-1 Personal reflections on the National Gallery of Art

1.On pp 1- 4 Diepeveen discusses the exterior and the interior of the museum.
First, walk outside around the two buildings that comprise the National Gallery of Art.
Analyze the architecture of these buildings- its sense of stability, prestige, grandeur,
power, permanence , and glory that Diepeveed sees as the function of the classical style
of the museum architecture. Illustrate three of these terms with the description of an
image (you may also provide the actual image, but this is no substitute for your
descriptive connection to Diepeveen). Next , choose three interior elements he discusses,
and analyze how they apply to the National Gallery.

In “Art Museums- Organizers of Culture” Chapter 1, Diepeveen starts by

discussing the typical patterns of art museums. He says there is an extraordinary
uniformity between museums- ideological, architectural, structural. Architecturally, they
are generally made of stone and built in neoclassical style, in precise symmetry, while
many times their entrances are marked by large pillars. This style goes all the way back
into history to the great civilizations of the past: the Egyptian temples , which inspired the
Greeks ,which in their turn inspired the Romans. Buildings following this pattern and
structure reflect to the outsider a spirit of prestige, grandeur, and stability. (Diepeveen,
“Art Museums- Organizers of Culture”, pp 2)
When visiting the National Gallery of Art at the Smithsonian I noticed exact
similarities between Diepeveen’s description and the building in front of me. First of all,
the feeling of grandeur and greatness was conveyed by size: the Gallery was huge,
extending on what seemed to be 4 blocks. The West building- which is the most
impressive, could be seeable almost all the way from the metro station. To complete this
view, as you walked by into Madison Street, you could see the Capitol Building right in
front of the West Wing, built in the same style: neo-classical. On the entrance from
Madison Drive there are marble stairs all over the place, and squared symmetric
platforms with benches placed just as symmetrically around a round fountain and under a
huge tree. The round fountain and huge tree are present on each side of the immense
entrance door, at exact distances. Before the entrance door (or rather gate) there are large
stone pillars, which make you think you are in a Greek ancient temple. Everything is of
great symmetry. Hence, we already notice two similarities between Diepeveen’s
description and the Gallery itself: massive stone building in perfect symmetry, and stone
pillars at the main entrance. Besides these two , one must also remark that the material of
the edifice is marble, which is another similarity. The Eastern building , although made in
interesting geometrical shapes, conveys the same grandeur, through its massive stone
construction.
Further on, Diepeveens says that around the construction of the museum there are
“neatly clipped, park like grounds” that take the museum on a separate plan from the
daily life of the city. The only things that hint to the outside life are the advertising
banners on the walls of the exhibitions , which have a hyper tone designed to attract you.
(Diepeveen, “Art Museums- Organizers of Culture”, pp 2). In my study of the National
Gallery I noticed the exact same things: around the Western building (which respects the
Neoclassical style) there were symmetrical squares of grass, flowers and neatly cut
bushes in Madison Drive, and a rectangular line of land with trees planted at equal
distances in front of the entrance from Pennsylvania Ave. They all tended to separate the
museum, to make it distinguished from the noisy streets around it. Also, on all sides of
the building, but particularly on the Madison Dr side there were large banners reading:
“In the Dark Room: Photographic Processes before the Digital Age-> West Building” , “
National Gallery of Art- Sculpture Garden”, “Judith Leyster 1609-1660” -with picture,
“The French Galleries - Main Floor Galleries” ,or “The Art of Power- Royal Armor and
Portraits from Imperial Spain- West Building”. Hence, these are another two similarities
between the writer’s description and the design of the Gallery. On one side of the Eastern
building there is a beautiful garden which also includes symmetrical trees and bushes.
If you go inside an art museum, Diepeveens continues, the sound level drops
dramatically, and your steps echo on the marble floor - the echo of footsteps is another
indicator of grandeur. He also says that there are diverse spaces in museums not
designated to show art: a reception space (or central lobby), a cloak room, a gift shop, a
restaurant. He mentions that it is very difficult to move without a map through the
labyrinth hallways that often defy logic in their setting.
Again, I found his descriptions in tone with my own observations. Walking into
the National Gallery of Art past the control guards I suddenly became aware of the noise
made by my footsteps. The reception space was a round dome of incredible size and
height (which is also the center of the building , separating it in half), and as generally
every chamber or hallway was very tall and the floor made of stone, the echo effect was
very real. However, before going to the East or West hallways, if you turned left just
when you entered the Gallery , you could see an Information stand, from where you
could get a map, programs of different tours of the day, and general information. On the
right, passing the “Founder Benefactors Room” you could go to a dressing room and
leave your coat there. On the ground floor there was a small restaurant-café and a gift
shop, but an even bigger such space was in the connecting passage between the East and
West buildings. Going into the West and East hallways, the setting was confusing due to
the fact that once in a particular gallery (like the Italian Renaissance) you could hardly
find your way out anymore. The rooms were labyrinthical , and entrances into and out of
them were not in symmetrical places. Without a map it was hard to find your way or
respect the chronological order of the artifacts.
Diepeveens also mentions the multitude of discrete security mediums, such as
alarms, cameras, warning plaques, or stoic guards with vigilant eyes and good posture. As
well , he says that many times connecting hallways are used as gallery space, for
presentation of art that is less important or structured. Indeed, in the museum I could see
intruding guards following my (and others’) every step and subtle cameras and alarm
systems designed to protect the works from theft. On the hallways the system of security
was just as tight, as there were many sculptures presented there. For example, at the
entrance into the West Sculpture Hall there was a bronze statue of emperor Karolus
Quintus Imperator Semper Augustus (Milanese, 1509- 1590, Samuel Kress Collection
1952).
 2.On pp 8 Diepeveens draws our attention to the artists and the art not included
in major museums and galleries. He returns to this theme again, on pp 28-30: make sure
u focus on both sections of this reading. As you explore the galleries and focus on the art,
notice which aspects of art are not represented. For example, which ethnic groups ,
geographical locations, philosophies/ beliefs are missing or are barely visible? How is
work represented? And what about the creators of art? Whose art is missing? Keep a list
as you move from section to section of the museum. At the conclusion of your visit ,
analyze what the National Gallery wants you to believe constitutes art.

