Zhang Zikang: The Nature of the Art Museum...


To define the nature of the art museum is to understand its identity, affiliation, role, function and regulation pattern. Therefore, accurately positioning the art museum is the most critical issue to be faced and solved at the current stage of the development of art museums in China.Any suggestion we have for the problems (system, organization, market, etc.) that arise in Chinese art, or even for the inheritance of Chinese traditional culture and the development of contemporary culture, is all stem from the fact that Chinese society (our government, our public, our culture and artistic workers) has not recognized – on thought and action – the nature of the art museum and its important role in the whole ecosystem, such as artistic ecology, social ecology, political ecology, human ecology, and so on. The value and significance of the art museum can be only guaranteed if the nature of the art museum is clear enough. On this basis, Chinese art system can be expected to be improved, and the highly anticipated preferential policies of the government on the development of art can become possible.The Durability of Society and Culture“Archives, libraries and museums promise a secular eternity that can replace the religious commitment to resurrection and immortality. (Boris Groys)” Art museum is also a Heterotopias named by Michel Foucault as a place where valuable time experienced by human beings is accumulated without being lost. In an increasingly event-driven culture, the core qualities of an art institution should be sustainability and heritage inheritance. The French historian and museologist Lorena San Roman once said, “the museum is like a mirror. It reflects the past and present progress and development of the society, and the combination with other social development, thus affecting the whole world.” The museum aims to connect different time and space to let us know what the world looks like, let people in the long history of mankind give themselves a precise orientation, and help people to think about the future. Every era needs a witness. The birth of the museum of modern art (MoMA) of New York is in the early 20th century, which is the precipitation of contemporary art of the era. Today, our contemporary art museums are also performing the same function of the times.An art museum is a carrier for the dissemination, inheritance and construction of social culture, and is an essential part of people’s social and cultural life. “For art, style, technique and material are indeed very essential elements, but having these conditions does not mean that it has reached a high artistic conception. The most important thing is the concepts and ideals behind it. Just like science and technology, these concepts and ideals are rooted in nation, Zeitgeist and worldview. Works are the most authentic only if they can be rooted in these ideas.”Therefore, it can be said that art museum represents the highest value and truth of different social groups because the character of the museums (art museums) of a nation, country and city also represents the character of the nation, country and city. Democracy, Publicity, Diversity and the Non-profit“Museum is the midwife of democracy. (Francis Henry Taylor)” From the history of museum development, setting in the political context as the feudal monarchy died out, being based on the spirit of equality and showing royal and private (nobility, church and temple) family’s collection to the public as a sign of birth, museum has represented an object-centered, more comprehensive new way of understanding the world, and a force of human democracy and civilization, becoming the typical characteristic of the human into the modern society. In Western societies, one of the basic guarantees of democracy to the public interest is the social education that represented by museums – art education is not only freely enjoyed by the natives but by everyone. “Museum itself is considered  as an important and motivating part in the democratic American society where all people are equal, which is the fundamental source of museum authority.” “The art museum sees itself as a positive intermediary for promoting social equality. Through professional activities related to, such as collection, research and presentation, art museums connect human beings with the broader social reality, and stimulate and facilitate a democratic, reflective, creative and inclusive society with aesthetic objects and intellectual power.” At the same time, in Western societies, “participation is regarded as the cultural power of everyone and an indispensable part of the museum’s characteristics, which means that everyone has the right to know his or her own cultural identity, to link with other cultures, to participate in cultural events, to possess equal opportunities for creativity and to criticize freely.The main characteristics pursued by visual art not only enabled a perfect combination of art and museum but also fully shaped the democratic character of the art museum, thus making it a public and diversified platform. (1) The transferability of art makes the art museum have a natural pubic gene. Hannah Arendt thinks “the word ‘public’……first represents all the people who are present in public domains and enjoy the most openness of being visible and heard……Then, the word ‘public’ describes the world itself we all share yet in which individuals highlight different personal status.” Art is a visual cultural language and an image of the spirit of the times, closely related to human experience. Although understanding art sometimes requires to have knowledge or cultural background, the body of art – visual images for all those who have seen them – is clear without any communication boundary, and even has advantages of direct communication that go beyond language and character, which is just the reason why image has always been an important tool for religion spread and indoctrination. The art museum, a gathering place centered on art, or mainly through the visual perception, has become the most accessible cultural center for the public. In the extensive, deep and daily interaction of art and the public, the public is more active in receiving art. Art museums have become a public cultural resource, and play a very vital role in public cultural life.(2) The inclusiveness of art makes the art museum a platform for the public. Art is a work in pursuit of differences. The essential thing of art is not to deny the differences between people but to accommodate different voices. Art connects people with distinct views and becomes a platform for exchanging different opinions. The introduction of art into society means that society embraces broader and richer values. As a civic institution, the art museum has become a rare public space that can meet the interests and needs of both the society’s privileged top elite class and more marginalized disadvantaged groups. It ensures that the poor get as much comfort from art as the rich, and brings these two classes more closely connected. The inclusivity of art turns the art museum into a public space of diverse cultures and social integration, making the public art museum –  must be – an institution accountable to a multi-level public. By offering the audience the same opportunities of appreciation, museums can bring a diverse society closer together.(3) In the process of building a modern museum, the choice of “no distinction made between men and women of all ages (by Pidansat de Mairobert)”, the nature of “be open to all (by Ministre de I’interieur Roland)”, and giving anyone the right to appreciate it, directly contributed to the formation of the “public universality (by Li Hui)” of the museum. “Publicity arises from the recognition of individuality in contemporary society” and thus leads to “accessibility”, which refers to the specific content of both physical architecture and spiritual product.It is precisely because the democratic, public and pluralistic nature of museums in their development had become increasingly clear that in 1974, when the World Associations of Museums revised their definition of the museum in 1963, it placed particular emphasis on “opening to the public”, “serving society and social development”  and “not pursuing profits”. Museums are non-profit organizations, so do art museums – a category of museums, which has long been agreed upon around the world. A non-profit organization is generally an institution or organization that is founded in a legal way other than governments, enterprises and other entities. The non-profit organization takes the common welfare of the public as the premise and it does not make the private profit and pursuing profit as the goal. A professor at the Johns Hopkins University, Lester M. Salarmon, has identified five characteristics of non-profit organizations: organized, non-governmental, non-profit, autonomous and voluntary, which is used as the standard