‘ In the studio we generally find finished work, work in progress, abandoned work, sketches – a collection of visible evidence viewed simultaneously that allows an understanding of process; it is this aspect of the work that is extinguished by the museum’s desire to “install." Hasn’t the term installation come to replace exhibition? In fact, isn’t what is installed close to being established? ’ – this statement written by Daniel Buren ‘Function of the studio’ which was published in 1971. (Buren, 1979)
(Buren, 1979)
In this passage, Buren remains an open discussion centres on weather the studio work belongs to the Museum & Gallery? He argued that a museum and gallery is tantamount to being a cemetery for art works: “this is where they all arrive in the end, where they are lost.” ( McLean ,1999) At which, the foregoing discussion implies that all the effort and story behind the displaying work has always been neglected in the museum space. In short, the main theoretical premise behind Buren’s debate, is that, the removing studio artwork, it is removing it from its own reality. (Hibbert-Jones , 2011)
The underlying argument in favour of Buren is that the work is lost somewhere between its place of production and place of consumption. (Buren ,1979) Specifically, the relationship between the creator and the place of creation, that was irretrievably lost in this transfer. As a rebuttal to this point, Buren made an example explaining that the museum & gallery are on one side and the studio on the other, they are both connected to form the foundation and structure of the same system. (Alberro, 1997) However, to a certain extent, some artworks which end up in lofty places, they might have lost their true meaning and origin sources through the transformation from the studio to an exhibiting occasion. (Buren ,1979) Along similar lines, Buren then specified the word “installation” to address a further debate on weather the function of an exhibiting space is gradually replaced by installation art? Refer to Claire Bishop answering this question “neither a studio, nor collectors. Work is about its engagement with a specific site.”(Bishop , 2006) That is, the aspiration of an exhibition is to showcase the artwork itself, including the story and concept behind its work. While when it comes to an installation, museum & gallery tend to focus on the space, the outcome, the engagement between the audience and the work instead. (Fowler, Hertz, 1986)
In this particular chapter, the discussion is pointed to the fact that the prospect of an installation has somehow buried the effort behind the reality of the work. Buren insinuates that the progress of the work, the unselected art pieces, the uncompleted creation, they are all practically piece of art themselves. (Buren, 1977) In fact, they are nothing to the oblivion faced by those work that never make it out of the studio. He added that the studio is where art originates. Buren also applies Constantin Brancusi’s conceptional theory to support his debates, which Brancusi suggested that the perfect displaying works are no less beautiful and no less interesting when seen amidst the clutter of the studio various tools. (Brancusi, 1994) As the studio is a place of multiple activities, including its production, storage and distribution. He metaphors a studio as a commercial depot, where custody the moment of creation within the studio space. To take his point, work that is made in the studio, it is only belongs to the studio. (Ozayten, 2017) Buren’s contention in favour of runs as follows: “The work is, once moved from the studio space, which is totally foreign to the world into which it is welcomed museum & gallery or any collection.” (Buren, 1977) Inevitably, this leads to a tension, he argued that sending studio work to the museum is hurling the entire parade of art into historical oblivion. (Ozayten, 2017)
For the sake of discussion, I would like to disapprove the contention what Buren has made above. As a matter of fact, the museum and gallery inflated estimates of the value of every art work. General speaking, showing art work in the museum helps accelerating reputation and recognition of the artwork. (Axa-art, 2018) Even though, indeed, there are artworks that are housed in the vast archives of museum due to the limited display space. The transferred work from the studio often end up in the storage, as most of the art in storage is part of “study collections”, at which, the museum did not have intention of displaying the work, and this is what Buren mentioned about oblivion of the art work within the museum space. However, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a museum having art that they did not exhibit due to the limited space. (Groskopf, 2018) “A museum stores memory, or culture,” explains Köhler. (Bradley, 2018) Every collection of art work in the museum are valuable, they all acquired attentive of good cares. In fact, the studio have even less storage space to preserve produced art work. (Stretcher, 2018) If Buren has to persist the work that is oblivious within the museum space, then there are much higher chance that the work in the studio will get forgotten in the small studio space.
