The third tenant of Friedrich Hegel’s Dialectic is the “Pendulum Theory.” This theory is centered around the analogy between human history and a pendulum. Hegel argues that human progress is in constant motion between extremes; he terms these extremes “thesis” and “antithesis.” On the long arch of history, mankind recognizes error, overcompensates, and then achieves “synthesis,” or the correct balance of polarities. Hegel claims that this progression outlines and predicts cultural movements. Carl Jung maintains a very similar idea in his term “enantiodromia.” This term describes the movement between opposites. Jung claims that the excessive abundance of a force inevitably produces the opposite force. Both theories describe the erroneous correction of cultural movement. This overcorrection is central to the current movement of museology. In his 1989 book, The New Museology, Peter Vergo discusses the origins of a new museology that currently dominates the theoretical and practical essence of modern museums. Vergo argues that the old museology was concerned “too much about museum methods, and too little about the purposes of museums” (qtd. in Mcdonald 2). This ideology gave way to a more theoretical and humanistic new museology.The change accompanied a tremendous growth of museums during the late twentieth century. As they increased in number, museums also changed in nature. Sharon Mcdonald writes, “Museums became, in short, sites at which some of the most contested and thorny cultural and epistemological questions of the late twentieth century were fought out” (4).Recognizing their new role as cultural battleground, museums placed greater emphasis on the audience, creating a “new orthodoxy of visitor sovereignty” (8).  The rapid and drastic changes that museums have experienced since the 1980s are due to a complex series of influences. One of the main causes is an attempt to remedy social issues. Although these aspirations mean well, they have gone amiss. As Hegel and Jung describe, the overcompensation for an error has swung the culture into a new set of problems. In this essay, I will discuss a new museology which addresses problems but offers a toxic solution. This solution is a dangerous postmodern Neo-Marxism which is smuggled into Western culture through the concepts of relativity, inclusion, diversity, and equality.

Relativity is a prominent concept in our current cultural disposition and accordingly in museology. What is relativity? In approaching this question, one is met with an unexpected vagueness. Put simply, relativity is the idea that people experience similar things differently. Kenneth Burke, in his book Language as Symbolic Action, presents the term “terministic screen.” People experience innumerable different environmental influences. If we take only one aspect, place of birth, we can easily see the vast differences between individuals. Someone born in Japan will view the Enola Gaydifferently than someone born in the United States. A poor and rich New Yorker will have different perceptions of the city. Burke claims that the sum of these individual experiences and environment influences compose a screen through which one views the world. He also states that we communicate through these screens. Thus, when individuals communicate, the sender and receiver interpret through personal terministic screens. Although this is a rhetorical theory, it helps clarify the overall need for an acknowledgement of relativity. People are not the same. Individuals experience the world differently. It would be foolish and naïve to ignore the relativity that exists between cultures.

Relativity is incredibly important for museums. History is no longer written by the victor. Western thought, although still manipulating many political histories, has drastically grown in regards to considering global narratives. A distinct one-sided isolationism, has thawed. Thinkers like Kenneth Burke have helped with the defrosting. This change is emphatically important within museology. Like the previously mentioned Enola Gay, many exhibits are interpreted differently depending on the audience. Museums must weigh considerations of cultural history and social expectations when approaching potential exhibitions. Specifically, relativity has challenged the boundaries of art museums. Art has the danger of stagnation. A culture which is not receptive of new forms will stifle artistic growth. The recent reception of modern and contemporary art responded to a limited view of art during the nineteenth and early twentieth century. As new museology gained traction in the late twentieth century, sculptures and paintings which were once considered outside of art proper were pulled into the fold. This broadened the nature of art, and opened new fields of artistic exploration. However, in the attempt to broaden perspectives, relativity went too far. The pendulum has swung to the other side. Relativity in perspective has become relativity in reality. The very nature of existence has been boiled down to individual choice. In the complete relativity of Postmodernism, the individual creates existence; existence is placed after pronouncement and given and taken away by man. The world is dictated by individual perception, and reality is exclusive to the individual. Man only knows his experience and cannot be judged externally. In this case, no one can judge anyone. If an action is permissible in an individual’s eyes, no one can tell him otherwise. If this relativism is true, morality dies and the judicial system with it. Right and wrong are illusions, and Hitler did nothing wrong. In addition, relativism destroys any ability to evaluate and share ideas. Without an external measuring stick, everyone measures by their own ruler. Thus, no one can really measure. There is no true or false. This relativism has penetrated art museums. Any qualifications for art are under attack. Works like Duchamp’s Fountain and Damien Hirst’s Let’s Eat Outdoors Today are becoming more popular and more extensive. Everything from scribbles to rotting meat is being heralded as art. Concepts of quality and qualification are painted as close-minded and products of an oppressive patriarchal past. Everything receives its value from the individual. Anyone can give anything the value of art. And if everything is art, nothing is. Beauty and ugliness are destroyed. Nothing can be worth anything. Unlimited relativism produces nothingness. Yet, these deep philosophical implications are overlooked. In an attempt to acknowledge differing perspectives, the pendulum has swung to a nihilistic and inhibiting approach to reality, shaking the foundation of art itself.

