DOI issue:
Nr. 1
DOI article:Locher, Hubert: The role of the museum in the formation of the art historical discourse
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52804#0016
ed that, it is necessary to acknowledge that the visual
argumentation of a display can be the basis of a new
aesthetic experience that then can lead to a re-evalu-
ation of history. By ‘history’ I do not mean the mete
énumération of facts and data, but the construction
of a narrative, the designing of a verbal picture, the
explanation of a certain view that connects the past
(of objects described) to the present (of the author or
reader). This substantiates my argument that the
curator, by continuously inventing new arrangements
of the museum’s objects, acts as dialectical counter-
part to the art historian who aims at new interpréta-
tions and insights in writing commentaries, books and
essays. ‘Expérience’ and ‘interprétation’ are not alter-
natives; on the contrary they háve to be joined dia-
lectically.23 The art historian (we can call him ‘writer’
or ‘speaker’) as well as the curator (‘arranger’ or ‘pic-
ture composer’) are involved in generating art, and
both share interests and sometimes form judgements
that may, in a broader sense, even be called ‘aesthet-
ic’. Obviously, critique as well as arrangement is based
on some sort of interprétation: Both actions trans-
form, de-contextualize and re-contextualize objects,
and in doing so they reanimate and reconstruct the
meaning of ‘things’ made in the past.
In the reconstruction and explanation of dialogues
of the ‘diskursive und präsentative kunsthistorische
Praxis’, as Heinrich Dilly once put it,24 in the explo-
ration of their dialectical relation, lies a whole field of
research open to further studies. If the display of ob-
jects in a museum is considered to be interpretative
and thus subject to continually changing notions dé-
pendant on a complex set of historical conditions at
any given moment in time, it follows that it needs to
be updated accordingly. This process can be stimu-
lated by verbal criticism. To illustrate this, I would like
to refer, in conclusion, to a historical example of the
23 See SEROTA, Nicholas: Experience or Interpretation. The Dilem-
ma of Muséums of Modem Art. London : Thames and Hudson,
2000. On the future of the museum see now: ZUSCHLAG,
Christoph: Vom Kunsthistorikermuseum zum Künstlermu-
seum. Sind Kunsthistoriker Innen von Museum bald überf-
lüssig? In: Visions of a future. Art and art history in changign
contexts. Ed. Hans-Jörg HEUSSER- Kornelia IMESCH. Zürich
: Siar, 2004, p. 43-64.
24 DILLY, Heinrich: Kunstgeschichte als Institution. Studien zur Ge-
schichte einer Disziplin. Frankfurt a. M. : Suhrkamp, 1979, p. 133.
dialectical relationship between the imaged and the
written discourse in the museum and in art criticism.
Between 1802 and 1805, the German philosopher
Friedrich Schlegel published a sériés of articles in the
journal Europa in which he described the display of
paintings, that had been collected (stolen) by the
Napoleonic troups during their military campaigns
in Italy, arranged by Dominique Vivant Denon in
the Louvre.25 This exhibition inspired Schlegel to
a new, spécifie view of the history of painting and
a new theory of painting as well. In his articles, Schle-
gel does not just give simple descriptions of the paint-
ings he saw in Paris, but he tries to characterize each
artist by comparing his works with those of others,
finally focussing on those works of art that really in-
terested him. Schlegel’s Nachrichten von den Gemählden
in Paris’ are a very individual, subjective narrative in
a double sense. It is either an account of his aesthetic
experience in the Louvre and a narrated history of
painting written for readers who in all probability
never would hâve the chance to go to Paris to see the
works Schlegel described. His aim is very clear: In
front of the ‘medieval’ works of art in the Louvre ex-
hibition, Schlegel tried to ascertain his “German”
identity, i.e. aesthetic experience served him as vehi-
cle to find out about his own position in relation to
a piled up “tradition”. On the one hand, his descrip-
tions document subjective impressions and préférenc-
es, and on the other hand they reflect how he takes
a detached view of past traditions and idéologies by
describing motifs, styles and characters, permanent-
ly searching expressions to draw comparisons between
works of different periods, and schools. A discussion
of the older Italian masters in comparison with the
famous works by Raphael forms the centre of his ar-
gumentation. It was the new arrangement of the old
master paintings by Dominique Vivant Denon26 that
25 For a critical édition see SCHLEGEL, Friedrich: Gemälde alter
Meister. Ed. Hans EICHNER —Norma LELLES. Darmstadt :
Wissenschaftlich Buchgesellschaft, 1984. I am preparing
a study on this subject.
26 See the exhibition catalogue Dominique Vivant-Denon. L’oeil de
Napoléon. [Cat. exhib] Paris : Musée du Louvre, RMN 1999-
For more documents Vivant Denon. Directeur des musées soul le
consulat et l’empire. Correspondance. Ed. Marie-Anne DUPUY —
Isabelle le MASNE DE CHERMONT - Elaine WILLIAM-
SON. Paris : RMN, 1999.
