News   Aug 07, 2024
Untitled Toronto and 100 Broadway Ascending Side-by-Side in Midtown Toronto
 30     0 
News   Aug 07, 2024
News Roundup for August 7, 2024
 256     0 
News   Aug 07, 2024
Contained
 224     0 

Heritage Preservation and Aesthetic Judgment

I've never claimed that you see the world in aesthetic terms. But, and perhaps because of that, your notion that with the ROM aesthetic considerations are entirely absent from the mandate of the institution is ridiculous - their mandate, carved in stone outside their building, is The arts of man through all the years. The reputation of institutions such as the AGO and the ROM is based on the artistic excellence of their collections, the result of an aesthetic connection, even though you admit you don't "filter" the world in that way.
 
Urban Shocker said:
I've never claimed that you see the world in aesthetic terms. But, and perhaps because of that, your notion that with the ROM aesthetic considerations are entirely absent from the mandate of the institution is ridiculous - their mandate, carved in stone outside their building, is The arts of man through all the years.
Click to expand...

Though note that it's generic "arts", as opposed to "artistic excellence". There's wiggle room.
 
True, but the display of works of the creative imagination - be they a Neolithic bowl from China or a 19th century Mi'kmak porkupine quill nick-nack - prompts a direct aesthetic response, an emotional connection between the viewer and the art work, and it makes no sense to claim that the ROM and AGO aren't committed to displaying artistic quality since their reputations for excellence are involved.

There's a rather good short video by artist Richard Gorman, next to his painting Kiss good-bye ( 1963 ) in the AGO's gallery 224, that speaks to this connection between art and audience.

Galleries also rotate their collections - the ROM has been doing that with the screens in their Japanese Gallery for some time, based on having enough qualitatively excellent items in storage. Areas that are the strongest, such as the Chinese collection, are given more display space than their weaker holdings - the Egyptian, for instance - which also promotes excellence. And curators have wish-lists of objects that will enhance their collections; institutions can't buy everything they want outright, and wealthy collectors such as the Thomsons sometimes sometimes act on their behalf to acquire and donate them. The AGO called on collectors to donate specific works for their newly renovated galleries in order to enhance their existing collection. It's all based on getting the best, and building on the quality of what they have, despite Archivist's absurd claim that "if you want to believe that the ROM collects pretty things, go right ahead. I won't disabuse you of the notion. Strangely, aesthetic considerations are entirely absent from the mandate of the institution".
 
Of course, it may seem absurd to someone who understands the mandate from a misreading of chiselled letters on the outside of the building.

The ROM's mission is:
The ROM will be a world leader in communicating its research and collections to increase understanding of the interdependent domains of cultural and natural diversity, their relationships, significance, preservation, and conservation

The ROM's mandate is:
(a) The collection and exhibition of objects, documents, and books of any kind to illustrate and make known to the public the natural history of Ontario, Canada and the world;
(b) The collection and exhibition of objects, documents, and books of any kind to illustrate and make known to the public the history of man in all ages; and
(c) The promotion of education, teaching, research, and publication in any or all fields referred to above.

The ROM's vision is: The ROM will inspire wonder and build understanding of human cultures and the natural world.

Not one object can be acquired without making reference to these stated objectives. And since your mission, mandate and vision apparently includes misquoting people, let me say again that I don't expect that the aesthetic qualities of the objects the ROM collects are irrelevant or not considered, but simply that an aesthetic appreciation of the objects is not central to the museum's stated mission, mandate or vision.

And yes, "arts" as on the outside of the building, merely refers to the works of man, and there are many ways to consider the works of man, from an economic point of view, from a cultural point of view, from an environmental point of view, from a historical point of view. Aesthetic considerations of the arts of man are of course welcomed and valued, but only someone who saw the world through a very particular and refined lens could understand the statement The arts of man through all the years in terms of aesthetic appreciation first and foremost.

Absurdities indeed!
 
Your comments have been quoted accurately.

The mission, mandate and vision of the cultural part of their mandate makes little sense without reference to aesthetic quality. The ROM’s core collections are those of established national and/or international significance supported by nationally and/or internationally recognized programs of curatorial research. These core areas are central to the ROM’s mandate and the ROM is committed to them on a long-term basis. The following cultural collections are currently considered core areas:

* Canadian art, decorative arts, and historical documents.

* Material culture and art of Aboriginal Peoples of Canada and contiguous regions.

* Near Eastern and Asian arts and archaeology, specifically China, Islam/Middle East, Egypt/Nubia, Japan, Korea, and South Asia.

* Textiles and accessories.

* Western decorative arts, gold and silver, and arms and armour.

