From Björk To Bowie: What Happens When Pop Culture Takes Over The Art World?

Björk’s swan dress. Don Draper’s liquor cabinet. Madonna’s cone bra. These iconic artefacts may have deserved their revered place in the pop culture pantheon, but how welcome are they in the prestigious halls of some of the world’s most visited museums and art spaces?

As if the last 100 years of cultural domination by the film, then music, and most recently television industries wasn’t strong enough, they’re now taking over gallery spaces around the world. And with recent Tim Burton, David Lynch and David Bowie exhibitions, Australia is not exempt.

The New Wave of the Digital Age

For a generation of internet savvies raised on a steady diet of all-night Rage marathons and plagued by an expanding universe of streaming services, this altering of the art world’s perception of pop culture as a worthwhile past-time is most assuredly a good thing. Vindication for works that would have once been frowned upon, but that are now hailed as important and vital; a shifting of the celebrated paradigm from dust-covered canvases of women in hoop skirts and fat men eating grapes, to modern music videos and television hits.

Picasso, Warhol, Monet and Klimt may always be the bread and butter of a place like the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York City, but housing an exhibit by Icelandic avant garde musician Björk creates a whole new dimension for a place like that, and it’s one that media-obsessed crowds are devouring with extended lines and prolonged wait-times.

This is certainly good news for the museums themselves, which have suffered from the digital generation’s lack of interest in more classically-inclined exhibits. Column-inches on websites and in culture mags discussing the Tim Burton exhibit that broke attendance records around the globe (which Melbourne’s ACMI housed in 2010) far outweigh those covering, say, the National Gallery of Victoria’s Imagining the Orient exhibit, that was showing  around the same time.

Have museum curators gotten smarter (and less rigidly traditionalist) with the times? Or do they simply not want to be embarrassed by ignoring popular forms of art that may prove to be historically significant? MoMA, for instance, once turned down Andy Warhol because his work wasn’t deemed special enough, but it wasn’t long before they were hosting Pop Art exhibits; these days, they proudly house several of the iconic artist’s pieces on permanent display (including the famous “Gold Marilyn”), alongside other works of 1950s and ‘60s pop art movement.

There’s a delicate balance to be had between acknowledging the changing of the art guard and selling out, but a place with the words “modern art” in the name are as prime as any to navigate this terrain.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Björk?

It’s a shame then that with their current Björk exhibit, MoMA have been dealt a crushing blow by the critics. “It’s oh so disappointing” snarked The Economist. Forbes labelled it simply “boring”. The Atlantic called it an “ill-conceived disaster”. The Guardian decried “a strangely unambitious hotchpotch”, and Art World went so far as to call a “state of emergency” and equate MoMA to “Planet Hollywood”. Having seen the exhibit I would certainly concur with most of what these articles say, but I agree most ardently with the Wall Street Journal’s tag of “an unlikable crowd-pleaser”.

I know it sounds awfully wanky, but crowds less likely to visit these museum halls on a regular basis will likely walk away thrilled and pleased that a place as mythical as MoMA have finally done something that they can be an expert on. But art enthusiasts – including pop art enthusiasts like myself, who can praise the most mainstream of product just as righteously as the arthouse and indie – will be disappointed. Nobody is denying the creative and artistic genius of Björk, but if places like MoMA are to foster the continued appreciation of these forms of popular exhibits, they’re going to have to be more creative with how they do it.

A recent exhibition of French fashion and costume designer Jean-Paul Gaultier curated by Montreal Museum of Fine Arts and recently shipped to the National Gallery of Victoria was a smashing success for crowds who wanted to see the designs worn by Madonna (the aforementioned cone bra), Kylie, and Marion Cotillard Cotillard, with musical accompaniment by Kate Miller-Heidke.

But John McDonald, art critic for the Sydney Morning Herald, called it “unworthy of a great museum” — a similar complaint to that levelled at MoMA’s Björk exhibit. He explained further: “It could be argued that fashion only comes alive when it is attached to a living body. An abundance of mannequins soon grows monotonous, no matter how extreme the clothes.” An Alexander McQueen exhibit at The Met found more enthusiastic, but similarly disappointed, notices in 2011.

Mad Museums

According to the art world, the Björk exhibit is actually just the latest in a series of blunders by MoMA. Before the exhibition had even been curated, Jerry Saltz of Vulture labelled MoMA’s plan as continuing a “self-suicidal slide into box-office-driven carnival.” Saltz’s tune didn’t change once he saw the final product, and the article went viral. Ouch!

These complaints suggest museums don’t yet quite know how to work these very modern works of art in with their regular archives in a way that befits their reputations. Without the lofty expectations that come from having been around for so long, the Museum of the Moving Image (MoMI) in Queens, NY, has excelled at this, with previous exhibits about music videos, animation, and their current Mad Men show. Featuring completely reconstructed sets (Betty’s kitchen! Don’s office!), costumes (Jon Hamm has an imposing suit size, you guys), props, scripts and video content, it’s comprehensive — but most importantly, it is well assembled and sits appropriately next to the museum’s other permanent media exhibits.

The Björk show, on the other hand, has been marred by poor floor-planning and bad use of gallery space. When put up close next to exhibits about warzone photographers, politically-motivated painters, and poverty-stricken sculptors, being asked to giggle at Björk’s kooky fashion sense (yes, the swan dress is there) seems less involving. There was a way to show off the singer’s artistic achievements, but this wasn’t it. And MoMA know this, too; they secluded the lazily superficial exhibit behind closed doors, with entrance allowed only to people who’ve lined up for hours for on-the-day-of tickets.

If the Björk exhibit ever makes its way to Australian shores (entirely possible given Australia has hosted other touring exhibitions, including aforementioned Tim Burton and Gaultier shows), it’s unlikely it would find better reviews unless significantly restructured. A natural home for it would be ACMI, which has found commercial success with similar exhibitions; their upcoming David Bowie exhibition will be a good test of this musical artist-centric concept, and how well it fits in — including at a critical level. Although this one, exclusive to the Australasia region from July 16, has received better praise across the pond — including from Jean Paul Gaultier himself, who described it as “absolutely incredible.”

–

What Does This Mean For The Art World of Tomorrow?

With Mad Men still in our living rooms (granted with only half a season left), and Björk’s exhibit labelled as a “mid-career” retrospective, it’s worth asking the question: should they be getting such big exhibitions while other artists — pop or otherwise — with far more expansive catalogues get shunted to side rooms? There are already cat museums in Singapore, San Fran and Amsterdam: will galleries of the future just feature a revolving door of whatever’s popular on the internet at any given moment? Poorly-thought out exhibits with pre-packaged coverage fodder may draw crowds and excited write-ups, but they will likely also dilute the brand of world-class destinations. Are the ticket sales worth it?

And what of the less world-renowned galleries? Their audiences will begin expecting more modern, pop cultural and interactive art-going experiences. As if to compete, one gallery in Chelsea recently did a serious show based around Space Jam (1996), while the Queensland’s Gallery of Modern Art has attempted to bridge both worlds with their recent David Lynch exhibit, showcasing the paints and sculpture work of the famed creator of Twin Peaks.

If your taste runs closer to meme than Monet, there’s no end in sight to a phase that’s as popular as Game of Thrones. And yes, there’s an exhibit for that show too.

–

Glenn Dunks is a freelance writer from Melbourne. He also works as an editor and a film festival programmer, and tweets from @glenndunks.