of defining internationally popular non-profits. Non-profit organizations thrive as democratic societies continue to improve. In the 1950s in the United States, the role of non-profit organizations was insignificant and marginal. By the 1990s, non-profit organizations have been at the center of American society, becoming one of the most prominent features of American society. People realize that non-profit organizations are not only very significant to the life quality and civil rights of the American people but also carry the value of American society and tradition. Non-profit organizations not only become the civil societies of American society but also empower and enhance individuals’ ability to fulfill their civic duties and realize their own value. Non-profit organizations are also seen as a hallmark of modern civil society.As a part of social public cultural service system, art museums are public welfare units providing public products and services to the whole society. The art museum, of course, as a non-profit organization, does not exclude the necessary existence of profit-making activities, but it strictly prohibits the distribution of its remaining income and profits to the organization owners or specific beneficiaries. In western countries, a relatively well-developed operation system of art society has been formed with “tax exemption” (especially “tax exemption for equal amount”) as the core. Encouraging charity and donation activities provides a good policy environment for the establishment of various foundations and guarantees the operating funds and the independence of non-profit organizations. In this book, we will elaborate on it in combination with the current development state of Chinese art museums.Table 1: The roles and functions of art museums as the non-profit organizations in the country and societyWe don’t deny, of course, that even under a relatively perfect system, and under the constraints of many industry standards centering on public interests and internal management disciplines of art museums, the profit-making (subjectively or objectively serves the direct or indirect business interest) of the art museums in the developed countries is often in the center of public contention. According to Belting, a German scholar, this is mainly due to the combination of museums and contemporary art. In order to avoid entering the tomb of history, the alliance of museums with the current art is almost forced and inevitable – the current art also enhances its own value in the background of museums. Such kind of “symbolic transactions” make “people often ask whether the new art is looking for its museum context or the museum is looking for new art.” Xie Xiaoze, a tenured professor at Stanford University, says that “art museums are usually in the shadow of power and in the infiltration of commerce and wealth. The non-profit character, academic quality and public trust it should possess are not predetermined, but are the results of long-term unremitting efforts.” Art museums, so to speak, for their own development and active shifting to their own democracy, publicity and non-profit character, may lead the intelligent manufacturing system – brought about by the commercial invasion and initiative attachment to private interests – to be disturbed even start to collapse from within art museums. While how the effectiveness of the old constraint mechanism can be demonstrated as widely as possible through improvement, is a common issue faced by global art museums. The scholar, Gan Yang criticized it severely that “culture originally offered a higher standard of lifestyle, beyond people’s commodity fetishism under the market economy condition, so as to develop the possibility of lifestyle spiritually, including personal lifestyle. However, in the last 20 or 30 years, this requirement has been basically abandoned in the West. All the criticism to the advanced culture and the uncritical praises of the mass culture actually only further encouraged the market to dominate the cultural field, resulting in an increasingly lower and vulgar cultural field, because there is no higher standard and positive value pursuit.” For Chinese art museums, this is both a reality and a dilemma, and even an opportunity.Independence and NeutralityIt was not until the 19th century that the concept of art gradually positioned itself as the “artistic” direction in “art museums”. Through the middle ages, after the political chaos, religious oppression and the subsequent war, poverty and anguish, along with the appeal for “anti-feudal, anti-church and anti-autocratic” and the advent of the intellectual light of humanism “democracy, equality and freedom”, “art” and “museum” were born and grown up almost at the same period as the Enlightenment Movement. Because of this, it can be said that the neutrality of religion and politics is a natural gene of “art” and “museum”, and becomes the most important criterion for the art museum.  Or we could put it in another way, “art”, “museum” or “art museum” refer to new “politics” and new “religion” that has been invented by the human being to represent the spirit of the Enlightenment Movement. The core and value of this “politics” and “religion” lie in representing the spiritual field of human beings, spreading value of common social cognition independently, constantly expanding new frontiers for human progress, conducting new experiments and exploring new possibilities.In Western society, the independence and neutrality of art museums mainly refer to the “non-party” characteristics of art museums. In the United States, they are mainly embodied as the characteristics of NGO (non-profit organization), which is closely related to the core of art museums – art itself seeks uniqueness. As a work in pursuit of different, the greatest value of art rest with innovation, no matter in form, method, material, content and concept…… which also does not exclude critical viewpoints. If art takes external demands as its primary purpose, in the end, it will lose its reason for existing. Therefore, we know what makes an artwork separate from the ideology that produces it or gives it a reason to exist. “Art seeks no admiration but respect.” The transcendental art is very likely to fail to accommodate a mature, rigid or closed system in the current era. However, once the independent art point to the future, it will have a spiritual force similar to or even transcend politics and religion, leading human beings to progress in a positive direction. For example, as the father of modernist art, Marcel Duchamp liberated the definition of “art”, and his unconventional art idea – in the form of the famous “urinal”, severely hurt the pride of the High Culture that permeated European art salons. But his revolutionary idea was understood and embraced in the more open America. The American Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) is the very institution that pushed his art and representative concept to the top. The forward-looking value made Duchamp the pioneer of modernist art, and also made New York the origin of modern art for its promotion of Duchamp’s idea, and became the center of world art and culture replacing London and Paris. The following art history of the 20th century was almost inseparable from various variations of this idea, and the development of art, orientation, economy and all other aspects after the 20th century always can’t get away from the United States. Duchamp is not American and does not represent the United States, but American art museums promoted the United States that represented by this concept through the confirmation of Duchamp’s academic status, and input this concept value back to Europe, letting the whole world to accept it. From this perspective, we can understand that the history of art acceptance is particularly important, especially for the art of the 20th century. And this is the gold mine that has not been fully understood and developed in the strategy of China’s national art museums. We will further analyze it in later chapters. Furthermore, the independence and neutrality of the art museum are tightly linked to public welfare (non-profit nature) of the art museum itself. The beneficiary of the art museum points to the public in a broad sense. Even if the actions of the art museum can benefit any member of the public or any representative government, organization, institution, group, individual, and so on, its rules of conduct are not subject to any existing interest groups. “The art museum must remain in touch with reality…… to give the public confidence in the integrity of its projects, it must assure them that its projects are the result of academic research based on equality, civility and justice.” In fact, artistic creation usually can’t disengage from the current social and political environment – especially contemporary art, and even closely connected to different types of social interactions. However, the independence