Night at the Museum– An Interpretation on the Art of Exhibition

Jackson Pollock: Autumn Rhythm, 1950

Visiting museums nearly always yields a contemplative and fascinating experience, and it is all the more fantastic that we are able to witness with our own eyes the great works comprising intellectual thought and cultural expression for our higher education. My group chose to spend the duration of the trip on the fifth floor exploring the Shattered Identities exhibit. It was a blast seeing the composition of competing artistic styles and their inherent juxtaposition with one another in certain cases. Take, for example, the landscape painting of the famous artist in the 19th century who is known for capturing incredible depictions of nature’s awe-inspiring majesty, placed next to a work which appears to be in the same style of a Romantic depiction of nature, only with the actual painting hidden mostly from view due to the appearance of the artist having set fire to the whole work.

Mention of this reminds me of an observation I made during a previous visit to MoMA: How does the nature and place of the exhibition alter your reception of the artwork? When you see two pieces of art side-by-side, one work is bound to alter your perception and consideration of the other work, which is perhaps an idea that was intended by whoever is responsible for the layout of the exhibition (the same can be said of the building’s internal architecture and even simple design decisions like color of the walls). I also noticed something else–the lack of music in the gallery. This is perhaps due to the very aforementioned effect, of one piece of art fundamentally altering your perception of another piece. Perhaps music would have too transcendental and powerful of an effect, imposing its own creative influences and artistic perspective on your own and on the expression of the respective art pieces. To illustrate, I can imagine that looking at a Jackson Pollock piece while listening to Beethoven in conjunction could instill the idea of a ‘grand design in the beautiful and exquisite chaos of Pollock’s imagination,’ versus looking at the same piece while listening to some derivative of Screamo-death-hardcore-heavy metal could perhaps invoke a sense of ‘chaotic savagery in what ultimately amounts to Pollack’s madness.’

These concepts have led to an even bigger question–how was a particular piece of art intended to be displayed? Do museums conform to the artist’s intentions or do they accomplish something more–a commentary of, or rather service to, society? Do we, or are we even able to, understand the artist’s original intentions? Consider a museum where each artistic instillation, each painting, each work is housed in its own blank room with neutral aesthetics. Could it be said that this is the most “pure” way to experience the art?