want. This piece is about understanding the concept, and not the technique of the work.

Baudrillards article is brash, and honestly quite harsh regarding the Pompidou. He is on the hate side, of the love hate relationship that so many have with this museum. “Frankly, the only contents of Beaubourg are the masses themselves, which the building treats like a converter, a black box, or in terms of input/output, just like a refinery handling petroleum products or a flow of raw material.” (Baudrillard, 7) Agreed, does the Pompidou have a mass amount of people that come through it everyday, yes. Yet, does it differ from the Louvre or the Musée d’Orsay? He claims to say that the culture that swoops through the Beauborg is a “mass affect is that of touching, or manipulating” I think that Baudrillard forgets an important factor in his article that even though the museum brings in thousands of minds to be manipulated. The content of the museum that he strongly disagrees with does educate minds. The content of the museum does make a difference, and that is why it was created in the first place. 

FIAC

FIAC is a contemporary art show that dominates Paris every fall for one weekend. Hundreds of galleries are invited to show their work and present the artists that they find influential, with the hopes of making a sale and creating some buzz. FIAC this year was held in the Grand Palais and the large space was divided up into hundreds of small white cubes in which each gallery could claim and creates its own space. Within each of these spaces the artwork must be presented, but also there are tables, chairs, lighting, and special arrangement that must be taken into consideration. The challenge of creating these mini exhibitions is making an environment that is engaging, but also practical. “In addition to identifying the critical components of displays, it is also important to establish how these components complement and reinforce each other in a system of representation” (23, Moser) 

My initial reaction to the space is that it can be extremely overwhelming. Tackling the entire thing in a couple of hours is a challenge and you start to feel like you’re looking at the same space over and over again. Fortunately throughout the space there are small places to rest and eat, so a visitor is able to stop and take in the somewhat chaotic atmosphere. Unlike museums this space what not chronologically ordered, there was no sense of time, since the art work was created at different stages. There was not even a sense of category because most of the galleries were from different countries, but they were not placed together. The only common theme was that if the gallery was prominent and had a rather large collection they were given bigger spaces towards the front, and if they were smaller and had only one or two pieces they were mixed in among the masses.

The concept of the white cube is often what baffles me most about art conventions. The white cube is a generic space that has white floors and ceilings there is little character to it, yet it is the main formula for an art gallery. As I wondered around I kept thinking of how a gallery could make themselves stand out, change the cube, give it color, give it sounds. However, would that take away from the artwork? “The minimalist art-gallery approach sees objects presented as esthetic icons and powerful symbols of cultural identity.” (27, Moser) This idea goes with the self-importance that contemporary art carries. That one piece of art can change a mindset. 

The most interesting part of these exhibitions is to see what is actually selling and what artists and curators are inspired by. It’s strange to say, but through these galleries, an audience can get a decent understanding of how society is viewing the world. Yes, a lot of art is made for pleasure or to aesthetically enhance a room. However, there are artists that create for reaction, and have a purpose in what they want to say. The challenge is getting their message out there in a way that an audience can receive it and an exhibition space can deliver correctly. 

Work Cited

Moser, Stephanie. "The Devil Is in the Detail: Museum Displays and the Creation of Knowledge." Museum Anthrogology.

Museé Jacquemart-André

Museé Jacquemart-André

 

The Museé Jacquemart-André is located in the 8^eme of Paris. It is an expensive zip code with and impressive collection. The collection was founded by Edouard André and Néile Jacquemart in the late 19^th century. The couple dedicated there later lives to constructing the collection, and estate. The house was constructed in 1881 and is a perfect example of what wealth and power could produce during that time. The museum creates a heritage for the couple, and they live on through their collection. 

Upon entering the mansion you are greeted by a grand entrance way. Each room is decorated in its own color and period style according to its function. The ceilings are decorated with frescos and the collection includes artists such as Rembrant, Vigee- Lebrun, Francois Boucher, Botticelli, and many more. What is interesting about the time that this house was created was that it was just after the revolution. France was going into a new era, and the cities landscape was changing dramatically. Many of the objects that are located within the mansion are taken from other grander town homes such as the fire places and the tapestries. It is recycled furniture that is put to new use. 

The way that the house is displayed is by preservation, the artwork and the rooms have changed ver little since Néile Jacquemart died. Thus this creates another world for the audience; they feel as though they are walking through time. As went with the time each room had a specific purpose, the grand rooms for dancing, the smoking chamber for the men, even the secret passages that line the house were constructed so that Néile could visit her husband when he was ill. What is nice about this museum is that it teaches you about society in the 19^th century, as well as letting you view some spectacular paintings. The indoor winter garden was all the rage during the time and allowed guests to feel like they were outside, when they were inside. “Heritage, as a mode of understanding the past, is inseparable from the displays that it represents it. Put somewhat differently, a heritage display or representation is intentionally, a cultural explicating device.” (204, Hoelscher) 

The intention of the collection was actually made to decorate the mansion. Each painting and sculpture is placed for a specific purpose and is categorized by country. Downstairs you will find French and Flemish painters. While ascending upstairs you walk into a renaissance Italy with ceilings and entrance ways taken from Italian auctions. The art work is early 16^th century, with an incredible selection of the Madonna and Child. The bedrooms are downstairs and to the side of the mansion, the audience can tell the main purpose of the space was entertainment. 

