I hope I’m not being too cynical, but I really did feel rather depressed and a little suffocated by the opulence of The Morgan’s Library.
While I am deeply appreciative of the Morgan family opening up its collection to the public, I can’t shake off the knowledge that the library and Pierpont Morgan’s collection seems to have been primarily initiated and motivated by a need to demonstrate one’s cultural pedigree and taste. It stares back at me in the never-ending wallpaper of paintings, tapestry, and books. If nature abhors a vacuum, Morgan’s walls seem to abhor any gap. And the wallpaper of paintings, tapestry, and books end up looking like they are just as foundational to the building as the bricks themselves.
If we think further about its history as a private collection, I can’t help but think about it along the terms of access in two layers: First, Morgan sought to purchase what was deemed as the very best examples of high culture in Europe and to consolidate it in his private home, in order to domesticate/internalize it in a way that both displays Morgan’s cultural pedigree but also exhibits what his spending power allows him to access/consume; the second being that one would have to be of some social standing in order to be even invited into Morgan’s private collection. Such that by the time the Morgan was opened to the public in 1928, it seems to have participated in what Tony Bennett terms as “exhibitionary complex,” with the general public performing essentially as witnesses to a display of power and cultural capital.
Though opened to the public, the original architecture and interiors of the library nonetheless reveals a certain closeting of power. And I left wondering if the new 2006 glass extension was indeed an architectural attempt to render the institution and its collection a little more “transparent” and “open.” But of course, I don’t wish to discount the work done by The Morgan through its cultural programming; and I am very glad to know that its collection remains open to the public’s viewing and curiosity, even if its library functions effectively as a closed stack. All in all, we’re better for its being made into a public space. And The Morgan, if anything else, is a great reminder that not all libraries (and archives?) necessarily function or are built on the foundational belief of democratizing knowledge.
Your last sentence is key (and beautifully stated), Kenneth. While we can appreciate the Morgan’s riches, the institution also serves to remind us that we can’t romanticize the library – that this institution, despite its contemporary benevolent reputation, is still built on colonialist and capitalist values. We might say that Morgan’s collection is not only an attempt to gather knowledge, but also (and, in its infancy, perhaps primarily) an effort to accumulate and display capital.
Thanks for another excellent post.