National Gallery enters the 20th century

The Versailles' controversy relates to a larger debate, exemplified in the Harold Skramstad article "An Agenda for Museums in the 21-st Century". He outlines, that the contemporary museum "needs to take as its mission nothing less than to engage actively in the design and delivery of experiences that have the power to inspire and change the way people see the world and the possibility of their own lives," and in focus on three values: Authority, connectedness and trustworthiness.

Granted, Skramstad talks primarily about the American museum, but there is no reason why this model could not be applied to European museums as well. However, this transition is not as straightforward as it first appears, as the three terms Skramstad mentions are elusive even to the simplest of minds, so it is not surprising that the definitions of curators and of the public may diverge quite a bit.

In Versailles' case, one could argue that Koons' exhibitions serves as a medium to bring the otherwise distant 18th century closer to the 21st century audience, by creating a dialogue between the contemporary and the baroque. The educational value of the exhibit is also clearly evident. On the other hand, the exhibition may erode the authority and trustworthiness the palace has within the French public, that has been accumulated in part due to exactly the conservativeness and authentic (if such a word can ever be used, then it certainly applies to the Versailles) preservation of 18th century art and architecture. The question here is: where should one draw the line and stop the modernizing? Is there something the Versailles can offer by putting on more interactive and educational exhibitions that would outweigh the potential loss of authority when people start feeling that the museum is 'going commercial'

Another similar dilemma is facing London's National Gallery, where an exhibition detailing sex trade in Amsterdam is going to be installed in the near future. The leaders of the museum are claiming that the contract with Tate Modern, according to which the Gallery's permanent collection would end at 1900 may be "renegotiated".

Once again, the museum director's arguments are well motivated: many topics in the distant past relate to hot issues in contemporary society and it would be a shame to leave those connections unexplored due to an arbitrary limitation in museum policy. But once again, as the article's confrontative title reveals, not all are happy with this change of direction that has the potential to erode decades worth of reputation and authority that the National Gallery has accumulated by focusing on pre-1900 art. If in the case of American museums, these questions are often bounded by economics - if the current public does not come along with this change of direction, is there an alternative audience large enough to support it? - then in the case of publicly funded museums such as the National Gallery or the Versailles the people, be they in the majority or not, have the right to ask: on what grounds are such decisions made? Will this draw attention away from the old collections?

On the other hand, museums with well-established conservative authority are often among the best museums in the world and if they always rejected innovation on the grounds of preserving their image, either very little would ever get done in the art world, or their places would be taken by institutions more willing to modernize. For that reason, I applaud the courage of the Versailles and the National Gallery to step outside their recognized boundaries and try something new.