The exhibition as a scholarly tool?
Chair: Manfred Sellink
Report: Esther Nanlohy
To spark discussion, Manfred Sellink advanced a series of statements that do not
necessarily reflect his own opinions. A summary of the responses follows each statement.
1.Research and scholarship are vital for exhibitions and should be reflected in the
aims and concept of each project.
Circumstances differ from country to country and by type of collection. In Germany, for
instance, there is a strong tradition of scholarly exhibitions aimed at an elite public.
Exhibitions are relatively small. Exhibitions of prints and drawings pose different demands
than exhibitions of paintings. Print room exhibitions are usually curated by museum curators
for a select and curious public. Whereas the labels at an exhibition of contemporary art will
include only the title of the object and the name of the artist, print room labels require at the
least information about the technique and usually additional information as well. Print room
exhibitions are typically related to in-house research projects.
2.The importance of exhibitions as a visual scholarly statement in its own right is often
overlooked.
Some participants in the workshops thought that an exhibition is a medium in itself;
scholarship should be published by university presses. An exhibition gives the curator an
opportunity to draw new conclusions, which could go into a catalogue. Other participants
contended that that kind of catalogue is very expensive and is not available for visitors to the
exhibition. They prefer complete exhibition catalogues.
3.An exhibition should be more often considered as a (scholarly) work in progress.
Some participants agreed that research and exhibitions should feed each other, while others
felt that an exhibition should present the final results of a research campaign. On the other
hand, it could be the engine for (new) research. The problem in the Netherlands, and
probably elsewhere as well, is that the curator would like to do follow-up research himself,
but does not have the time. If a museum aims to attract the public at large, it cannot readily
maintain a special research department. It is easier to pay for research in preparation for an
exhibition, since it can be charged to a sponsor.
4.An exhibition should reflect curatorial scholarship.
This may hold true for a large museum with the curatorial staff to perform scholarly research
and the educational department to make it attractive for the public at large. Small museums
have to be between small exhibitions for a specialized public and large ones for the general
public. Curators often have to do research in the evening and during weekends. A successful
case was brought forward from Stockholm. External funding made it possible to conduct a
museum research project that was incorporated into an exhibition with high entertainment
value.
5.Good scholars often make bad exhibitions.
No comments on this statement.
6.There is strong need for a more structural collaboration between universities and
museums in making exhibitions.
The general feeling was that one should not exclude cooperation with universities. In Russia
it is very hard to build up a relationship with a university. Having separate research
departments in Russian museums is unthinkable – this is always part of the job of the
curator.
7.The catalogue too often dominates the scholarly perception of an exhibition.
The success of an exhibition-with-catalogue should be measured not only by the size of the
catalogue but its effectiveness. It should be possible to publish light catalogues.
Comparing the thin catalogues in black-and-white from the 1950s with the very thick fullcolour catalogues published nowadays, it is hard not to believe that this trend is related to the
ego of the authors.
8.There are too many bad catalogues seen from a scholarly point of view.
The general feeling was that most catalogue entries are still too long and not well edited.
Even when specialists are invited to write the catalogue, the entries do not necessarily have
a scientific point. No one had a good word for catalogues written by committees. A possible
solution would be a large, scholarly catalogue accompanied by different leaflets for different
user groups. Other alternatives are modest catalogues aimed at the general public or even
attractive ‘coffee table’ catalogues with lots of pictures.
9.The same applies for exhibitions.
No comment on this statement.
10.Museums and curators should be more creative in making research and
scholarship itself visible as part of an exhibition.
The suggestion that museums make exhibitions research widely available on its website met
with a divided response. Some participants thought that the time for this was not yet ripe;
others that a virtual exhibition and catalogue can never replace the real thing, while others
felt that a website presentation alongside a real exhibition could have much to offer. ‘Virtual
exhibitions’ might be an interesting subject for a next workshop.
11.Scholarship should not be an end in itself, it is a tool to help inform and educate
the public about art.
Although some participants despaired of making scholarly exhibitions accessible for the
general public, others felt that there should be no difference between scholarly and public
exhibitions. It is difficult to present a scholarly art historical vision in terms that the public
understands, but that is after all the challenge to the art historian-curator. Scholarship should
be popular; everybody should be able to understand it. Whether to let ourselves be guided in
the first place by existing public taste or by our own new discoveries is a matter we should
discuss. Museum directors have their own ideas about such issues, usually guided by the
principle that an exhibition has to attract public attention. But do curators have to do what the
public wants? The trick is to come up with the right combination of arguments to present new
research while at the same time producing an attractive and interesting exhibition.
Codart_8MSattachment p1
workshop ‘exhibition as a scholarly tool’
chair: Manfred Sellink
report: Esther Nanlohy
In his introduction the chair, Manfred Sellink, stated that research and scholarship are vital for
exhibitions and therefore should be reflected in the aims and concept of each project.
To spark discussion Sellink advanced a series of statements, which could be used as an
instrument; they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the chair.
Statements:
1.
Research and scholarship are vital for exhibitions and should be reflected in the aims and
concept of each project
2.
