In a message dated 01-09-07 02:02:04 EDT, Stephen Nowlin writes:

<< Consider, though, the hapless museum of contemporary art, which goes on
 forever acquiring what is current -- until enough time and change has
 elapsed so that 90% (and climbing) of its collection is not
 "contemporary" at all, but relics of the past!  Two hundred years hence,
 will the year 2201 contemporary art museum boast that it only collects
 art made since 1945? >>

That's exactly why I suggested that a true "museum" of contemporary art, in
the sense of maintaining a permanent collection of work that was
"contemporary" when first acquired or exhibited but is by definition no
longer contemporary, must emphasize the time-bound features of the older
works in the collection and how they exemplified or fitted into their period
when they WERE "contemporary."  This is not a revolutionary idea, of course,
and I believe contemporary (pardon the expression) scholarship tends to do
this as a matter of course, as opposed to the more simple-minded assumption
that all "good" art is merely timeless and doesn't need to be understood
within its historical context and whatever else was happening around it.  A
museum of contemporary art doesn't need to be hapless at all, but can embrace
and explicate the transitory nature of creative expression within its milieu.
 A museum which collects and exhibits "contemporary" works, which soon enough
become non-contemporary vis-a-vis the present (pardon THAT expression, but
time, being fleeting, is deucedly hard to grasp and describe) would be
well-positioned to educate its public about issues of how art both reflects
and influences its time.

What would be interesting in this discussion would be to see authoritative
voices from museums of contemporary art (preferably with the word
"contemporary" in their titles) explain what it is they think they're doing.
If "contemporary" has been highjacked to refer to a specific style or
attitude, rather than simply meaning whatever is current now, it's too bad.
We'll have the (shudder) post-contemporary style to look forward to.  It's
bad enough that "modern" came to mean a fairly specific period and set of
styles, confusing the layman who thought he knew what modern meant.  At least
the Museum of Modern Art doesn't seem to worry too much about when "modern"
ended, and implicitly includes the older sense.  The posts on this subject
(mine included) amply demonstrate how baffled we already are about
"contemporary."  I don't even want to think about the "end" of
contemporary--it sounds like the end of time.  Viva contemporary!

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).