The Significance of Museum Spaces

In Dr. Kristina Wilson’s lecture at the Smithsonian American Art Museum, she focused on part of her book “The Modern Eye: Stieglitz, MoMA, and the Art of the Exhibition, 1925-1934” and specifically the impact of museum space on audience experience.  As MoMA’s original architectural space moved from the Heckscher Building to Rockefeller’s west fifty-third street townhouse in 1932, Dr. Wilson argued that being in this domestic space “too grand” for one’s own social class tainted the overall viewing experience.  According to Dr. Wilson, the townhouse encouraged viewers to focus on the art as reflections of the wealthy owners, instead of their own interaction with the works.  This immediately led me to consider the Phillips Collection: a domestic space, formerly owned by a wealthy collector. 

Furthermore, at the conclusion of the lecture, Dr. Wilson directly addressed the MoMA-Phillips relationship that had been gelling in my mind, in response to a question from the audience.  Both were institutions for the promotion of modern art in America.  But she thinks there is a significant different in each museum’s approach, which can still be seen today.  MoMA, operated by a committee from its inception, focused on the idea of “branding” itself as an institution, rather than on a single individual.  At the Phillips, on the other hand, the pervasive focus has always been on the significance of Duncan Phillips’ biography and personal taste.  I agree with her assessment: the whole museum still resonates with telling a specific story about his own collection, tastes, and interests.  For instance, Renoir’s Luncheon of the Boating Party, which remains the best-known work of art at the Phillips, is contextually placed in relation to Phillips, himself.  This is emphasized through wall text and actual images of the collector with the original work.  The exhibition, Degas’s Dancers at the Barre: Point and Counterpoint, also emphasizes Duncan Phillips’ passion for Degas’ work, Dancers at the Barre, the focal point of the exhibition.  To Phillips, it was “a masterpiece . . . in its daring record of instantaneous change at a split second of observation.”  Even the museum website features a whole section on Duncan Phillips, and every exhibition catalog references Phillips’ vision for his museum.

Once again, as Dr. Wilson reinforced the link between museum space and works on display, I naturally reflected on the show I have been planning at the Phillips and how it can best function in the Phillips’ space.  MoMA held a large Caro retrospective in 1975, focused solely on this artist.  But while MoMA may be an appropriate venue for a show based solely on Caro, I think incorporating other works in conversation (as was a salient part of Duncan Phillips’ vision for this space) could make a more successful Phillips show, as the curator and I have been discussing.  For example, the current Degas exhibition’s incorporation of works from the permanent collection that influenced his own work is one of its most effective aspects.  This perfectly exemplifies Phillips’ own vision for his museum space, which should continue with future exhibitions. 

And unlike the early MoMA locations, the Phillips remains a place for intimate engagement with artwork for all audiences, without such notions of superiority.