What is not seen in an art museum? Diepeveens starts by mentioning the obvious
things :administrative offices, conservation labs, workshops, or vaults. Than, he moves
on to the less noticeable aspects: no demographical proportion among the visitors (very
few poor, ethnic, religious, racial minorities) and types of works not presented
(anonymous work after the Renaissance, work by women before 20th century, work of
minorities; work that is not portable or durable and mass-productions.) On page 28 he
expands on this, saying that it is not a simple matter of quality to determine admission or
exclusion from the art canon. The two most important discriminations that influenced the
making of the canon in history were racism and sexism. These attitudes shaped society
and art much before the museum as an institution engaged in them. Women , observes
critic Linda Nochlin, have always been discouraged from being artists; when they did
dare to take upon this road they were not allowed to be members of an academy or to
paint certain popular trends. The same happened to racial minorities.
Diepeveens expands further on the aesthetic vocabulary the Western canon
privileges- which includes certain materials like oil pant, bronze , or marble , and
excludes objects like quilts or mass production decorative objects. Hard to enter the
canon as well are objects that are ephemeral and non-collectible, such as Sarah Sze’s
1999 “Many a Slip” ,made of matchsticks, razor blades, fish hooks, cotton swabs, or
grass. Such a work can only be photographed, not displayed in the museum. Exceptions
to this rule are constituted by “Avantgarde Art” - art that challenges the premise of what
was previously considered Western Art. (Diepeveens, Art Museums: Organizers of
Culture , pp 8, 28-30)
In my visit to the National Gallery of Art, I had to agree with Diepeveens on
many aspects. First of all, although I did see female portraits and sculptures, I haven’t
seen one work made by a female artist. I have also not seen any works made by ethnical
minorities such as blacks, Asians, Pakistanis, Mexicans, Indians or other such people. The
artifacts presented were organized as follows: in the West Building the West Sculpture
Hall focused Galleries 1-13 on Gothic and Ars Nova Italy, Galleries 17-28 on Spain and
Italy of the 16th century, Gall 29-36 on 17th-18th cent Italy, Spain, France, Gall 35-41 on
Netherland and Germany in the 15-16th century, and Gall 42-50 on 17th century Dutch and
Flemish paintings. Than , in the East Sculpture Hall Gallery 52 focused on 18-19th
century Spain, Gall 53-56 on 18-19th century France, Gall 57-61 on British painting; from
62 to 71 the Galleries presented American art, Gall 72-79 presented a Special Exhibition
of armors and weapons from Imperial Spain, and Galleries 80-81 French art from the 19th
century. On the Ground Floor, passing the Garden Café and Shop, Galleries G43 and G42
presented decorated carpets from the Gothic era, while Galleries G1-G9, G20 and G41
displayed Chinese Porcelain (the only non-Western art presented in the gallery); than
Galleries G10-G13 and G39 showed Sculpture and Decorative Arts from the 17-18th
centuries. G14-G19 presented 14-15-16th century Sculpture, G23-G29 prints and
drawings, and G30-G34 photographs.
From this presentation of the Western building we notice that the greatest focus is
on European- more precisely Italian and French- and national American art. As time
periods, we also notice that nothing before the Gothic Medieval era is mentioned. Also,
the preference is accorded to paintings, followed by sculpture; little room is left for other
types of work. In the Eastern building Besides these aspects, I noticed that the visitors
present at the museum were generally middle class people- students or middle and senior
ages-, that could be white (for the most part), black or even Asian (although in lesser
numbers). Also, an observation that I made to my surprise was that a big percent of
visitors were females.
Moreover, the art itself focused almost in exclusivity on white people: I found a
single artwork in the West Museum that presented a black person: “Allegory of Africa”,
sculpture made by Frederic- Auguste Bartholdi (French, 1834- 904). Also, with a few
exceptions, I haven’t seen portraits of poor, working people: the persons depicted in
artworks were middle-class or higher. The struggles of the working class, minorities or
feminism are left out from the history of art as the Gallery presents it. What the institution
does focus on is Canonic names such as Titian, Raphael, Rembrand, mythology, religion,
landscapes, and portraits of higher status people taken out of context. This is what is it
decided to present as “history of art”.