With a cursory survey of human history, inclusion and exclusion are easily located. Whether it be ethnicity, gender or social-economic class, humans have separated themselves from some and included themselves with others. Many of these numerous partitions are natural. People who enjoy baseball often spend time with other people who enjoy baseball. As a result, a group of baseball enthusiasts forms. Naturally, the same occurs with soccer players, trumpeters, and fishermen. Yet, all too often, exclusion is a nasty practice that intends to hurt and isolate. The Apartheid in South Africa or the racial segregation in the American South are examples of heinous exclusion. In both cases, people were excluded from human dignity and cultural participation. In response to these problems, society moved towards greater inclusion. This idea slowly pressed forward against hostility until its dissolution was realized.

This movement is distinctly displayed in art museums. Over the past 30 years, African American artists have been given the opportunity to display their work like never before. This is a wonderful result of cultural movement towards inclusion. However, the danger is not charitable inclusion, but the excessive demand for inclusion. Unbridled inclusion demands homogeneity. In this case, groups cannot exclude anyone. The baseball group must include the jazz group. There can be no distinct boundaries or groupings. Everyone must be able to be everything. This bring us to a similar problem as relativism. If everyone is everything, then no one is anything. In addition, unbridled inclusion creates the need for a tyrannical power structure. If no guidelines are allowed to distinguish groups of people, an external force must actively work to destroy qualifications which arise naturally, and ensure complete inclusion. The baseball group cannot be a group for baseball players because they must be a group for all. This is contradictory to the natural inclination for humans to gravitate towards those who are similar. This natural gravitation does not have to be dependent on race or financial status, and can be done without awful consequences. Groups with distinct attributes can live harmoniously with other groups. Social progress does not demand homogeneity. In regards to museology, this discussion returns to many of the concepts of relativity. If exclusion does not exist, everything must be included. Yet, museums must decide what to exhibit. This act of differentiating is fundamentally a process of exclusion and inclusion. When used well, inclusion can guard against restrictive prejudices and opinions. However, taken too far, inclusion necessitates that everything be allowed into art museums. Some aspects of the contemporary art movement exemplify the absurdity of unbridle inclusion. Barnett Newman’s Onement VI sold for 48.3 million dollars (Jones). The painting is a blue canvas with a single white line down the middle. Cy Twombly’s Untitled (2005), which is a canvas with looping red scribbles, sold for 46.4 million (Kinsella, Goldstein). Both of these paintings are novel, but lack evidence of significant artistic ability. Yet, they demand huge price tags, driven up by the hand of postmodern demands for inclusion. The private purchase of these pieces is compelled by professional appraisal and commentary through art museums. Art museums set the precedent for valuable art. As their inclusion has grown, society has reflected the trend. Furthermore, society is compelled to herald this art. If one does not, they are painted as a closeminded bigot. The effects of unlimited inclusion have seeped into the minds of the twenty-first century culture, creating a ridiculous elitism which undermines art and art museums. The pendulum has swung from the conservative, through the innovative, and now into the absurd.

