The Museums of Contemporary Art

Notion and Development

J. Pedro Lorente

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781409405863
• eBook ISBN: 9781317023524
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Art
• Subtopic: Museum Studies

Where, how, by whom and for what were the first museums of contemporary art created? These are the key questions addressed by J. Pedro Lorente in this new book. In it he explores the concept and history of museums of contemporary art, and the shifting ways in which they have been imagined and presented. Following an introduction that sets out the historiography and considering questions of terminology, the first part of the book then examines the paradigm of the Musée des Artistes Vivants in Paris and its equivalents in the rest of Europe during the nineteenth century. The second part takes the story forward from 1930 to the present, presenting New York's Museum of Modern Art as a new universal role model that found emulators or 'contramodels' in the rest of the Western world during the twentieth century. An epilogue, reviews recent museum developments in the last decades. Through its adoption of a long-term, worldwide perspective, the book not only provides a narrative of the development of museums of contemporary art, but also sets this into its international perspective. By assessing the extent to which the great museum-capitals - Paris, London and New York in particular - created their own models of museum provision, as well as acknowledging the influence of such models elsewhere, the book uncovers fascinating perspectives on the practice of museum provision, and reveals how present cultural planning initiatives have often been shaped by historical uses.

Part I

The Parisian Musée du Luxembourg as a Paradigm in the Nineteenth Century

It is quite ironic that the initiative to open the first museum of contemporary art in the world was taken during the Restoration, a period of far-reaching conservatism in France. Louis XVIII not only did not close the museum opened after the French Revolution at the Grande Galerie of the Louvre, but in 1818, also founded a museum for the works of living artists at his Luxembourg palace. Yet, this was but an ingeniously devised conservative strategy. To the recently restored monarchy nothing seemed more effective in order to justify any political venture than to present it as the continuation of something prior to the republican period. After all, the opening of the Louvre had already originally been planned by the administration of Louis XVI. By opening a new museum at the Luxembourg palace an historical link with the cultural policy of the Ancien Régime was sought after mainly because a gallery of paintings by old masters, whose existence remained in the memory of Parisians, had already been opened to the public there between 1750 and 1779. Due to this, any study into the creation of the first museum of contemporary art in Paris must be introduced by a step back in time. We must start by explaining the exhibition and museum background in the French capital. This is the subject of Chapter 1, where we present the different types of artistic spaces opened to the public in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century which turned Paris, in close competition with London, into the successor of Rome as the new international art capital. The centre of this cultural choice was the Louvre, where no living artists were represented thus bringing about the need for a Musée des Artistes Vivants. This materialized during the Restoration and this institution became one of the principal points of the monarchic cultural policy, as we shall see in Part II. The immediate impact of this first model of a museum of contemporary art on other capitals is dealt with in the first part of Chapter 2. After considering the innovations introduced in the middle of the century by the Neue Pinakothek of Munich, the next pages are devoted to the influence of this new paradigm on the Parisian museum, and look into the birth of London’s counter-model in 1857, which had great repercussions in the second half of the nineteenth century. Finally, Part I ends with a chapter on the unsolved dilemmas at the end of that century regarding the very definition of this type of institution in general and the Parisian Musée du Luxembourg in particular.

1

The Origin of the Musée des Artistes Vivants in Paris

The emergence of Paris as the museum capital of reference in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century

