1 Introduction 1

2 2
3 From Museum Critique to the 3
4 4
5 Critical Museum 5
6 6
7 Katarzyna Murawska-Muthesius and Piotr Piotrowski 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 Since the late nineteenth century, art museums have been targeted as objects of a 12
13 stringent critique, voiced both by avant-garde artists, as well as by intellectuals 13
14 and representatives of the New Museology. Unmasked as instruments of power- 14

py
15 knowledge, they have been condemned as tools of imperialism and colonialism, 15
16 as strongholds of patriarchalism, masculinism, xenophobia and homophobia, 16
17 and accused of both elitism and commercialism. But, could the museum, and 17
18 especially the art museum, absorb and benefit from its critique, turning into a 18
19 critical museum, into the site of resistance rather than ritual? This book stems 19
Co
20 from the editors’ experience of turning the National Museum in Warsaw, the major 20
21 museum institution in Poland, into a critical museum. It aims to provoke discussion 21
22 on the ways in which the museum could use its collections, its cultural authority, 22
23 its auratic space and resources to give voice to the underprivileged, and to take a 23
24 stance in the controversies about the issues most fundamental to the contemporary 24
25 world. Drawing together both major museum professionals and academics, the 25
f

26 volume aims to examine the theoretical concept of the critical museum, using 26
27 case studies of engaged art institutions from different parts of the world. It reaches 27
oo

28 beyond the usual focus on Western Europe, America and ‘the World’, and includes 28
29 voices from, as well as about, Eastern European museums, which have rarely been 29
30 discussed in museum studies books. 30
31 The book focuses on the art museum but, surely, the concept of criticality is 31
32 not the unique property of museums that collect art. On the contrary, it is mostly 32
Pr

33 ethnographic and historical museums that have become the most fertile venues 33
34 for enacting and visualizing the critique of their imperialist, racist and patriarchal 34
35 credentials. But, as we want to claim, the art museum, constituting a particular 35
36 type of museum institution, has not just a huge and a proven potential, but also a 36
37 social mission, to join the wider ranks of critical cultural establishments. 37
38 In most general terms, the concept of the critical museum stems from the 38
39 achievement of critical museum studies and its application to museum practices. 39
40 We believe that the critical mission of museums can be considered from three 40
41 aspects: their activity in the public space, their self-critique, and in changes of 41
42 artistic geography. First of all, the museum’s mission must take into account the 42
43 changes going on in the present world, such as democratization, the cosmopolitan 43
44 politicization of culture, European integration and its limitations, the interaction 44

9781472422354.indb 1 4/17/2015 10:04:37 AM

 2 From Museum Critique to the Critical Museum

1 of local and global factors, and the problems of social minorities, migrations and 1
2 social inequalities. The critical museum should have an active role, encouraging 2
3 the public to understand the complexity of the present world and to acknowledge 3
4 the significance of memory and the past for the development of civil society 4
5 which is transnational (cosmopolitan) and diverse. Second, a new identity for the 5
6 museum should be forged by the critique of the art museum’s tradition and of the 6
7 practices of the key encyclopaedic museums. Finally, what should be recognized 7
8 by this new museum is a non-traditional artistic geography, favouring the margins 8
9 instead of centres of western artistic culture, and challenging the hegemony of 9
10 the West, which has been legitimized both by tradition and by the contemporary 10
11 global tourist industry. This is not a new theory of museum practice but a chance 11
12 to put these ideas into practice in a traditional museum of art. 12
13 Let us briefly outline the theoretical background underlying our project, which 13
14 of course stems both from critical museum studies and from the significant body 14

py
15 of artistic practice known as institutional critique. The title of this book bears an 15
16 obvious resemblance to the title of an essay by the doyenne of the institutional 16
17 critique Andrea Fraser, ‘From the Critique of Institutions to an Institution of 17
18 Critique’, published in 2005,1 and indeed many of the concerns about the museum 18
as a tool of power-knowledge raised by Daniel Buren, Marcel Broodthaers, Hans 19
Co
19
20 Hacke and others have informed our project. But even if associated mostly with 20
21 the second half of the twentieth century, museum critique has been accompanying 21
22 the public museum literarily from its inception in post-revolutionary France.2 22
23 Unsurprisingly, the first charges against the public museum were articulated 23
24 in parallel to the establishment of the Musée Napoleon, by a staunch royalist, 24
25 Quatrèmere de Quincy, in a number of pamphlets, books and letters produced 25
f

26 throughout his life. Campaigning against the looting of works of art from Italy 26
oo

27 and bringing them over to the Louvre, he challenged the very concept of the 27
28 museum, which detaches art from its historical location and its original functions, 28
29 ‘killing art in order to make history’. The major points of Quatrèmere’s critique 29
30 of the artificiality of museums, of their principle of separation of art from life, 30
31 which ultimately institutionalizes the autonomy of art, were taken in a variety of 31
Pr

