It may go without saying that the material culture presented in museums has an origin point. Ironically, it is as a result of individual collections that the monolithic structures of museums (which are aimed at serving the masses) came to be, as explored in the excerpt of Edward P. Alexander, Mary Alexander, and Juilee Decker’s Museums in Motion. The authors do not present a scholarly argument, per say, but they do provide more of a historical overview of how Western museums came to be. Thus, the selection from Museums in Motions acts as a supplement to previous readings, especially given that it spotlights the individual contribution that aided in the establishment of museums.
Among the most appreciable aspects of Museums in Motion is arguably …show more content…
Needless to say, propaganda in art history has often steered towards its negative functions. Mcdonald’s article pointed out that museums may not …show more content…
The authors acknowledge this dilemma — “Although the seizure of art removed objects from their original cultural context, French authorities used conservation as justification for their confiscation of the paintings.”— but they do not delve into further detail (40). A question I had never pondered when visiting museums in the past is: should this artifact even be here? Issues with provenance should be paramount concerns. Restituting Nazi-looted art, for instance, still remains incredibly problematic especially with the legal hurdles to jump through. It raises the issue of whether or not a particular object needs to be displayed in a museum or if it should instead return to a private collection. After all, how does the meaning behind the work change when an object meant for private viewing is placed in front of the masses?
Given the aforementioned points, the Museums in Motion excerpt has provided a thorough background to supplement my Ackland visit, in addition to having raised questions that I should be mindful of as I proceed through the museum. Exploring the individual contribution to the origin of the museum is significant because it helps to descale the museum. With these massive, monumental structures such as the Met, the British Museum, and the Louvre, breaking down the imposing appearance of these institutions as Edward P. Alexander, Mary Alexander, and Juliee Decker
Among the most appreciable aspects of Museums in Motion is arguably …show more content…
Needless to say, propaganda in art history has often steered towards its negative functions. Mcdonald’s article pointed out that museums may not …show more content…
The authors acknowledge this dilemma — “Although the seizure of art removed objects from their original cultural context, French authorities used conservation as justification for their confiscation of the paintings.”— but they do not delve into further detail (40). A question I had never pondered when visiting museums in the past is: should this artifact even be here? Issues with provenance should be paramount concerns. Restituting Nazi-looted art, for instance, still remains incredibly problematic especially with the legal hurdles to jump through. It raises the issue of whether or not a particular object needs to be displayed in a museum or if it should instead return to a private collection. After all, how does the meaning behind the work change when an object meant for private viewing is placed in front of the masses?
Given the aforementioned points, the Museums in Motion excerpt has provided a thorough background to supplement my Ackland visit, in addition to having raised questions that I should be mindful of as I proceed through the museum. Exploring the individual contribution to the origin of the museum is significant because it helps to descale the museum. With these massive, monumental structures such as the Met, the British Museum, and the Louvre, breaking down the imposing appearance of these institutions as Edward P. Alexander, Mary Alexander, and Juliee Decker