of art requires the separation of artistic standards and the direct influence of social life. For art museums, in the process of selecting artworks and participating in the formulation of artistic standards, particularly for the contemporary art, how to “being part of it while staying out of it” and how to stick to intellectual resources and pure professions in the overall social environment are very important, as if the subtle mastery of the boundary is not properly handled, art and art museum will separate from their nature and thus lose the real value of existence. “It is dangerous for museums to engage in larger social or political agendas, which would be divorced from the practice of art history.” Because, once the art museum is subject to the sectarian power and needs to seek safety and security in economic and social status, and aesthetic choice, the art will run away for its own survival. Since the Vietnam war, our so-called politicized art has been steadily withdrawn from museums and galleries, and has gained a foothold on the streets……in a deinstitutionalized context…… in which the younger generation of activists are well aware of the aestheticized potential of seditious bulletins and exploit them. Art museums can be the most inclusive platforms for discussion of art projects involving political disputes and social issues, but these art creation projects themselves should not contain any political purpose. Such a stand of independence and neutrality is also the basic guarantee of the authority of art museums.As mentioned above, the neutrality of art museum in religion and politics does not mean that art museums are not related to politics and government. The universalistic principle of connection and the theory of knowledge ecology tell us that the museum cannot be separated from its historical, natural, social, political and entire ecological environment, and is shaped by them. The museum also changes this system and environment through influencing the viewing, concept, knowledge structure and intellectual experience of people in this ecosystem. It is the universality of connection that highlights the importance of the museum’s independence that emphasized by professionalism in connection. It is also because of the critical position of the museum in the overall ecosystem that its role of neutrality has received increasing recognition from the perspective of professionalism. We stress the independence of the museum neither points to “anti-institution”, nor to the “antithesis of the government” in the view of “extremism” – so it is not really in line with the meaning of neutrality. Even the artists and works that are critical of the government may have a positive display on the country’s cultural inclusion and political image. For instance, during the cold war, the CIA secretly supported artists and exhibition that are critical of the United States through its foundations, aiming to arouse people’s interest and discussion on American culture and art from different perspectives, which fully embodied the openness, tolerance and diversity of American society. In fact, the development of art museums in any country cannot do without the support of the government, and the government of any county cannot avoid the existence of art museums and their functions for having a positive and significant influence on the administration. However, under different governing concepts and modes, the relationship between art museums and the government is different, and it is best to make use of it under the premise of respecting its professional law.According to the research of Lu Juan in the article of “The Cultural Funding Mode of Foreign Government and its Enlightenment to China”, the national governing mode is generally divided into two categories: state-oriented and society-oriented. In the state-oriented mode, the state has the highest decision-making power among the three fields of state, society and market, and it takes an overall intervention in the society. While the society-oriented mode is just the opposite, as within it the state is only a kind of social organization, and is subordinate compared to society, with a very limited role. Different national governance modes have different tendencies in the ownership proportion of museums, and the government’s investment and intervention in museums are also different. “American art museums are primarily private institutions that are endowed with public status, while most of that in Europe are civic or national institutions.”In America, where free market, free competition, and private property are valued, 59% of museums are set up by private institutions and 41% of museums are by all levels of governments. America has been a country without the ministry of culture since the Kennedy Administration, as the government believes that it can only play a limited, indirect and marginal role in the cultural field and that an administrative organization of officials and systems will turn art into a system, generating administrative department system, which is not good for the vitality of creation and the freedom of the artist. At the same time, it is thought that only the construction of art museums with mainly private capital can guarantee the freedom, vitality, and diversity of the American cultural system. Therefore, American art museums have about the highest proportion of private museums compared with other types of museums. Whether private or public art museums, almost all the museums (especially art museums) are built on private donations. Whether private or public art museums, all of that enjoy the national public welfare policy of assisting cultural and artistic undertakings – 501(c)  ( Tax exemption for non-profit organizations by the U.S. Federal Government ),  are actually “public-owned, public-operated” non-profit organizations. The central government of the United States does not directly fund culture and art enterprises, but through intermediary social organizations such as the national foundation, to selectively reflect its support for cultural and art cause within the specified scope (generally 10%, no more than 50% of the project). Cities, states, counties and others subsidizing art museums have nothing to do with whether the art museum is public or private. In this case, most of the financial resources required by the art museum come from society. Even if the state-owned art museums are not subject to governmental control, the government will act as a public spokesperson to exert pressure on the art museums when their activities deviate from the track (for example, when it involves human rights and ethnic issues). Regarding international cultural exchange, for instance, MoMA, as an independent private museum, not only plays a central role in the dissemination of modern art but actually undertook a mission to defend the overall interests of the United States. This is because when the US government cannot fulfill its responsibility due to opposition lawmakers in the Congress, the museums and some public foundations with partisan neutrality can continue to carry out the work initially started by the state department. Although many of these foundations may receive funds, even secret funds from CIA, or MoMA’s management may also overlap with the personnel of the state council, such as Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, who served successively as the president of MoMA and deputy secretary of state, and the Rockefeller Foundation has been the central supporting agency of MoMA for a long time. René d’ Harnoncourt, former director of MoMA, once was in charge of the art department of the American division of the state department. In France, a grant traditional culture country, cultural rights are regarded as the fundamental rights of the country as well as basic civil rights. The cultural administrative organization of the central government, the ministry of culture and communications, directly manages French cultural affairs by signing contracts with cultural institutions and groups, and most expenses of French cultural institutions and groups come from direct state grants. As a result, France’s non-profit art museums are mostly directly under the state and are largely at the mercy of the government.Different from the United States which has no central government department of culture, and also different from France which is under the administration of the ministry of culture assigning government officials from the central to the local, the United Kingdom uniformly funds and manages the national cultural affairs through the non-governmental public culture institutions (quasi-official organizations). All of the country’s large cultural units, such as the British Museum, National Gallery, British Library and other organizations, operated independently and not directly under the ministry of culture, news and sports. Specific affairs are assigned to non-governmental public cultural institutions, such