32 directions by many other authors of very different persuasions, including fin-de- 32

33 siècle aesthetes Paul Valéry, Walter Benjamin and the avant-garde.3 33
34 34
35 35
36 1 Andrea Fraser, ‘From the Critique of Institutions to an Institution of Critique’, 36
37 Artforum 44 (2005): 278–283. 37
38 2 ‘The historical development of the museum has always been accompanied by 38
criticism of the museum’. Hans Belting, ‘Place of Reflection or Place of Sensation?’, in
39 39
The Discursive Museum, ed. Peter Noever (Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz, 2001), 74.
40 40
3 For Quatrèmere and his impact, see Daniel J. Sherman, ‘Quatrèmere/Benjamin/
41 Marx: Art Museums, Aura, and Commodity Fetishism’, in Museum Culture: Histories, 41
42 Discourses, Spectacles, ed. Daniel J. Sherman and Irit Rogoff (London: Routledge, 1994), 42
43 123–143. See also Didier Maleuvre, Museum Memories: History, Technology, Art (Stanford: 43
44 Stanford University Press, 1999), 13–30, and, recently, Dominique Poulot, Charles Miller 44

9781472422354.indb 2 4/17/2015 10:04:37 AM

 Introduction 3

1 And indeed, as Janet Marstine has argued, in the twentieth century museum 1
2 critique has been initiated by artists.4 Suffice to remember an appeal to Pablo 2
3 Picasso to remove his Guernica from the MoMA in response to the atrocities 3
4 committed by the US troops in Vietnam, or the activities of the Art Workers 4
5 Coalition, founded in 1968/69, including an Art Strike in 1970, aimed at New 5
6 York’s museums, again at MoMA in particular. The institution of the museum has 6
7 also been attacked by the emerging feminist movement. The Ad Hoc Committee, 7
8 set up in 1970 by Women Artists in Revolution, accused the Whitney Museum of 8
9 American Art of ignoring women artists. On 12 December 1971 a debate about 9
10 women and museums was held in the Brooklyn Museum. There are many relevant 10
11 examples of artists’ actions which contributed to the rise of the New Museology. 11
12 Even though the name itself did not become current until 1989, when Peter Vergo 12
13 edited an anthology entitled The New Museology,5 the so-called New Art History 13
14 had given an impulse to the development of critical museum studies some time 14

py
15 before that.6 In general, their aim was to denaturalize the institution of the museum 15
16 by demonstrating that its foundations, organization, shows and holdings neither 16
17 rely on a stable set of parameters, nor are ideologically neutral. On the contrary, 17
18 they are constructs with well-defined political objectives, which conceal social 18
19 hierarchies and practices of exclusion, as well as the politics of the establishment, 19
Co
20 its cultural and political hegemony, and the dominant power of the market. 20
21 Critical museum studies take into consideration value systems, deconstructing 21
22 them and denouncing in their analyses the ideological and economic contexts. 22
23 By analysing museum practices, they show an interplay of various political, 23
24 ideological and economic forces hidden under an apparently apolitical surface 24
25 of aesthetics, contemplation and experiencing of the work of art, exploited in an 25
allegedly objective art-historical narrative offered by museum galleries. Critical
f

26 26
27 museum studies are by no means uniform – on the contrary, they favour polemics, 27
oo

28 controversies and debates. In this introduction we will address only three issues: 28
29 first, the presumed difference between the ethnographic museum and the museum 29
30 of art; second, a critical history of the public museum; and third, the relationship 30
31 between the museum and the spectator – that is, between the museum and society. 31
32 In the first case, the point is to question a distinction between the museum of 32
Pr

33 art, collecting works of art which are ‘unique’, and the ethnographic museum, 33
34 collecting artefacts as items typical of ‘primitive cultures’, very often – as the New 34
35 Museology would argue – taken out of their ritual, magic, religious or symbolic 35
36 36
37 37
38 and David Gilks, Antoine Quatremère de Quincy: Letters to Miranda and Canova on the 38
Abduction of Antiquities from Rome and Athens, Texts & Documents Series (Los Angeles:
39 39
Getty Research Institute, 2012).
40 40
4 Janet Marstine, ‘Introduction’, in New Museum: Theory and Practice, ed. Janet
41 Marstine (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2006), 6–8. 41
42 5 Peter Vergo, ed., The New Museology (London: Reaktion Books, 1989). 42
43 6 See Jonathan Harris, The New Art History: A Critical Introduction (London: 43
44 Routledge, 2001), 73–80. 44

