I have previously written “I don't like art, and neither do you” in which I argued that consuming art is to signal something to the outside world rather than an inner drive. I will argue the same for consuming museums. I will propose a couple of theories of why museums might have intrinsic values. After each argument, I will bring a counter argument (mostly arguing with the logic of science and natural museums). Lastly I will propose why museums really exist and why neither you nor I actually like them.
I googled and chat gpted around a bit asking for museum's own set goals:
Educate
Research
Insight into past
Educate: The argument is as follows: We want to educate our community about post-impressionist art. We will get the Cezannes, Van Goghs, and Matisses that we can get a hold of and curate some exhibitions. That will educate people about this niche 1/100 epoche.
To me, that is not education. I am not the slowest learner, but I have a really hard time learning anything in art museums and galleries. Nothing is in order, neither chronological nor by artists, descriptions are small, it’s a bit of paintings and a lot of colorful wall.
You know which museums are really good at education: natural history museums, technical and science museums. They subscribe to a theme like evolution and try their utmost to get the message across. Every tool in the tool kit is used to get Darwin's idea and further evidence across. Do they need Darwin’s original “origin of the species”? Will they need to have real Fossils to make the most engaging and educational exhibition? Of course not.
Art Museums are thus not educational institutions. If they took education seriously, a curator would sit down and think about which replicas would educate the visitor, not which random paintings would kind of fit to the theme. But because it is so important to get these random single pieces, the consequence is a scattered mishmash of artists, scattered in a non-logical sequence, called curation. No wonder I can't learn anything here.
Research. Museums have and exhibit art for experts to do research on them. There needs to be a constant effort in understanding the craft of art and its meaning.
I also call BS on that one. If that were true there would be centers for different artists and schools of art in which these pieces reside for experts to do constant research. While there is a bit of that, we are far from such a system in the big museums. Sure there is a bit of a otto Muehl collection at Friedrichshof for experts to come have a look at some point, but big museums exhibit completely different pieces every 2 months.
The best example of research is probably in the sciences. This is exactly where such a system is built. Take evolutionary biology f.e.. If you found an interesting case of possible diseases in neanderthals you'd probably take it to the experts at Center for Evolution and Medicine at Arizona State University. If you found some strange genetic predisposition in humans the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig will show some interest. If you made a great observation of animal behavior and cognition Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research in Altenberg will knock on your door, asking for data, evidence, and possibly animals. If research were at the center of museums, there would be expert niche museums researching niche art. That is not the case.
Insight into the past. How was art and life like in ancient Greece? Can Byzantine art and its icons give us an insight into the role religion played in the dark ages?
Well it could, but Museums don't do that. If that were the case two things would be at the center of museums:
Replicas
Again, we would see way more replicas. There was a time where this might have been the case. The British museum had the biggest collection of plaster cast statues of ancient Rome and Greece. They threw them in the trash can in the 20h century because they aren't real. I'd love to go through a mini minopolis of the 200 BC Rome and check out how it looked and what people did. But that doesn't exist.
Repatriation
Secondly, if we wanted to recreate the past wouldn't it not make more sense to repatriate all art? Wouldn't it be cool to walk through the Parthenon seeing the real “Elgin'' Marbles, rather than have them stand in the British Museums. That would give a more holistic picture of 5th century BC Athens than what the British Museum could ever curate.
The main theme here is clear: Museums are not here to educate, for research, or for an insight into the past. If they were for education we would see more replicas, if they were for research we would see museums as research centers, if they were for insight into the past we would see repatriation.
The real reason.
Just like with art itself, museums exhibiting art are institutions arbitrarily creating rarity, prestige, and signaling. There are three different units of analysis that fund museums: visitors, donors, and governments. All three are interested in prestige and signaling, not in education, research, or insight into the past.
Visitors: Visitors can either signal status by going to a gallery with someone else or by telling other people they went to a museum after the fact. It lets them define themselves in a certain light: If you go to the Albertina you will impress your high brow friends with your ticket to the post-impressionist exhibition. An Insta story grabbing Weed from a bucket at the latest Rudi Rodel show will yield major street cred. The point is that it is rare (no replicas, limited in time) and costly (your time and money). Only then can you boast about what museum you went to. Cheap talk turns into credible prestige.
Donors: If you have enough cash or some epic pieces of art you will fund museums in order to have your name on the wall. It is the most obvious form of signaling. For some it's even washing your name clean; the Sackler family comes to mind. I couldn't find exact figures on what % of museum donors give anonymously, but I think it might be close to about 1%, which it is for philanthropy generally. This system can only survive if real, rear, singular pieces of art (no replicas) are shipped from Museum A to Museum B to keep the rarity and prestige up. Each Museum has its own, "Friends of Museum X", "Donors of Museum Y", where once every full moon the Museum invites their special money giving people to a dinner with other special money giving people. I am guessing this is what you are paying for as a donor.
Governments: Lastly governments are interested in a thriving economy. They have an interest in investing into Museums, and playing the game of prestige, so they can go out and fetch tourists and keep expats, as well as get their own people to spend. I have seen government funded ads boasting with Albertina and MQ. It makes sense.
In conclusion, I don't like art museums, and neither do you. They are perfect ways to signal in-group loyalty to whichever group you want to belong to. Its great you spent time and money to see this rare, and timely restricted exhibition; In exchange you can signal values similar to your group. Don't expect to get educated, benefit from research, or get an insight into the past. That's not what it's here for.
Comments