| Chapter Introduction: | Introduction |
|
|
practices formally popularised by the Louvre took on new shape and form, as a completely new set of institutional priorities, concerns, and objectives emerged in the early twentieth century. This examination of MoMA will include: MoMA's specific and unique institutional framework, offering a comparative analysis to earlier models presented in the chapter; a detailed emphasis of MoMA's display and exhibition strategies, with consideration given to its incorporation of new media such as film, photography, and architecture in the 1930s and 1940s; explanation of why MoMA would later become so important for the valorisation of video art; discussion of MoMA's role and function as a national symbol (that is, outlining similarities and contrasting differences with the Metropolitan and the Louvre). This is done to understand why MoMA functioned as a national symbol and would operate in the way it did between 1968 and 1990. It therefore attempts to answer the American need to colonise cultural propagation in the period after World War II.
Chapter 2—The Problematics of Display. This chapter establishes a theoretical base to discuss the varied nature of institutional modification which video art prompted. Chapter 2 focuses specifically upon the problematics posed by video art display in museums/galleries (1968–1990). It begins with a comparative discussion and examination of MoMA and the Centre Pompidou's internal architectural configurations and spatial arrangements. This is done as a way to reveal how mainstream museum frameworks for display would cope with the video art's/video sculpture's multiple complexities. Following this, a set of video-based artworks that presented unique problems to the museum will be discussed. As an example, this chapter analyses video artworks displayed at the Tate Gallery's 1976 Video Show. The Tate's presentation of works by Partridge (whose video installations were included in show) will be examined. Partridge declared that the Tate failed to understand the work, stating afterwards: