ABSTRACT

It is more proper to talk about art in postmodernity than about ‘Postmodernism’ ’—ȱ˜›Ž›ȱ˜ȱŠŸ˜’ȱ’Ž—’¢’—ȱŠœȱŠ—ȱȁȬ’œ–Ȃȱ˜›ȱŠȱœ™ŽŒ’ęŒȱœ¢•ŽȱŠȱŒž•ž›Š•ȱ›Ž—ȱ  ‘’Œ‘ȱ’œȱ™›ŽŒ’œŽ•¢ȱŽę—Žȱ‹¢ȱ’œȱŠŽœ‘Ž’Œȱ™•ž›Š•’¢ȱŠ—ȱ‹¢ȱ’œȱ‹›ŽŠ”ȱ›˜–ȱŠ—¢ȱ ŒŠ—˜—ǯȱžȱ ‘Žȱ ›ž‘ȱ ’œȱ ‘ŠȱŠȱ •ŽŠœȱ ’—ȱ ‘Žȱꎕȱ˜ȱŠ›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Žȱ ’—ȱ ‘ŽȱŗşŞŖœȱ Š—ȱŗşşŖœȱ‘Ž›Žȱ ŠœȱŠ—ȱ’—Ž›—Š’˜—Š•ȱmaniera which could be recognized by its cheerful, populist eclecticism. It mixed all sorts of materials and bright colours and produced scenery-façades which concealed the inner structure of the buildings with a wrap of erudite references to classicism: frontispieces, columns, Palladian windows and fake ruins. These historical tributes seemed particularly tempting to the architecture of museums. North American critic Charles Jencks, who was the great defender of this fashion, actually pointed ˜žȱ‘ŽȱŽ¡™Š—œ’˜—ȱŒŠ››’Žȱ˜žȱ‹¢ȱŒ˜Ĵ’œ‘ȱŠ–Žœȱ’›•’—ȱ˜›ȱ‘ŽȱŠŠ•Ž›’Žȱ ˜ȱžĴŠ›ȱ’—ȱŗşŝŝȮŞŚȱŠœȱ˜—Žȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ™’˜—ŽŽ›’—ȱ‹ž’•’—œȱ˜ȱȁ˜œ–˜Ž›—’œ–Ȃǯȱ This expansion was also perceived by Douglas Crimp as a prototype of ‘the postmodern museum’ (article for the magazine ParachuteǰȱǛȱŚŜǰȱŗşŞŝǰȱŒ˜–™’•Žȱ ’—ȱ›’–™ǰȱŗşşřǰȱ™™ǯȱŘŞŘȮřŘśǼǯȱŽ ȱ–žœŽž–œȱ˜ȱŒ˜—Ž–™˜›Š›¢ȱŠ›ȱ Ž›Žȱ—˜ȱ immune to this trend and the Abteiberg Museum of Mönchengladbach was Š•œ˜ȱž—Š—’–˜žœ•¢ȱŠŒŒ•Š’–ŽȱŠœȱŠ—ȱ’Œ˜—ȱ˜ȱ‘’œȱŽ—Ž—Œ¢ǯȱȱ Šœȱ‹ž’•ȱ’—ȱŗşŞŘȱ ‹¢ȱ Š—œȱ ˜••Ž’—ȱŠ—ȱ Šœȱ¢™’ꮍȱŠœȱ™˜œ–˜Ž›—ȱ‹¢ȱ˜œŠ•’—ȱ ›ŠžœœȱžŽȱ˜ȱ ’œȱŒ˜–‹’—Š’˜—ȱ˜ȱŸ’Ž œȱǻŒǯȱ‘Ž›ȱŠ›’Œ•Žȱ’—ȱ ›ŽŽ—‹Ž›ǰȱŗşşŜǰȱ™ǯȱřŚŝDzȱŠȱŽ ȱ™ŠŽœȱ •ŠŽ›ǰȱ ŽŸŽ—ȱ ŽŽœŠȱ ›ŽŽ—‹Ž›ȱ ŠžŒŽȱ ‘Šȱ ‘Žȱ –˜œȱ ¢™’ŒŠ••¢ȱ ™˜œ–˜Ž›—ȱ feature of this building was the contrast between its very bright and quaint ˜žœ’ŽȱŠ—ȱ’œȱ’——Ž›ȱŒŠ•–ǰȱŒ˜˜•ȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŽŠ—ȱ™Ž›œ˜—Š•’¢ǰȱ™ǯȱřŜřǼǯȱŠŽ›ȱ˜—ǰȱ‘Žȱ dynamic shapes and labyrinthine layouts of Deconstructivist buildings such Šœȱ‘Žȱ žŽ—‘Ž’–ȱžœŽž–ȱ˜ȱ’•‹Š˜ǰȱŒ˜–™•ŽŽȱ‹¢ȱ›Š—”ȱ Ž‘›¢ȱ’—ȱŗşşŝǰȱŠ—ȱ ‘ŽȱŽ ’œ‘ȱžœŽž–ȱ‹¢ȱŠ—’Ž•ȱ’‹Ž—œ”’—ǰȱ˜™Ž—Žȱ’—ȱŽ›•’—ȱ’—ȱŘŖŖŗǰȱ‘ŠŸŽȱ‹ŽŽ—ȱ acclaimed as the epitome of postmodern architecture. But in the meantime, architecture critics have evolved from a merely stylistic approach, very much abandoned at this stage, to a philosophical understanding of postmodernity ǻ ›ŠžœœǰȱŗşşŜDzȱ Ž›—¤—Ž£ǰȱŘŖŖřǼǯ