9781472422354.indb 3 4/17/2015 10:04:37 AM

 4 From Museum Critique to the Critical Museum

1 contexts and reduced to objects of contemplation. Such a practice equals an 1

2 appropriation of the culture of the other and turning ethnographic artefacts into 2
3 autonomous objects, now subsumed and disempowered by the western-imposed 3
4 hierarchies of value.7 Comparing ethnographic museums with art museums, 4
5 Mieke Bal observes, not only do the former refer to ethnicity and the latter to 5
6 aesthetics, but both of them, in different ways, endorse cultural imperialism that 6
7 consists of appropriation. She claims that an interpretation of their policies is 7
8 possible not by differentiation in kind, but by a semiotic analysis which reveals 8
9 the underlying narrative of the museum’s discourse and allows us to disclose their 9
10 ideological functions.8 10
11 Another problem is the analysis of the historical development of the public 11
12 museum of which paradigmatic examples in Europe are the Louvre and the 12
13 London National Gallery, founded under quite different historical and political 13
14 circumstances, and in the United States, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New 14

py
15 York, Boston Museum of Fine Arts and the Art Institute in Chicago. Carol Duncan 15
16 argues that the rise of these institutions has been connected, on the one hand, with 16
17 the rituals of civilizing the public and, on the other, with the process of changing 17
18 the spectator into the citizen. In continental Europe, the responsibility for this task 18
was taken by the state (as in the case of the Paris Louvre) and by the so-called 19
Co
19
20 representatives of the people, the parliament in London. In the US, the agency 20
21 belonged to the wealthy establishment of the big cities on the East Coast. In each 21
22 case, of course, the real point was not so much to secure democratic access to 22
23 artistic culture and the history of art, or to support civil society, but to fix new 23
24 bourgeois social hierarchies.9 A particularly interesting analysis of this mechanism 24
25 has been offered by Tony Bennett, who places the rise of the nineteenth-century 25
f

26 museums in a wider context of what he calls the ‘exhibitionary complex’. Both 26

oo

27 the world exhibitions, such as the Great Exhibition in London of 1851, and 27
28 museums were subject to the same categories: scientific discipline, surveillance 28
29 and, above all, the spectacle. A predilection for the spectacle was a deeply rooted 29
30 feature of nineteenth-century culture. As far as museums were concerned, it 30
31 introduced a major shift in comparison with the ancien régime which had blocked 31
Pr

32 32
33 7 Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, ‘Objects of Ethnography’, in Exhibiting Cultures: 33
34 The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, ed. Ivan Karp and Steven D. Lavine 34
35 (Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991), 386. See also Barbara Kirshenblatt- 35
36 Gimblett, Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage (Berkeley: University of 36
37 California Press, 1998). 37
38 8 Mieke Bal, ‘The Discourse of the Museum’, in Thinking about Exhibitions, ed. 38
Reesa Greenberg, Bruce W. Ferguson and Sandy Nairne (London: Routledge, 1996),
39 39
201–218. See also Mieke Bal, Double Exposures: The Subject of Critical Analysis (London:
40 40
Routledge, 1996).
41 9 Carol Duncan, Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums (London: Routledge, 41
42 1995). See also Carol Duncan, ‘Art Museum and the Ritual of Citizenship’, in Exhibiting 42
43 Cultures, ed. Karp and Lavine, 88–103; and Carol Duncan and Allan Wallach, ‘The 43
44 Universal Survey Museum’, Art History 3 (1980): 448–469. 44

9781472422354.indb 4 4/17/2015 10:04:37 AM

 Introduction 5

1 or at least significantly limited public access to the monarch’s collections. The 1

2 Great Exhibition and other shows of the same kind belonged to the same order as 2
3 museums – they shifted emphasis from the process of production to the product 3
4 itself and favoured the classification of the world in terms of nations and cultures, 4
5 as well as, in consequence, races.10 5
6 Finally, the third problem: the audience and its relations to the museum, as well 6
7 as the issue of potential changes resulting from an active and open approach to the 7
8 spectator. Scholars have argued that the new museum, stemming from a critique of 8
9 the standard authoritarian treatment of the spectator as a passive recipient, should 9
10 work more closely with its audiences, with particular local communities. This is 10
11 the foundation of the idea of the so-called ‘post-museum which, first proposed by 11
12 Stuart Hall and Eilean Hooper Greenhill, aims to empower the viewer, challenging 12
13 the undivided authority of the curator, exposing conflicts, and redressing social 13
14 inequalities’.11 Apparently, it refers more to the ethnographic or historical museum 14

py
15 than to the museum of art, although a huge volume, Museums and Communities, 15
16 edited by Ivan Karp, includes much material which may also prove interesting to 16
17 a critic of the art museum.12 17
18 In this respect, the museum spectator has an ally in contemporary art which, 18
19 rooted in the artistic tradition of the 1960s, engages in the critique of institutions. 19
Co
20 Contemporary art, argues Hans Belting, is global.13 This is not because it is 20
21 globally distributed, but because it is global by definition, engaging with the issues 21
22 important to the whole world, while its critique aims at the processes which shape 22
23 the present time everywhere. Consequently, what is local has become global. It is 23
24 also a different kind of art because it uses modern technology for making artworks 24
25 and for communicating with audiences. This is not an appropriate place to discuss 25
the contemporary historico-artistic condition – what is at stake is the manner in
f

