I am inclined to think the institution of a museum developed as a countermeasure and counterbalance to the industrialisation of the society. In its values the museum represents enlightenment but as an institution it has not fully developed untill the Romanticism and the industrial revolution. It has been my opinion, culture always poses a counterbalance, especially this being the case from enlightenment onwards and clearly visible throughout 19th, 20th and 21st century.

If such indeed is the case the museum which was created as a last ‘civilised’ act of the enlightenment through the idea of preserving and remembering the great products of the past and retaining the attachment to the roots and the past, the contemporary museum which has no attachment to anything but present or even one could argue rather than that it is practically gambling at the future (showing increasingly younger and younger artists) through the power of its establishment, it fails to accept the fact establishment is alike an oak which will eventually brake at the power of historic hurricane whereas humble reed will remain. It is true most of art which remained has done so through protectorate of the institutions of establishment (church, museum, etc.) but it is not exclusive and one should remember all museums contain countless works of art of minimal if any significance. Now, we can only continue, if without further bluff we accept, the contemporary museum is no noble or valuable institution, or even that it has in its present form ceased to be an institution (in the context of institution of public interest). In the time when the speed of technological developed is accelerating further and further, our society has no need for temporary grimaces of the private trade companies targeting private concentrations of wealth and power.