“The progressive image of modern art museums is mostly built on rhetoric and self-promotion. What is truly progressive, in a social sense, is absent from their programming and public communication,” says Bouwhuis.
Case studies
dzܷɳܾ’ is based on three case studies. The first draws on his own experience with global art projects at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, which he says were thwarted by “institutional racism”. The second explores how multiculturalism only marginally entered museums in the US, the UK and the Netherlands. The third focuses on former Stedelijk director and resistance hero Willem Sandberg, who later became artistic director of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.
A critical reassessment
According to Bouwhuis, the notion of the ‘progressive museum’ must be critically re-evaluated. “Any claim museums make about their democratic nature should be taken with a pinch of salt. Despite their rhetoric and their promotion of diversity, they remain exclusive to privileged groups and fail to engage large sections of society, such as the (precarious) working classes and religious minorities.”
Public resources
The study also supports criticism of museums’ constant drive for expansion. “Their collections keep growing, their marketing becomes ever more sophisticated, and they largely shape how we perceive art—what counts as modern or contemporary art, and what our taste ought to be. Moreover, modern art museums increasingly draw on public funds.”
Legitimacy
“When does modernity end?” Bouwhuis asks. “If museums are truly progressive, they should dare to answer that question and in doing so, question their very right to exist. Do we really need modern art museums?”