Allegories of art exhibitions

Results of a search in selected literature for established methods of description, comparison, analysis and interpretation of art exhibitions. Not published. Av en eller annen grunn kom vi oss ikke til å forsøke å få publisert denne artikkelen. Jeg deltok i et forskningsprosjekt i Nasjonalmuseet, der vi gjorde en komparativ analyse av norske kunst- og kunstindustrimuseer. Det var Birgitte og Anne Qvale også med.

Birgitte Sauge and Dag Solhjell

26 November 2012

Abstract

Allegories of art exhibition

In preparation for a comparative study of permanent exhibitions in Norwegian art museums and craft museums, we made a search in relevant literature for appropriate methods of description, comparison, analyses and interpretation of art exhibitions. The purpose was to select a few established methods or research designs, from which we could choose the one or the ones that suited our research purpose best. To our surprise, we found no such internationally established approaches. Instead of a small number of established methods, we found a large number of different allegories. Instead of a consensus around some theories and methods, we found idiosyncratic approaches without references to the contributions of other authors. Instead of comparative studies of a large number of exhibitions, we found interpretive studies of one, two or at the most three exhibitions without ambitions to create a comparative method.

“Exhibitions … are often interpreted or framed in terms borrowed from other art practices” Bal notes, in the article “Exhibition as film” (Bal 2007:71). In other words, researchers find an allegory for the exhibition, and bring some of the metaphors that the allegory permits into the theoretical analysis.[i] Exhibitions are seen as something else, something that has some common properties with exhibitions, and then the exhibitions are analysed as this something else.

The paper will present and discuss a number of the allegories found in the survey of selected literature, both international, Nordic and Norwegian.

Key words: Art, allegory, description, exhibitions, literature, survey

Background

The National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design located in Oslo initiated in 2010 a comparative study of 19 permanent exhibitions in 10 Norwegian art museums. The goal is to gain an understanding of similarities and differences in regard to their content, architecture, design and didactic solutions. What stories do the exhibitions tell, and how do they tell them? Are there some dominating tendencies among them?

A methodologically sound approach in comparing exhibitions is to use the same analytical tool in description, analysis and interpretation. We made a search in literature dealing with art exhibitions, both in art museums and other institutions of art, in the belief that we would find some internationally established methods and tools we could choose among, or at least find references to such methods. Our survey was mostly limited to literature where description of art exhibitions, especially in art museums, was a major topic. To our surprise we found no such methods. Instead of a small number of established methods, we found a large number of different allegories. Instead of a consensus around some theories and methods, we found idiosyncratic approaches without references to the contributions of other authors. Instead of comparative studies of a large number of exhibitions, we found studies of single or at the most three exhibitions without ambitions to create a comparative method.

Three types of studies of art exhibitions

The literature we covered had three different approaches to the study of art exhibitions. The first type describes exhibitions without using any analytical terminology, only everyday language. That type will not be further commented on, and is left out from the bibliography. Another has not concrete exhibitions as its object of study, but discusses theoretical and methodological approaches to the description, analyses and interpretation of (mostly) art exhibitions. This is a small number of texts (Troelsen 2005, Gade 2006, Hirvi-Ijäs 2007, Whitehead 2009, 2011). The third and most usual type mostly sees exhibitions as something else, something well known, with established theory, concepts and analytical tools, which therefore are used in the analyses. This literature has analytical and interpreting (but not comparative) intentions, and is by far the most usual in the literature covered in our search. It is the most interesting one for our purpose. We call this approach “the allegories of exhibitions”.

Art exhibitions seen as something else

Studies of art exhibitions are made in the traditions of humanistic and cultural analysis, including hermeneutic social sciences. This establishes a common overriding understanding of the museum and the art exhibition as a storyteller and interpreter. That understanding is reflected in the finding that the most common understanding of the exhibitions of art museums as a “text” that a curator has “written” and a public shall “read”. The theoretical basis laid for the analysis is then taken from studies of literature. When seen as a language, the exhibition is analysed with concepts from language theory. When seen as a speech, the analyses are based on rhetorics, and so on.