14
argumentation of a display can be the basis of a new
aesthetic experience that then can lead to a re-evalu-
ation of history. By ‘history’ I do not mean the mete
énumération of facts and data, but the construction
of a narrative, the designing of a verbal picture, the
explanation of a certain view that connects the past
(of objects described) to the present (of the author or
reader). This substantiates my argument that the
curator, by continuously inventing new arrangements
of the museum’s objects, acts as dialectical counter-
part to the art historian who aims at new interpréta-
tions and insights in writing commentaries, books and
essays. ‘Expérience’ and ‘interprétation’ are not alter-
natives; on the contrary they háve to be joined dia-
lectically.23 The art historian (we can call him ‘writer’
or ‘speaker’) as well as the curator (‘arranger’ or ‘pic-
ture composer’) are involved in generating art, and
both share interests and sometimes form judgements
that may, in a broader sense, even be called ‘aesthet-
ic’. Obviously, critique as well as arrangement is based
on some sort of interprétation: Both actions trans-
form, de-contextualize and re-contextualize objects,
and in doing so they reanimate and reconstruct the
meaning of ‘things’ made in the past.
In the reconstruction and explanation of dialogues
of the ‘diskursive und präsentative kunsthistorische
Praxis’, as Heinrich Dilly once put it,24 in the explo-
ration of their dialectical relation, lies a whole field of
research open to further studies. If the display of ob-
jects in a museum is considered to be interpretative
and thus subject to continually changing notions dé-
pendant on a complex set of historical conditions at
any given moment in time, it follows that it needs to
be updated accordingly. This process can be stimu-
lated by verbal criticism. To illustrate this, I would like
to refer, in conclusion, to a historical example of the
23 See SEROTA, Nicholas: Experience or Interpretation. The Dilem-
ma of Muséums of Modem Art. London : Thames and Hudson,
2000. On the future of the museum see now: ZUSCHLAG,
Christoph: Vom Kunsthistorikermuseum zum Künstlermu-
seum. Sind Kunsthistoriker Innen von Museum bald überf-
lüssig? In: Visions of a future. Art and art history in changign
contexts. Ed. Hans-Jörg HEUSSER- Kornelia IMESCH. Zürich
: Siar, 2004, p. 43-64.
24 DILLY, Heinrich: Kunstgeschichte als Institution. Studien zur Ge-
schichte einer Disziplin. Frankfurt a. M. : Suhrkamp, 1979, p. 133.
dialectical relationship between the imaged and the
written discourse in the museum and in art criticism.
Between 1802 and 1805, the German philosopher
Friedrich Schlegel published a sériés of articles in the
journal Europa in which he described the display of
paintings, that had been collected (stolen) by the
Napoleonic troups during their military campaigns
in Italy, arranged by Dominique Vivant Denon in
the Louvre.25 This exhibition inspired Schlegel to
a new, spécifie view of the history of painting and
a new theory of painting as well. In his articles, Schle-
gel does not just give simple descriptions of the paint-
ings he saw in Paris, but he tries to characterize each
artist by comparing his works with those of others,
finally focussing on those works of art that really in-
terested him. Schlegel’s Nachrichten von den Gemählden
in Paris’ are a very individual, subjective narrative in
a double sense. It is either an account of his aesthetic
experience in the Louvre and a narrated history of
painting written for readers who in all probability
never would hâve the chance to go to Paris to see the
works Schlegel described. His aim is very clear: In
front of the ‘medieval’ works of art in the Louvre ex-
hibition, Schlegel tried to ascertain his “German”
identity, i.e. aesthetic experience served him as vehi-
cle to find out about his own position in relation to
a piled up “tradition”. On the one hand, his descrip-
tions document subjective impressions and préférenc-
es, and on the other hand they reflect how he takes
a detached view of past traditions and idéologies by
describing motifs, styles and characters, permanent-
ly searching expressions to draw comparisons between
works of different periods, and schools. A discussion
of the older Italian masters in comparison with the
famous works by Raphael forms the centre of his ar-
gumentation. It was the new arrangement of the old
master paintings by Dominique Vivant Denon26 that
25 For a critical édition see SCHLEGEL, Friedrich: Gemälde alter
Meister. Ed. Hans EICHNER —Norma LELLES. Darmstadt :
Wissenschaftlich Buchgesellschaft, 1984. I am preparing
a study on this subject.
26 See the exhibition catalogue Dominique Vivant-Denon. L’oeil de
Napoléon. [Cat. exhib] Paris : Musée du Louvre, RMN 1999-
For more documents Vivant Denon. Directeur des musées soul le
consulat et l’empire. Correspondance. Ed. Marie-Anne DUPUY —
Isabelle le MASNE DE CHERMONT - Elaine WILLIAM-
SON. Paris : RMN, 1999.
14