Although up until recently the existence of its immediate predecessor, the royal gallery formerly existing at the Luxembourg, was hardly mentioned in the great manuals on the history of museums, where plenty of pages were devoted to the opening of the Grande Galerie of the Louvre in 1793, it is now known in detail especially thanks to works such as that of professor Andrew McClellan, who dealt with it in various papers and in an excellent book (McClellan, 1994). Built in the early seventeenth century for Queen Maria de Medicis, the Luxembourg palace with its beautiful gardens was traditionally the residence of the close relatives of the reigning monarch, who reserved for himself the palaces of the Louvre and Versailles. Hence, when a museum was created in 1747 with a selection of 90 paintings from the dynastic collection prompted by some critics and courtiers, the chosen location by painter Coypel and the royal administration was the Luxembourg palace and not the Louvre. Thus, the first royal art gallery opened to the public in France was born on 14 October 1750 with works by Rafael, Correggio, Andrea del Sarto, Titian, Veronese, Caravaggio, Poussin and, of course, the series of paintings by Rubens on the life of Maria de Medicis, shown in situ. To refute the accusations of carelessness in the preservation of the royal collections made by some pamphleteers, no expense was spared on the restoration of the paintings and their perfect presentation to the public, who could view the gallery twice a week, on Wednesdays and Saturdays, from ten to one in winter and from four to seven in summer. Thus, Paris placed itself in a privileged position in the long list of great enlightened courts, following the model set by Rome first with the Capitoline museums and later with the Pio-Clementine Museum, which also promoted similar ventures throughout the eighteenth century, in Florence, Naples, Vienna, Düsseldorf, Dresden, Berlin, Stockholm, etc (Bjurström, 1993; Pommier, 1995; Prior, 2002).

However, 30 years after its inauguration, other events at the court brought about its closure in 1779, when Louis XVI gave the Luxembourg palace to his brother, the Count of Provenza. The royal collection was then removed from there and was no longer on display to the public. This was a setback for the Parisian cultural offer, which nonetheless still provided abundant attractions to any art lover with its urban monuments and churches. On the other hand, the public in the capital also had access to numerous temporary art exhibitions, in particular, the exhibition of recent work by members of the Académie des Beaux-Arts. It had been held regularly every two years since 1737 and it was known as the Salon as a result of the metonymic link with its location, since it was displayed at the Louvre in the so-called Salon Carré and in the stairways and corridors leading to it, where paintings of other worthy artists were hung, mainly disciples of the Academy. Many other European states were to organize similar official fine arts exhibitions later on. And other exhibitions were not lacking in Paris either, such as those held during Corpus Christi in the Pont Neuf and Place Dauphine, as well as the attraction provided at the ill-reputed trinkets stalls at the fair of Saint-Germain, where some exquisite works of art could also be found (Crow, 1985). And also, as if to counteract the effect of the closure of the royal gallery at the Luxembourg palace, other great art collections were increasingly more open to the public, such as the gallery of the Orleans at the Palais-Royal, opposite the Louvre. Its owner, the spendthrift Duke of Chartres, did well out of developing the site in the rear garden in 1784. He built three enclosed galleries to accommodate shops, meeting halls and cafés on the ground floor and on the top floor rooms were rented out to ‘bachelors, prostitutes and artists’ (Girouard, 1985, p. 203). That early predecessor of our enclosed shopping malls where we can also go to the cinema or have a drink became the most fashionable place for Parisians, who could also visit the neighbouring gallery of paintings at the Orleans, until it was sold in London in 1792.

On this same site of the Palais-Royal from 1784, the so-called Salon des Arts could also be visited and an art exhibition hall dependent on the Société des Amis des Arts was opened as well nearby (eliminated during the Revolution and re-established in 1814, under the protection of the Duke of Berry, according to Chaudonneret, 1999, p. 68). Other venues dependant on erudite societies or associations of art lovers, at times calling themselves ‘musées’, which even rivalled official institutions, also had their own collections and exhibitions, such as the Musée de Paris, originating from a Masonic society (Poulot, 1997, p. 96), the Athénée de Paris founded in 1775, or the exhibition of contemporary art opened in 1779 by a group of artists at the Colisée, a large night club located at the western end of the Champs Elysées. A new science and art society founded by Pahin de la Blancherie became its competitor in 1778 with a permanent collection of scientific objects and recent artwork. Three temporary exhibitions of contemporary art were organized on its premises between 1782 and 1783. Its fame reached the ears of Count d’Angiviller, Directeur des Bâtiments Royaux and organizer of the Louvre’s official Salon, and he felt threatened by this competition and ordered their closure in 1784 arguing that these modest independent ventures were acceptable in England, given the lack of a governmental policy in support of the arts there, but they were not to be tolerated in the capital of France (Poulot, 1997, p. 97).

