Conference paper, Saturday, October 20th, 2007, 5:15 p.m.
Ángel Kalenberg: On the recent History of Museums in Latin America and their Problems
Museums in developing countries
Can a museum of contemporary art allow itself to be eccentric? Yes. As a counterweight to globalization the local began to be revalued (the term “glocal” was even invented, with the motto of “think global, act local”), leading to an acceptance of cultural, theoretical and ethnic diversity (a diversity in the way of showing); hence, a plurality of art histories will have to replace the official history of art. In fact, since everything is possible, it is also possible to rewrite the history of art and to revalue all contributions in a way consistent with a new axiology. Thus metropolitan Constructivism could not cover Latin American Organic Constructivism.A museum, as has been rightfully held, is a place to manifest identity (including fictitious and invented ones), a sort of labyrinth in which diverse tribes, rites, identity ceremonies and voices coexist. The museum, and only the museum, should “set out new aesthetic topographies,” one of the fonts to which identities (which are nothing but “constructs”) come to drink. The museum’s dynamics has also reached developing countries with the general movement of proliferant museification that touches today’s societies. Let us look at a Latin American commonplace. During pre-electoral periods governments in the region tend to inaugurate, among other things, theaters, libraries, museums “geared to conserving and celebrating national culture.” Yet “[public] cultural institutions have not managed to definitively form part of a symbolic representation program.” Instead, private collectors have, by buying works that testify to the development of art in their countries, or in the region. Earlier, they were aristocrats associated with farm and livestock activities. In the 1960s a new type of collector came onto the scene, out of the industrial bourgeoisie, and put its stakes on new art (Alfredo Boulton, Hans Neumann and Paty Phelps de Cisneros, in Venezuela; Gilberto Chateubriand, in Brazil; Torcuato di Tella, Ignacio Pirovano, Carlos Pedro Blaquier, Marcos Curi, Marion and Jorge Helft, in Argentina. Some of these collections (Instituto Torcuato di Tella, MALBA – Eduardo Costantini collection, Eduardo Grüneisen, to cite a few Argentine cases) have assumed a role that should have been played by government.
The most noteworthy example on this score is the Jumex Collection, of Eugenio López, in Mexico, which has prioritized the acquisition of works by 1960s minimalists and conceptualists, as well by artists from the 1990s, i.e., it has exclusively targeted contemporary art (which Belting prefers to call “global”), making the work of regional artists cohabitate with that of international artists.
As regards Mexico, suffice it to cite some statistical data: in 1960-70 there were no more than 80 museums; in recent years we hear of 965. But there is even more striking data: the Government that in the 1960s controlled 80% of museums is now responsible for barely 15%.
The Mexican Lourdes Turrent speaks to other issues:
“If before we talked about the hard or elementary parts of the museum, like building, collection and public, in post-modernity […] we realized that the history of museums takes different roads. That they are also explained by their political profitability [...] for their role in the ideological construction of states.”
Guggenheim disembarks in Latin America
In the recent history of museums in Latin America we cannot ignore the disembarking of the Guggenheim Foundation. First it was in Brazil. But the Rio de Janeiro project failed. Jean Nouvel made a spectacular presentation of his project floating on piers, with views of the famous bay, and a budget of over 250 million dollars. The mayor Cesar Maia went to Manhattan, but he did not gauge how far his neighbors’ resistance would go in putting the fight against poverty ahead of the global museum. The judge Joao Maras Fantinato ordered suspension of the contract in May 2003.Then came Mexico’s turn. There the project for Guadalajara, even if delayed, is still alive. Authorities believe they could “house works of the Guggenheim collection and exhibitions of Mexican art in the diverse Guggenheim museums,” as well as those from the Kunsthistorisches Museum of Vienna and the Hermitage. (Here, allow me a digression. During the presentation of the Guggeheim-Las Vegas, the Hermitage’s director, Mijail Petrovski, said: “As socialists, our idea at the time was to take art to the masses. You’ve got to take it to where the people are, and if the people come to Las Vegas…”).
Public versus private museums
These days, the museum (and not only in Latin America, but particularly in Latin America) is challenged on economic grounds, and also for reasons of space. For that very reason, perhaps, a neologism has been coined: decollection, which in plain English means dispossession, i.e., letting go of part of a collection. If mobility can be considered an essential part of a private collection, for national or municipal Latin American museums that practice could become the antechamber to disaster. It could be worthwhile if it were to function effectively in both directions, sale and purchase; but knowing Latin American bureaucracies’ limitations on use and their proverbial poverty, it will surely only work in one direction: selling everything and not buying anything.Traditional versus Virtual museum
For some years now there has been a degree of theorizing on virtual museums. Even if the museum of the future were a virtual museum, traditional museums will be essential to conserve the memory, the identity of peoples. And in Latin America we will need, moreover, to multiply the museums geared to native artists, like those already in existence: Torres García in Montevideo; Xul Solar in Buenos Aires; Lasar Segall in Sao Paolo; Siqueiros, Rivera, Frida Kahlo, Tamayo and Cuevas in México; Botero in the Museum of Antioquia, in Colombia (and with a gallery in the Luis Á. Arango, in Bogotá), with a view to showing that Latin American art exist.“Yet,” Arthur Danto would say, “the museum itself is only a part of the infrastructure of art that sooner or later will assume the end of art, and art after art.” That is to say, the end of a Hegelian history and entry to the era of pluralism, of diversity.