26 26
27 which contemporary artistic culture enhances the critique of the museum and 27
oo

28 provides stimuli to develop a new form of that institution. Such a form, rooted in 28
29 the experience of global contemporary art as well as in the critique of modernism 29
30 (the model of MoMA), has been proposed by the model of MoCA, Museum of 30
31 31
32 10 Tony Bennett, The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics (London: 32
Pr

33 Routledge, 1995), 59–88. See also Tony Bennett, ‘The Exhibitionary Complex’, in Thinking 33
34 about Exhibitions, ed. Greenberg, Ferguson and Nairne, 81–112. 34
35 11 Marstine, ‘Introduction’, 19–21. See also Andreas Huyssen, Twilight Memories: 35
36 Marking Time in a Culture of Amnesia (New York and London: Routledge, 1995), 13–36. 36
37 12 Ivan Karp, Christine Mullen Kreamer and Steven D. Lavine, eds, Museums and 37
38 Communities: The Politics and Public Culture (Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution 38
Press, 1992). See especially the article by Vera L. Zolberg, ‘Art Museums and Living
39 39
Artists: Contentious Communities’, 105–136.
40 40
13 Hans Belting, ‘Contemporary Art and the Museum in the Global Age’, in
41 Contemporary Art and the Museum: A Global Perspective, ed. Peter Weibel and Andrea 41
42 Buddensieg (Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz, 2007), 16–38; Hans Belting, ‘Contemporary Art 42
43 as Global Art: A Critical Estimate’, in The Global Art World: Audiences, Markets, and 43
44 Museums, ed. Hans Belting and Andrea Buddensieg (Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz, 2009), 38–73. 44

9781472422354.indb 5 4/17/2015 10:04:37 AM

 6 From Museum Critique to the Critical Museum

1 Contemporary Art. In principle, MoCA’s aim is not only to present art to the 1
2 spectator, but also to determine its varieties and contribute to its critical mission. 2
3 However, this type of museum is not free from the neo-liberal market game. Quite to 3
4 the contrary, both the LAMoCA (Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art) and 4
5 the MassMoCA in North Adams, Massachusetts, to mention only the best-known 5
6 examples, are deeply involved in it.14 Considering its neo-liberal background the 6
7 MoCA model might no longer serve as the model of the critical museum. Yet this 7
8 is not the point here. The point is, as Belting observes, that the new museum model 8
9 should not be reduced to the exhibition of art, but should show the world in the 9
10 mirror of contemporary art.15 In comparison to the traditional museum of modern 10
11 and contemporary art (both the MoMA and the MoCA models), this marks a major 11
12 change. It is also a starting point to develop the idea of a critical museum. 12
13 Unfortunately, the critical museum could not become a fact in Warsaw. The 13
14 simplest explanation of the reasons for the failure of our project is that the Board 14

py
15 of Trustees rejected our strategic programme for the critical museum and, as a 15
16 consequence, we had to resign. The details of the Board’s opinion are kept secret; 16
17 in a brief official statement no objections were listed, and we were not informed 17
18 of any either. Hence, trying to answer the above question, we will concentrate 18
on the more theoretical and, above all, the political aspects of the resistance to 19
Co
19
20 our project,16 since any specific charges, at least from an official source, are still 20
21 unknown to us. 21
22 In general terms, museums of art can be divided into three types: museum-as- 22
23 temple – that is, a conservative one; museum-as-entertainment – that is, a populist 23
24 one; and museum-as-forum, which we will call democratic, and the category to 24
25 which the critical museum strives to belong.17 All three are political, and all express 25
f

26 a particular worldview, ideology and system of values, although the first two hide 26
oo

27 their political character. In the first case, the objective is to petrify social structures 27
28 and models as well as to favour the cult of tradition, the elitism of high culture 28
29 and the autonomy of art. The second type is based on a neo-liberal ideology and 29
30 a vision of the museum as a commercial institution. The economic rationale of 30
31 that type is not limited to the production of blockbusters, exhibitions addressed to 31
Pr

32 a mass audience that generate profit, but also applies to a more complex strategy 32
33 33
34 34
35 14 See Rosalind Krauss, ‘The Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum’, October 35
36 54 (Fall 1990), 3–17. 36
37 15 Hans Belting, ‘Contemporary Art as Global Art’, 48. 37
38 16 Thus far the best Polish analysis of the project of the critical museum and the 38
conflict about it has been presented by Magdalena Radomska in ‘Muzealny hacking, causa
39 39
locuta’, Czas Kultury 5 (2010): 100–107. See also Igor Stokfiszewski, ‘Jestem za muzeum
40 40
krytycznym’, Krytyka Polityczna, 12 October 2010, accessed 11 April 2014, http://www.
41 krytykapolityczna.pl/Serwiskulturalny/StokfiszewskiJestemzamuzeumkrytycznym/ 41
42 menuid-305.html. 42
43 17 Duncan Cameron, ‘The Museum, a Temple or the Forum’, Curator: The Museum 43
44 Journal 14 (1971): 11–24. 44