Diversity is closely tied to inclusion. Responding to similar discrimination, the pursuit of diversity attempts to include a greater number of different people into a single functioning body. Diversity recognizes the strength of heterogeneous collaboration and seeks to foster it within the workplace and community. As previously discussed, every individual experiences the world in a unique manner. Diversity initiatives attempt to unite these different perspectives towards a common goal. They are built on the belief that numerous perspectives are helpful in problem solving, and create a higher quality of life for all involved. This is true. We do grow from exposure and interaction with people different than us.  It would be unbearably prideful to think a certain group of people have all the answers to life and its problems. Over the last fifty years, the white male population in the United States has seen the benefit from incorporating women and people of other races into primary vocations. This creates a better balance and the opportunity for the best person to get the job, helping avoid harmful preservations of complete homogeneity based on gender or race. This growth in diversity has had many positive effects; yet, the pendulum has once again swung too far. Postmodern society now demands diversity of gender and race, oftentimes regardless of qualifications. If a company’s staff does not meet a certain mixture of races and genders, erring towards a homogeneity, they become open to public attack and lawsuits. What started as creating opportunity for others, has become the demand for diversity. This ignores the natural inclinations that often divide occupational sectors. In Scandinavia, the leader of leftist diversity movements, there are more political initiatives to open the workplace than anywhere in the world. Yet, even here, male and female citizens are naturally taking jobs which best suit them. The number of female nurses far exceeds the number male nurses (Statistics Norway). According to psychological studies, women are naturally more compassionate than men (Weisenberg). This quality makes them more capable and apt nurses. It is an advantage that women naturally use in the nursing vocation. This does not mean men cannot be nurses, or that woman cannot excel in vocations where males have advantages. Rather it displays the existence of natural gender tendencies. Modern demands for diversity attack statistics like these. They ignore the natural differences between men and women, requiring sameness. By necessitating every job include everyone, the diversity movement becomes counterintuitive. It actually destroys diversity by demanding it across every field. Here, we see the subtle rise of Neo-Marxist theory, which necessitates the homogenous resemblance of every vocation and group. For complete diversity in postmodern ideology, there must be an overarching sameness, a sameness that eliminates class and ethnic differences. This is a Neo-Marxist ideology. Continued on its course, it will create a singularity which will erase differences between races, gender, and the defining attributes of individuals.

Art museums are not outside of this cultural pressure. Presenting a diverse assortment of art is an important aspect of museum function. Museums across the world seek to educate audiences and expand peoples’ world perspective. However, the concept of diversity has moved from aspiration to absolute. Art museums are expected to have pieces from a wide spectrum of artists. Again, this diversity can be a beneficial inclusion. However, the postmodern demand for diversity is destruction. Art museums are experiencing the pressure for complete diversity in their art selection processes. This can reduce the artist and artwork to a gender or race. The focus moves from the art to maintaining a variety of artists. Attributes like gender and race become defining features of selection. This is done to appease a society which is demanding unlimited diversity. Although art museums certainly consider the art itself, pressures of necessary diversity and inclusion influence curators’ decisions. Unaltered, the progression of demanded diversity will destroy helpful multiplicity and foster Neo-Marxism.

Connected to diversity, is the term equality. The diversity movement is based on the desire for people to have equal treatment and opportunities to succeed, regardless of personal attributes. This is an admirable goal. Once again, race and gender are two popular and important places to examine the cultural movement. The awful practice of slavery in the United Sates was a violation of human equality. It trampled on human dignity and used racial power to manipulate and dictate. The Emancipation Proclamation, issued by President Lincoln in 1863, was the first of many steps towards racial equality in the United States. Similarly, the nineteenth amendment worked to help provide greater equality for women in American society. The right of suffrage placed women directly into political involvement. Although complete influence developed slowly, women have now established a firm presence in the political sphere. Both of these microcosms of the equality movement have been positive developments. Equality of human dignity and equality of dictation within a political system are wonderful accomplishments. Yet, postmodern Neo-Marxism has high-jacked equality. The goal has moved from equality of opportunity to equality of outcome. The difference could not be greater. Equality of opportunity allows people the fundamental freedom to pursue their passions. It creates the environment for personal effort and skill to result in success. Thus, someone’s race and gender would not prohibit them from pursing a vocation or goal. However, equality of outcome necessitates the equality of results. It demands that everyone receive the same results, regardless of personal merit or skill. Equality of outcome destroys the natural connection between reaping and sowing. Everyone must reap the same rewards. It also ignores the differences between individuals. Everyone must be completely equal. There can be no hierarchies or groups. Although hierarchy is a natural occurrence, it must be eliminated for the name of equality. It is well known that hierarchies can be abused; however,  they also create the structures in which the capable can lead the unable and the strong can help the weak. Stratifications of ability are not inherently bad, but their repeated abuse has resulted in deep concern. The equality movement has tried to stop this abuse. Yet, once again, the pendulum has swung too far. Now the ideology of equal outcome demands a classless society and necessitates a tyrannical overseer. A governmental body or person must exist to eliminate the natural hierarchies and distinctions which occur. This is Neo-Marxism. It focuses on a classless society which results in pervasive equality of outcome. The label “Proletariat” is replaced by the label “oppressed.” The label “Bourgeoisie” is replaced by the label “privileged oppressors.” Equal outcome creates a group identity that is the foundation of Marxism and Communism. It is unnatural and destructive, tearing down every unique aspect of the individual.