Most authors choose allegory without reflecting on whether it suits the goal of the analyses. One exception is Muttenthaler and Wonisch (2006), in their study of the exhibitions at museums of Natural History, Ethnography and Art History in Vienna. They discuss their choice of allegory, and thereby their method (:37-62). They choose three allegories: one from anthropology, where the exhibition is seen as a society (“dichte Beschreibung”); another from semiotics, with the exhibition seen as a system of signs (with concepts like denotation, connotation and metacommunication); and a third from semantics, when the exhibitions is seen as a language (with concepts like syntagme and paradigme).

Another exception is Whitehead (2009, 2011), who gives a thorough discussion of the allegory “cartography” about the activities of the museum and “map” about its exhibitions.

We have found a large number of allegories in the literature. Some of them are presented here, in an order that do not reflect any distinct priority or system. Some of the allegories are taken from literature about exhibitions in other types of museum than art museums, and not all art exhibitions dealt with are in art museums. We do not pretend to have covered all relevant literature.

Allegories of art exhibitions

The exhibition is (as) a speech[ii]

Rhetorics is the science of persuasive speech. Seeing art exhibitions as a way of speaking, not only brings in concepts from rhetorics, but also leads the interest towards aspects of power relations.

“Exhibitions rhetorics: material speech and utter sense” is the title of an article by Ferguson (1996). He states that “Exhibitions are the central speaking subjects in the standard stories about art which institutions and curators often tell themselves and to us” (:176). Ferguson also refers to the performative aspects of exhibitions, the fact that exhibitions do something with words through their speech. They are acts of speech. He says that exhibitions as a “strategic system of representations”. They use everything,

from its architecture which is always political, to its wall colorings which are always psychologically meaningful, to its labels which are always didactic (even, or especially, in their silence), to its artistic exclusions which are always powerfully ideological and structural in their limited admissions, to its lightning which is always dramatic (and therefore an important aspect of narrativity and the staging of desire), to its security systems which are always a form of social collateral (the choice between guards and video surveillance, for example), to its curatorial premises which are always professionally dogmatic, to its brochures and catalogues and videos which are always literacy-specific and pedagogically directional, to its aesthetics which are always historically specific to that site of presentation rather than to individual artworks’ moments of production (1996:178-79).

In the article “Not-Art, Not-History: Reading the Rhetorics on the Wall” Bal does analyse the mounting of paintings in a department in National Gallery in London. She treats the exhibition “as a text that I will “browse” through by way of a casual act of reading” in order to understand “not the meaning of works but of their combination; not historical meaning but contemporary ones, not intentional meaning but meanings of effect. Its rhetoric, in other words” (:13-14).

An article by Ward (2009) is named “The rhetorical challenge of the everyday object”. It discusses “the exhibition rhetorical strategies for conveying a certain impression of the Icelandic nation” (:6).

The five moments of rhetorical speech can be used to analyse the curatorial intention (Solhjell 2001). Intventio is to find, the choice of concept and selection of works. Dispositio is to order, or to mount the works into a conceptual whole. The selected and exhibited works shall also be presented and argued well for, the elocutio of the curatorial work. Memoria – to remember – points to the documentation of the exhibition. The fifth moment of the curatorial speech is pronuntatio – the style of the whole presentation

The rhetorical allegory can be used in the critical interpretation, one that will unveil the subject in power behind the exhibition. Ferguson (1996) asks: who speaks, to and for whom, under what circumstances, and where and when. The allegory can also serve to study the means that exhibitions use to make statements, what these intentions are, and what intended and not intended or covert intentions the exhibitions have.

The exhibition is (as) a text

“Exhibitions can be considered to be like texts, if the linguistic model is invoked, but they are also intertexts situated as moments of articulation within systems of signification of which they are but one …” (Ferguson 1996:179).

Exhibitions can be likened to texts that are read by the audience. Elements from theory of literature can be used to describe, analyse and interpret exhibitions. Following the theory of paratexts by Genette (1997), an exhibition can be seen as three texts: The works of art are the texts, all signals and signs aroundt them as paratexts, and the frames of understanding put forward by the paratexts are the contexts (Solhjell 2001). Reading an exhibition demands the reading of all three types of texts. All the elements in the long quote above by Ferguson are then considered to be paratexts, each of them pointing in two directions: both towards the texts and the contexts.

In a comparative study of two cultural history exhibitions, Insulander presents exhibitions as extended texts, with many sign systems, gathered in a multimodal design read by the visitors (2010). She applies three concepts from the linguistic functional theory of M. A. K. Halliday to analyse the double text of the exhibition, the one made by the curators, the other by the visitors: The ideational (what is exhibited), the interpersonal (the form of adressing), and the textual (the exhibition as a multimedial text), all three concepts beeing metafunctions of the text.

