Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:45:47.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discipline and Varnish: Rhetoric and Subjectivity at the Museum of Modern Art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2009

Thomas Patin
Get access

Extract

Literary and Cultural Theorist Terry Eagleton argues that “the aesthetic” was from its very inception a development toward a representation of human subjectivity. For Eagleton, the discourse of aesthetics assigned the body to “a subtly oppressive law … a specious form of universalism … [that] blocks and mystifies the real political movement towards … community.” The aesthetic became a “coercion to hegemony,” by informing and regulating sensuous life while at the same time allowing for what seemed like a prospering autonomy. For Eagleton, aesthetics is not ultimately concerned with art objects but with the project of “reconstructing the human subject from the inside.” Autonomy, as it has been described by many theories of the aesthetic, becomes for many a desirable model of independent subjectivity and individual subjective experience. Even though aesthetics works on the subject “from the inside,” as Eagleton writes, it does so through material means. Architecture, art theory, and curatorial practices provide other instances of what Eagleton describes as “apparatuses” of power in the cultural field. One of the things I want to suggest is that cultural practices represent possibilities for subjectivity. Critical, architectural, and museological representations seem to concern artistic production, but also function as subtle suggestions about what it means to be human. These practices work to affect the formation of subjects by attempting to limit and pre-scribe the possibilities for subjectivity. Joel Fineman has similarly argued that subjectivity is constructed from “subjectivity effects” that are in turn produced in a web of discourses. One of Fineman's primary concerns is for how rhetoric can be used to establish compelling and realistic representations of subjectivity, while providing evidence of the artificial nature of the subject at the same time.

Type
Research Article
Information
Prospects , Volume 26 , October 2001 , pp. 639 - 665
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

Much of the research for this essay was supported by the School of Art and College of Fine Arts, Ohio University, as well as by the College Art Association's Professional Development Fellowship in American Art.

1. Eagleton, Terry, The Ideology of the Aesthetic (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 9Google Scholar.

2. Eagleton, Terry, “The Ideology of the Aesthetic,” Poetics Today 9 (1988): 328CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Ibid., 327–30, 320.

4. Ibid.

5. See Fineman, Joel, The Subjectivity Effect in Western Literature: Essays Toward the Release of Shakespeare's Will (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

6. Collier, Peter, The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1976), 147Google Scholar; and Kert, Bernice, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller: The Woman in the Family (New York: Random House, 1993), 97Google Scholar.

7. Kert, , Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, 299Google Scholar.

8. Ibid., 296–300.

9. Colomina, Beatriz, “Intimacy and Spectacle: The Interior of Loos,” in Strategies in Architectural Thinking, ed. Whiteman, John, Kipnis, Jeffrey, and Burdett, Richard (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1992): 37Google Scholar.

10. Ibid., 87–89. See also Wigley, Mark, “Architecture After Philosophy: Le Corbusier and the Emperor's New Paint,” Journal of Philosophy and the Visual Arts (1990), 93 n. 10Google Scholar.

11. Ibid., 91–92.

12. Ibid., 80.

13. Ibid., 85.

14. Read, Helen Appelton, “Modern Art: The Collection of Mrs. John D. Rockefeller, Junior,” Vogue, 04 1, 1931, 114Google Scholar.

15. Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage, 1979), 172Google Scholar.

16. Bennett, Tony, The Birth of the Museum (London: Routledge, 1995): 28, 100Google Scholar.

17. Eco, Umberto, “Function and Sign,” in Signs, Symbols, and Architecture, ed. Broadbent, Geoffrey et al. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980), 40Google Scholar.

18. Ibid., 32.

19. Preziosi, Donald, “Modernism Again: The Museum as Trompe l'oeil,” in De-construction and the Visual Arts: Art, Media Architecture, ed. Brunette, Peter and Wills, David (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 144Google Scholar.

20. Lynes, Russell, Good Old Modern: An Intimate Portrait of the Museum of Modern Art (New York: Atheneum, 1973), 176Google Scholar.

21. Ibid., 49–50, 61, 67.

22. Ricciotti, Dominic, “The 1939 Building of the Museum of Modern Art: The Goodwin-Stone Collaboration,” American Art Journal 17 (Summer 1985): 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. Grunenberg, Christoph, “The Politics of Presentation: The Museum of Modern Art, New York,” in Art Apart: Art Institutions and Ideology Across England and North America, ed. Pointon, Marcia (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994), 204Google Scholar.

24. Wallach, Allan, “The Museum of Modern Art: The Past's Future,” in Art in Modern Culture: An Anthology of Critical Texts, ed. Frascina, Francis and Harris, Jonathan (New York: Icon, 1992), 285Google Scholar.

25. Foucault, , Discipline and Punish, 211Google Scholar.

26. Rubin, William, quoted in Goldberger, Paul, “The New MOMA,” New York Times Magazine, 04 15, 1984, 41–42Google Scholar.

27. See John Elderfield, in Ibid., 68.

28. Statistics from Barr, Albert H. Jr, Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art, 1929–1967 (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1977), 644Google Scholar.

29. The present description is based upon a 1964–67 visitor's guide to the museum, as well as on plans published in Ibid. See also Duncan, Carol and Wallach, Alan, “MOMA: Ordeal and Triumph on 53rd Street” (Studio International 194 [1978])Google Scholar for a number of insights into the museum; and Duncan, and Wallach, , “Museum of Modern Art as Late Capitalist Ritual: An Iconographic Analysis,” Marxist Perspectives, Winter 1978, passimGoogle Scholar.

