In the article, "Has Success Spoiled the Art Museum?" Hilton Kramer (whom I wouldn't usually evoke) writes that "we expect of our museums that they will be dynamic rather than stable" and that this "inevitably entails a shift of attention from the permanent to the temporary."
Although Kramer is writing specifically about art museums, I'd like to talk about this idea in terms of Andrei Antonov's private collection of Apple products that he hopes to turn into a museum by the end of the year. Although I'm sure no one is expecting anything big from Andrei, what I'm interested in is the idea of "museum-izing" Steve Jobs...already.
Let me start by saying that the tributes to Jobs have been slightly creepy. I admire the man for his vision and undeniable mastery of innovation, but reverence for the whole "I didn't finish college but I made tons of money selling you widely popular electronics" thing is strange. I saw a sign dropped off by an Apple consumer to one of their stores that said something like "Thanks for my iPad; you will be missed." People really think in these terms?
But anyway, I think my anxiety about immediately historicizing Jobs' work helps me to maintain perspective. What does the sense of immediacy we have in tributizing Jobs and our apparent obsession with nostalgia say about our methods of interpreting and documenting history? And why is his work more relevant now that he's dead?
The National Portrait Gallery responded immediately to Jobs' death by hanging a portrait of him from their permanent collection under the heading "In Memoriam" along with a label, and as a label-writing intern who walks by that portrait constantly, I keep thinking, "How would you write that label?"
I mean, do we need a minute? When is history history?
No comments:
Post a Comment