This is an abhorrent ideology which directly affects art museums. The creation of art is an individual experience. Although sometimes it occurs in group settings, the fire of creation is always sparked within the individual. Since equality of outcome undermines the individual, it undermines creativity and expression. Postmodern Neo-Marxism limits expression to expression of the whole. This is contrary to creativity itself and cannot produce meaningful art, only edgeless and static expressions of collectivism. The ability to evaluate will also vanish because no piece of art can receive better or worse reception than another. Everything must be the same. There will be no art, only the remnants of art’s carcass, paraded for a time before personal expression is forgotten. Of all the frightful implications that postmodern Neo-Marxism brings to art museums, equality of outcome is among the worse. It destroys the individual. It destroys art. As this ideology saturates the culture, art museums are beginning to experience it through the reception of art that defy any artistic skill. Damien Hirst’s Let’s Eat Outside Today is an example of a boundary challenging piece of contemporary art. The problem is not its creation but its necessitated reception. Infatuated with the ideas of inclusion, relativity and equality, art museums and critics have come to accept anything into the plethora of contemporary art. There arepieces that challenge art proper and rightfully work to progress artistic expression. Yet, postmodern ideologies destroy the potential of progress by destroying the ability to distinguish. Everything has to be accepted. Everything has to be equally praised.

Friedrich Hegel wrote, “The owl of Minerva begins its flight only with the coming of the dusk” (qtd. Smith). In Greek Mythology, Athena, the goddess of wisdom, is embodied by an owl. The Romans’ name for Athena was Minerva, incorporating the Greek mythology. In this analogy, Hegel indicates that understanding and wisdom can only come at the end of an era. We can only interpret the movement of culture retrospectively. This follows alongside his pendulum theory, condensing history into epochs that can be observed in hindsight. As postmodern Neo-Marxism is cultivated through the abuse of relativity, inclusion, diversity, and equality, we stand at a diverging point. In an attempt to resolve deep social problems, we have entered into a new danger. Yet, the movement of new museology within art museums provides a warning sign. The battle of culture is seen clearly in art museums. It may be too late; an inevitable dusk may be failing. However, perhaps there is time. Perhaps the Owl of Minerva will spread her wings early.

 

 

Bibliography:

Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action. University of California Press, 1966.

Jones, Jonathan. “Barnett Newman’s ‘Glimpses of the Sublime’ are a bargain at any price.” The Guardian, 16 May 2013.

Kinsella, Eileen, and Caroline Goldstein. “Christie’s Makes Market History with $786 Million Evening Sale Led by Record-Smashing Leonardo da Vinci.” Artnet News, 16 Nov. 2017.

Mcdonald, Sharon, editor. A Companion to Museum Studies. Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Smith, John E. “When Dusk is Only Dusk.” The New York Times, 30 Oct. 2009.

Statistics Norway. Women and Men in Norway. Edited by Anges Aaby Hirsch, et al., 2010.

Vergo, Peter. The New Museology. Reaktion Books, 1989.

Weisberg, Yanna J., Colin G. DeYoung, and Jacob B. Hirsh. “Gender Differences in Personality Across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five.” Frontiers in Psychology 2 (2011): 178. PMC. 19 Jun. 2018.

White, James. “The Damien Hirst exhibit where thousands of maggots mature into flies…and then feast on abandoned barbecue.”Daily Mail, 20 Jan. 2011.