Using text as an allegory of exhibitions serves the application of analytical tools that is close to the ones that the visitors use: they see, read and interpret. The allegory of text also allows the distinction between the physically observable frames around the works of art, and the frames of understanding they suggest.

The exhibition is (as) a language

Concepts from grammar and semantics are introduced when exhibitions are seen as a language. Muttenthaler and Wonisch (2006) uses the concepts of syntagme and paradigme, and identifies exhibitions as syntagmatic and paradigmatic operations. They refer to a seminar titled ”Grammatiken des Ausstellens” and to the the litterary theory of Roman Jakobson. They also introduce the concept of speech act, the linguistic phenomenon that when actual facts are established through the use of language (like ”I promise”). A work of art is considered a central one by being installed centrally in a room (Solhjell 2001). Insulander (2010) maintains that what is mounted on a wall normally is read from left to right, and that what is placed at left is understood as something known and given, and what is placed at right is considered to be something new.

Manifesta Journal 2009/2010 has a theme issue titled ”The Grammar of the exhibition”, with several articles based on the language allegory of art exhibitions. Bal states that ”Grammar is a set of rules that make meaning possible” and that exhibitions have a syntax, ”rules of relationship between elements. In recent exhibition practices, syntax has come to the fore as a structuring principle that helps make sense not of artworks as such, but of their relationship to the viewer” (Bal 2009/2010:5).

The allegory of language gives the opportunity to reflect on how meaning is produced by the ways elements in the exhibitions are put together, and to study if there are certain conventions orchestrating them, leading the understanding of the visitors in specific directions.

The exhibition is (as) a story

The allegory of the story or of telling introduces analytical concepts from theories of narrativity. ”Udstillingen fortæller” (The exhibition tells) is the title of an article by Sørensen (2009). The analysis of the exhibition is particularly anchored in Roland Barthes’ concepts of functions (that are the works of art), actions (thar are the movements of the visitor), and narration (the narrative intention of the exhibition). Together they make it possible to see the exhibition as a whole.

Bal (2007) states that the concept of exhibition as a narrative is based on the route the visitor takes through it, as a series of occurrencies that taken together make up a plot. That makes the audience into co-narrators. ”This temporal dimension of exhibitions is the guiding principle of narratological analysis” (Bal 2007). The way through the exhibition gives an “accumulative relationship with the art on display”, and ”the viewer now walks through a forest of objects”. And furher, “a narrative exhibition asks of the viewer that she establishes connections as she moves through the exhibition, building up a ”story”, which has, as its outcome, or dénoument, an effect” (:76). Narrative exhibitions, Bal thinks, forces the visitors ”to create rather than consume the exhibition-as-narrative”.[iii]

Studies of the narrativity of art exhibitions leads the interest not only towards the storyteling of its curators, but also towards the audience as a co-narrator. The master story of art museums is the art history, which is also the master context of other stories about art.

The exhibition is (as) a system of signs

Seeing art exhibitions as a system or language of signs makes semiotics, the study of signs, to a theoretical point of departure in the analysis of them. Scholze (2004) uses the concepts of denotation, connotation and metacommunication as analytical tools. ”The metacommunication of exhibitions concerns all phenomena of communication, not the ones that directly affects the history of the objects or the theme of the exhibition, but the academic, museological, political and individual standpoints that form the basis of the presentation” (:36).

Insulander (2010) characterises all visual elements in exhibitions, also the objects displayed, as semiotic resources. She sees exhibitions as systems of signs that the visitors have to interpret.

The allegory of sign system gives the researchers a unified command of all different visual elements in art exhibitions. It allows them to treat both the works of art and all elements that surround them (the paratexts) within the same conceptual frame. The sign allegory also facilitates the introduction of the behaviour of the visitors into the research design.

The exhibition is (as) a film or a theater

Troelsen (2005) uses film as allegory when describing the path the visitor takes through the exhibition, passing one scene after another. The curator is likened to a film director. Troelsen can use metaphores from the film vocabolary, such as ”clipping”, ”narrativ flow”, ”visual bridges”, ”overblending”, ”travellings”, ”tilting”. He refers to ”the choreography that the visitor has been subjected to, and that we must believe has been guiding for his or hers path through the scenography of the exhibition” (:150).