From this less simplistic perspective, the history of museum options in this ™Ž›’˜ȱ ‘Šœȱ ‹›˜ž‘ȱ Š‹˜žȱ Ž—Ž›Š•ȱ ›ŽŸ’Ž œǰȱ ™›˜™˜œ’—ȱ œ˜–Žȱ Œ•Šœœ’ęŒŠ’˜—œȱ or interpretations, as well as some remarkable purpose-built museums or museums which have been installed in restored buildings (Montaner &

•’ŸŽ›Šœǰȱ ŗşŞŜDzȱ ŠŸ’œǰȱ ŗşşŖDzȱ ˜—Š—Ž›ǰȱ ŗşşŖǰȱ ŗşşśǰȱ ŘŖŖřDzȱ Š–™ž—Š—’ȱ ǭȱ ŠŒ‘œǰȱŗşşşDzȱ ’Ž‹Ž•‘ŠžœŽ—ǰȱŘŖŖřDzȱŠ¢ž—˜ǰȱŘŖŖřDzȱŽ ‘˜žœŽǰȱŘŖŖŜǼǯȱ—ȱŽ—Ž›Š•ǰȱ ‘Žȱ œ’—’ęŒŠ—ŒŽȱ ˜—ŒŽȱ ’ŸŽ—ȱ ˜ȱ ‘Žȱ ȁŽŠž‹˜ž›ȱ ŽěŽŒȂȱ ‘Šœȱ ŠŽȱ ’—ȱ ‘ŽœŽȱ ’—Ž›—Š’˜—Š•ȱ ›ŽŸ’œ’˜—œDzȱ Š•‘˜ž‘ȱ ‘Ž›Žȱ ’œȱ —˜ȱ—ŽŽȱ ˜ȱ Ž••ȱ ˜—ȱ ‘Žȱ ŠŒȱ ‘Šȱ the Centre Pompidou in Paris did not become a landmark in ‘postmodern’ –žœŽ˜›Š™‘¢ǰȱ’ȱ ’œȱŒ•ŽŠ›ȱ‘Šȱ›Ž—Œ‘ȱŒž•ž›Žȱ–žœȱ‹ŽȱŒ˜—œ’Ž›ŽȱŠœȱ‘Žȱę›œȱ ›ŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽȱ ‘Ž—ȱ Žę—’—ȱ ™˜œ–˜Ž›—’¢ȱ Šœȱ œŠ›’—ȱ ›˜–ȱ Šȱ •’—Žȱ ˜ȱ ‘˜ž‘ȱ whose apostles were Alain Badiou, Jean Baudrillard, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Ž››’Šǰȱ’Œ‘Ž•ȱ˜žŒŠž•ǰȱŽŠ—Ȭ›Š—³˜’œȱ¢˜Š›ȱŠ—ȱ ’••Žœȱ’™˜ŸŽœ”¢ǰȱŽŒǯȱ‘Žȱ postmodern dilemma between reusing historical buildings and newly built museums obviously had already existed in France since the Enlightenment. —ȱ ‘’•Žȱ ‘Žȱ›Ž—Œ‘ȱŽŸ˜•ž’˜—ȱ‘Šȱ™•ŠŒŽȱ–žœŽž–œȱ ’—ȱ™Š•ŠŒŽœǰȱ ŒŠœ•Žœǰȱ Œ‘ž›Œ‘ŽœǰȱŒ˜—ŸŽ—œȱŠ—ȱ˜‘Ž›ȱ‹ž’•’—œȱ›˜–ȱ‘Žȱ˜›–Ž›ȱŽ’–Žȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱ Ž›Žȱ thus made available to all citizens, the proliferation in post-industrial France of museums and centres of contemporary art located in former factories, silos and warehouses was not without symbolism either.