Our previous conversation on corporate-sponsored art exhibits in China led our reviewers to question the existence and function of art museums in China. Regarding the Christian Dior and Chinese Artists exhibition held at UCCA (Nov 08-Jan09) Henri first wrote in the previous Conversation, “It seems to me though the real question that we’re facing is whether or not a museum should have organized this show.” In the following conversation, RedBox Review Contributors consider whether or not the UCCA can be considered a museum, and what the role of a museum in today’s China might be.
KATIE GRUBE [Mar 24}
Can the Ullens Center truly be considered a museum? I have never considered it a museum, but rather an exhibition space for a private arts foundation whose fundamental objectives are twofold: 1) exhibitions of the Ullens's private collection and 2) contemporary art project space. Although the UCCA in comparison with other self-titled or state run museums in China does a better job of fulfilling a museum-like role, I would hesitate to grant it such a title based solely on relative levels of professionalism or a dedication to an institutional vision and public education program.
HENRI BENHAIM [Mar 24}
I’d like to rephrase the question: Why isn’t UCCA a museum?
ANGIE BAECKER [Mar 24]
I don’t think of UCCA as a museum 1) because they don’t claim to be, and 2) because their conservation, research, education, and publication programs are not those of a museum as defined by the International Council of Museums. More abstractly, I think the box/rectangle rule applies– an art center shares many of the same qualities as a museum, and a museum can even be called an art center, but an art center is not a museum.
The term museum (as well as the word curator, for that matter) includes implications of conservation and conservatorship that are often overlooked, but essential. (As an aside regarding the word “curator,” Robert Storr has proposed using the word “exhibition maker” instead of “curator” since the care or preservation of art is, by definition, a curator’s primary concern.) By these standards, I wonder if we can, in good faith, describe the National Art Museum of China or even the Guangdong Museum of Art, for that matter, as a museum– so I give the floor up to your collective thoughts.
STEPHANIE TUNG [Mar 27]
I think we need to keep in mind the context of China’s cultural policies when talking about art museums, or the lack thereof, here in China.
You hear about museums popping up all over Beijing, but then you realize it’s mostly absurdly porky projects like the Beijing Tap-Water Museum. The Ministry of Culture still retains control of the content of these official institutions, so many cultural organizations choose to remain independent of government support. Yet nonprofit NGO status is also extremely difficult to attain, discouraging potential philanthropists from donating to organizations. Without a state- supported, independent cultural system as in Europe, or a philanthropy-based model as in the States, organizations in China are left floundering for funding.
Without adequate funding, no wonder it’s so hard to find good exhibition programming, research and education components, or even museum-standard conservation facilities. The context is essential for understanding why cultural organizations are the way they are here. Organizations are coming up with creative solutions to get around these problems. Of course, the privately-funded UCCA is one example, but so are profit-seeking models like the Zendai Museum of Modern Art and the Moon River Museum of Contemporary Art (Mr. Mocca), both of which are funded by luxury real estate development companies. Should these organizations be called museums? No. But they do point to the organic development of a new concept of the institution outside the established European and American systems.
As Katie pointed out, the problem is that when the money gets tight, these institutions often forfeit their independent curatorial agendas to the highest bidder. Unless we see a change in China’s cultural policies that makes it more welcoming to nonprofit NGOs, I don’t think we’ll see institutions in China akin to what we would expect of a museum in the U.S. or Europe.
Upon returning to New York after her first visit to China, Soraya Broukhim provides a review of Wang Qingsong’s "When World's Collide" exhibition of photographs and videos at ICP. (Read more)
Upon returning to New York after her first visit to China, Soraya Broukhim provides a review of Wang Qingsong’s "When World's Collide" exhibition of photographs and videos at ICP. (Read more)
CONVERSATIONS: What is a museum in China today?
Our previous conversation on corporate-sponsored art exhibits in China led our reviewers to question the existence and function of art museums in China. Regarding the Christian Dior and Chinese Artists exhibition held at UCCA (Nov 08-Jan09) Henri first wrote in the previous Conversation, “It seems to me though the real question that we’re facing is whether or not a museum should have organized this show.” In the following conversation, RedBox Review Contributors consider whether or not the UCCA can be considered a museum, and what the role of a museum in today’s China might be.
KATIE GRUBE [Mar 24}
Can the Ullens Center truly be considered a museum? I have never considered it a museum, but rather an exhibition space for a private arts foundation whose fundamental objectives are twofold: 1) exhibitions of the Ullens's private collection and 2) contemporary art project space. Although the UCCA in comparison with other self-titled or state run museums in China does a better job of fulfilling a museum-like role, I would hesitate to grant it such a title based solely on relative levels of professionalism or a dedication to an institutional vision and public education program.
HENRI BENHAIM [Mar 24}
I’d like to rephrase the question: Why isn’t UCCA a museum?
ANGIE BAECKER [Mar 24]
I don’t think of UCCA as a museum 1) because they don’t claim to be, and 2) because their conservation, research, education, and publication programs are not those of a museum as defined by the International Council of Museums. More abstractly, I think the box/rectangle rule applies– an art center shares many of the same qualities as a museum, and a museum can even be called an art center, but an art center is not a museum.
The term museum (as well as the word curator, for that matter) includes implications of conservation and conservatorship that are often overlooked, but essential. (As an aside regarding the word “curator,” Robert Storr has proposed using the word “exhibition maker” instead of “curator” since the care or preservation of art is, by definition, a curator’s primary concern.) By these standards, I wonder if we can, in good faith, describe the National Art Museum of China or even the Guangdong Museum of Art, for that matter, as a museum– so I give the floor up to your collective thoughts.
STEPHANIE TUNG [Mar 27]
I think we need to keep in mind the context of China’s cultural policies when talking about art museums, or the lack thereof, here in China.
You hear about museums popping up all over Beijing, but then you realize it’s mostly absurdly porky projects like the Beijing Tap-Water Museum. The Ministry of Culture still retains control of the content of these official institutions, so many cultural organizations choose to remain independent of government support. Yet nonprofit NGO status is also extremely difficult to attain, discouraging potential philanthropists from donating to organizations. Without a state- supported, independent cultural system as in Europe, or a philanthropy-based model as in the States, organizations in China are left floundering for funding.
Without adequate funding, no wonder it’s so hard to find good exhibition programming, research and education components, or even museum-standard conservation facilities. The context is essential for understanding why cultural organizations are the way they are here. Organizations are coming up with creative solutions to get around these problems. Of course, the privately-funded UCCA is one example, but so are profit-seeking models like the Zendai Museum of Modern Art and the Moon River Museum of Contemporary Art (Mr. Mocca), both of which are funded by luxury real estate development companies. Should these organizations be called museums? No. But they do point to the organic development of a new concept of the institution outside the established European and American systems.
As Katie pointed out, the problem is that when the money gets tight, these institutions often forfeit their independent curatorial agendas to the highest bidder. Unless we see a change in China’s cultural policies that makes it more welcoming to nonprofit NGOs, I don’t think we’ll see institutions in China akin to what we would expect of a museum in the U.S. or Europe.