Beyond the Borderlines of Collectibility: MoMA’s Ambitious Experiment in Design Curation

The Museum of Modern Art in New York continues to challenge conventional notions of what constitutes a design object worthy of acquisition. The museum’s recent decision to add digital typefaces to its collection raises fundamental questions about collecting and preserving design, as well as the role of museums in the 21st century.

MoMA’s acquisition of the @ symbol in 2010 marked a significant turning point. By claiming this ubiquitous sign as an art object, the museum emphasized the ephemeral nature of digital culture. However, critics questioned the legitimacy of using language that implies ownership or possession when dealing with something as abstract as a symbol.

The subsequent acquisition of twenty-three digital typefaces in 2011 underscores the complexities surrounding MoMA’s approach to design curation. Typefaces are not material objects, and yet they are being treated as such by the museum. The catalog registration for these types lists “digital typeface” as a medium, with no mention of materials or dimensions. This raises important questions about what it means to collect and preserve digital design.

The Ephemeral Nature of Digital Design

The history of type production is characterized by progressive dematerialization. From the early days of metal typefounding to the current era of digital font creation, the physical properties of type have become increasingly irrelevant. Today, fonts are simply sets of code that can be accessed and manipulated digitally. This has significant implications for how we think about collecting and preserving design.

MoMA’s decision to display individual glyphs and phrases from these types on gallery walls in the 2011-12 exhibition Standard Deviations was a bold step towards redefining the way we experience design. By embracing digital typefaces as part of its collection, MoMA acknowledges that traditional notions of what constitutes a “design object” no longer apply.

A New Definition of Acquisition

The acquisition of digital typefaces by MoMA has also raised questions about the language used to describe these acquisitions. The use of terms like “acquisition” and “accession” implies a level of ownership or possession that is simply not possible when dealing with digital objects. This has led some critics to accuse the museum of using language that is intentionally ambiguous or misleading.

However, it could be argued that MoMA’s approach is actually a necessary step towards redefining what we mean by “acquisition” in the context of digital design. By acknowledging that digital objects cannot be possessed or owned in the classical sense, the museum is forced to think creatively about how to describe and preserve these ephemeral entities.

The Future of Design Curation

As MoMA continues to push the boundaries of what constitutes a design object, it is clear that traditional notions of collecting and preserving design are no longer sufficient. The acquisition of digital typefaces marks an important turning point in the history of design curation – one that requires us to think more creatively about how we collect, preserve, and experience design.

Ultimately, MoMA’s experiment in design curation may be seen as a necessary step towards redefining what it means to be a museum in the 21st century. As our world becomes increasingly digital, traditional notions of collecting and preserving design are no longer sufficient. By embracing the ephemeral nature of digital culture, MoMA is setting an important precedent for museums around the world – one that will require us all to rethink what constitutes a “design object” worthy of preservation.