Byzantinism curated: Ex. 2.3 A844

In 1947, an exhibition of early Christian and Byzantine art was held by the Walters Art Gallery at the Baltimore Museum of Art. Access a review of the exhibition by the German-American Byzantinist Ernst Kitzinger, 'The Byzantine Exhibition at Baltimore':

·        What are the points of interest that Kitzinger raises regarding this exhibition?

For me the points of interest relate in part to another question – who defines the space in which a representation of Byzantinism may occur. First who is Ernst Kitzinger?

Kitzinger in short was a scholar on the rise in the fluid social circumstances following the entry of the USA into the war against European fascism and the aftermath of the Second World War, a person who became director of the (still) most eminent centre of Oriental and Byzantine studies, Dumbarton Oaks. For me this explains the particular subject position developed through this piece. Let’s look at its characteristics:

1.     The emphasis on looking for a true representation of the non-occidental Byzantine, in comparison with earlier European exhibitions, is applauded, through the ‘exclusions’ operated (69), although he makes the point that the exclusion of African art may be a step too far in these exclusions. He also seems to quietly condemn the curators’ decisions not6 to include the finest USA collection – that of Dumbarton Oaks. Here he speaks for the newly adopted alma mater (69-end). He characterises the up & down sides of going for ‘representative examples of the average product’ (70) since it simplifies our sense of the range, achievement-potential and history of Byzantinism.

2.     He characterises the role of collectors in the curation of the exhibition – presumably at the cost of a more ‘professional’ (for him academic art-historical) perspective. The prominence of debt to private collectors can bias the act of making truer attributions – to the cost of this exhibition’s historical credibility (70).

3.     He characterises the arrangement of articles as by ‘fields of craftsmanship’ (70) and to some extent this seems to mean media used (‘silver room’ for instance). This creates popular magnificence to the eye but over-prioritises less important issues in the art: ‘Sumptuousness, though an important characteristic OF Byzantine art … may be a hindrance rather than a help in learning to appreciate its less accessible sides’ (70f.). Herein we see the subject position of the academic specialist flexing his muscles (weedy though they might be after so long in the library).

4.     He sees the benefit of the exhibition for the ‘interested layman’ (71) but is basically beating the drum for ‘anyone who is at all interested in this field’ (70). These are the professional players to whom Byzantinism is a field of specialist endeavour rather than a new area of interest. These ‘interested laymen’ will be misled by and ‘discouraged from making any historical sense of the material’ (70). Of course he keeps reminding us that his subject position is relatively rarefied (‘But these are the preoccupations of a specialist’ 70) but he insist on the value of a ‘clerisy’ of informed expert viewpoints who will guide laymen to the truth rather than visually attractive uncertainties’ and illusions. The role of the art-historical curator is here made.

·        How did this exhibition differ from previous ones?

See 2 above. The aim is to show ‘the character and extent of … Byzantine art to be found in American collections and museums’. The emphasis on collections (private ones) gets picked up by the scholarly Kitzinger.

·        How could a future exhibition on Byzantine art contribute to our better understanding of this culture?

He proposes (at the end) that future exhibitions will use space better to pick up hypothetical connections and links that are of use to the art-historian and which are more honest with the ‘interested layman’. They do this by choosing ‘to tell a story’. To do this they have to think more carefully about how they utilise scarce space – a curatorial role.

Whilst raking 2^nd-hand bookshops I (found catalogue to the first national Byzantine Exhibition (or so it claimed) in Edinburgh in 1958 for the Edinburgh Festival and curated by David Talbot-Rice and his wife, together with the V & A. It again compares itself to West-European forebears including Paris rather than anything of the USA. Talbot-Rice as a curator is everything one would imagine, Kitzinger wanted. The catalogue emphasises telling a historical tale and is aimed, before it even mentions the ‘public’ to be ‘of great interest to specialists’ (Talbot-Rice 1958:8)[1]. Moreover the stress is not on the ‘representative … average’ but ‘masterpieces’.