9781472422354.indb 6 4/17/2015 10:04:37 AM

 Introduction 7

1 often called branding – that is, selling one’s own brand. This is best exemplified 1
2 by the Guggenheim Museum under the management of Thomas Krens and by the 2
3 Louvre’s recent policy of moving some of its holdings to Abu Dhabi and selling its 3
4 name for a limited period of time to the United Arab Emirates.18 Both conservatism 4
5 and neo-liberalism are political and hegemonic, although each kind of hegemony 5
6 is different. In contrast, the museum-as-forum is an institution which exhibits and 6
7 analyses artistic culture while laying bare the ways in which the institution of 7
8 the museum is involved in hegemonic power politics. The museum-as-forum is a 8
9 democratic project which aims to grant space and voice to minorities and social 9
10 critics, providing a critical response both to the conservative museum-as-temple 10
11 and the populist museum-as-entertainment. 11
12 On the Board of Trustees of the National Museum, an institution that certainly 12
13 belongs to the establishment, there were no supporters of the critical museum; 13
14 its members, both conservatives and populists, supported both the museum-as- 14

py
15 temple and the museum-as-entertainment. Regardless of the significant differences 15
16 between the two groups – in terms of their preferred models of culture, systems 16
17 of social values, political preferences and views on the economic aspects of the 17
18 museum programme – both of them considered the museum-as-forum as their 18
19 opponent due to its critical potential, open social projects and its leftist idiom. Both 19
Co
20 groups for different reasons opposed the de-canonization of the museum: while 20
21 the conservatives feared the demise of tradition and a break with the continuity of 21
22 history, the populists did not want to lose a chance to pursue economic strategies 22
23 such as branding. Moreover, neither of them favoured any involvement in political 23
24 debates, particularly those concerning controversial topics, such as the Ars Homo 24
25 Erotica exhibition, which will be discussed later in this volume. The conservatives 25
perceived the exhibition as a violation of the artistic autonomy of the museum and
f

26 26
27 opposed what they called a disregard for the artistic quality of the works. They 27
oo

28 were reluctant to support the idea of the emancipation of sexual minorities who, 28
29 in their view, should be confined to the private sphere. Thus, they did not approve 29
30 of the politicization of homosexuality and of approaching it in terms of identity 30
31 politics. The populists claimed that the discourse of political commitment leads to 31
32 conflicts, which would undermine their own ideological foundation – an allegedly 32
Pr

33 non-ideological public consensus. 33

34 The alliance of the conservatives and populists in the Board of Trustees 34
35 of the National Museum in Warsaw brought about the rejection of the critical 35
36 museum strategy. That decision did not stem only from the competition among 36
37 different models of the museum and their supporters (though the problem of 37
38 local competition should also be taken into account19): at stake was also a more 38
39 39
40 40
18 For a recent analysis of the branding of the museum, see Julian Stallabras, ‘The
41 Branding of the Museum’, Art History 37 (2014): 148–165. 41
42 19 To a certain extent the position of the Board of Trustees was involved in the system 42
43 of institutional competition since at a certain moment among its members there were as 43
44 many as four directors of museums, three of them from Warsaw and one from Poznań. All 44

9781472422354.indb 7 4/17/2015 10:04:37 AM

 8 From Museum Critique to the Critical Museum

1 comprehensive vision of the role of cultural institutions and their commitment to 1

2 the development of democracy, an open society and the critical knowledge of its 2
3 functioning. Hence, the conflict was ideological and political. However, one can 3
4 ask another question: is any radical change possible under the present political 4
5 circumstances, since, as Carol Duncan observes, the institution of the museum is 5
6 a ‘mediator’ among various parties: academe, the public, boards of trustees, the 6
7 authorities? She seems to be rather sceptical, defining this state of affairs as the 7
8 reason why the museum is not open to New Art History,20 and practice shows that 8
9 she is – unfortunately – quite right. 9
10 Is there any chance then for making the museum critical? Could an art museum 10
11 absorb the major tenets of museum critique and turn itself into a critical institution? 11
12 And if so, how could this be achieved? By whom, for whom, where and with what 12
13 speed? And what are the political ramifications of such a transformation? The 13
14 essays in this book engage in the discussion of the ways in which the museum 14

py
15 could use its collections, its cultural authority, its auratic space and resources to 15
16 give voice to the underrepresented, and to take a stance in controversies about 16
17 the issues most fundamental to the contemporary world. Positioning itself against 17
18 ‘celebratory’ museum studies, as well as taking a questioning approach to some 18
premises of ‘museum critique’, this book aspires to the less frequently visited 19
Co
19
20 category of ‘what-is-to-be-done’ studies. It presents both the experiences and the 20
21 theoretical concepts, developed in dialogue between influential museum curators 21
22 and directors, as well as university academics whose function is to analyse and 22
23 deconstruct the relationship between art institutions and power, and, in fact, many 23
24 of the contributors to the book combine both of these experiences. Furthermore, 24
25 in terms of its geographical scope, the book reaches beyond the usual focus on 25
f