30. Giovannini, Joseph, “More Than One Way to See Art,” New York Times, 11 13, 1994, H48Google Scholar.

31. Ibid.

32. Wigley, “Architecture After Philosophy,” 92.

33. Duncan, Carol, Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums (London: Routledge, 1995), 103Google Scholar.

34. Wallach, Allan, “The Museum of Modern Art: The Past's Future,” in Art in Modern Culture: An Anthology of Critical Texts, ed. Frascina, Francis and Harris, Jonathan (New York: Icon, 1992), 286Google Scholar.

35. See Bryson, Norman, Vision and Painting: The Logic of the Gaze (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 104–6Google Scholar. See also Easthope, Anthony, British Post-Structuralism Since 1968 (London: Routledge, 1988), 118–20Google Scholar.

36. See Thacker, Andrew, “Foucault's Aesthetics of Existence,” Radical Philosophy 63 (Spring 1993): 13–21Google Scholar.

37. See Derrida, Jacques, “Parergon,” in The Truth in Painting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987): 17–147Google Scholar.

38. Ibid.

39. Tagg, John, “A Discourse (with the Shape of Reason Missing),” Art History 15 (09 1992): 367–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40. Eagleton, , Ideology of the Aesthetic, 2Google Scholar.

41. See Fried, Michael, “Art and Objecthood,” in Minimal Art: A Critical Anthology, ed. Battcock, Gregory (New York: Dutton, 1968), 116–47Google Scholar (originally published in Artforum, June 1967).

42. See Greenberg, Clement, “Modernist Painting,” in The New Art: A Critical Anthology, ed. Battcock, Gregory (New York: Dutton, 1966), 102, my emphasisGoogle Scholar.

43. See Greenberg, Clement, “After Abstract Expressionism,” Art International 6 (10 1962): 30Google Scholar.

44. Ibid., 136, original emphasis.

45. Ibid., 137.

46. Ibid., 135.

47. Ibid., 140 (completion), 127 (seriously), 120 and 125 (painting vs. object; modernist; art).

48. Ibid., 140.

49. Ibid., 125, original emphasis.

50. Ibid., 140.

51. See Rubin, William, quoted in Coplans, John and Alloway, Lawrence, “Talking with William Rubin: ‘The Museum Concept is not Infinitely Expandable’,” Artforum 13 (10 1974): 52Google Scholar.

52. See Rubin, quoted in Goldberger, “New MOMA,” 41–42.

53. Since the mid-1990s, MOMA has been planning another expansion. At the same time, the curators at MOMA have been experimenting with alternate organizations of the museum's collection. In the late 1990s, the permanent collection was removed completely. The exhibition “Modernstarts” organized selections from the collection into three sections entitled “People,” “Places,” and “Things.” These sections were in turn further subdivided into smaller exhibits. In early 2000, MOMA reinstalled the entire collection throughout its galleries in an exhibited called “Making Choices,” which was further subdivided into twenty-five constituent exhibitions. Commentary on the museum's recent experiments has been strong and has centered upon the possible future role of MOMA in the contemporary art world. See Moretti, Franco, “MoMA2000: The Capitulation,” New Left Review 4 (07/08 2000): 98–102Google Scholar; and Danto, Arthur C., “MoMA: What's in a Name?” Nation (07 17, 2000): 32–36Google Scholar.

54. Eagleton, “Ideology of the Aesthetic,” 325.

55. See Carroll, David, Paraesthetics: Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida (New York: Methuen, 1987)Google Scholar. See also Foucault, Michel, “Nietzsche, Genealogy, and History,” in Language, Counter-memory, Practice, ed. Bouchard, Donald F. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 160–64Google Scholar.

56. Part of this section has already appeared in print, along with a lengthy investigation into Eisenman's domestic architecture. See Patin, Thomas, “From Deep Structure to an Architecture in Suspense: Peter Eisenman, Structuralism, and De-construction,” Journal of Architectural Education 47 (11 1993): 88–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57. Kramer, Hilton, “The Wexner Center in Columbus,” New Criterion 8, part 4 (12 1989): 7Google Scholar.

58. Present discussion on the NMAI based upon conversations with Andrew Merriell at Hilferty and Associates Inc., a museum planning and design firm in Athens, Ohio. See also West, W. Richard, “Creating a Museum for the 21st Century,” Native Peoples 5, no. 2 (1992): 38–40Google Scholar; West, Richard W., “Cultural Rethink,” Museums Journal, 06 1995, 30–31Google Scholar; and Smolkin, Rachel, “Museum of the First People,” Albuquerque Tribune, 01 23, 1998, sec. C, p. 1Google Scholar.

59. West, “Creating a Museum,” 38. In January 1998, Cardinal and GBCQ of Philadelphia were dismissed as the lead architect and collaborative firm, respectively, for the NMAI project. The dismissal was the result of disagreements between Cardinal and the Smithsonian over costs and cost overruns. See also Forgey, Benjamin, “The Best Laid Plans: Indian Museum Dispute a Tragic Waste,” Washington Post, 04 4, 1998, sec. C, p. lGoogle Scholar; and Brown, Patricia Leigh, “Museum of the Indian Drops Its Designer,” New York Times, 04 4, 1998, sec. A, p. 17Google Scholar.

60. See Smolkin, “Museum of the First People.”

61. Eagleton, Terry, “The Politics of Subjectivity,” in The Real Me: Postmodernism and the Question of Identity, ed. Bhabha, Homi K. (London: Institute of Contemporary Arts, 1987), 47–48Google Scholar.

62. From the interview “On the Genealogy of Ethics: An Overview of Work in Progress,” in Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, ed. Dreyfus, Hubert and Rabinow, Paul (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 245Google Scholar. See also Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality, vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure (New York: Pantheon, 1985), 13Google Scholar.

63. Foucault, Michel, Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, ed. Martin, Luther, Gutman, Huck, and Hutton, Patrick H. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988), 18Google Scholar.