In Terms of Preference
In his 70’s Garbo wrote the beginning of an essay that he never completed. He had been working on the Museum Suite.
“Until today I never gave a second thought to the way all museums are set up chronologically. The Quatrocento never invades the rooms set aside for Expressionism. One never sees a Rembrandt self-portrait and next to Picasso’s.
Quality and importance should be qualified by comparison, and should be judged by the same standard. It now seems to me, that we are directed by the dictates of Museum floor plan paradigm to keep our observable standard of excellence determined by the context from which it came. They are saying ‘that was then … this is now… don’t confuse this century with the last…. They have nothing to do with each other.’
Here I agree with James Whistler who stated
‘A work of Art has no connection with the environment in which it is produced and has no meaning apart from its beauty.’
I believe this is the basic cause in the irrefutable permissiveness in what today is accepted as fine art. Please don’t quibble on the grounds that Duchamp’s Nude descending was once besmirched and is now considered masterful. Or Warhol’s soup cans were once laughed at and now bring record prices. Or that Hirst’s stuffed shark is worth 12 million.
I propose these modern/contemporary works be put in a museum setting next to Botticelli’s Primavera, El Greco’s Assumption (either one) and the second coffin of Tutankhamun.
Why have you settled for less? Why have you gone for the mediocrity of Saatchi’s profiteering? “
Look at them next to each other.”
Here Garbo left off… I think he knew that as long as there was money involved, the Philistines would win.