as Arts Council England, Arts and Crafts Association, Museums and Art Museums Association, and other organizations composed of experts, who are responsible for evaluating and allocating funds to various culture units. The government used indirect management to avoid excessive administrative intervention in art museums to prevent corruption, but at the same time, it was not wholly disengaged and lack of macro-control and planning, with its funding proportion apparently higher than that in the United States.Actually, no matter who is the owner of the art museum, and either through the governmental control (France), the policy guidance that helps guarantee the funding source (US), or the indirect interventions from non-profit organizations (UK), the US, UK and France all preserve the character of the art museum as a non-profit organization with different systems and methods, and also ensures the neutrality of the art museum in religion and politics. For China, realizing the independence and neutrality of the art museum is to gain a lubricant for national and social development, which can internally alleviate many social problems caused by rapid economic growth. For example, one clear aim of London’s National Gallery is by encouraging the poor and the rich to “discover their common nature” so as to “cement the government order that binds the two classes together”. Externally, art museums can help China integrate quickly into global culture. Of course, there is no denying that on this issue, Chinese art museums have different backgrounds from those of western European developed countries, and thus, considering the experience of the West and adjusting ideas of developing Chinese characteristics are all in the scope of our discussion.The Authority of the Intellect ProductionDiffering from the term “Knowledge”—obtain truth or information through experience and education, the term “Intellect” refers to the logic and ability to judge things and resolve contradictions. It comes from ancient Greek and philosophically is connected to the science of how people recognize things while psychologically it describes the highest level of people’s rational knowledge of the world.In the section of “The History of the Art Museum”, we cite the research of Conn. S to introduce that the museum – as a way of people understanding the world at the end of the 19th century – has become a source of human intellect and value, and its once-owned irreplaceability. At the same time, we explain the reasons why the branch of the museum – art museum became unique in the process of decline in the museum’s intellect system in the 20th century. The authority of the art museum in intellect production is complementary to the other three properties of the art museum. It is authoritative because of its “social and cultural durability”, “democracy, publicity and non-profit character” and “religious and political neutrality”. Only by ensuring the three properties of the art museum, can its authority be fully reflected and its functions for humanity, nation, state and society be brought into full play. J. Wood states in the article of “The Academic Authority of the American Art Museums” that “art museums represent eight authorities: nurture, professionalism, hierarchy, memory, preservation, architecture, mission and leadership”. Among them, there are the emotional and psychological authority, such as “nurture, memory, mission”, etc., which not only represents the cold image of the art museum as the temple of the times or the holy land of art worship, but also represents the beautiful complex of the art museum as the habitat of human spirit. Alfred H.Barr Jr once proposed in 1944 that “the displayed objects of museums must be authoritative representations of the various departments of the museum to the audience. They become a permanent and clear demonstration of art museums’ core activities, operation range, judgment standards, tastes and values, working principle and faith in art.” As David Carr said in “Museum News” in 2011, “museums are institutions that convey the influence, value and authority. Its inherent influence comes from the treasures of its collections and the mastery of knowledge and information.”  While Michael Kimmelman wrote in the “New York Times” in 2001 that “art museums must re-examine their authority on the definition of beauty in order to recover the value of art.” What we are talking about here is the authority of intellect production, such as “hierarchy, professionalism and leadership” and so on. In this book, we summarize the authority of intellect in three aspects.Firstly, in the history of art development, even if art museums are not really judges of art standards, they are a key deciding factor of why art has become art, although such authority tends to weaken nowadays. Our surroundings present themselves through a certain form, while the only purpose of art is to show this form. That is why in the process of realizing the value of art, being observed is an indispensable step. As the art museum mainly takes the role as the public space for art appreciation, it has ensured its central position in art ecology and human intellect production during the development of the museum. The German scholar, Hans Belting has declared the integral position of art museums in the establishment of art standards from another perspective. He thinks that art has “a universal validity that is not affected by the times”, and “art, like human rights, is eternal and general”. A single art does not constitute such a force and only when art enters art history can those “arts” that forms art history have this power. And invented by human beings, the art museum is a place where all the individual arts can share the universal principles of art. Cuba’s contemporary curator, Gerardo Mosquera, has said, the value assessment of contemporary art is highly dependent on the circulation of art, the promoted major networks as well as these networks’ ability to accept or reject them. Of course, we do not deny that art history is not created by art museums independently, but by the critical discourse mechanism (art museum, art gallery, college and market) and various public media together. Today, foundations, arts economics, art consultants and artists themselves become the co-builders of credibility and standards in art production. Because of this, we can clearly find that the art museum with publicity, democracy, non-profit character, independence, and neutrality is not only an important part of it but also highlights its authority due to its stance in the process. That is why even “in the field of art, the artists of the 1960s had abandoned art museums, and Avant-Garde (Minimalism, Land Art and Conceptual Art) artists all explicitly stated that art museums were tombs of art”. In the art theory circle, from Arthur Danto’s “The End of Art” to Hans Belting’s “Non-museum theory”, and then to the “Museum Skepticism – A History of the Display of Art in Public Galleries” wrote by David Carrier, a famous American contemporary art theorists, all refer to the death of artworks that separated from society, history and reality after entering the art museum. Even so, being collected, exhibited and published by art museums has long been seen as a measure of the value of artworks – because “a civilization without a tomb is unthinkable (Chen Danqing)”. Moreover, just as Boris Groys considers that the museum is “a machine producing and showing today’s new art – that is, a machine that produces today itself”. The nature of the museum – seeking new, distinguishing new, establishing new and collecting new, has made “the museum system not only not come to an end but become eternally renewed in today when art and art history are ‘terminated’”. Second, in the development of contemporary art museums, the enhanced tendency of paying attention to present artistic creation and evolution, increasingly activated some rigid restrictions on artworks by art museums in the “theory of art museums were tombs of art”, and made contemporary museums become a huge experimental field for idea, criticism, suggestion, creation, and unceasing redefinition, “through collaboration and convergence with other fields and disciplines – from literature, music, architecture, drama to social and economic activities……a new world is being constantly imagined, conceived, formed, tested and questioned”. For example, the time-honored British Museum attaches great importance to keeping pace with the current art world and expects to establish a relationship of historical inheritance, digging out its classic collection and their traditional value. One example is that in 2011, British Museum commissioned Xu Bing to create the work “Background Story 7”, which employed contemporary media (mostly waste) to create an installation inspired by a Chinese landscape painting by Wang Shimin of the Qing Dynasty from the museum’s collection. Thus, the art museum became the best place to publish