It had a phenomenal run in London last year, and let's face it, Bowie deserved that kind of show: the acknowledgement that he sketched out the blueprint for other artists who came later and who took what he did visually and culturally to the next level.
The museum game with music acts is still a hit and miss affair. I guess it depends on the themes that the curators pick up on and how they are presented. The Kylie Minogue exhibit worked really well in Australia and the UK because it was done without pretence- Kylie's costumes and the viewing of them are non threatening ways to acknowledge her presence and appeal to the masses. That show was a phenomenal public hit because it didn't attempt to dress Minogue up as an artist: it simply sought to document her get up as an entertainer. No lines crossed. And now that the collection finds its home in Melbourne you can even check out the collection digitally.
Bjork's show at MoMA divided audiences and critics partly because there is very much a case of what is art vs what is popular culture: a divide too big for a show to answer even if it probably blew her fans away.
Positioning a pop act as an artist or cultural force is a thankless task. Especially when they are seen to be active. There's always the risk that you come off looking like a Hard Rock Cafe. Memories are good but memorabilia does not (always) an exhibition make. It will be interesting to see the next act that gets immortalised with didactic panels and a catalogue. In the meantime, expect the Bowie show to drum up a lot of interest in Australia over the coming months. Info here.