ABSTRACT
Postmodern theory relies on narrative construction, rather than scientifi c instrumentation, to grapple with the uncertainty of one’s own time. With dialectic modes, modernism stresses innovation and the notion of progress. Art museums and the politics governing institutions of culture and their interaction with the public seem to vacillate between modernist and more recent postmodernist values. Varied ideologies, either drawing on modernist dialogue or postmodernist conversation, seem particularly evident among temporary installations and travelling exhibitions. Extra-school offerings for families and children and adult audiences refl ect infl uences from various education resources, revealed within a landscape of culture. This case study of art museums attempts to map some of the political points around which institutions and the public(s) must work to authenticate institutional missions and charters. The cultural landscape to be charted contains shifting frames of reference:
[the] postmodern: is to be seen as the production of postmodern people capable of functioning in a very peculiar socioeconomic world indeed, one whose structure and objective features and requirements-if we had a proper account of them-would constitute the situation for which ‘postmodernism’ is a response and would give us something a little more decisive than postmodernism theory . . . Unfortunately, therefore, the infrastructural description I seem to be calling for here is necessarily itself already cultural and a version of postmodernism theory in advance. (Jameson 1991: xv)
This chapter explores museums as personae caught in the cusp of change. Museum galleries, many lately refurbished as ambiguous spaces with gymnasium fl oors and cloth-covered walls, arguably signal change (Diket 1997/1998; see discussion of spatial considerations in HooperGreenhill 1999). Old style galleries stacked paintings vertically, sometimes overwhelming audiences with the abundance, and loaded glass cases with curiosities mixed freely with furniture pieces and miscellaneous artefacts. Chronology and provenance served as organising themes. The presentation
of so much art inspired awe and allowed viewers an opportunity to seek favourite pieces among the multitude of images. The change to fewer works of greater quality, with deemphasised context, caught the public by surprise. Novice museum goers were not sure how to respond when most of the works shown were of high quality. Without wall text and rich image context, understanding an exhibition was intellectually demanding. In 1997 I wrote that many visitors appeared uncomfortable in the refurbished spaces; however, I may have spoken too early in the process of change. It could be argued today that the ‘therapeutic positivism and standardization of space’ might be a ‘telltale sign of the dawning of a new age’ (after Jameson 1991: 163). Modernism has as a principal concern for ‘coming into being,’ while postmodernism seeks breaks, pivotal events that signal new worlds at the moment when things change (Jameson 1991: ix). If a break with modernity had occurred, then standardisation of décor in galleries, along with the installation of meaning-laden sculpture at entry portals can be thought of as signs of change. If modernism continues as the dominant thought in the art museum, what Jameson calls ‘late capitalism,’ it might be said that culture itself is displayed as commodity.