26 Western Europe, America and ‘the World’, including voices from, as well as 26
oo

27 about, Central and Eastern European museums, which have hardly featured in 27
28 museum studies so far.21 Indeed, the Eastern European perspective and its critical 28
29 potential for the field of museum studies, as a view from the margin, constitute a 29
30 distinct feature of this volume. 30
31 The book is divided into three parts: I Histories, II Tools and III Critique. Part I 31
Pr

32 looks at the variety of histories which could be attached to the notion of the critical 32
33 museum; Part II, the largest of the three, examines its tools, both potential and 33
34 tested ones, while discussing also a few case studies; finally Part III, mimicking 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 of them have the status of state institutions financed by the Ministry of Culture, financing 38
the National Museum in Warsaw as well. Only the director of the National Museum in
39 39
Cracow was missing from the body controlling their competitor.
40 40
20 Duncan, Civilizing Rituals, 103.
41 21 For the most recent detailed presentation of Museums of Contemporary Art in East 41
42 Central Europe, see Katarzyna Jagodzińska, Czas Muzeów w Europie Środkowej: Muzea 42
43 i Centra Sztuki Współczesnej (1989-2014) (Cracow: Międzynarodowe Centrum Kultury, 43
44 2014). 44

9781472422354.indb 8 4/17/2015 10:04:37 AM

 Introduction 9

1 the reflexive drive of the critical museum, takes a critical approach to the very 1
2 concept it promotes. 2
3 Part I Histories looks into the past, at the multiple socio-historical conditions 3
4 which either impeded or propelled the emergence of the critical museum. If the 4
5 liberal ideology of competitive individualism and private sponsorship of public 5
6 museums in America of the Gilded Age was programmed to reinforce rather than 6
7 subvert social hierarchies, by contrast, the tectonic shift caused by the Russian 7
8 and the German Revolutions led to a fundamental revision of the function of art 8
9 museums. Alan Wallach explores the establishment of the Robber Baron museums 9
10 of the post-civil war era as motivated by the bourgeoisie’s developing awareness 10
11 of itself as a class and as a part of its drive towards cultural hegemony, reinforcing 11
12 the social hierarchies. His chapter sets out the wider social and cultural context 12
13 of the dominating model of the essentially elitist ‘treasure house of art-historical 13
14 masterpieces’, modelled on the Louvre, against which the concept of the critical 14

py
15 museum was to rise, both in America22 and in Europe. The totally new, alternative 15
16 model of the museum, fully supported by the state, promoting the avant-garde 16
17 and aiming to transform society by subverting cultural hegemony, was devised 17
18 in Soviet Russia. On the basis of rarely studied original publications, most of 18
19 them not available in English, and including texts by Wassily Kandinsky, Kasimir 19
Co
20 Malevich and Nikolai Punin, Andrzej Turowski discusses in detail both the heated 20
21 debates and the pioneering years of a network of so called ‘museums of artistic 21
22 culture’ which, by rising against the reverence for the ‘fetishist art of the past’, 22
23 and by emphasizing the constructionist, the life-shaping function of art and its 23
24 educational responsibility, might be seen as prototypes of the critical museum, at 24
25 least as far as the museum of modern art is concerned. The radical ideas travelled 25
from Russia to Germany which, in the midst of its own revolution of 1918, set
f

26 26
27 up a programme of cultural reforms, aiming to open museums to the widest 27
oo

28 public and turn them into the tools of social education. Monika Flacke examines 28
29 a rarely discussed text by the otherwise well-known museum personality Wilhelm 29
30 Valentiner, who spent most of his career as a successful curator and museum 30
31 director in the United States, but who returned to Germany during the First World 31
32 War and took an active part in the November Revolution. His Reshaping Museums 32
Pr

33 in the Spirit of the New Age (1919) projects a quasi-utopian vision of the museum, 33
34 to be built in a provincial location in a centre of German lands, which aims to reach 34
35 not just the urban elite, but the widest strata of society, the ‘man of the people’. 35
36 In spite of the underpinning revolutionary spirit, and an excessive identification 36
37 of Valentiner’s project with Soviet cultural policies, his ideal museum did not 37
38 move far from the model of the Louvre, remaining a collection of masterpieces. 38
39 39
40 40
22 Carol Duncan’s recent book explores one of the most radical conceptions of the
41 alternative, distinctly non-hierarchical museum, challenging the cult of European Old 41
42 Masters and serving all social strata, which was established by John Cotton Dana in Newark 42
43 in 1913: Carol G. Duncan, Matter of Class: John Cotton Dana, Progressive Reform, and 43
44 the Newark Museum (Pittsburgh, Pa.: Periscope, 2009). 44

