Out of Lascaux

The MOMA Revisited

In an article titled A Modest Proposal in the Village Voice, Jerry Saltz says he's been to the MoMA 14 times since it re-opened. 14 times?!?! I guess he's not paying for his own tickets. Anyway, he proposes that the museum should exhibit the works in strictly chronological order. That way, we could see who influenced whom and who did what first.

As it is, the museum is divided by floors - and they assume you will start on the 5th floor and work your way down: Special Exhibitions; Painting and Sculpture I; Painting and Sculpture II; Architecture and Design; Contemporary Galleries; Sculpture Garden. The rooms are devoted to major works by a few artists like Pollock and Picasso. The set-up works, especially when it's crowded, but I like Saltz's "75 Years" better.

He also presents "Nine Ideas for a Better MoMA" which are reasonable. Not enough women represented, and too many contemporary white guys and Germans.

However, I would like to take a moment to think about the function of the MoMA. Is it a museum of Modern Art? Or is it a museum of Contemporary Art? The two are not the same, not for a long time now. How long will we call something "Modern" once it has passed it's 100th birthday? I have a feeling we will be calling Picasso's work Modern Art for centuries to come. This means we need to re-think the meaning of the term Modern Art. And perhaps the MoMA should consider concentrating on Modern Art and leaving Contemporary Art for galleries and museums of Contemporary Art. Although I suppose the MoMA could be seen as a bridge between the two.

I was going to go on to say something like this before I started doing a little web surfing:
The art historian in me says, "Oh, but to understand a contemporary artist, we must look at what came before." But, that isn't necessarily true. Contemporary Art is light years away from its moden predecessors. To say that to understand Mark Dion you must look at Picasso is like saying to understand Picasso you must look at Michelangelo. It doesn't work.

But I was wrong, and my art historian voice has triumphed. Mark Dion can only be understood once we realize that Duchamp came first. And Sigmund Polke is better undestood after looking at Picasso and Warhol. Contemporary Art is often too difficult a concept to grasp without looking at how classic art was deconstructed by the Modern Masters of the 20th century. Those not emersed in art history need some kind of wading pool before jumping into the deep end. Otherwise, it's all nonsense.

Now, whether an artist was actually influenced by older masters is another matter. Some will claim they were not at all influenced, and some will make direct references. Whatever the case, they will never be completely fee of that "cultural baggage." Not every artist looks at it as "baggage," I'm sure. I know of at least one artist who studied art history with diligence before launching himself into the world of Contemporary Art. Bob Melzmuf felt he needed to understand his predecessors before he could truly break away from them.

But, back to the MoMA. I still believe there is a fundamental schizofrenia at work there. One way to get around it may be to say, "Look at what all this art and innovation has led up to today!" But then you have relegated the Modern Masters to mere predecessors useful only in their ability to help us understand what's being produced today. I don't hold with that idea at all. So, the Museum for Modern Art = Museum of Modern Masters. Notice the word "contemporary" gets left out completely.

UPDATE: A certain blogger pointed out that I neglected to do two things. 1) I neglected to mention that he was the one who pointed the Village Voice article out to me. Yeah, he did, but I didn't have anything to link to over there. He's too busy being a rocket scientist. 2) I neglected to link to my earlier article on the MoMA in which I discussed an article from the American Conservative - also kindly pointed out by said blogger. The aforementioned article would be here if they had deigned to publish it online. Anyway, go to my earlier article to read what it said.

Posted by Alexandra at January 30, 2005 09:31 AM