To take his second argument, it is insufficient to denote that the progress and development of the work have been devalued and neglected in the Museum & Gallery space. In fact, there are many facilities and resources in the museum that they indicates how the art work produced. Such as their official website or the tablets that the museum & gallery provides. (Passebois, Aurier, 2004) The museum & gallery constantly demonstrate the up-to-date information of the art piece on various resources, they explained all the details of every art work online, including its process and concept behind the final outcome. (Zhang, 2016) Thence, the work did not lost its essence through the transfer from the studio to the museum. On the contrary, Museum & Gallery stimulates the cognition and acknowledgement of the art work, to public, also the artwork upgraded itself. (Windle, 2006) In addition, Buren also questioned if the exhibition has been replaced by installation. Actually, even if installation art really do gradually replacing standard exhibition, it is not a detrimental fact to any artwork in disadvantages. In contrast, the installation invites visitor to engage with the artwork, encouraging them to explore the story behind every art pieces. (Pierantoni, 2011) As long as the installation art bring benefit to the artwork themselves, the rise of installation is favourable to the whole art & creative industry. (Comunian, 2015)
Overtime, information technology is nowadays well-developed. It is not even an apprehension to be concerned about weather the effort behind the artwork is being extinguished by Museum or Gallery spaces or not. There are various methodology to showcase the reality with every details about the artwork on multiple resources, such as on website and the artist’s online portfolio. (Stretcher, 2018) All in all, I believe that Museum & Gallery are the places where facilitate the development of exhibition art in the professional field. (Groskopf, 2018) The particular statement which Daniel Buren compiled in his thesis is antiquated, is outdated. The function of the studio is undoubtedly the major part and creation space to the artwork themselves, however, the work has never extinguished by the Museum & Gallery space. In fact, the works that are selected to the museum & gallery, they are all given a comprehensive conservation and extra attention, as well as an enhancement of impact of its artwork to the outside world. (Museum Collection Storage, 1987)
Bibliography
Buren, D. and Repensek, T. (1979). The Function of the Studio. October, 10, p.51.
McLean, K. (1999). THE MUSEUM AS MUSE: ARTISTS REFLECT: At the Museum of Modern Art, New
York. Curator: The Museum Journal, 42(3), pp.253-255.
Hibbert-Jones, D. (2011). Contemporary Art from Studio to SituationandSituation(Documents of
Contemporary Art series). Public Art Dialogue, 1(1), pp.139-141.
Alberro, A. (1997). The Turn of the Screw: Daniel Buren, Dan Flavin, and the Sixth Guggenheim
International Exhibition. October, 80, p.57.
The Paris Metro. Daniel Buren. (1977). ARLIS/NA Newsletter, 5(3), pp.106-106.
Bishop, C. (2006). Letters and Responses: Claire Bishop Responds. October, 115, pp.106-107.
Fowler, J. and Hertz, R. (1986). Theories of Contemporary Art. Circa, (27), p.40.
Constantin Brancusi: shifting the bases of art. (1994). Choice Reviews Online, 32(01), pp.80.
Ozayten, I. (2017). THE ARTIST STUDIOS OF TODAY IN THE CONTEXT OF SPATIAL PERCEPTIONS
AND EXHIBITION PRACTICES OF DANIEL BUREN. Idil Journal of Art and Language, 6(39).
Axa-art.cdn.axa-contento-118412.eu. (2018). [online] Available at: https://axa-art.cdn.axacontento-
118412.eu/axa-art%2F5b6da6c8-1500-47b8-816cb11977516065_
axa+art_survey_2017_final.pdf [Accessed 8 Jul. 2018].
Stretcher.org. (2018). Performing the Frame: Daniel Buren, Degree Zero Painting and a Politics of
Beauty. [online] Available at: http://www.stretcher.org/projects/symposia/performingtheframe.html
[Accessed 8 Jul. 2018].
Groskopf, C. (2018). Museums are keeping a ton of the world’s most famous art locked away in
storage. [online] Quartz. Available at: https://qz.com/583354/why-is-so-much-of-the-worlds-great-artin-
storage/ [Accessed 8 Jul. 2018].
Bradley, K. (2018). Why museums hide masterpieces away. [online] Bbc.com. Available at: http://
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150123-7-masterpieces-you-cant-see [Accessed 8 Jul. 2018].
Passebois, J. and Aurier, P. (2004). Building consumer/arts institution relationships: An exploratory
study in contemporary art museums. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 1(2),
pp.75-88.
Zhang, Z. (2016). The Predicaments and Outlet of Art Education in Digital Media Age. Ethnic Art
Studies, 29(3).
Windle, G., Gregory, S., Howson-Griffiths, T., Newman, A., O’Brien, D. and Goulding, A. (2017).
Exploring the theoretical foundations of visual art programmes for people living with dementia.
Dementia, p.147130121772661.
Tali, M. and Pierantoni, L. (2011). New art museums in Central and Eastern Europe and the ideologies
of urban space production. Cultural Trends, 20(2), pp.167-182.
Comunian, R., Faggian, A. and Jewell, S. (2015). Digital technology and creative arts career patterns
in the UK creative economy. Journal of Education and Work, 28(4), pp.346-368.
Museum Collection Storage. (1987). APT Bulletin, 19(2).
Comments