Indeed, even at the British equivalent of the Salon, which consisted of an exhibition organized by the Royal Academy of London every summer since 1769, an admission fee was charged because that academy was actually a private society with no official support other than being housed in a public building – whereas the Académie des Beaux-Arts in Paris as an institution was attached to the French monarchy, who paid a salary to its members, provided them with accommodation and a workshop at the Louvre, and met the expenses of the biannual exhibition of their recent work. London’s Summer Exhibition was also the venue for the most recent work of contemporary artists active in the United Kingdom, but unlike Paris, there were no awards and the displayed works were for sale on a commission basis which, added to the income from the admission tickets, allowed the Royal Academy to pay for the organizing expenses and for many of its annual activities. Thus, it was a venal venture; but this, which to many in France seemed highly improper – some French sources use the term exhibition to refer to this type of venture as a lower category of artistic exposition – was common enough in London’s exhibition context.

---

Box 1.1 Catch-penny shows: A deep-rooted custom in Anglo-Saxon culture

As social historian Richard D. Altick put it in his splendid book The Shows of London, the exhibition ‘business’ was a well established tradition in the British capital, with a vast range of popular exhibitions, some of which showed recent artwork as long as this served to make a profit through admission fees, commissions from sales, raffles, publication of prints, catalogues, etc (Altick, 1978; see also Whiteley, 1983). London, an emergent capital on the international art market, provided the art-loving public with the possibility of visiting not only the studios of artists or the mansions of collectors, but also auction houses such as Sotheby’s and Christie’s, or the shops of art dealers who thrived in London more than in any other capital and, on payment of a modest fee, access to numerous art shows which were perceived as a business, including those organized by the Royal Academy or, going back to 1760, by the Society of the Arts.

The Shakespeare Gallery was an important landmark. It was a permanent exhibition of paintings on Shakespearean topics commissioned from prestigious artists. It was inaugurated by businessman John Boydell in 1789 in Pall Mall, where it was active until 1804, when it went bankrupt. Its initial success encouraged other entrepreneurs to open similar ‘museums’ to make a few pennies out of anyone who was ready to pay to see artworks inspired by great historic or literary English topics and, if moved enough by the spectacle, they might readily spend good money before leaving the premises on books or prints where the pictures were reproduced. But these private ventures, originally devised as permanent ‘galleries’ were not to last too long, because the novelty faded and they stopped being profitable. There were also similar businesses which gathered not only artistic material but all sorts of items and could hardly be called galleries so they were called museums,1 such as the ‘London Museum’ of William Bullock, known as the ‘Egyptian Hall’ because of the neo-Egyptian style of its façade. Since its opening in 1812 until its demolition in 1904 – to build the modern ‘Egyptian Arcade’ – it was one of London’s main attractions and many contemporary artists had their work displayed there.2 This type of business also flourished elsewhere, in particular, in the United States, where Charles Wilson Peale made a fortune with a museum of paintings, stuffed animals, fossils and other attractions, opened in 1786 in Philadelphia, the first capital of the country. His success prompted other ‘businessmen’ throughout the country to follow suit, mainly in Washington, the new capital.3

1 This English differentiation between museum and art gallery, to describe those specifically dealing with art, generally refers just to content, because a gallery can also be a building – even if it is for private use – erected for the purpose of housing paintings. But a hedonist connotation is also attached to this term due to its etymology – a Gallicism from the old French word galerie, meaning amusement or revelry. Thus, while one may go to a museum to learn or to view, it is understood that one goes to a gallery for the sake of mere visual enjoyment (Gómez Martínez, 2002, pp. 78 and 82).

2 For instance, Théodore Géricault, who displayed The Raft of the Medusa there in 1820. Although according to the terms of his agreement with Bullock, the artist only received one third of the takings, he made a lot of money because over 30,000 tickets were sold to view his painting.

