It's early and I've been reading a book review of Who's Muse: Art Museums and the Public Trust. There are lots of noble motives attributed, fairly I think, to the institution of the art museum, namely that their purpose is to show the art, first and foremost and to foster a peaceful and consolatory environment, both in the work that is shown and in the design and arrangement of the museum itself. The contributors to the book are conservative and traditional and have a view that is akin to the sublime stewardship of the land supposedly achieved by spartan ethics and hierarchical refinement.
The writer here is opposed to the sensational for a lot of clear reasons, and makes a decisive parallel between new trends in the art museum world and the low brow, commercial diminance of images and sensation that goes on outside of the walls, but now, increasingly inside museums. It's an interesting point to make, but a fine line to draw. How, when there are always new directions cropping up in the fine arts, can museum administrators see clearly whether a work of art is low brow or not, and if it is low brow, on what grounds should it be clear that it doesn't belong in a gallery? Who can make a decision like this and avoid the pitfalls of censorship? These are the concerns that these noble but conservative views bring up.
The most lucid illustration I found in the review was the hope and intention that museums should have this peaceful and conciliatory atmosphere that is ultimately established by the work itself. It's nice to think about art work in this way, and to regard it as nourishment rather than basic gratification or entertainment. And behind this is the lasting conviction that there is something spiritual, sacred or holy in art work and that it is posesses a force of healing and sustanence for society. The review is encouraging to artists that there is still hope to remain distinguished and seperate from commercial art and the onslaught of commodity driven looking on the part of the public.