9781472422354.indb 9 4/17/2015 10:04:37 AM

 10 From Museum Critique to the Critical Museum

1 The topic of museum reforms in Germany is also developed by Charlotte Klonk, 1

2 who revisits the origins of the white cube model for the modern art museum and 2
3 its claim to artistic autonomy. Challenging the uniform association of the white 3
4 walls with Brian Doherty’s construct of the white cube, she traces the aesthetics 4
5 of white walls to exhibition designs in Germany of the 1920s and the 1930s (and 5
6 in particular to the Städel Museum in Frankfurt), arguing for its suitability for the 6
7 projection of both aesthetic as well social messages. 7
8 The model of the museum developed in the Communist bloc after the Second 8
9 World War still awaits examination in the light of the concept of the critical 9
10 institution, integrating museum into the praxis of life, and this section of the book 10
11 closes with a case study by Magdalena Ziółkowska, who examines the critical 11
12 potential of the Museum of Current Art, devised by a Polish avant-garde artist, 12
13 Jerzy Ludwiński, in 1966. Although never brought into being, the Museum of 13
14 Current Art, which was to be set up in Wrocław, rose out of the intellectual ferment 14

py
15 of the 1960s in Poland, which was marked by Tadeusz Kantor’s performances, by 15
16 the opening of the ferociously experimental Foksal Gallery in Warsaw and by the 16
17 related publication of a conceptual manifesto, Introduction to a General Theory of 17
18 Place (1966), which challenged the basic assumptions about art and its exhibiting 18
conventions.23 Ziółkowska discusses the Museum of Current Art in the context of 19
Co
19
20 the parallel process of the redefinition of the boundaries of the museum institution 20
21 in the 1960s by Jean Leering, Pontus Hultén and Peter Althaus. 21
22 Part II: Tools: Objects, Space, Viewing Practices is set in the present, 22
23 examining different ways of making the museum critical, by presenting case 23
24 studies mixed with theoretical insights. The essays gathered here focus on the 24
25 museum’s capability to shift the dominant discourses through the critical use of 25
f

26 its holdings, its space, and by providing interactive dialogues with the viewer. 26
oo

27 Many contributions address simultaneously the variety of the museum’s resources 27

28 and tools, since the realm of space is often undistinguishable from the objects, 28
29 their display and visitors’ experiences. Several authors point to the gaps between 29
30 the theoretical concerns of the New Museology and museum practice. The use 30
31 of the museum’s collections is explored by Katarzyna Murawska-Muthesius, 31
Pr

32 who focuses on the function of masterpieces, evaded by the New Museology. 32

33 Posing the question of the incompatibility of the celebrity status of masterpieces 33
34 in the museum that aims to demystify the notion of art, she claims that their 34
35 populist power could be instrumentalized by the museum to address the burning 35
36 social issues which, having stamped their production and reception, have been 36
37 rendered invisible. Pedro Lorente’s text provides a wide-ranging overview of 37
38 38
39 39
23 Wiesław Borowski, Hanna Ptaszkowska and Mariusz Tchorek, ‘An Introduction
40 40
to the General Theory of Place (1966)’, in Primary Documents: L A Sourcebook for Eastern
41 and Central European Art since the 1950s, ed. Laura Hoptman and Tomáš Pospiszyl (New 41
42 York: Museum of Modern Art/Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press, 2002), 88–91; 42
43 reprinted in Alexander Alberro and Blake Stimson, eds, Institutional Critique: An Anthology 43
44 of Artists’ Writings (Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press, 2009), 44–49. 44

9781472422354.indb 10 4/17/2015 10:04:37 AM

 Introduction 11

1 critical museology, distinguishing its theoretical drive from what he calls critical 1
2 museography – that is, ‘strategies and displays showing the impact of reflexivity’ – 2
3 with examples taken from a wide range of museums in Europe, in both Americas 3
4 and Africa. 4
5 Different approaches to critical museum practice are presented by the 5
6 participant observers, the directors of the major museum institutions who reflect 6
7 on challenges, obstacles and the drive to use the museum as a medium ‘worthy 7
8 of debates worth having’, to quote Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett. An inquiry 8
9 into the conditions and limits of criticality available to art institutions and their 9
10 capability to redefine the canon is presented by Penelope Curtis, supported by her 10
11 experience of running the Henry Moore Institute at Leeds and, subsequently, Tate 11
12 Britain. She stresses the responsibility of an art institution to negotiate between 12
13 the dominant and the peripheral, between presence and absence, and the choice 13
14 between the challenges presented by permanent collections, often unseen by the 14