the cutting-edge works of the times, which, along with the exploration of the newest art form, is also in line with the public’s expectations for the authority of art museums. These artistic creations, which are continually updated with the changing trend of the times, must undergo periodic precipitation to identify their value, and the art museum is just such a purification mechanism. At the same time, many new trends of contemporary artistic creation and dissemination, such as cross-discipline, interactivity, multimedia, digitalization, and others provided many new opportunities for art museums to support the development of art – especially through the construction of the public service platform of the artists. This kind of “initiative” can constitute a guiding force for art, culture and society, which is precisely the embodiment of the authority of the art museum. In addition, the art museum can be said to have established the material culture of society. The collection, classification and exhibition of exhibits should be understood as the exercise of power. Every installation or display of the collection is an attempt to give an interpretation of the collection, an understanding of the art history, and most importantly, an exposition of the art museum as a center of wisdom and art activities. The idea of establishing an art museum provided an environment and also works that can support this idea; thus a center of intellect, culture and social activities is born. This kind of intellect means that art museums enable people to pay more attention to their surroundings by stimulating them to think and communicate. That is to say, the work of the art museum is based on its own cultural consciousness and value concept. In the process of describing and shaping art phenomenon, the art museum studied, carded and refined material culture mode that formed by social development to produce a more substantial work, and spread it to the public through public space and platform with extensive influence. It cultivates the public’s appreciation and understanding of art, thus to form a force to promote social consensus, which is also the source of the cultural initiative of art museums that we emphasize.Based on the above descriptions, in order to further explain the problem, we take the Louvre Museum as an example to analyze the birth of the intellect authority of the art museum. Since its establishment, the Louvre Museum has existed as a public cultural resource. The artistic treasures left by the French dynasties (mainly Bourbon Dynasty at that time) represent the highest art standards of the French people in each period and reflect the historical and cultural features as well as the social development of France in each period. The staff of the museum classified and arranged the collection according to the development of art schools and styles. With full consideration of the convenience of public communication, they enabled the Louvre Museum to become an art collection store and archives of art research for the common material and cultural heritage of mankind, indicating that the museum is independent of thinking and no longer subject to any sectarian regime. The Louvre Museum has preserved the best cultural traditions of France, and its vivid presentation has benefited generations of French people and even visitors from all over the world. With its existence, the museum has shown the unique value of French culture to the world. To this day, the Louvre Museum has become synonymous with France and a symbol of French culture and even the advanced modern culture of the world. If the artworks in the Louvre Museum are only taken as the aesthetic objects, as the specific presentation of aesthetic experience and artistic taste, then the loss of the meaning of these artworks will be significant. At that time, there were numerous collections accumulated by the French royal families and nobles. Which collections were displayed, how to display them, together with which collections and where to display them, how to promote them – all these choices and judgments still influence the relevant work of the museum today. From ancient times to the Renaissance, ancient Greece, ancient Egypt and ancient Rome, collections were arranged by time and region. In the large three-story gallery space on the south side of the Louvre Museum, highlighted the masterpieces of French historical painting of the late 18th and 19th centuries, including Jacques Louis David’s “Oath of the Horatii”(1784-1785), “The Death of Marat” (1793),  “Napoleon Crossing the St. Bernard Pass” (1801), “Napoleon Holding Josephine's Crown” (1804-1807), and Eugène Delacroi’s “Liberty Leading the People” (1831), and so on. It can be seen that France, which is known as an inclusive country of world culture, has not forgotten to highlight its historical glory in its art museums. The choice made on the basis of ensuring professionalism is subjective and biased, and the result of choice eventually becomes an objective and universal art history. These works reflect the national spirit of France and also confirm the history of France heading towards modern times since the French Revolution. They are displayed forever in the Louvre Museum and become the most important classics to attract visitors and researchers. This is by no means a random act, but an expression of the will of the art museum, which shows the cultural position and intention of the collector (collection institution). The knowledge that museums intend to disseminate is not, in essence, neutral. Intellect is a social product that reflects the power relations in our society. Art museums spread beauty and culture, but what is beauty and what kind of culture should be inherited? The judgment of art museums on these issues essentially constitute cultural privilege or even economic privilege. As a result, the art museum has become the perfect place to study the interlaced history of power and cultural forms. In terms of contemporary art museums, because the value judgment of modern art is often accompanied by controversy and variable, compared to those classical art museums with conclusive masterworks that entered into art history, contemporary art museums or the contemporary departments of art museums play more the role of a forum rather than a referee. When the modern art museum becomes a place to listen to different voices, it was these rich and diverse voices that rendered them to be evaluated at a certain stage. Therefore, the authority of the art museum runs through its whole process. In fact, since the middle 1960s, institutional criticism has become an important trend in post-modern practice. The social and political unrest of the 1960s has led artists to question institutional values, including the value of museums, and many essential artists have used their works to reveal the ideology implied in museum narratives. Then, by the late 1980s and early 1990s, artists were more involved in the work content of art museums and tried to raise public awareness of the power system within cultural institutions. Just because art is such a creation and activity that seeks innovation, change and controversy, and while promoting this kind of creation, the art museum becomes an embracer questioning the intellect system of the museum, making the authority of the art museum avoid being limited to a rigid authority. The authority of intellect production possessed by art museums, in an open and democratic society, is acquired through the influence on the public, and there is no absolute authority anymore. The power of the art museum is established on the basis of publicity. The way that art museums convey authority is also through a process of professional sharing to the public (non-professional) receiving and then to public judgment. The most straight appearance of the art museum is that it can affect the value of artworks – not the pricing power, so it can be easily abused and thus lead to the loss of authority. To have a authority in the democratic society, museums must be creative in maintaining the relationship between showing professionalism and questioning assumptions and even be brave to take the initiative to find the fallacy in their own systems. Art museums need to exploit their authority as wisely as possible to inspire pure aesthetic experience, or they will lose their imagination and thus their authority. However, some characteristics of the ecological development of Western contemporary art are weakening the power of the art museum as intellect producers. In this era of art change, in fact, our base, position, resource, system and other foundations are very different from international art museums. According to our situation of the socialism with Chinese characteristics, how to construct an art museum feature that is independent of the market and neutral out of the system, and make this feature serve the public, we will discuss further in the following chapters. ...More

