Thoughts on Museums and Art Collections

As someone who enjoys learning, I had to investigate the Open University when I first heard of it (I think it was through someone's blog). On and off for the past year or more, I've been taking various units there on a wide range of topics as they appeal to me.

Last night and today, I viewed the course materials for an Open University course, A216_1, Musée du Louvre. The course unit is all about how the Louvre developed as a building, an art collection, an expression of taste, and as an institution. I thought I'd share an essay written for the end of the course assignment on my blog. It's just my opinion and observation and it isn't necessarily a finished thought on the subject.

The main idea this unit brought to mind is just how incestuous the art world is and closed in that the system of commissioning and collecting works of art, then using those collections as teaching tools to train future generations of artists as well as to educate the public and other collectors leaves little room for the introduction of new ideas and original thoughts. As a consequence, it's a wonder that any new ideas are ever accepted in the world of art!

Viewing a broad collection of various schools of classical art brings into focus the difficulties faced by new ages of artists in their struggles to have their art accepted and valued. Is it any surprise that the artists of the late 19th and early 20th century were called "Les Fauvres" or The Wild Beasts? One can also see that the differences just in how the human form is interpreted on canvas alone might make gaining an audience's appreciation and value a struggle. Is a more complex depiction more valuable than one that appears simpler or more easily completed?

In thinking about this, I have in mind a comparison between the paintings of Titian, Leonardo, Monet, Ernst, Picasso (later period) and Pollack. These artists comprise the Old Masters, two Modern Masters, and two acknowledged Masters of the new school of thought. (I'm not sure I've classifed Picasso and Pollack in the most accurate manner. So I'm open to suggestion as to how to categorize them.) In choosing them, I've aimed for three very different periods of art and two acclaimed masters of each of those eras.

Art created by the Old Masters served several different functions: artistic expression, a way of making a living, a substitute for photographic evidence of the times, as well as political expression and propaganda. (Were there additional functions?) The paintings of Titian often comprise many figures interacting in one canvas, generally utilize an allegorical theme, show an outstanding use of color, and contain a great degree of detail. Leonardo most often uses a simple idea, a single subject, a limited range of earthy colors, and the most incredible degree of detail imaginable! Both aim for an illusion of realism.

The Modern Masters, Monet and Ernst, were trained classically but chose to use their own interpretation of form by painting the light reflected by the form, injected with their own emotion. The paintings could comprise one or several subjects, may not have had a theme that is obvious or of importance, rely much more on color and choose from a far wider palette, contain far less detail and are further removed from realism than their classical training would induce them to render.

The new school of painters show a release from any constraints. Their paintings are more informed by the thoughts, reactions, and emotions of the painter than by a link to the reality of the subject matter which may or may not be recognizable by the viewer. Their palettes are unrestrained and may include a degree of texture not found in classical works.

That works by all of these artists may co-exist under one roof (or collection of roofs) is a great credit to those who assemble collections of art. Comparing the work of one artist to another's is impossible. Assigning a value, be it monetary or just relative worthiness, can only ever be purely subjective and a matter of opinion. Consider that the person assigned to choose or to make this decision may or may not have any knowledge, training, skill, or even just an eye for art.
What are the criteria for decision-making? How does one decide what to include and what to reject? What gives one painting more merit than another by the same artist? By a different artist? What has been lost of not seen because of an arbitrary decision?

The whole idea of making a collection, whether it is personal or public, comes down to a few plebian criteria. What is available, how much can be spent in acquisition, and who gets to decide what is included?

So basically, what we see in museums and other collections is what someone else had an opportunity to acquire, had the funds to do it, thought it was good and managed to get the sale through, and hung on to it despite the pillages of war, political change, marriages, and other events!

Bottom line: Art is whatever you think it is.