CityLab: When the Museum of Illusions opened in Greenwich Village last fall, it drew lines down the block to get in. Visitors flocked to photogenic exhibits that make it look like you have lost your head or can walk on walls. Following in the footsteps of other viral-experience purveyors like the Museum of Ice Cream, Museum of Pizza, and Color Factory, the Museum of Illusions’ takeover of a prominent corner building seemed to assert that the age of the pop museum—or “museum”—is only beginning.
6 comments:
I haven’t really thought must about these ‘pop-up museums’ that this article describes. I find it interesting that they’re described as immersive, not because they are not but because it’s not what I define immersive as. It’s also strange to think that the world museum which is normally associated with a reputable institution, is being misused and altered in today’s pop culture. It’s interesting that the world museum gives these temporary exhibits a bit more ethos than they would normally have if they had different names. What's truly strange about these pop-ups is how they may influence true museum institutions in the way they market to younger audience and they way they then in turn can find new avenues to make a profit. Appropriateness is an interesting concept. Part of me wonders if these culture exhibits are changing the mindset about what a museum actually is and than they are actually helping museums, but there must be a negative element to the use of the word museum by these pop-ups. Warping and changing the meaning of museum is definitely not good.
I think the way our culture is in general is very much geared toward social media at this point. Ive been to the Museum of Illusions in Hollywood, and it was actually pretty fun. I do agree that the only appeal to the "museum" is taking a good photo, and not the art itself. I hesitate to even call it art because it's essentially clip art configured to get a picture of you punching Donald Trump or something. It is weird to me that the author of this article feels the word museum is so sacred that they can't have random things being called a museum. Like we wouldn't necessarily throw a fit if they found the worlds largest Cheeto and made a museum about it. I don't understand why they're so bothered by calling the museum of illusions a museum rather than a "playground". Our culture has shifted in the direction of social media, and we just need to decide if we're gonna embrace it or fight back. I agree we should try to live more in the moment.
This article makes a very good point. The use of vocabulary matters, especially in the field of art. Although reformation of its definition is necessary in response to changing times, it is important to make sure to maintain its dignity. As a bad precedent, in the case of which this article focuses on, Museum has become too commercialized. However, it is worth mentioning that this article does not necessarily deny the use of social media. Recently I had a chance to visit the Mattress Museum in Pittsburgh. What I thought was interesting was that, as I walked into the room, I felt like I have been there before. I think the reason for this is because I have seen many posts on Instagram of this place. It might be my new friend in cmu posting stories when they visited, or posts coming up to my feed because I have used #YayoiKusama before, when I visited her exhibition in Japan. It was surprising to feel how SNS is playing a role of advertisement, but at the same time, affecting how people interpret the artwork. I do not define this entire experience as just an experience in a playground. The proper combination of art, museum, and Instagram, or any other social media will certainly influence the field in a positive way.
I really haven't thought about this that much, and I guess I understand why the author of this article feels the need to argue on this topic. I can see how the word "Museum" in a name of something that is not necessarily the textbook definition of "Museum" can be misleading. And I think that word, "misleading", is a better word to describe it than the author used, which is "appropriation". I define museums as educational, but I also define them as a display of work. If someone wanted to visit the Museum of Ice Cream to learn about ice cream, they would be disappointed. However, instead what they would be met with is art (and edible ice cream, of course, which is always great). And that falls under the category of a display of work, so I think that it's still a museum. I think this argument treads more in the realm of museums of Modern Art. These pop-up museums are simply that: displays of modern art. I think if I walked into the Smithsonian Museum of Modern Art and saw an ice cream seesaw, I wouldn't be too shocked. But the main purpose of these museums that this article talks about is to benefit social media. These are works of art that are meant to be interacted with and posed in front of to spark photography and social media presence. Therefore, it is interactive modern art, which is something that you would find in a longstanding museum.
Living around Chicago, I have been seeing these pop up museums show up every few months. Despite that, I have never had the chance to experience one for myself. They do seem pointless and shallow, used only for Instagram photos and to serve the vanity of the public, but I like them. The article does feel a bit cynical towards these “museums”, and usually I feel the same about these sort of things, but what I find so fascinating is the design of the rooms. Each room has its own unique look and has to stand out in a way that makes for an interesting photo. They are art installations that people admire, so in a way it is a sort of museum, just without the history. Whatever the opinion is, I feel the rooms provide an interesting challenge to a designer and makes for a fun trip with friends. I hope to go to one to appreciate the design and build of each room. And take pictures with it.
Immersive: providing, involving, or characterized by deep absorption or immersion in something (Merriam-Webster). ~Immersive~ is my new favorite buzz word in the theatrical community. Whenever people tell me about how they want something immersive, my next question is always “What does immersive mean to you”. For some people, immersive is sitting in the round, for other people it is the audience members literally being imbedded as characters in the story. All of these things are totally fair! It just makes me laugh how everyone’s instinct for vogue theATAAA is forcing people to be a part of their piece. That rant aside: I don’t love this. Stop sensationalizing museums. Stop making Instagram sell your museum. People go to festivals for that. I go to museum because I want to see the work and the life of other artists. I want the focus to be on them and their pain, triumphs, joy, technique, world view. I really don’t want to spend that time worried about whether or not Becky’s smile looks ~authentic~ while we took a candid of her falling into the sprinkle pool at the Museum of Ice Cream. Call me old and grumpy, but like come on. This isn’t about you.
Post a Comment