The importance of exhibitions as a visual scholarly statement in its own right is often
overlooked
3.
An exhibition should be more often considered as a (scholarly) work in progress
4.
An exhibition should reflect curatorial scholarship
5.
Good scholars often make bad exhibitions
6.
There is strong need for a more structural collaboration between universities and museums in
making exhibitions
7.
The catalogue too often dominates the scholarly perception of an exhibition
8.
There are too many bad catalogues seen from a scholarly point of view
9.
The same applies for exhibitions
10.
Museums and curators should be more creative in making research and scholarship itself
visible as part of an exhibition
11.
Scholarship should not be an end in itself, it is a tool to help inform and educate the public
about art
Codart_8MSattachment p2
Of course there are more points to debate, but Sellink explained this subject is far too
complicated. Therefore he would like to give everybody the opportunity to give his or her
personal opinion to share with us. You’ll find some of them here below.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Representing a small museum you have to make choices. For example do we choose
for a large or small one and is it possible to entertain the public in exhibitions. We
should not underestimate that aspect. Some subjects/exhibitions are definitely
interesting for research but only for a large museum like the Rijksmuseum it’s possible
to make the choice for doing more to entertain than to research.
Talking about the time we have for research we have to deal with trivial elements like
the curator should do the research, but often they’ll have to do this in their spare time
in the evening and the weekends, especially when you have for example a rather
strong accent on 18th and 19th art even if it’s your specialty perhaps. It’s hard, but if
you want to stress research, then time is very much needed.
In Stockholm the cooperation in a research project with external money was a great
success together with the books about the exhibition. So for Stockholm there was no
contradiction between research and museum exhibition. To their point of view it’s
never enough feeding the public in teaching about art, one can even reveal research in
an entertaining way. For example in a project with replicas and originals you can show
your public what you’re making there.
There is no contradiction between research and exhibition. It’s easier though to do
research when you have a plan for an exhibition. With this plan sponsors are even
more interested in financing and sponsoring the exhibition as well as the catalogue.
It’s up to the curator then to persuade the sponsors of the need, possibilities and
advantages of such an exhibition.
Sometimes it’s very well possible to publish a catalogue combined with an exhibition.
In fact the exhibition could be the engine for research. But then you have to deal with
two things: the curator likes to do the research himself very much and secondly, if you
want a special research department in Holland you often will be laughed at, because
you’re expected to aim for the public.
Generating money for research has to be done in separate phases. It’s a matter of
planning and managing subsidy and sponsors. You have to give the process the right
direction and guide the students, what means that it takes a lot of money and energy.
Therefore you have to control the whole process.
In Brussels there’s no such thing as a research problem, because it’s up to the
universities to do research. Jealousy concerning writing the catalogues may be an
issue, because the universities of Brussels have their own publisher. The museum
however has the responsibility to control these matters. It’s a good solution, but on the
other hand it’s too much a risk just aiming for events.
Having research departments in Russia is something impossible because of the diverse
functions a curator in Russia has. Get the public to our level of knowledge? The
exhibitions in Russia show new knowledge, are just reproductions of their knowledge
of art. Therefore it’s very hard to build up a relationship with a university.
Politics in museums is a matter of responsibility! A scholarship would be ideal to
every museum. So don’t exclude cooperation with universities, because the politics do
have their influences although it’s still the director’s responsibility.
In Brussels an exhibition in Old Master painting reflected scholarship. Specialists
were invited to write the catalogue, but the entries of the catalogue had no scientific
point at all.
Codart_8MSattachment p3
-
-
-
-
-
In a catalogue scholarly material could be fed, for example in a overview with a
catalogue number inside, but then the catalogue is still too big.
Maybe a simple solution could be a big size catalogue with next to it leaflets which
can differ per country.
The challenge between the scholarly approach and the popular approach on the other
hand is that you should be able to explain your auntie what an exhibition is all about,
in other words you have to take your public serious.
Scholarship should be popular; everybody should be able to understand it. We have to
show what people like to see or introduce a program based on what we like them to
know, this is something you can discuss about.
Indeed, directors discuss about these things, because an exhibition has to attract the
public’s attention.
Do we have to do what the public wants?
Interesting subjects may apply to people, but is that really attracting public? Well, you
have to find the right combination of arguments to exposure research and at the same
time having an interactive exhibition. So you have to be creative.
All these things are possible, but most entries of catalogues are still too long and not
well edited. Writing short articles is not easy, that’s why you have to concentrate on a
good exhibition.
For places like Bruges with about 850.000 visitors a year this is much easier to realise.
How about Exhibition as a Scholarly Statement itself?