In the article ”Exhibition as Film” Bal writes that “most frequently, one speaks of exhibitions in terms of either theater or narrative” (Bal 2007:73). Her characterization of the exhibition “Partners” as “most effecting, gripping and powerful” and “indeed thrilling”, is close to expressions one can read in film critique. A sequence of photographies is seen as a ”storyboard”.

In the article ”Exhibition as a Syntax of the Face” Bal writes about the exhibition Partners that it ”suggests the relevance of the metaphor of theater as a frame of reference for the show’s construction”, that ”curators need to develop a scenography” that “turns the gallery into a stage separate from the spectator”, and that “the curator arranges the objects like still personages, as in a tableu vivant” (Bal 2009/2010:16-17).

One can often see the concepts of scenography and staging used in description of exhibitions, without conceiving of the exhibition as a theater. To see the exhibition as theater or film can be helpful in studies of its spatial construction, and as a sequence of scenes. It also directs the interest towards the curator a director or auteur.

The exhibition is (as) a script or (as) a design

The concept of script is also noted, with reference both to film and technology. Noordegraaf (2004) uses the concept of script in both of its meanings. In its technological context Noordegraaf refers to Bruno Latour and Madeleine Akrich. Exhibitions, as examples of a technology, are constructed with certain users and a certain use in mind. It is as if art museums prescribe or script a certain visitor behavior into their layout.[iv] Each visitor contributes to the script, either he or she is following the prescribed one or not. An analysis of the script brings forth a set of instructions that regulates the relation between the museum and its audience (2004:15).

Franke claims that “it is no secret that exhibitions are spaces with specific protocols, scripted spaces” (2009/2010:8). She maintains that ”one enters those spaces and embodies those scripts” and that “these scripts are implicitly understood” because “the scripts communicate themselves”. Duncan comments on ”the organization of the museum setting as a kind of script or scenario which visitors perform” (1995:20).

The allegory of script as used by Noordegraaf, Duncan and Franke has much in common with the allegory of design used by Insulander, even if it is taken from theories of learning (Insulander 2010).

The allegory of script in its technological sense leads our interest towards the adapting of the exhibition for a certain use by the visitors, to the implied common understanding about this use between the museum and the visitors, but also to the visitors’ own activity in scripting their use of the exhibition.

The exhibition is (as) a medium

The allegory of medium is used to bring in elements from theories of communication, with an elementary communication model. The museum is seen as sender of a message in coded form (the exhibition), that a receiver (the visitors) shall decode. The perspective of medium is central in Scholze (2004), who considers exhibitions to be complex media, with concepts as coding and decoding. However, she also introduces the concepts of denotation, connotation and metacommunication. The allegory of medium is also used in Solhjell (1995).

The allegory of the exhibition as a medium is close to the widespread perspective of seeing works of art as communicative media between artist and audience. Such an analogy makes it easier to understand that exhibitions, like works of art, are coded and can be difficult to “decode” for those not familiar with it. Exhibitions are presented as something interpreted that itself is an interpreter. The allegory of medium makes one aware of what it is in exhibitions that has to be decoded.

The exhibition is (as) a gesture

The allegory of gesture is used by Muttentahler and Wonisch (2006) and Hirvi-Ijäs (2007). The first do not seem to use it as an analytical tool, as Hirvi-Ijäs does. In English translation her thesis bears the title “The presenting gesture. On the presentation of art in the modern art exhibition”. However, the gesture does not stand alone in her purely theoretical approach. The concepts of medial and the spatial also play a role. The gesturesqe is seen as creating spatiality. The spatial aspect is discussed under three contextual allegories: the exhibition as frame, agora and threshold. The allegory of frame, taken concretely, can be said to correspond to the concept parergon used by Derrida (1987) (borrowed from Kant), paratext used by Solhjell (2001) (borrowed from Genette) and “outer works”[v] used by Troelsen (2006). The allegory of agora points at the exhibitions as a dialogical room with access for everybody – a public space. Threshold denotes the going beyond that characterizes the meeting with works of art.

The allegory of gesture raise our interest in the mechanics of display at work in art exhibition, and in the fact that all exhibitions use many different means to make us aware of the works of art within certain frames of understanding, and that the audience are operating in a limited, specialized public space.

