Some Things Never Change in a Changing World

In Chapter IV of The New Museum Dana asks the reader, “In a Changing World, Should Museums Change?” I was intrigued by the title of the chapter but then dismayed to read that it was about the most suborn of established institutions… the art museum. Now I happen to know quite a bit about art museums, having worked in one for about the past two years, and I happen to really like them. Before you buckle down and prepare to defend Dana, let me just say that I also happen to agree with his assertion that art museums are stuck in their ways and are could be doing more to serve the needs of their communities.

Something that I find fascinating about Dana’s writing is that even though he was writing in the early portion of the 20^th Century, his ideas are still so relevant to discussions that we are having about museums here on the front lines of the study of museums. It is eerie the way that his description of the way that art museums define what people view to be good art (because it is displayed in a museum). He gives an example of an “art enthusiast” that claims to have not seen art before visiting the great museums in New York (p. 103). I would agree that contemporary art museums still have some of the same troubles that art museums in the early 20^th Century seemed to have. People still seem to feel that art museums (in general) are elitist and are unsure how to act in an art museum. They walk through the doors and immediately accept the information that is provide by curators as fact, and that the objects on display are representative of the best art. But Dana also reminds us “art is not in a museum save in relatively unimportant quantity. Art is where it is seen and merely where self-constituted experts have placed it“ (p. 131).

It is quotes like this that make me forget that I am reading something from long ago. Dana’s attitude toward art reminds me of ideas more commonly associated with Visual Culture, which as an academic discipline is only just begging to take hold in many universities. Visual Culture focuses on the study of culture that relies heavily on visual media for the communication of ideas. It is similar to traditional notions of art except that visual culture is more often found outside of museums. Dana gives the example of the department store and the way that displays and images readily visible to shoppers are works of art (p. 131-132). He also discusses the beauty that can be found in a 15 cent piece of glass, if you are open minded enough to see it as such (p. 132). Today visual culture can encompass things that you see on television and in print media (among a long list of other things). It would be interesting to know what Dana would think about the visual onslaught of imagery that takes place in a location like Times Square. Would he view this imagery with the same reverence as the glass of water?

So, would Dana still say that museums should change in a changing world? Absolutely. Would he say that art museums have totally caught up and are deftly adapting to the changing world? Probably not, though he may be slightly encouraged by steps made since his lifetime. I think he would probably say that there is still more that could be done. Given his musings on art, I would love to know what Dana thinks about the field of Visual Culture, and whether or not he feels it has a place in museums.