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.