Art Museum and Contemporary Publicness...


   美术馆在 20 世纪 90 年代随着经济的繁荣出现了井喷式发展,它们被看作是新的公民活动中心,对它的功能的解释和定位出现了新的讨论,一方面美术馆比以往更加受欢迎和更加流行,另一方面又比以前饱受批评和争议。1“美术馆与当代公共性”是一项迎接这种时代的新挑战和新课题,它是当代社会积极兴办美术馆之后而产生的一个国际性跨领域实践活动。同样,美术馆在中国的发展也是时代的一项新事业,当下的艺术发展与教育构成了当前文化生态的新景观。当有了美术馆平台之后,这二者的互动关系与意义就成为极具前沿性和探索性的艺术视觉与观念领域。事实上,在国际范围内,美术馆与公共教育形成了非常密切的互动关系,它不仅与教育机构发生密切联系,它自身也成为知识创造的地方,在传统意义上,美术馆是视觉文化与艺术史知识体系生产的一种机制,甚至说美术史(包括现当代艺术史)的产生即依赖于美术馆的创立和发展,但进入当代后,再次确认了美术馆的地位和作用,它不仅仅是与艺术自身发展有关的事情,而是成为全民社会建构的主体和公共空间,视公众为积极的建构者 2。因此,在面对新的艺术实践、新的艺术观念、新的教育理念的情况下,美术馆的作用和方式也发生了相应的变化,其管理、运营、典藏、展示、研究等等都产生出新的话题。美术馆与当代的艺术教育的结合就成为当下艺术与文化发展的一种趋势,当代艺术教育的创造性与美术馆的实验性、前沿性相得益彰,二者的有机结合意味着产生并构建新的艺术文化的知识形态的可能性,由此延伸,赋予美术馆以多种公共性功能。一、美术馆与大学美术教育       由于美术馆建制的出现,它对大学的美术教育形成了新的课题,也因此将美术馆在学院教育体制的作用问题凸现出来,它的实践性与学院教育的系统性和合理性之间都产生了诸多新挑战,既有来自美术馆不断呈现多种艺术样态和方式的挑战,也有美术教育机制和心理如何与这种美术馆实践性结合的挑战。因此,从实践的层面,美术馆不再是一种固定模式的呈现,而更多是动态的、变化的艺术现象与事实的信息传递,不是以确定的历史来证明经典和标准,更多的是揭示变化、发现矛盾、提醒问题,甚至表达怀疑。当美术馆不断显现了它在策展与展示方面的时代性时,学院教育就需要作出回应和思考。对这样的关系做出开放式的教学模型和框架,将是美术馆与学院教育的新任务。教学的静态化与美术馆的动态化将相互激荡、互为砥砺,但同时也意味着冲突,而美术馆更体现为冲突下的活力以及想象力激发,特别是当代的策展模式逐渐转向教育功能 3,美术馆因此与美术学院的教学会更加紧密。     今天,美术馆不仅是历史遗产的美术馆,也是呈现正在发生的当代艺术现象的美术馆,因此,美术馆就成为当代艺术概念形成与判断的一个场所,它既有对艺术经典再思考的诉求,也有突出当下创造性的必然。因此,当代艺术显现在美术馆之时必成为一种公共行为和观念的渗透,所以说到内容多变的当代艺术的时候,美术馆的呈现即意味着艺术理论的新解读,或者某种未知可能性的探索性,所有这一切都是对创造思维的肯定,但如何确立创造思维的主动性、积极性以及开放性,实际上是当代艺术公共教育的一个着力点。对当代艺术公共教育有了新的认识,那么美术馆的新意义就呈现出来。       我们知道,当代的美术学院教育受到的挑战,不仅来自学院教育能否跟进艺术观念的发展,也在于它们是否永远以不变应万变,对于艺术的丰富性和多样化漠视不顾,将艺术的技能训练作为唯一标杆和尺度,而学习艺术的学生却没有得到足够的知识训练。这对于变化了的当今时代,这是大忌;在这种情况下,作为艺术知识实验平台的美术馆的出现和转型,就弥补了学院教育的不足和滞后。但作为当代文化与观念呈现的新型美术馆,则又需要深刻的策划理念和美术馆行政的自主性和积极性。没有新型的当代美术馆理念,就不会有崭新的美术馆建设,也不会产生能动的展览主旨,从而也不会发生更有效的艺术公共教育。观众与美术馆的关系不是一味的被动关系,而是要强调其参与性、体验性和反思互动性。策展理念的转向必然带动美术馆的新发展,因此对于美术教育也将促使变化。二、美术馆概念的拓展与当代艺术的理论解读有关       当我们深入到美术馆机制的追问中时,一道盘桓良久的神秘之题就是——为什么是美术馆成为当代文化的代表、为什么成为社会聚焦之点、为什么成为新的知识来源与去处的落脚点。一句话,美术馆机制为什么成了质疑与建设并存的问题和对象。2001 年 10 月至 2002 年 6月连续十个月,纽约大都会博物馆、现代艺术博物馆、大英博物馆、哈佛大学美术馆、盖迪美术馆的馆长以及芝加哥艺术学院院长共六人进行密集的对话。他们的议题就是讨论谁的美术馆、美术馆的公共性。4 发生了这一切追问的,是当代的知识理论重新产生了,这种新知识的产生和来源,在很大程度上是针对了美术馆机制的旧有机制和传统,因此,当代的艺术理论也针对美术馆机制发起了诸多新的知识追问,并用新的知识理论来复兴、再造当代美术馆机制的含义和潜力。有了这样的艺术理论和体系,就形成了新型的美术馆机制。所以,理论的作用在当代美术馆机制中扮演了重要角色,这是我们发展当代的美术馆事业要深入追溯并加以回应的。         我们是在时间的序列中形成历史,而此历史的铿锵呈现并非自然的历史,而是一种知识的历史,更确切说是美术史的历史。这就是现代美术史的发生缘起,没有美术馆机制的存在,美术史所建构的概念、风格、流派和阐释模型都无从落实。因此,对于当代美术史的定义和阐释,完全可以以美术馆为基点,有什么样的美术馆藏品和研究,就有什么样的美术史。在美术馆的建构下,美术史变得更加具体和真实,也更加丰富;但不是任意的收藏皆成为有意义的美术史,那些不能构成新的艺术知识的藏品便不是美术史针对的对象。美术馆是建构中的美术馆,也因此美术史也是建构下的美术史,所以艺术理论的刷新与跟进,就促使了美术馆的发展和进步。如果美术馆的建设与经营过于僵化、狭隘、没有一种文化视野,结果只能使美术馆是一个大杂烩的展示馆、广告宣传馆,出现这种情况就会让人对美术馆的崇高感失落痛心不已。         美术馆的创立和发展经过了历史的演变,它随着艺术的变革、艺术的观念创新,也发生着深刻的变化。所以,没有一成不变的美术馆概念,只有美术馆能够充分发挥自身的独特知识生产的机制,让美术馆作为学术概念、文化概念、实验性概念的试验地、展现平台与质疑空间,它才能够对当代艺术产生自主的影响和自觉的行动。所有这些概念的实施又是以展览策划为载体,1972 年瑞士策展人赛曼策划的“第五届卡塞尔文献展”极大地改变了艺术的观看方式和生产方式,使得展览自身成为艺术主体方式之一,也使得展览依托的美术馆成为艺术知识生产的平台和机制。正因为艺术在变化,所以美术馆随之转型;美术馆之转型,也必将影响艺术的存在和生成方式,特别在当代,美术馆已扮演了艺术创造的主动者角色,其曾经的被动跟进的角色已经改变,相反越是积极、主动的美术馆,越是当代艺术的观念与理论形成的主导者和实施者。这方面,在中国具有非常大、非常现实与前瞻意义的挑战。当代艺术的改写,在某种意义上,是美术馆越来越发生着关键的作用。       美术馆在当代艺术的生成方面开始产生关键的作用,但它对当代艺术生产的介入是如何发生的、社会知识构成体系的变化对之如何反向作用、美术馆的传播功能是如何与生产机制互动的,等等,都是具有现实操作的问题。