The exhibition is (as) a city plan

Troelsen (2005) thinks it can be useful to use concepts within city planning and analysis when analyzing art exhibitions. An exhibition, he says, can be likened to a little town, with roads, places, quarters, borders, junctions and landmarks. It can have privileged orientations, clarifying departments and special resting areas that serve to gather and focus significance. The visitors follow or choose a path, which makes it possible to see the difference between saying that a) comes before b) and that a) is besides b). The first is part of a story, the other a mapping of elements in a room.

To see the exhibition as a city plan makes possible a focus on the spatiality of the exhibition and movements of visitors in time and space.

The exhibition is (as) a map

In his article “National art museum practice as political cartography in nineteenth-century Britain” Whitehead describes museums as cartographers that are mapping the world, and exhibitions as maps (2011). The allegory allows Whitehead to make use of a number of metaphors, such as mapping, distances, borders, territories, places, landmarks, coordinates, travels and roads. Whitehead places the cartographic reading in the “textual tradition”, which he thinks is better suited than “the verbal and even grammatical reading of display attempted by authors like Ferguson (1996), Bal (1996) and Storr” (2009:106).

Whitehead maintains, however, that “the map is not a metaphor for the museum; the museum is a multidimensional and multi-media map” (2010:48). Here he goes further than a couple of years earlier, when he points at “inevitable differences” that “are not fundamental and mean simply that we must be attentive to differences in cartography agency” (2009:107). Whitehead seems to linger between a view of the exhibition as a real map, or as something that has some of the qualities and properties of a map.

Cartography and map as allegories seem to serve the purpose of studying exhibitions within the context of their organizing institutions, especially exhibitions in art museums.

The exhibition is (as) a school

In literature founded on pedagogics, we find the perspective on exhibitions in art museums as arenas of learning, and of art as a teaching resource. The school and its didactics becomes the source for pedagogical projects and comparisons on learning in exhibitions. Such a comparative study is Aure, Illeris and Örtegren (2009), the most ambitious project of its kind in the Nordic countries. However, the exhibitions are not described here, and the school allegory is not applied on them. The school allegory is, rather surprisingly, not found any place in our literature search.

Conclusion

Our selected and limited survey has discovered a wide variety of approaches to theories and methods in description, analysis and interpretation of art exhibitions, based on different fields and traditions of research. No internationally established approach, method, terminology or theoretical foundation for analyzing exhibitions was found. Some authors claim that such methods do not exist (Troelsen 2005) or are too ambitious to develop (Gade 2005). Scholze, when commenting on museum exhibitions in general, thinks that there is lack of methods and models for describing exhibitions (2004:14). Our survey confirms her conclusion.

We found only a few comparative studies of a small number of exhibitions, and none that were based on an established comparative method. The lack of comparative studies is not surprising. In the absence of an established method for description of art exhibitions it is difficult to compare them. And opposite, in the absence of comparative studies the need may not have been felt to develop such methods.

Muttenthaler and Wonisch make the point that in analysis of exhibitions, the description of them is already penetrated by interpretation (2006:50). Using allegories of art exhibitions that are not selected and discussed in view of the goal, design and methods of research on art exhibitions, will imply that interpretation is done before the interpretative work is started.

Literature

Aure, Venke; Illeris, Helene og Örtegren, Hans: Konsten som läranderesurs. Syn på lärande, pedagogiska strategier och social inclusion på nordiska konstmuseer, Nordiska akvarellmuseet: 2009. (”Art as a learning resource. Views on learning, pedagogical strategies and social inclusion in Nordic art museums”)

Bal, Mieke: “Not-Art, Not-History: Reading the Rhetoric on the Wall”. Gripsrud, Jostein (ed.): The Current Status of the Rhetorical Tradition. Universitetet i Bergen: 1996.

Bal, Mieke: “Exhibition as Film”. Paul Basu og S. J. Macdonald (eds): Exhibition Experiments. Blackwell: 2007.

Bal, Mieke “Exhibition as a Syntax of the Face”. The Grammar of the Exhibition. Manifesta Journal. Journal of contemporary curatorship. No 7, 2009/2010.

Derrida, Jacques: The truth in painting. The University of Chicago Press: 1987.

Duncan, Carol: Civilizing Rituals inside public art museums. Routledge: 1995.