3.How is the art you encounter organized in the National Gallery? What
organizational concepts (chronology , geographical location, gifts of a particular donor
etc) do you see in operation? How do these organizational concepts attempt to shape
your understanding , as a visitor, of what constitutes art (and history of art) ?Diepeveen
on pp 12-15 analyzes the limitations of chronology as one example of organizing
principle. Conduct your own analysis of at least two other organizing principles you
notice.

Firstly, the Gallery is organized chronologically. It is confusing to walk around

from a Gallery to another and to get a general picture, but you can eventually do it if you
follow the chronology. Paintings are structured on periods- such as Gothic, Renaissance,
Impressionistic- and on years- generally one gallery would gather works from a half
century or even from a whole century. The sculpture gallery at the ground level is less
numerous, and hence each gallery comprises larger periods of time, keeping nonetheless
a relatively structured chronology. The East building follows similar patterns, dividing
the 20th century into periods.
This is in concordance with Diepeveen’s description from pages 12-15: museums,
he says, are not structured by gender, theme, subject, politics, but by chronology.
Chronology means progress, and that one art work developed from another. Organizing
by chronology means telling a story of the new and innovative; it means that Western
history considers the most important artists the ones who started something new. The
West’s fixation on heroes is seeable even in art! This of course also means that some
forms of art are given priority over others. Textiles, folk art, ceramics, are excluded,
because work that is “not breaking new ground” is de-valued. When museums such as the
Orsay in Paris try to break the standards and present a collection of simultaneity rather
than one of continuity they are harshly judged. (Diepeveen, “Art Museums- Organizers of
Culture” pp 12-15)
The idea of new resultant from chronology felt very palpable to me in the
National Gallery. I walked into the Italian Galleries, and I found myself surrounded by
Gothic art depicted, one would say, from a Greek- Orthodox church (my denomination).
While my footsteps carried me to other galleries, I could see the , linearity, the
progression of the art presented. As I walked from an era to the other I was able to
develop a mental structure: the old always gave birth to the new, and the new in its turn
gave turn to something else. For example, I noticed that in almost all Italian galleries up
to late 17th century predominant were religious motives, and yet there was a huge
difference between the Byzantine flat paintings at the beginning and the realistic
tridimensional masterpieces from the 16th centuries. As time went by , religious art
became more…secular!
However, chronology is not the only criteria used in the museum. Works are also
structured by their nationality. For example, the West Sculpture Hall contains mostly
Italian and Flemish works, while the East Sculpture Hall mostly French and American. In
the East building, most artists presented are American, and some are French. But an even
stronger criteria than nationality is the priority given to specific donors of the museum: in
the East building , for example, there are galleries that are named by their donors. The “
Robert and Jane Meyerhoff collection” and the “Jasper Johns Collection” are such
examples. In the West building, wherever it is possible paintings that had belonged to the
Mellon, Krass, or Widener families are displayed together. This last point proves that
besides artistic missions, the museum must also be preoccupied with keeping the wealthy
elites that sponsored it happy. Seen from this light, it appears to be a less democratic
institution.