Art and decorative arts of national and/or international significance is art of aesthetic value. ROM policy states that: Exhibits are the main attraction for most visitors to the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). The purpose of exhibits is to involve visitors in the process of discovery, to spark curiosity, to inform, to provoke thought, to stimulate imagination, and to heighten appreciation and understanding. and their exhibit policy includes the directive to Make accessible to the public the collections and collections-based research by featuring ideas, objects, and specimens for their social, aesthetic, historical, or scientific interest, and by implementing innovative interpretation strategies to reach more diverse audiences.

So, yes, collecting and displaying "pretty things" is what they do.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Art and decorative arts of national and/or international significance is art of aesthetic value. ROM policy states that: Exhibits are the main attraction for most visitors to the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). The purpose of exhibits is to involve visitors in the process of discovery, to spark curiosity, to inform, to provoke thought, to stimulate imagination, and to heighten appreciation and understanding. and their exhibit policy includes the directive to Make accessible to the public the collections and collections-based research by featuring ideas, objects, and specimens for their social, aesthetic, historical, or scientific interest, and by implementing innovative interpretation strategies to reach more diverse audiences.

So, yes, collecting and displaying "pretty things" is what they do.
Click to expand...

The policy supports what Archvist has been stating for the entire thread.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Yes, I know that aesthetics can be part of what constitutes 'heritage'.

In the example you give, Rochon obviously sides with 'heritage' as a novelty act. She hates green glass and describes it as akin to a 'winter flu' that the Pharmacy is pulling her out of. A winter cruise would have cured her seasonal affective disorder and gotten her out of the office to make new friends. Her reference to the hippy-dippy drug-induced world of Beatles' songs suggests she's taken the herbal concept of the Pharmacy building a bit too far.
Click to expand...

To read Rochon accurately it is clear she is against the banal *over* use of green glass (the flu is a 'virus' after all) and not green glass itself. Of course this is not an absolute position and may be difficult for some here to appreciate...

As for the Pharmacy Building maybe 'grey' flowers would have been more palatable for you?
 
And, though at this point it hardly needs to be said, that only someone with a very strong filter indeed can read a sentence that says "The ROM’s core collections are those of established national and/or international significance supported by nationally and/or internationally recognized programs of curatorial research", and then make the additional claim that this in itself proves aesthetic considerations are primary. Unable to find a single reference to the ROM collecting objects based on their aesthetic qualities, he says they collect important things and then makes the further claim that important conflates with pretty. End of discussion.

If this is your worldview, you're welcome to it. If you ever catch myself admiring the objects there and thinking "That storage vessel shows a much more prosperous culture than I would have imagined", or "I can't believe that the Nubians were so technologically proficient", or "That coat of armour looks really menacing, I wonder how someone moved in it", or "That pair of ewers really looks influenced by that other culture, I wonder what the connections are", or "Amazing that that sabre cat wandered the earth, I wonder what it hunted", or "I wonder how that Device to teach children to walk worked", I understand that you will immediately slap yourself down and force myself to focus on only the aesthetic qualities of the objects you see. Any sense of wonder related to the many other properties of the objects in the ROMs care is clearly, for you, irrelevant and unmerited.

Your ROM mantra can be: "Pretty skeleton. Pretty vase. Pretty fungi. Pretty knife. Pretty gem. Pretty typewriter. Pretty arrowhead."

As for me, I will appreciate them as I see fit, aesthetically, historically, economically, from a natural science perspective, even from a completely personal and whimsical point of view. My favourite Calvin & Hobbes cartoon was one where Calvin suddenly whacks his father in the shin and yells "You're not the boss of me!". Consider yourself whacked.
 
Aesthetics has been central to the ROM's collecting since the institution was founded - just read Currelly's I Brought the Ages Home and you'll see that. Archivist admits that aesthetics aren't the filter through which he understands the world, and that's fair enough, but it is obviously the filter through which the ROM's cultural collections of national and/or international significance have been assembled by collectors and curators with a good eye for art and design, or else the Museum wouldn't have the high reputation it has; nobody's going to bother visiting a museum full of junk. Archivist is also presumptuous enough to tell us that the rest of us ( who? ) don't understand the world through an aesthetic filter either - but gives no evidence to support his claim. Indeed, given that objects from the ROM's cultural collection are displayed throughout the building primarily as works of art as a basis for engaging the public, as well as the ROM's statement that exhibits are the main attraction for most visitors - his appears to be a minority view.
 
Collecting and attractively displaying the aesthetically strongest examples of all of the cultural items that Archivist lists doesn't preclude visitors from making any of the statements he imagines they might make. As for the natural world, check out how beautiful - and beautifully displayed - the selected rocks in the new Minerals gallery are if you doubt that.
 
It all makes sense. I've always entered the Bat Cave and thought about how aesthetically perfect and wondrous it was.
 
That's because you live there - hanging upside down in the darkness by day with your wings wrapped around you, and only venturing out at night.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top