What’s more, Cole was not just a lone eccentric in this respect. Similar views were
vociferously put forward by contemporaries of his such as the writer and critic Matthew
Arnold or the art critic John Ruskin.116
It is also worth pausing to realise that a museum’s message for its visitors did not necessary
have to be all too explicit. While Cole for one was obviously perfectly open about this, it is
unlikely that most of the visitors he was aiming for would have been aware of these moral
overtones to the South Kensington Museum. Bearing this in mind, it is all the more striking
how behavioural patterns that first arose at temporary art exhibitions (in the way described
above) were soon adopted at museums in general and eventually even encouraged. It is
significant that Ruskin and Arnold were literary or art critics, i.e. defined themselves through
the genre that had arisen simultaneously - and not coincidentally - with the codes of conduct
that were to be adhered to during a visit to an exhibition, as illustrated in the previous section.
In addition to this it also does not seem coincidental that the 19th century - particularly the
later 19th century — saw the emergence of a specific set of architectural styles which gradually
made museums instantly recognisable. The design of newly constructed museums was
usually reminiscent of what were considered pinnacle achievements of past cultures —
constructions echoing the temples of antiquity or fashioned in a neo-Gothic style spring to
mind.117 More importantly, though, these buildings suggested and encouraged a certain type
of behaviour — running, talking loudly, or touching the items on display for instance was all
not desirable.
One can easily take this one step further and define the museums that sprang up all over
Europe during the second half of the 19th century as nothing other than lessons in “civility” -
i.e. good behaviour in the public domain - paid for and encouraged by those who shaped and
ran these institutions.
It is important to keep in mind however that this, too, is a generalisation. What’s more, most
studies on the history of collections that couch developments in these terms have inevitably
focused on the designers of exhibitions, rather than the visitors.118 Even if there is no denying
the fact that Cole and others touted the idea of museums as tools of cultural engineering, the
verdict is still out as to how effective their efforts were. Furthermore, all evidence seems to
suggest that this notion of a museum as an educational tool only caught on in the Netherlands
a lot later than it did in other countries.119 However, that does not mean that these undeniable
developments weren’t at least noticed in the Netherlands too and helped bring about the
11 See for example: McClellan, “A B rief History o f the Art Museum Public,” 7-16.
117 For an analysis o f the architectural principles underlying the design o f newly constructed museums as well as
contemporary discussions surrounding the choice o f particular designs, see for instance: Carla Yanni, Nature’s
Museums: Victorian Science and the Architecture o f Display (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005);
Sophie Forgan, “Building the Museum: Knowledge, Conflict, and the Power o f Place,” Isis 96, no. 4 (2005):
572—585; Bennett, The Birth o f the Museum: History, Theory, Politics, 48-58.
11 This has a lot to do with the fact that the primary sources that would allow one to conduct any meaningful
survey o f the effect exhibitions had on visitors are only now starting to become available for systematic analysis
through digitization. Tony Bennett was already listed as an example o f an author who saw himself forced to
focus on the makers o f exhibitions in the introductory section to this study.
11 Tibbe and Weiss, Druk bekeken: collecties en hunpubliek in de 19e eeuw, 3:191-192.
gradual shift in connotations the word “museum” carried. The Dutch situation will be
addressed in a little more detail in section IV of this chapter.
4. Prince Albert and the History of Art
As for Great Britain, Prince Albert’s efforts were one of the main factors ensuring that “the
focus of museum innovation, which had been centred in France since the 1790s, was now
shifting to Great Britain, Germany and Scandinavia, with America close behind”.120 Indeed,
he was involved in far more projects than the Great Exhibition and the South Kensington
Museum. He took a great interest in the future of the National Gallery, for instance, proposing
that it be moved to South Kensington when the question of whether new premises were to be
built was being debated. Here, too, his German background is discernible: it has been pointed
out that the whole idea of a “cultural centre” reflects Wilhelm von Humboldt’s “more
integrated, comprehensive approach to universal education” in that the conglomeration of
scholarly institutions prevented academics working as recluses.1 1 What’s more, one can say
that “[t]he German concept of a ‘cultural centre’ for the public, in contrast to Paris’s
preference for distributing its great public institutions, was due to the smaller regional
territories of sovereign rule in Germany before the foundation of the Kaiserreich in 1871”.
In the case of the National Gallery, Albert’s involvement was ultimately unsuccessful H it
remained at Trafalgar Square. But he was able to exert far greater influence on two other
projects that are of great importance both to art history and the history of exhibitions.
The first of these is the exhibition Art Treasures o f the United Kingdom which was held in
Manchester in 1857.123 It could be seen as the fine art-equivalent to the Great Exhibition. It
was held in a similar type of industrial-style exhibition hall, expressly constructed for the
purpose of the exhibition. The initiative for this project had originally been taken by a group
of Manchester manufacturers and businessmen, who were hoping to enhance their city’s
image by associating it with some of the masterpieces fine art had produced over the past
centuries. (This is also yet another indication of how art exhibitions had acquired an aura of
cultured exclusivity.) They sought Prince Albert’s support, well aware that this would help
persuade other members of the nobility with an art collection to loan the organisers of the
Manchester exhibition some of their works of art. Prince Albert, interestingly enough, then
insisted that the exhibition should serve more than “the gratification of public curiosity, and
the giving of intellectual entertainment to the dense population of a particular locality
[Manchester]”. Rather, he suggested (read: insisted) that “national usefulness might [...] be
found in the educational direction which may be given to the whole scheme”. He was even
120 Pomian, ‘The South Kensington Museum: A Turning Point,” 41.
121 Bryant, “‘Albertopolis’: The German Sources o f the Victoria and Albert Museum,” 28.
122 Ibid.
123 On this exhibition see: Francis Haskell, The Ephemeral Museum: Old Master Paintings and the Rise o f the
Art Exhibition (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2000), 82-89.