A Thought on the Institutional Position of the Medieval Art Today

“Neither work (ergon) nor outside the work (hors d’oeuvre), neither inside nor outside, neither above nor below, it disconcerts any opposition but does not remain indeterminate and it gives rise to the work.” — Jacques Derrida, The Truth in Painting (1978)

Image : Second Floor of the Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga (MNAA) in Lisbon, Portugal. / Source : Author’s Own

The display or the framing of works of art, often regarded as a parergon, is to create a framework that contextualises and re-contextualises what is being framed. Acting as a literal framing or placement and a metaphysical concept that denotes context, both of which could be understood and manipulated by the artist and the viewer. The role of the curator is to respond sensitively towards the tensions that arise from the visual dialogue between the objects and the viewer and present a clear structural narrative to the overall space.

An example that I would like to discuss is at the Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga (MNAA) in Lisbon, an institution boasting a predominantly Portuguese collection. On its second floor, the early modern collection starts with fourteenth-century medieval sculpture and paintings, which occupy the rooms clustered around the central staircase, before fanning out to the sixteenth and seventeenth-century works in the outer rooms. As the viewer climbs up the stairs leading to the early modern paintings and sculpture section, he or she is directly confronted by medieval sculptures in the large central hall. The ensuing discussion will consider the devices which have been employed by the curators to evoke ideas related to the objects’ historicity and its role played in today’s museological setting.

The first wall that the viewer is directly confronted with is dominated by three arches that mimic Roman triumphal arches, where the central one is flanked by the smaller lateral two. The architectural structure is reinforced with three apse structures that act as the primary framing device for the sculptures placed in the arches. The each arch is supported on two square pilasters which have been set apart from each other at a small distance to reveal the display room behind the central hall. It entices viewers with hints of more collection items as the spaces between the pilasters merely provide glimpses of the sculptures placed in the room behind the three arches. In the larger central arch, a stone sculpture of crucified Christ is suspended by a support that directly juts out from the wall behind, giving an impression of hovering to the sculpture. In the left lateral arch, there are two smaller sculptures, placed on a plain square plinth and similarly, the other arch is occupied by a single standing sculpture, placed on a lower plinth. The levels of plinths supporting the sculptures of the two lateral arches have been adjusted so that the centre of the each sculpture are horizontally aligned. The height of the centre is located just under an average viewer’s eye-level, which would place the head of the sculptures within the easy range of sight.

As the wall is the first curated display that the viewers would encounter upon ascending the stairs, the three triumphal arches and their uncanny symbolic evocation of the portal structures of the Gothic cathedrals would not go amiss. The three structures effectively acts as the introductory opening: it functions not only as the ‘portals’ to the medieval collection of the museum, however also as visual indicators of the liturgical setting in which the objects would have been placed. The simplified apse-like structure, which echo the deep-set niches within religious building is rather striking. The integration between the architectural structure of the room and the apse-like structure of the display case reflect the permanence of the items placed as they carry the implication of having been built to house the crucifix. The overall clarity of the display structure immediately recalls the interior of a church, evoking the original intended location of the objects, effectively providing a preliminary form of context to the viewers.

While the display gives a considered attention to the religiosity of the objects, it is equally affirmative in its insistence that a removal of its performative function has occurred. The museum space, which does carry visual remnants of liturgical architectural forms, remains inherently a secular educative space. A dialogue takes place here: secular space employs the language of liturgical architecture to visual evoke the original context. This dialogue is transformative in its nature: the objects are transported from its original position in a cathedral to the wall of a museum, and from being objects that encouraged worship and devotion, they become educative historical artefacts. This transformative transition is highlighted by the use of the stark lighting on the display wall. Two different types of light have been used as one casts a broad, expansive glaze of light on the wall surrounding the object, another spotlights the object placed in the centre. The two different light sources effectively bring the objects to the forefront of the viewers’ attention, maintaining the objective focus on their visual aspects, rather than their symbolic or performative roles. The use of stark off-white light enhances the aesthetic emphasis.

From the placement of the arches, which as emphasised, evokes Gothic portals, the exhibition route would encourage viewers to walk around the staircase. The viewer would see the three arches and would be encouraged to walk around the staircase. The walls and the displayed items seem to serve as the precursory objects, an amuse-bouche for the crown jewel of the collection, the Saint-Vincent panels which are housed in the space adjacent to the hall. Such successive consecutive visual encounters (with more jamb sculptures from cathedrals) from circumambulating the hall, would further evoke a sense of a liturgical route. The display, in evoking the original context as well as reinforcing the concept of museum space as an educational space, is effective.

The display also demonstrates aspects that it has neglected to address. The labelling is minimal: it merely contains the title, speculated masters, approximate dates, and the medium. The lack of wall texts make it difficult to approach the works and the space, for the viewers who may not necessarily be familiar with liturgical architecture. This omission of further description for all works further indicate a lack of differentiation between each individual objects, merely grouping them as religious works of art. The display, therefore, appear to provide a homogenous space that the viewers can apply and imbue as much contextual knowledge as possible, which, in turn, places intellectual demand on them.