So we spent a couple days at my parents’ house, and one of our outings was the Detroit Institute of Arts, which reminded me of my pet idea for a new kind of museum.
I should start by saying that I think the notion that art is meant to challenge the viewer is a bit silly, and contemporary art which requires lengthy explanations to tell the viewer what the various components of the work symbolize is not really worth very much. And the DIA, like any significant well-rounded museum, has multiple rooms with the standard canvas painted all-one-color except a single white strip, canvases with thick, wild brushstrokes not much different from what my son painted at the age of four, and similar contemporary “art.” They didn’t have any “installations” or the further odd nonsense that a virtual stroll through Chicago’s Museum of Contemporary Art displays — regarding all of which I have no interested, and would gladly take a “live and let live” approach except that real money is being spent to acquire these items that, let’s face it, could be better spent elsewhere — whether it’s state money or someone’s charitable donation, or operating funds of the museum itself.
But once you step further back into time, I think it’s more interesting to understand art in its particular historical context and the process of how it was created. The fact, for instance, that Greek sculpture was originally not the pure white ethereal creation we think of now, but was painted and, from what I understand, quite colorfully so.
And most art museums have perhaps a representative collection of historical periods, but, well, if you want the Mona Lisa, you have to go to Paris. The David, Florence. And so on.
So wouldn’t it be interesting to have a museum which displays the great works of Western art, from the Greeks to the Impressionists, under one roof? And which places these works in their context, and shows them as they would have appeared when they were created? Of course, they’d have to be reproductions — but modern technology surely makes it possible to produce reproductions which are so close to the real thing that only a trained eye would know the difference. Sure, you wouldn’t have the satisfaction of looking at “the real thing” but it would still provide for an instructive and/or relaxing afternoon (depending on whether your goal is to learn or to soak up the atmosphere). And it would provide for an experience that most of us would otherwise never have, of viewing masterworks at full-scale, rather than as photographs in art books — all the more meaningful for the largest artworks, like the Last Supper.
My husband and I were talking about this a while back, on one of those car trips where he drives and my role is to keep up the engaging conversation for five hours straight to relieve the tedium, so we worked through some of the details. Where would such a museum make sense, and who would build it? Other than my winning the lottery, that is?
I think the appeal of this would be for medium-sized cities, too small for an art museum with a significant quantity of masterworks. Tourist towns, too — like the Wisconsin Dells, which features a number of waterparks (various claims at “largest waterpark/waterslide in the country/world”) and a smattering of attractions meant for when you’re tired of the waterpark or for rainy days.
I suppose what I have in mind is something like SEA LIFE — a chain of aquariums in Europe and the U.S., owned by a public company in the U.K. Even though aquariums have historically been owned by non-profits/public entities in the same manner as zoos, Sea Life is expanding agressively into all manner of cities that otherwise lack an aquarium. Earlier this month, local news reported that they were establishing an aquarium in an outlet mall in the far north Detroit suburb of Auburn Hills, filling a market void, since the aquarium in Detroit, on Belle Isle, despite its proud past, is now run by volunteers only, with a small number of fish.
After all, if a company can profitably run a chain of aquariums, which require keeping the fish alive, surely they could also build a museum where all they need to do is develop the displays, commission the reproductions, and collect admission fees. Heck, you don’t even need guards in every room if the paintings they would be guarding would all be fakes, not priceless and irreplaceable.
What do you think? Would you go to my museum?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In