其中,美术馆的文化概念的形成,因地域的差别而不同,但这并不妨碍美术馆是当代艺术的生产者和传播者。因此,当代艺术创作的理解也会发生变化,生产可能与传播有关,同时也对美术馆收藏概念产生动摇,即美术馆并非一味地以收藏为目的,这就是当代美术馆的活动性的合法性基础所在。对于当下发生的艺术现象,尽管其发展的未来不确定,但美术馆能够以开放的艺术心态去辨别新发生的艺术,就能够以自身的美术影响力和学术高度来促进该一类新生艺术的成长和关注,并以新知识生产为己任,积极建构当代美术史,实施发言权,它既对自身发出挑战,也向流行模式发出挑战。因此,在新知识结构中,以思考的深度和跨度来衡量当代艺术的可能性,以此来书写短时段的当代美术编年史,确定长时段的当代美术史学术选择。所以,当代的美术馆是艺术历史建构者的美术馆,要积极地建设其学术高度以及保持美术馆的独立地位。三、当代美术馆的公共性意识        对美术馆的公共教育功能的强调,应该从其本质出发,而不是从一些细枝末叶说事。如果不能理解美术馆的特征,就无从理解美术馆的公共教育是什么,这里的公共教育不是说教、不是灌输强制性概念或某种政治话语,它强调了对话 5。为什么美术馆(博物馆)曾经受到广泛的批评、批判 (如在 20 世纪 70 年代出现“体制批判”就是针对美术馆博物馆的专制、霸权、狭隘所发出的质问和审视)就是这个原因,也通过他们的美术馆“体制批判”而激发了社会对美术馆公共性的认识和意识。6       从现实的逻辑上讲,美术馆意识因为发生了转型,其功能与机制也将发生变化,鉴于当代艺术的丰富性和冲突性,新的美术馆意识也将是以开放、宽容与对话为主,民主的美术馆意识将是这个时代的特点之一,这是由充满差异的艺术及其观念的冲突所决定的,没有争议不成为美术馆,而争议的保证则必是民主的美术馆意识,“任何主张体制自由的美术馆声明都有赖于美术馆实施其自由”7。美术馆不仅仅是物理空间,如果在当代社会与当代艺术中不能形成有担当社会理念、富有精神感召的美术馆意识,则美术馆的文明仪式化的作用就大大降低,其精神象征的价值就受到忽视 8。美术馆是当代社会的精神象征,而当代艺术要走向精神的层面,不破解诸多物质时代的痼疾和不良认知,是无法实现的,也将曲解当代艺术的永恒价值。所以,美术馆形成独立、独特、独创的精神归宿,是当代的美术馆意识,是人类追求自我永恒性的一种表征对象。        正因为有了当代美术馆存在的机制,也有了新的美术馆意识,所以在实施美术馆战略时,就形成与当代艺术教育公共性的辩证关系。美术馆的开放性是当代艺术教育公共性的核心,而当代艺术教育的旨归是人性的自由和人类创造能力的释放。二者互动存在,互动作用,也互动在文明仪式化的空间中,让现代人具有了另一种教育的现场。        美术馆具有充分的当代艺术教育的公共性诉求,也因此具有完全的社会责任和历史要求,将当代艺术教育的公共性作为人类社会的一种文明象征来展开,将美术馆成为当代文明的精神殿堂,使美术馆充分发展为精神呈现与寄托的场所。发展美术馆,就是发展美术馆的公共性,而公共性在今天来讲,实际上是一种广域视角中的当代艺术教育。做好、做足这样的公共性事业,就是建设当代文明的行动,也是人类创造力和想象力的最大体现。当代社会的有机组织离不开当代美术馆的教育公共性。作为多重含义的美术馆公共性:1. 体现为一种教育机构的属性;2. 是历史意识得以产生的空间;3. 进行多种文化学习的空间;4. 活动参与的空间;5. 进行当代文化问题探讨的空间;6. 创新思维实验平台;7 . 社会资源集合地;8. 社会荣誉与公共信托;9. 新文明与新信仰的心灵殿堂。        这是一个结成一体、彼此链接、互为支撑的跨视域的美术馆意识以及当代艺术教育创新性与建设性的关系,它们从不同层面、角度切入到当下最前沿、最具有热点和前瞻性的知识生成机制中,将当代艺术教育理念贯通在美术馆机制中,实现历史与未来、传承与创造的有机结合,最大化地实现美术史的具体化、美术理论的现场性以及艺术实践的挑战性。        所有这一切都以展览与研究为经纬,横向与纵向形成网络结构,从美术馆的文明高度定位到管理的决策程序都以公共性为宗旨,美术馆是现代社会最具文化与文明使命的空间与舞台。这个意识无论如何强调都不过分,也只有从公共性的广度与深度上来认识美术馆,才能使得对美术馆的理解和认识进入到一个新时代的同步中。中国的美术馆实践理应同步跟进当前国际美术馆界的发展状态和动向,探索美术学院教育的美术馆机制的时代命题。它的诸多方面的观察、取样、分析与理论模型皆结合国际现状,既取其先进经验和理论,又结合中国实际来形成有自身特色的一流美术馆文化,为中国的当代美术馆与当代艺术教育事业提供发展、创想的思路和借鉴意义,既强化富于挑战、充满前瞻性和创造性的实践,又加大多重艺术机制叠合与多重艺术观念交汇的探索。  (作者:王春辰,中央美术学院美术馆副馆长、副教授) 注释:1.      James Cuno, Introduction, Whose Muse? Art Museum and the Public Trust, Princeton University Press, 2004, p.11.2.      Eilean Hooper-Greenhill, Museum Learners as active postmodernists: contextualizing constructivism, in The Educational Role of the Museum, Routledge, second edition, 1999, p.67-68.3.     Paul O’Neil & Mick Wilson, eds., Curating and the Educational Turn, Open Editions/de Appel, 2010, London/Amsterdam, p.12.4.     James Cuno, ed., Whose Muse?- Art Museums and the Public Trust, Princeton University Press, 2004.5.     大卫·卡里尔: 《博物馆怀疑论—— 公共美术馆中的艺术展览史》,江苏美术 出版社,2009年,第294页。6.     See Museum Highlights, The Writings of Andrea Fraser, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2005.7.     Stephen E. Weil, Museums as Center of Controversy, in Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, America’s Museums, Summer 1999, p.224.8.      Carol Duncan, Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums, London & New York, Routledge, 1995, p.8-20.中译见《大学 美术馆》创刊号,同济大学出版社,2010 年,第22-35页。 ...More

