MUSEUM IN MOTION 12 - 13 NOV 2004 DESIGN COMPETITION: OUR MUSEUM
FUTURE (CON)TEMPORARY ART MUSEUM?
F端n Design Consultancy with Alicia Framis and Showroom MAMA special thanks to Rein Wolf
In a ďŹ rst approach to the question of how recent Architecture has enriched the Contemporary Art Museum as an institution, it is very easy to recognize that the same classical model of archiving, preserving and presenting has been used endlessly. Sometimes in a screaming fashion (Architecture as sculpture) but also in a more modest way (Architecture as a beautiful container). Always, these institutions have performed as icons to show political power (city icon) or to show private power (Guggenheim).
STEVEN HOLL RAFAEL MONEO
ALDO ROSSI HERZOG& RICHARD GLUCKMAN COOP HIMMELB(L)AU. DE MEURON
BENTHEM CROUWEL HANS ABEL CAHEN MICHEL GRANDSARD HOLLEIN KOEN VAN NIEUWENHUYSE SCHEWEGER PIANO+ROGERS S. BRAUNFELS LACATON ET VASSAL
FRANK GEHRY ALVARO SIZA
ORTNER & ORTNER
The biggest part of the available budget of the Public Museum is committed to archiving and preservation, presentation gets the left over. But looking at the complementary program, it is clear that everywhere an equal income model is repeated: cafeteria, bookshop, library, restaurant, conference facilities. These ‘secondary uses’ are bigger or more accessible in private museums and started to appear more and more in public ones. The disparity is quantity and location in order to get more or less revenue. Doesn’t the lack of evolution have its roots in a problem of ﬁnancing rather than programming?
+ PRIVATE MUSEUM
PRIVATE MUSEUM VISITORS
EXHIBITION /SHOWROOM SPONSORS
Moving deeper in this line of thinking other phenomena appear: art institutions are getting more and more sponsors, partnerships and friends (SONY, IKEA, MICROSOFT). They give ďŹ nancial support either to speciďŹ c exhibitions or to the museum as a whole.
When public museums remain the pure conservators and archivers of art, when they have the largest amount of money to buy art pieces, they are the only ones that have the power to establish the contemporary esthetics. The public museum is still the dictator of what is history of art and what is not. In television the government used to be the one deciding what we have to watch. As far as different TV networks appeared we are now able to choose what we want to watch.
From the art point of view. Art is not anymore a unique piece, like a painting of Van Gogh. Since the sixties artists use video, photography, internet, ... This allows them to reproduce their work as many times as necessary.
Vincent Van Gogh,Self-portrait,1889 painting
Bill Viola â€œThe Crossingâ€? ,1996 video/sound installation
Modern technology made it possible for an artist to show the same piece of art in the Guggenheim, the Boijmans, the Mori Museum and the Tate at the same time. Artists become internationally known at very young age, very rapidly, ubiquitously.
present : Edwin Zwakman Jan.-Mar.2004
In fact, when we go to an exhibition, we do not know if we see an original or an ‘exhibition copy’.
From this state of affairs conclusions come effortless together: Financial issues play an important roll in the Museum as an institution. They infect their management, their programming and thus their design. The danger of denying them will lead us to a situation that already exists - the â€˜Deutche Guggenheimâ€™, where Guggenheim and Deutche Bank are the same institution.
Is the future of museums going to be a constellation of PRADA Boijmans or SHELL Stedelijk. Or worse, are these companies going to buy the museums? Are we going to have IKEart instead of Macba? And are public museums going to disappear in the end?
Modern technologies could allow us to have the same ďŹ rst-class exhibition in 400 cities at the same time.
Private Companies are the only ones that have the power and ďŹ nancial resources to break the Public Art Monopole.
As we see it, the proposed scenario for the next century will change the art landscape into a much more interesting one. It will completely change the art world in all its levels: These companies, already ﬁnancing museums, have important collections and support challenging art. Imagine they ﬁnally become visible and set up their own museums: IKEART, NIKE INCUBATOR, EASYART, SHELL COMISSIONS, MASTERART, NOKIA Contemporary Art, SONY PERFORMANCES and so on.
For instance SONY, PHILIPS, CANON would have a center of art where artists working with digital imaging could be supported and exhibited. Since one of the problems of the museums nowadays is that when they show video- or sound-artists, they have to spend a great deal of money buying the infrastructure that the artists need. SONY could provide the best technology, support the artist to make the best piece and ďŹ nd an art curator in charge of their own shows and collection.
easy art MuHKA
IKEA would work with artists like Jorge Pardo, Joep van Lieshout, Tobias Rebergher, Kippenberger, Franz West, Absalon, etc... They work with the idea of home, domestic spaces and design of the everyday. The relation inbetween art and company would not be decorating the walls, it would show a strong interest in the concept of their own objects. The same relationship could applied for Architecture.
NIKE and ADIDAS would work more with art related to youth, subcultures and sport, as the work of Mathiew Barney… EASYJET/EASYART could create ART A LA CÀRTE. If they would work with Bill Viola, he could decide if he prefers to show his work in their exhibition space, in their airplanes, in the airport or in the street.
In this new sort of relationships all artists, architects and companies will beneﬁt. Art would become more acknowledged and will be assimilated faster. Architecture would not have the challenge to design the ‘city museum’ but an inﬁnite arrangement of typologies. Companies would be acknowledged as ‘cutting edge entrepreneurs’ of art quality. Enterprises would promote their space for art in a much more open fashion in other things than the museum institution – And since selling their image is their beneﬁt these new spaces would ironically become more public.
Artists and Architects wouldnâ€™t be any longer attached to an exhibition space. Sony would not require a building like Boijmans or Tate modern because Sony is more than a construction. It is every concert, shop, fair, street, screen,â€Ś On the other hand Sony is fashionable and thus temporary.
The Public Museum will remain the guardian of the History of Art. They will have the task to buy, preserve and archive the Art History, as National Libraries do. They will be the quality controllers in this entire constellation of new relationships. Curators will start their careers in the brand incubators and they will move to the public institutions whenever they have acquired a certain status. Companies will ask the museum curators to organize shows in their art spaces and we will see KIASMA for Sonyâ€Ś
What will happen when people don’t have to travel to Tate Modern anymore to see a speciﬁc show? What will happen when this speciﬁc show is in all cities of the world? What will the scenography of an exhibition that is shown simultaneously in 400 places be like? How is the SONY museum going to look like? What will be the roll of the artist as a pop star? What will be the difference in between IKEA art and EASY art? Is the ART A LA CÀRTE the real way to break with the boundaries of a museum? Will the architecture of the Public Museum change then? Is it going to be the most beautiful ‘artchive’ of the world? If art can be reproduced endlessly what is the future of art-transport business?
MUSEUM IN MOTION 12 - 13 NOV 2004 DESIGN COMPETITION: OUR MUSEUM
TEAM: F端n Design Consultancy (Paz Martin, Cesar Garcia, Johan De Wachter and Liu Pei, Zuomin Wang) with
Alicia Framis and
Showroom MAMA (Jeroen Evereart) Special thanks to: Rein Wolf
F端n Design Consultancy William Boothlaan 3A 3012 VG Rotterdam T: +31 (0) 10 2709671 T: +31 (0) 10 2709671 email@example.com www.fundc.com