Extra museal or Non museal art deliberately wants to withdraw itself from the museal nature of what can be called 'the traditional context and environment in which art could function': the typical art gallery, exhibition room/hall, the museal institution. It's an expression of creativity, of a cultural condition, which doesn't want to conform itself to aesthetic, contextual and financial (art trade, maecenas) restrictions. This condition implies a prepossession against the art establishment and questions the credibility (in general) of the scientific theory of art.

Completely nothing! It's generally a good idea to collect, conserve and show various artefacts of a culture. (of any culture indeed) But nowadays the art world has become a museal place, even the smallest art gallery looks like a (little) museum. Furthermore, institutional museums are huge enterprises requiring large capital assets, usually financed (sponsored) as a form of 'repayment' to the people (society) by wealthy and powerful families and individuals or otherwise (mainly in Europe) by tax revenues from the national income of states. 
 
The museum tends to dominate and dictate the art world which became extremely capitalized and the playground of a few privileged wealthy insiders. Though the doors are open and anyone could enter the temples of art, something lacks in this arrangement of mutual dependencies. If people bear their culture then the art should be general property - museums would endorse this statement - but in reality it's in the hands of a few people with interest. What would happen with society if they (have to) close the doors (again)? Is there a possibility for an other kind of art (or any art) without this arrangement of mutual dependencies, the museal institution? 
 
BACK