- It’s not only about being productive, but also about being successful. So it is possible
to publish light catalogues. Just look at the exhibitions of the fifty’s; probably there are
only 3 catalogues left of it, very thin ones and executed in black and white. If you
compare these with the very thick catalogues about Leonardo da Vinci, what does this
tell you then? Check out the ego’s when it’s about writing catalogues. It’s stupid
wanting to produce something that is beyond your reach, so that you have to find a
consensus. You don’t have any pretension then but deliver a product reviewed by
several people. While an exhibition should be a long term research to which the
catalogue should be sources of history with limited possibilities making the exhibition
a story with images. A good example is the exhibition catalogue ‘Jan van Eyck, de
Vlaamse Primitieven en het Zuiden’ in Bruges; its review shows what scholarship is
all about. That’s why a next project is sponsored by the Getty Museum, whereto
objects and catalogues have been screened and for which a lot of research has been
done and what took a lot of negotiations.
- An exhibition is working using a medium, it’s up to the university to publish. So the
scholarly point of view is to define afterwards, after drawing your conclusions, that is
when there will be thought of a catalogue. So there is no public! Because that’s
exactly what a scientist does: research and drawing conclusions and that is something
one does only for himself
- Small entries at the end? The catalogue will not be very much accessible for the public
then while it should be!
- Exhibition is the vision you have after a research; it’s always a creative process, a way
of working.
- A vision is a research with the research being the problem: in a cooperation you have
to deal with a group of persons, the problem the curator will have then is the
visualisation. So you have to combine research and exhibition making. For the public
there are enough means to show anything you want, but it is difficult to translate the
Codart_8MSattachment p4
-
-
vision of the scientist to what the public want. This now is the moment for the art
historian as an employee of the museum to act.
Well, just look at the Rembrandt exhibition: it’s an exhibition of the authors, though
one-sided the different approaches had to lead to something complete and accessible
for the public. But to solve the problem of the big catalogue you better look for limited
size catalogues stressing the editing which will make the catalogue accessible for the
public and therefore still interesting when the exhibition is no longer there.
An exhibition catalogue written by committees is strongly not recommended.
From the point of view of a museum you may ask yourself what use an exhibition
does have. Anyway, make sure you have a better reason than only making money.
There should be no difference between scholarly and public exhibition: make the
scholarly exhibition accessible for the public. Let’s have a look at the American
catalogues; despite all the efforts of the scientists the public the public need no help
there. So the curator has to make this his business.
TEABREAK
-
Thea Vignau, curator Print and Drawing of Netherlandish Art (München en
Frankfurt):
in Germany there is a different way of talking with the public: Vignau’s personal
experience during the last years is: scholarship is making exhibitions addressing to an
elite public, while you must be able to create an exhibition that is accessible for the
great public. So in her approach she is still Dutch contrary to the German vision. In
Germany exhibitions are relatively small. That is why the public for Print and
Drawing is a select public and the exhibition not the same as the other main mass
events. This select public has its own way of visiting these prints and drawings
exhibition. It’s a cultivated public, a public that really wants to understand the works
and learn from it! The difference with a painting exhibition is that everything is locked
up. The labels at the department of Modern Art for instance will even do with only the
title of the object and the name of the artist.
Sellink:
So in the approach of an exhibition there is a difference by country, but also by public.
Reactions:
- the public of the Printroom is specific indeed, but labels should have more information
than only the title and the name of the artist: for example about the technique or a
short annotation. Furthermore, working in a Printroom makes you a member of the
university laboratory. So then you are the ones who can write scholarly catalogues and
no ‘coffee table’ catalogues.
- ‘coffee table’ catalogues is not meant in a negative way: to be honest they even
contain lots of pictures and detail information, while the scholarly catalogues often are
executed in black and white with a minimum of pictures.
- A catalogue is a guide for the public, maybe we have to look for another solution like
the English catalogue for example. On the other hand such an exhibition catalogue can
also be used as an excuse for the museum supply and then you have to deal with the
publisher. This publisher can make objections, because he maybe wants to do
something different from an exhibition catalogue.
Codart_8MSattachment p5
-
-
-
-
When you put the information on your website this information is accessible for
everybody.
A virtual catalogue and a virtual exhibition, that’s something for the future.
With a virtual exhibition you have to ask yourself: what is the impact or the
consequences of this virtual exhibition, what are the conditions: having a virtual
exhibition parallel with the real exhibition at the same time? IT CAN NEVER BE
THE SAME !!! And is there any access to the collection on the website? No, probably
only just to the information.
One reason to go to museum is the small paintings. Because when talking about
scholarship, books and exhibitions it will never be possible to make a scholarly
exhibition accessible for the public. So it is not only a matter of showing paintings, but
also a matter of upbringing.
When an exhibition was hard to realise the question popped up what to do with the
text. A suggestion was to put it on the website, but that seemed not such a good idea.
Information: you can really make something on the website, for the future you have to
make use of that. But you have to combine things! Bring your knowledge to your
public. The internet can play a major role in this, but unfortunately/alas the editing can
be very bad.
So, how to find things of quality then?
That is not our business, that’s up to the public.
Virtual exhibition = a space that you explore and therefore good for your imagination
Catalogue: problems with visualising, but this is no problem in a virtual exhibition.
VIRTUAL EXHIBITION: AN INTERESTING SUBJECT FOR A NEXT
WORKSHOP
Sellink thanks everybody for his participation and contribution.
The END of the Workshop