DISPLAY OPTIONS

Abstract

The modern conception of “art” has its roots in the development of eighteenth‐century aesthetics, yet continues to have an apparently unshakeable hold on the broad field of cultural policy. Across a wide range of programs and disciplines, a lingering faith in the autonomy of art, in the isolated genius of the artist and in the superiority of traditional high art forms over those of popular culture is still, I would argue, clearly evident, and the discourse of aesthetic autonomy has served to inform the development of arts and cultural policies, and especially the policies of the contemporary art museum. In sharp contrast to this traditionalist discourse, the “postmodern museum” embraces context and interactivity as an integral part of its cultural mandate, which revolves around notions of populism, communication, interactivity and a non‐hierarchical “democratization” of the previously authoritative modernist museum. In this article, drawing on a specific case study from the contemporary art museum – the controversy surrounding the purchase of Barnett Newman’s Voice of Fire by Canada’s National Gallery – and addressing the often heated debate around the populist agenda of the “postmodern museum”, the author explores the tensions between discourses of art and context in the contemporary gallery and museum, suggesting the need for a radical reassessment of established exhibition practices and modes of display.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.