As a money making museum they know their market. It is a small museum in many ways, but also because the collection is not overwhelming it’s the perfect place to spend the afternoon. The museum hosts a restaurant and an extensive gift shop. Since this museum is not as popular as the Louvre or the Pompidou it must make small profits where it can. The Louvre and the Pompidou are called Superstar museums and “have become household names for millions of people. They are able to exploit the economies of scale in reaching out to a large number of people.” (410, Frey and Meier) 

Not being extremely popular is a blessing and a curse. On the one hand you have a select clientele that come for a specific purpose and are willing to spend the extra euro. On the other hand the Louvre is guaranteed to attract a certain number of visitors per day and therefore does not have to worry as much about the profit the museum makes. “Museums have a high fixed cost and low variable cost; the marginal cost of an additional visitor is close to zero; the cost of museums have a dynamic component with is disadvantageous for the enterprise; and opportunity costs constitute a substantial part of the costs of a museum” (399, Frey and Meier) Essentially ever euro counts. In addition to the gift shop and restaurant the Jacquemart-André can also charge for special exhibitions, like the Canaletto exhibition on view now. It seems bizarre and almost like your being extorted for something which is part of Paris’ culture. Yet without charging and creating some form of revenue this museum could never reach it potential. 

This museum is a view into another world. It is seeing how the other half lived, and what they were interested in collecting. Since neither Néile nor Edouard had any children this collection is what they have left a symbol of wealth and beauty. Making this museum another one of the many little gems that Paris has to offer. 

Works Cited

Frey, Bruno S., and Stephan Meier. "Cultural Economics." A Companion to Museum Studies. By Sharon Macdonald. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. 398-413. Print.

Hoelscher, Steven. "Heritage." A Companion to Museum Studies. By Sharon Macdonald. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. 198-217. Print.

Natural History Museums

Natural History Museum

The history museums of Galeries de Palentologie et d’Anatomie and Grande Galerie de l’Evolution are about the evolution of life. How animals have evolved and changed over time. Starting with the Palentogie and anatomy museum, it is reminiscent of the Fragonard. Upon walking in it is set up so that you are consumed by the mass amounts of animal skeletons that appear to be charging at you. Along the sides there are cabinets filled with multiples of the same skeletons. It is a warehouse for the grand collection that the museum has acquired. The challenge of a museum like this is that with such inanimate objects how does the museum bring them to life, and reinvent the living. Engaging you audience, and knowing who your audience is. The anatomy museum did this by looking through the eyes of a child. They animated there skeletons by having them climb up trees, or stampede in the one direction. There was also a hint of technology involved with videos of how the animals acted in real life. The museum managed to separate the different genres by floor so you had animals on the first, dinosaurs on the second, and fossils on the third, a deeper look into evolution from the third floor down. In chapter 16 of Comp MS Tony Bennett discusses the organization of a museum space as it pertains to the visitor. “It could only be made visible by displaying –side by side- forms of life, or artifacts, that both resembled each other and yet were also different, and to do so in a manner that suggested that those differences had resulted from the passage of time.” Pg 270. 

The Grande Galerie de l’Evoltion although dealing with a similar topic of evolution but displayed in a completely different manner. All of the animals are taxidermy so that they feel like there is life in each animal. The space is grand almost like it could be used for other purposes, and not just a museum. There are interactive lights, technology, and the museum tackles not only evolution, but pollution, extinction, and contemporary topics. Ex what are animal furs used for nowadays? Most of the displays are open in the air and are not sealed off in cabinets. The display strategies used are meant so that children and adults can engage with the objects, by learning, reading, and getting up close. 

Science is present in both museums; however it is not made to be obvious. You are looking at evolution and scientific topics, but to get into the science of the displays you have to look closely at the objects and understand the history. An example would be in the Grand Galerie on the third floor there are three miniature scenes that show the evolution of the city of Paris, and how it went from being green lush woodland to a bustling city over the past couple of centuries. It then goes into the science of how human kind has developed to create what we need, instead of keeping what we should. 

For science museums it is important that they have these public exhibition spaces. Unlike art which in part is put to just look and admire. Science is there to teach, and by having these giant spaces they are able to engage audiences, and help them understand such theories of evolution by showing them. Tony Bennett explains this with the first examples of the evolutionary museum.  “ This was, then, a developmental order which enjoined the ‘evolutionary showmen,’ who aimed to translate the principals of Darwinism into museum displays, to do so in ways that would make the lessons of evolution, and the political conclusions to be drawn from those lessons, readily perceptible.” Pg 269.  

When walking into either of these museums, you feel as if time has come to a stand-still. There is something sad about the objects stagnant in their positions, knowing that they had once been alive and free. By putting objects in chronological order that is the most obvious way of displaying time, another which is what the Grande Gallerie did is putting them into sections. For example the gallery of extinction, the visitor then understands they are walking into different parts of time. Each has constructed its own world, and its own vision. The Anatomy museum presented the feeling of an old world that once existed and you were part of a piece of history, the building was much like a warehouse with iron bars on the ceiling and old wooden floors. However, the Grande Gallerie gave a modern flair to an old subject, by making the building huge with glass elevators and marble floors. That created a feeling of time travel that enraptured the visitor. 

I find it is important to have science museums to help teach society about such topics. They are a major aid in our understanding of where we have come from. Plus there are just good fun.