Abstract

Experimentation is integral to literature and art as well as to the natural sciences. The search for new artistic means of expression, the formation of a new canon and the use of new artistic materials are all based on findings obtained through experimentation. Experimentation was a key category for the modernists in particular. The difference of modern art with previous periods lies especially with its having given a new programmatic significance to experimental procedures in both the natural sciences and art. Modern artists are characterised by a stylistic pluralism as an expression of a constantly changing society, accompanied by a new understanding of art. In particular, art after 1945 gave rise to a new concept of art hardly anticipated in the traditional genres of painting and sculpture, for example. Thus “experimentation” nowadays refers to controlled, purposive action aiming at some specific goal: the invention of something new or the production of new knowledge. This quest for the new characterises modern art and in particular contemporary art in a variety of ways. While controlled artistic practices may at first glance seem to conflict with the artist’s claim to freedom, artists do indeed seek new practices that are repeatable and therefore controllable. Not everything that is contemporary is experimental. “Experimental” does not just refer to something new — experimental art rather comes from certain experimental methods. In his work Musée d’Art Moderne, Département des Aigles (1968-72) the Belgian artist and poet Marcel Broodthaers investigates a particular form of experimental art. Broodthaers’ fictional museum project provides a good basis for a study of the concept, as the artist has himself repeatedly referred to the experimental quality of his art. Indeed, our starting assumption in this essay is that this work by Broodthaers illustrates in a paradigmatic way central elements of experimentation in contemporary art of the 1960s and 70s. For example, on 16 May 1972 Broodthaers opened a section of a museum entitled The Eagle from the Oligocene to the Present in the Städtischer Kunsthalle in Düsseldorf, signing it with the following words: “Marcel Broodthaers shows an experimental exhibition of his Musée d’Art Moderne, Département des Aigles, Section des Figures”. The first part of this essay examines the experiment in which a museum with altogether twelve sections is declared to be a work of art. The second part then explicates the experiment in which an exhibition is declared to be a work of art. Finally, the third part examines the role of the viewer within Broodthaers’ artistic experiment.

Highlights

  • New Perspectives on the Anglophone World is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

  • Broodthaers was interested in whether the viewer could recognise a museum as a work of art if it was not an actual “building”, but rather an exhibition extending over a four-year period in different places and employing the most variegated materials, signs and allusions

  • 40 at this point we can acknowledge the distinctly experimental character of Broodthaers’s art, which explores the diverse definitions and possibilities of art on the levels of “the museum”, “the exhibition” and “the viewer”. He raised questions as to whether a museum or an exhibition could be a work of art, for example, leaving the answers up to the visitor

Read more

Summary

Susanne König

Broodthaers was interested in whether the viewer could recognise a museum as a work of art if it was not an actual “building”, but rather an exhibition extending over a four-year period in different places and employing the most variegated materials, signs and allusions Within this museum, he examined the various sections (17th and 19th centuries, for example) and their tasks and functions (collecting, preserving, exhibiting, public relations). 30 Broodthaers underscored the interchangeability of objects in the context of a museum exhibition by appending the academic-type labels “Fig. 0”, “Fig. 1”, “Fig. 2” or “Fig. A” to the exhibits or even to individual passages in the chapter Section des Figures in the catalogue of the Eagle Museum in Düsseldorf Closer scrutiny reveals this supposed specification to be just the opposite, given the arbitrariness of the assignment of labels, and illustrates the interchangeability and equal ranking of the labelled objects. The only remaining hope is “that the viewer assumes the risk him or herself — for a moment — of no longer feeling so much at ease in his or her own senses” (Dickhoff 1994: 12)

Conclusion
SUSANNE KÖNIG
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call