3 It was a collection on North American autochthonous botanic and zoology displayed, to the greater glory of the nation, along with paintings of heroes of the War of Independence painted by Charles Wilson Peale himself (1741–1827), who first opened this museum in his house, then in other places, and from 1802 onwards on the top floor of the State building where the Declaration of Independence had been signed. The nationalist bait worked because no tourist coming to Philadelphia wanted to miss a visit to this museum. As a result, although the entrance fee was small, Peale made a lot of money. His famous self-portrait is reproduced and analysed in every self-respecting manual on the history of North American art. He depicts himself as a venerable Patrician at the entrance to his museum. This work was commissioned by the trustees of the museum in 1822 when it became The Philadelphia Museum Company after several failed attempts to sell it to other local and national institutions. It was a prosperous business up until 1845 and finally closed nine years later (Sellers, 1980; Alexander, 1983, pp. 43–77). Some of Charles-Wilson Peale’s children pursued this type of museum business with portraits of American heroes and patriotic landscapes in Baltimore, New York and Utica, which went from generation to generation as long as they were profitable. And they also had competitors, such as the Tammany Museum, which was opened in New York up until 1798 – yielding rich pickings for its owner, Gadiner Baker. Naturally, the new federal capital was the most suitable ground for many of these nationalist ventures, half way between an art gallery and a scientific collection: for instance, the Columbian Institute (1816–38), or John Varden’s Museum (1829–41).

---

In Paris, this type of typically Anglo-Saxon ‘business’ had fewer repercussions although there were some exceptional cases, such as the so-called Museum des Arts Modernes, installed in 1802 in rue Grenelle-Saint-Honoré: it consisted of a changing exhibition open to the public every day with an admission fee of 1 franc and 20 cents – one third of the takings was for the authors of the paintings, who could also sell them there (Chaudonneret: 1999, p. 102).

As a complement to these exhibition spaces so close to the low category of a fairground stall, other more ambitious ventures also seen as businesses proliferated in Paris and London as well as in other European capitals towards the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century. Perhaps some art galleries opened by important dealers in both capitals deserve a special mention here, above all, the exhibition hall built by Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Lebrun at number 4 rue Gros-Chenet in Paris. There he displayed the holdings of his gallery and several exhibitions of young artists were also shown up until 1790. These were followed in the first third of the nineteenth century by other owners and the gallery was emulated by the so-called Musée Colbert of contemporary art.1 On the other hand, the model of the Kunstverein – an artists union or association – originating in Swiss and German cities, was more developed in Britain,2 although there were some early attempts at adopting it in the French capital, as in the case of the abovementioned Société des Amis des Arts or, from 1819 onwards, the Cercle des Arts, which published a newspaper, commissioned etchings and sold paintings (Chaudonneret, 1999, p. 116). As regards the spaces where the artists made themselves known to the public on their own initiative, they were increasingly more numerous in all the great capitals of the western world as the nineteenth century progressed. Although examples of famous French painters such as David, Horace Vernet or Courbet, who organized exhibitions of their own works, have gone down in history as the prelude of those organized by the Impressionists and other art groups of the Belle Époque, the truth is that it was in the United Kingdom where artists more frequently took on this type of venture, both individually or as part of a group.3

To these exhibition spaces open to the public in any of the categories mentioned so far, from royal gallery to projects from academies, associations, dealers or artists, we should add great public museums. In the strict sense of the word, they were an innovation born in the late eighteenth century with the British Museum and the Louvre, two national institutions which were not only open to all citizens but were also the public property of the people. This last point was emphasized by their respective names, when the Parliament of London created the British Museum in 1759 – and the National Gallery in 1838, a name which alludes to its natur...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• List of Illustrations
• List of Boxes
• Introduction
• Part I: The Parisian Musée du Luxembourg as a Paradigm in the Nineteenth Century
• Part II: The role of the MoMA of New York as the International Model of the Twentieth Century
• Epilogue
• References
• Index