Ferguson, Bruce W.: “Exhibitions rhetorics: material speech and utter sense”. Greenberg, Reesa, Ferguson, Bruce W. and Sandy Nairn (eds.): 1996

Franke, Anselm: “Magic Circles. Exhibitions under the conditions of the society of control”. Manifesta Journal. Journal of contemporary curatorship. The Grammar of the Exhibition. No7, 2009/2010.

Gade, Rune: ”Hvad er udstillingsanalyse? Bidrag til en diskusjon af metodiske strategier i forbindelse med analyse av kunstudstillinger”. Bodin, Elisabeth og Lassenius, Johanna (red.): 2006. (”What is analysis of exhibtitions? Contribution to a discussion of methodological strategies related to analyses of art exhibitions.”)

Genette, Gerard (1997) Paratexts. Thresholds of Interpretation, Cambridge University Press.

Greenberg, Reesa, Bruce W. Ferguson and Sandy Nairn (eds.): Thinking about Exhibitions. Routledge: 1996.

Hirvi-Ijäs, Maria: Den framställande gesten. Om konstverkets presentasjon i den moderna konstutställningen. Akademisk avhandling ved Humanistiska fakulteten, Universitetet i Helsingfors: 2007. (”The presenting gesture. On the presentation of the work of art in the moderen art exhibition.”)

Insulander, Eva: Tinget, rummet, besökaren. Om meningsskapande på museum. Doktorsavhandling i didaktikk vid Stockholms universitet: 2010. “Object, room, visitor. On creation of meaning in museums.”)

Manifesta Journal. Journal of contemporary curatorship. The Grammar of the Exhibition. No 7, 2009/2010.

Muttenthaler, Roswitha og Regina Wonisch: Gesten des Zeigens. Zur Repräsentation von Gender und Race in Ausstellungen. Transcript: Bielefeld 2006. (I serien Kultur- und Museumsmanagement)

Noordegraaf, Julia: Strategies of display. Museum Presentation in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Visual Culture. Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen Rotterdam, NAi Publishers: Rotterdam 2004 .

Scholze, Jana: Medium Ausstellung. Lektüren musealer Gestaltung in Oxford, Leipzig, Amsterdam und Berlin, Transcript, Bielefeld: 2004. (I serien Kultur- und Museumsmanagement).

Solhjell, Dag: Kunst-Norge. En sosiologisk studie av den norske kunstinstitusjonen. Universitetsforlaget: 1995. ”Art-Norway. A sociological study of the Norwegian institution of art.”)

Solhjell, Dag: Formidler og formidlet. En teori om kunstformidlingens praksis, Universitetsforlaget: 2001. (”Mediator and mediated. A theory of the praxis of the mediation of art.”)

Sørensen, Ane Plegaard: ”Udstillingen fortæller. En analyse av Kunsthall Charlottenborgs udstilling ’Til vægs’”. Nordisk Museologi. No 2,2009. (”The exhibition tells. An analysis of the exhibition ’Til vægs” in Chartlottenborg art hall.”)

Troelsen, Anders: ”Udenværker – strategier for udstillingsanalyse”. Ingemann, Bruno og Larsen, Ane Hejlskov (red.): 2005. (”Outerworks – strategies of analysis of exhibitions.”)

Ward, Elisabeth Ida: “The rhetorical challenge of the everyday object”. Nordisk Museologi No 1, 2009.

Whitehead, Christopher: Museums and the Construction of Disciplines, Duckworth, London: 2009.

Whitehead, Christopher: ”National Art Museum Practice as Political Cartography in Nineteenth-Century Britain”. Knell, S. et al (eds): National Museums: new studies from around the world, Routledge, London: 2010.

[i] Allegory is here understood as the place where you find metaphores. For instance, the allegory of ”theatre” allows the use of stage, actor, scenography, plot etc. as metaphores.

[ii] By inserting ”as” in brackets, we open for the possibility of seeing the allegory as a simile.

[iii] The concept of narrative exhibitions is confusing, since Bal also states that all exhibitions are narrative.

[iv] The same approach is used in Klonk (2009) when she analyses what view on their audience museums demonstrate through their exhibition. Klonk does not use the concept of script.

[v] In Danish ”udenværker”, which denotes the defense lines outside the walls of a fortress. But ”værker” (works) also connotes ”work of art”, that is ”works that is outside the works of art”.