Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-tnzpk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-14T06:24:59.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Perils and Possibilities of Dance in the Museum: Tate, MoMA, and Whitney

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2015

Claire Bishop
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues that the art world's current fascination for dance follows on from a previous high point of interaction in the late 1960s and 1970s, and before that, a moment in the late 1930s and early 1940s. It traces these first, second, and third waves of dance in the museum at three institutions: the Tate in London, and the Museum of Modern Art and the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York. Three institutional histories are sketched, drawing out the differences between their approaches. The conclusion presents the four most pressing possibilities/problems of presenting dance in the museum: historical framing, spectatorship, altering the work's meaning, and financial support.

Keywords

Anne Teresa De KeersmaekerBoris CharmatzComposers' WorkshopcuratingdanceDeborah HayJerome BelMichael ClarkMoMAmuseumsperformanceprogrammingRobert MorrisSarah MichelsonSteve PaxtonTateWhitneyTino SehgalTrisha Brown

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Dance Research Journal , Volume 46 , Issue 3: Dance in the Museum , December 2014 , pp. 63 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Congress on Research in Dance 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Works Cited

Anderson, Jack. 1984. The New York Times. March 10.Google Scholar
Breatore, Matthew. 2009. “The History of Performance at MoMA 1929–1979 (Incomplete).” Internal document, MoMA.Google Scholar
Bromner, 1982. “A Dance Series Fosters Debate.” The New York Times. July 11.Google Scholar
Crimp, Douglas. 2008. “Dancers, Artworks, and People in the Gallery.” Artforum XLVII(2): 346–356.Google Scholar
Diller, Liz. 2014. “A Conversation on the Museum of Modern Art's Plan for Expansion.” Architectural League of New York. January 28. http://www.moma.org/about/building (accessed July 3, 2014).Google Scholar
Farocki, Harun. 2008. “Cross Influence/Soft Montage.” In Harun Farocki: One Image Doesn't Take the Place of the Previous One, 139–144. Montreal: Ellen Art Gallery.Google Scholar
Farquharson, Alex. 2003. “Action Replay.” Frieze. 77 (September). http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/action_replay/ (accessed July 23, 2014).Google Scholar
Forsythe, William. 2013. “Works and Projects: Nowhere and Everywhere at the Same Time, No. 2.” William Forsythe Choreographic Objects. http://www.williamforsythe.de/installations.html?&no_cache=1&detail=1&uid=49 (accessed July 23, 2014).Google Scholar
Hay, Deborah. 1968. Letter to John Baur. November 14. Whitney Museum Archive, Container 1, Folder 23.Google Scholar
Higgins, Charlotte. 2009. “Tate Modern's Turbine Hall Recreates a 1971 Art Sensation.” The Guardian. April 5. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/apr/06/tate-modern-bodyspacemotionthings-turbine-hall (accessed November 3, 2014).Google Scholar
Performance Sub-Committee. 1989. “Summary of the First Meeting of the Performance Sub-Committee.” September 29. Tate Archive, TG22/2/3/8.Google Scholar
Saltz, Jerry. 2014a. “The New MoMA Expansion Is a Mess.” New York. January 8. http://www.vulture.com/2014/01/saltz-the-new-moma-expansion-is-a-mess.html (accessed November 3, 2014).Google Scholar
Saltz, Jerry. 2014b. “Jerry Saltz to MoMA's Trustees: Please, Reject This Awful Expansion Plan.” New York. January 13. http://www.vulture.com/2014/01/jerry-saltzs-open-letter-to-the-moma-trustees.html (accessed November 3, 2014).Google Scholar
Weil, Stephen. 1970. “Evening Programs.” Whitney Review, 8–9Google Scholar