4. What information does the Gallery offer to visitors to help them understand the
art they are viewing? How does the information provide besides each piece of art help
you (or not)? Why does the information about the art include information on how the art
was bought and who donated it? How does this information support and/or detract from
the educational mission of the gallery? What value does the information provide?

Scrolling through the Italian Galleries, I see a magnificent painting of a rather

melancholic girl with suave features and dignified posture. I get closer to it, and it reads:
“Ginevra de’ Benci” ,Leonardo da Vinci (Florentine 1452-1519), Alisa Mellon Bruce
Fund 1967”. The artwork is gloriously settled in the centre of the room , and the entire
wall behind it is dedicated to its description: this is da Vinci’s only painting in America,
and the lady portrayed was the daughter of a distinct Florentine aristocrat ,much
appreciated for her beauty and grace. Not every painting in the Gallery has a descriptive
wall behind it, but almost every one has the placard that offers the names of the artwork
and artist, the period and location of its making, and the name of its donor. For example ,
later on in Gallery 20 there is a superb painting on a religious theme, and the descriptive
placard beneath reads: “Alba Madonna c 1510, Raphael (Umbrian 1483-1520) , Andrew
W Mellon Collection 1937.1.24 “.
Indirectly , the museum is telling the visitor what it considers to be important
about the artwork and what it doesn’t. Of course, important are the names of the art and
the creator, but not so important seems to be the name of the previous owner of the public
property. The fact that the Art Gallery chooses to mention this information is a mirror of
the forces that act upon the institution. Behind it are not just the Government, the large
public, and the art academies, but also a couple of rich elites that sponsored it at some
given point. The museum “owes” them gratitude, and the honor to post their names in
public spaces. This takes me back to Ancient Rome, where the elites’ reward for public
service was honor and prestige. The information in itself departs from the educational
mission of the museum, but it encourages other wealthy persons to donate , to have their
names engraved for generations to see them. This information is offered at the expense
of other type of info, regarding perhaps the historical context of the work, or its original
use - but museums have long ago decided what is important for them to show and what
not.

5. On pp 17 Diepeveen talks about the decontextualizing of art when it is

assembled in museums and galleries. What does he mean by the term
“decontextualized”? Find and explain three or more examples of the way in which the
National Gallery decontextualizes individual artworks and categories of art.

I am at the ground floor , in the G3 Gallery, where my eyes are luring on

expressive pieces of sculpture from the 18-19th century. A great deal of the gallery
contains works of the French Auguste Rodin (1840- 1917) : “The kiss” (made of bronze,
a man and a woman in passionate kiss) , “Le penseur(“The Thinker”), 1880 model ,cast
1901, bronze”, The evil spirits, 1899”, “La France 1904, marble” . Next comes French
Pierre- Eugene- Emile Hebert (1828- 1893) with a terrific sculpture named “Amazon
preparing for battle 1882” . Impressing is also Edgar Degas (French 1834- 1917) with
his sculptures that present people in movement and dance , such as “Study in the Vude of
the Little Dancer Aged 14 , 1879, bronze) . In a different gallery , with sculptures from
the 17th century, there is an impressive fountain in the middle , that reads “Venus and
Cupid, by a follower of Giovanni Bologna”. In the same room are many mythological
figures, and a statue of “Ferdinand II de ‘Medici, Grand Duke of Tuskani’ , by Giovanni
Battista Foggini (Florence, 1652- 1725).
All of these works are expressive and beautiful, enchanting you with their
artistry, but they do not tell a story. The statue of the duke, for example , doesn’t tell
anything about the political influence of his family in Florence, in fact nothing about who
he was. The fountain doesn’t reveal its original use, why it had been built, or for whom.
The moving figures of Edgar Degas (1834- 1917) might suggest for the history
knowledgeable person the popularity of ballet in France, all the way from the time of
Louis the XIVth , but if you don’t know this information, the museum is not going to
provide it to you. The museum portraits art as separated from society