From an article in The Art Newspaper announcing the opening of the Art Institute of Chicago's Modern Wing.
(Chicago also has a Museum of Contemporary Art, but its director, Madeleine Grynsztejn, considers the institutions’ roles complementary rather than competitive. “The MCA creates art history and the Art Institute summarises it,” she said.)
Wow, the certainty of Grynsztejn's statement truly frightens me. I've been to the MCA a number of times and find that institution to be woefully wanting. The work on exhibit is frequently obscure, difficult to understand and intellectually inaccessible.
1 comment:
The hubris of museums in general in believing that they not only describe with depth 'important work' but actually determine what is worthy is laughable. Every piece of artwork is made in context with the historical framework of the period of its creation and the societal framework of its display. Museums extend that historical frame into a nebulous history that dilutes any impact the work had initially, than places art in conjunction with other work that has no relation other then time-period or curatational whim. They laud minor pieces as masterworks to ensure they haven't overpaid for the work. If art can be truely measured, than the images that most people buy reproduced in the gift shops are the 'best' and everything else is not. Great art keeps being great long after everyone is dead. Bad art fills in the spaces between. br /Sorry for the rant, just went to the modern wing of the Art Institute. sigh.
Post a Comment