Response to readings

The summative evaluation of the readings enriches the reader with a chronology of events that
lead to the formation of ‘public’ in the context of museums and other art institutions. The Idea of
public sphere was welcomed during the Modern public exhibition in 17371. The Salon was the
official art exhibition of the French Academy of Fine Arts in Paris. Here the artists and
connoisseurs along with the people from high society were the only ones who were welcomed in
the circle. However, the exhibition of 1737 opened a door for the Parisian publics to not only
interact with the artists and artworks but with the bourgeoisie class as well. This was a major
milestone in the history of public spaces and how the disparity between public and the privileged
minority was bridged. Nevertheless, there existed a cynical approach in accepting the public and
often painters depicted the mockery of public being in a salon. Despite all these after decades of
effort, the art spaces were very much open to the public sphere and the pinnacle of that is the
opening of Louvre to the public. A major paradigm shift occurred when Louvre was opened to
the public; being a royal monument having lot of objects of power, the museum changed the
dynamics of public interaction towards the museum spaces.

The Victorian era England in the early 19th century struggled to keep the social harmony in
balance.2 The aftermath of French revolution and the accelerating growth of Industrialization
devastated the weaker sections of the economy. As a part of social engineering, James
Buckingham published a plan for model town in 1849. Thereafter ‘practical remedies’ were
sought to improve the conditions of the lower class. Some of the solutions being the setting up of
libraries, galleries of Art etc. During the same time the idea of museum space was seen as an
instrument capable of improving inner life as the laid out spaces were for physical health. Later
considered as a necessity for mental and moral health.

The idea of morality shaped the idea of museums formation. Oddly enough, the museums were a
diversion to communities drinking problem. Rather in an attempt to match with the high society
the public spaces were stuffed with objects of power and then by strict guidelines of morality the
public sphere were drawn to museums. Sir Henry Coles idea of museum being some more
zealous was more like a continuation of divine service as opposed to the idea of budding a high

1
Thomas Crow, Introduction, Painters and Public Life in Eighteenth-century Paris. p. 1
2
Tony Bennet. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. P. 17
society by Goode3. Moreover, the museums were a plan to counter riot and sedition and display
of power before the populace. Foucault provides a brilliant explanation on the same in Discipline
and punish (1977). Later on, the governmentalizing of institutions offered the populace a more
active role than merely being a witness of a symbolic display of power. The coherent idea here
was to educate the poor and they were expected to dress in high fashion during the museum
visits. The bourgeoisies believed an interaction between the objects of power would bring certain
kind of sophistication among the lower class.

However, even when the doors of British museum were open to the ‘public’ the bourgeois crowd
feared the aspect of letting the crowd inside fearing that, the crowd would damage the objects
exhibited. The stinky and uneducated crowd always caused panic to the museum officials.4 The
selection of objects displayed in museum are also mentioned in a different context. With the
example of South Kensington museum that later became Victoria and Albert museum, housed
objects that were chosen based on the criteria of good taste and design rather than rarity,
authenticity or monetary value.5

As the museum spaces expanded from Euro centric towards the land of America, there was a
change in how the objects were chosen and displayed. During the cold war era, there was a major
change in the regimes and McClellan talks about the setup of museums in America. America as a
country oriented more on the Individual freedom of the artists and hence focused more on
exhibition than the objects of power and wealth. The byproduct of this did not bring a great shift
in the interaction of public sphere, from the word “high society” it changed to “upper circle” in
the American soil. The balance between the public and the circle was only achieved towards the
end of 20th century.

Within the context of Indian Post modernism and public Sphere, Neeladri Bhattacharya
challenges the idea of colonial public. Heavily inclined on Habermasian argument on rationality,
the author gives different connotations from various texts which emphasis on the ideas of
colonial space and nationalism that emerged in India. The idea were a law can be challenged by
the same logic used to amend the law is perhaps considered as the pinnacle of being rational.

3
Tony Bennet. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. p. 20
4
Andrew McClellan Art and Its Publics: Museum Studies at the Millenium .p. 26
5
Andrew McClellan Art and Its Publics: Museum Studies at the Millenium .p. 32
In one of the cited examples a conversation between a Parsee assessor and judge is scrutinized
where in conclusion, the debate goes on as one usurps the law by challenging the rationality
behind it and asking for judicial explanation. The author also mentions a dialogue between
Gandhi and a Kerala Brahmin were Gandhi challenges the notion of divinity when it comes to a
public sphere. Here Gandhi being a Sanatanist tries to find ‘reason’ and advises to use it as a
defense against the religious scriptures.

While discussing the private and public sphere the author advises not to compare Partho
Chatterjee’s6 public and private sphere to that of Habermas outlines. Bhattacharya also explains
brilliantly how the change happened in Indian context by saying “If the colonial authorities
sought to build their power through the public sphere, Indians sought to control the same space
to debate their past, critique their heritage, define their identities and question the premises of
British rule. The public language of reason was used by the colonial power to critique Indian
society and legitimate British rule as the bearer of rationality, but the same language was turned
around by Indians to critique colonialism as the embodiment of unreason.”

In conclusion, throughout the readings the idea of public is often pictured as a space of struggle.
A comparative study of Thomas Crow and Tony Bennet readings draw parallels in the setup of
‘Art spaces’ across two nations. Here the idea of public is perceived differently by different
authors nonetheless the underlying statement is almost the same that is; museum spaces simply
cannot exist without the public sphere.

-Nevin

6
Partho Chatterjee’s definition in National thought and colonial world: A Derivative Discourse (London,1986)