py
15 public, and the temporary exhibitions, cautiously and thoughtfully advocating the 15
16 efficacy of the plurality of smaller steps rather than a single grand gesture. In 16
17 contrast, the case for a radical reinvention of a post-communist museum in the era 17
18 of late capitalism is made by Piotr Piotrowski, who emphasizes the critical duty 18
19 of the museum in society. Pointing to the subversive potential of the institutions 19
Co
20 ‘located on the margins of the artistic geography’, he outlines the rationale of 20
21 the project to transform the National Museum in Warsaw into a critical museum 21
22 which, as exemplified by the interventionist events staged during his directorship, 22
23 was willing to use its resources to take a stance in debates on issues fundamental 23
24 to the contemporary world. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett provides yet another inside- 24
25 out analysis, this time of setting up the first Museum of History of Polish Jews 25
in Warsaw, and in particular the Museum’s Core Exhibition, devised under her
f

26 26
27 directorship. Opening in 2014, it presents a yet untold history of the Polish–Jewish 27
oo

28 relationship over the course of 1,000 years. Although standing on the ruins of the 28
29 former Warsaw Ghetto, the Museum ‘creates a new kind of historical space’, and 29
30 radically shifts the discourse on the role of Polish Jews in the history of Poland, 30
31 by emphasizing ‘co-existence, competition, conflict and cooperation’, rather than 31
32 succumbing to the dominating teleology of the Holocaust. Writing both from 32
Pr

33 the position of an academic museologist teaching in New York and from that 33
34 of the director in Warsaw, she declares the Museum of History of Polish Jews a 34
35 critical museum. 35
36 The museum’s visitors appear in many texts, but they receive special 36
37 attention in two contributions which explore the ways in which the post-museum 37
38 accommodates the experience of the public, by activating the visitor. Mária 38
39 Orišková looks at the linkage between the curatorial and educational strategies 39
40 of medium-size museums in Central Europe. She compares the performative, 40
41 viewer-oriented events offered in the newly built space of the Kunsthaus in Graz 41
42 with the community projects of the Moravian Gallery in Brno and the recent 42
43 exhibitions at the Slovak National Gallery in Bratislava, which provoked visitors 43
44 to address their own perception of themselves, not avoiding the issues of gender 44

9781472422354.indb 11 4/17/2015 10:04:38 AM

 12 From Museum Critique to the Critical Museum

1 and social prejudices. A comparative approach has also been adopted by Alpesh 1
2 Kantilal Patel, who takes as his case study the city of Manchester, its Victorian 2
3 past and the postmodern present, juxtaposing the class-conscious viewing regimes 3
4 instilled by the 1857 Art-Treasures Exhibition with what he calls the embodied 4
5 practices of ‘post-viewing’, engendered by two contemporary installations in the 5
6 Whitworth Gallery and the Manchester Museum. He examines the different ways 6
7 in which they activate the viewer’s awareness of his or her body and their skin 7
8 colour, thereby also illuminating the racial prejudice underpinning the museum’s 8
9 own taxonomies and display. These aims are achieved, he argues, by immersing 9
10 the act of viewing with synesthetic, multi-sensory experience, or by confronting 10
11 the viewer with gossip, with untold histories of the provenance of the museum 11
12 objects, directly linked to slavery. 12
13 Part III acts as a reflexive counterpoint. The critical mission of the museum, 13
14 which has been theorized and exemplified in a variety of ways by the contributors, 14

py
15 becomes itself the object of critique. Victoria Walsh present the results of the Tate 15
16 Encounters project and the proposed notion of Post-Critical Museology, calling 16
17 for a shift in the epistemological bias of the museum and a revalorization of the 17
18 practice-based research in the museum in relation to the production of theory in the 18
academy. Jacob Birken, taking cues from his involvement in curating The Global 19
Co
19
20 Contemporary at ZKM, Karlsruhe in 2009, scrutinizes paradoxes and challenges 20
21 of the notion of criticality in the contemporary art world, including the role of the 21
22 museum as both the site and the repository of contemporary critical art. The book 22
23 ends with John Onians’s chapter which takes the reflection on the museum into a 23
24 totally new realm. He claims that the recent findings of neuroscience destabilize 24
25 many of the assumptions of museology. Proposing an analogy between the 25
f

26 functions of the brain and those of the museum, both preserving traces of human 26
oo

27 experiences, his chapter is an inquiry into the ways in which neuroscience can help 27
28 us to move from museums of answers to museums of questions. 28
29 This book, indeed, does not aim to provide answers either. We believe that the 29
30 project of the critical museum, capable of taking an active part in public debates 30
31 on fundamental issues of civil society, even if aborted at the National Museum in 31
Pr

32 Warsaw, will not disappear without a trace. It forms part of a larger struggle which 32
33 transcends the boundaries of the art museum. 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44

9781472422354.indb 12 4/17/2015 10:04:38 AM