Recently, there has been something of a trend for exploring transhistoricity in art exhibitions.  In a nutshell, this could be described as combining the old with the new.  Old masters side-by-side with contemporary artists.  Juxtaposition.

We visited two such exhibitions: Baselitz: Naked Masters at the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, and Aimer, Rompre at the Musée de la Vie Romantique in Paris.  The first combined some of Georg Baselitz’s upside-down nude studies alongside artists such as Rubens and Titian.  The second displayed some contemporary paintings by Françoise Pétrovitch beside the more traditional, permanent collection in the Musée de la Vie Romantique.

In terms of curatorship, the idea appears to be so that the new can breathe fresh life into the old.  However, we would argue the opposite.  It is the old that provides meaning to the new.

Painters such as Rubens and Titian have already proved their transhistorical credentials by the very fact that centuries after their deaths we are still displaying and revering their work.  A bald Marxian assessment would recognise that successive generations have appreciated the same inherent skill of their practice.  Only Time will determine whether contemporary artists, like Baselitz, achieve this same degree of transhistoricity.

The Kunsthistorisches Museum talks about a ‘dialogue’ between the works of the old and the new; whilst, the paintings in the Musée de la Vie Romantique have been described as coming together in ‘perfect harmony’.  Once again, we would disagree.  Personally, we cannot help but find that the juxtaposition of images achieves little other than evoke an unwelcome value judgement.  Old and new.  Better or worse?  It Is not how Art should be assessed.

If a contemporary artist is deemed worthy of an exhibition, let their work be judged on its own merits without reference to any precedents.  Sometimes the weight of history can hang too heavy.

© Os Bros

Os Bros are a living juxtaposition.