Summary of the international Forum”Museum and Public Relation”...


时间 :2012 年 11 月 7 日( 10 :00) 地点 :中央美术学院美术馆学术报告厅 参会人 :王璜生、卡洛琳• 克里斯托夫• 巴卡捷夫(Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev)、克里斯 • 德尔康(Chris Dercon)、李立伟(Lars Nittve)、乌利 • 希克 (Uli Sigg) ...More

Wang Huangsheng: Art Museum as an Organism...


主要涉及以下几个问题:第一,作为有机体的美术馆意识,主要围绕四个方面的意识谈。第二,作为有机体美术馆的结构,探讨美术馆本身自我生长、自我协调的可能性。第三,作为有机体美术馆的学术能力,主要强调美术馆学术能力的两个方面。第四,作为有机体的美术馆运营,主要探讨大家普遍关心的筹资问题。 ...More

University Art Museums in China – Introduction and Production of Modern Knowledge...


以上表明中国最早的大学博物馆和美术馆对现代知识的引进和发展产生了很大的作用,但这条发展的线索后来中断了。我想重提这种传统,呼吁大学重视学校博物馆和美术馆对现代知识的引进和生产所起到的推进作用,建议目前的大学博物馆和美术馆弱化教育功能,少办本校师生作品展,而更多强调学术研究职能,因为现代知识生产的最高目标不是对知识的使用。否则,实验和创造的品质将会远离大学。高中教育或职业教育可以具有实用性功能,但大学是思辨性的,它发挥的作用在于详细地解释知识的法则和基础。 ...More

Art Museum and Contemporary Art...


这种介入是对当代文化新的思考、思维方式的创新,同时也在以一种新的方式对当代美术馆的策展、展示和管理发生意义和影响。当代艺术与美术馆的核心问题是对待“近现代”或“现当代”的角度和态度问题。 ...More

The Symposium on Development Strategies for International Art Museums...


2008年10月19日(上午)在中央美术学院美术馆学术报告厅举行了国际美术馆发展策略研讨会。本文是这次研讨会的发言与讨论记录。 ...More

The Inaugural Issue of the “University and Art Museum”...


在2001年《美术馆》刊物的创刊辞上我写道:“‘美术馆’的性质包含着对于文化的容量,对于历史的态度,以及对于开放社会性的立场和方式。美术馆以它丰富而见证性的收藏体现着文化的丰厚内涵及发展脉络,以对历史负责的态度来反映和建构多元的文化,以及对历史的尊重和保护。而更根本的是将这种体现、反映和建构与一个开放的社会空间联系起来,形成互动的关系,使静态的物成为动态的文化,成为当下社会文化的一个有机组成部分。” ...More

University Spirit and Campus Blueprint...


当一所美术学院拥有了画坛、设计界与学术界的“大师”,拥有了环境优雅而现代化的“大楼”,拥有了在该领域内完整而前沿的学科建制“大气”时,这所学院就一定能代表国内美术教育的最高水平,进而在国际上立足一流。 ...More

Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums...


本文将阐述艺术博物馆作为仪式的理念。实际上,艺术博物馆的仪式性质在公共艺术博物馆诞生之初便存在,并常常被视为实现艺术博物馆宗旨的必要手段。 ...More
Quick loginAccount login
  • Mobile phone number will be your login ID
Use Artron membership to login