Deutsches Historisches Museum - Verf�hrung Freiheit. Kunst in Europa seit 1945 - Blog

To provide you with an overview of the press response to the exhibition, we summarised several reviews and provided links to several others. A question brought up by two of the critics was whether a historical museum is necessary in order to present an art exhibition?

This question caused me to hesitate slightly. My perspective is neither that of an art historian nor of a historian (but rather one of a theatre scholar, if it is of interest). 

It caused me to hesitate on two accounts. On the most fundamental level, I asked myself if the question is even relevant. Is this line of enquiry of interest to those reading exhibition reviews? Does the reader want to consider this issue? And possibly enter into a discussion on the principals of the pro and the contra? Isn’t the range of views already implicit in the framing of the question?

On the next level I asked myself whether this question corresponds to an agenda, whatever it might be. Why is this question so important to the critics that one closes with it and another opens with it, commenting on the ‘problematic aspect’ of the exhibition. I have the impression that the question is more relevant to the writer than it is to the reader. And the answer was already a given—so why the question mark?

For us, answering the question is easy. We have, after all, been working intensely and closely on this project over a long period of time. A counter-question is therefore reasonable: how good is a review that questions the framework of the exhibition?

Asking fundamental questions is important. But aren’t they more suited to a column or a background report? Shouldn’t an exhibition first be judged by the criteria advanced by its curators?

To quote our curator: ‘If art is needed to recount the history of ideas, then we will choose art.’