This time round we had the following readings:
1) David Carrier - The Poetics of the Art Museum
2) Visual Thinking Strategies - Image Selection for Beginning Viewers
3) Iwona Blazwick - Temple, White Cube, Laboratory
4) Henry Jackson Newcomb - The Roles of the Artist & Curator, In Relation to The Exhibiting of Art
These bunch of readings gives a basic understanding of the roles of a curator, the art, the space, and interesting relationships in between them.
In David Carrier's text, he mentioned "in today's dramatic reversal of the relationship between art and its setting, art must accomodate the building". I truly believe that the space around the work is just as important as the work. Be it white space, 'shadowed' space, or the physicality of the building. This is due to the fact that art is being cradled in a vessel known as the building. And the growth of architecture in today also deem it to be a work of art. Hence the need to be critical about the both 'works' is especially emphasized in light of the growth of site-specific installations.
My question to all is how relevant is this to SAM, FP & NUS Museum? I do see differences in the relationship between the art and building with reference to the institutional/political baggages tied to each organisations. This affects the choice of work acquired to a certain extent, which de-prioritizes the accommodation of the building.
While we are talking about spaces, I felt that Henry Jackson Newcomb's text of "The Roles of the Artist & Curator, In Relation to The Exhibiting of Art" does surface some interesting things that I want to highlight. Brancusi did his exhibiting without the gallery, but instead he opened his studio to show his works. We do not see much exhibitions in an artist studio. However one show in 2011 caught my eye - The Art Garage, a show curated by producer, Terence Tan. A hall meant for theatre was decked with artworks (some on floors, walls, and even in their storage baskets). The works made sense of the space around them. It gave the viewer an experiential encounter of not just the works, but also the space. This project proved that we need not be limited to traditional art spaces like formal galleries. Through creative improvisations, spaces can be transformed and made into something completely new. The exhibition itself is an installation. We could take reference from Robert Morris's BodySpaceMotionThings exhibition at the Tate in 1971. In today's context, art cafes are sprouting up in town like 15 Minutes and the Orange Thimble. Such cafes allow one not just to enjoy a cup of good coffee, but enjoy it with art. I do have a exhibition at the Orange Thimble currently which you may want to check out. Probably in the future we could have more art restaurants and maybe even art spas?
Iwona Blazwick mentioned that the "This is Tomorrow" Exhibition held at the Whitechapel Art Gallery in 1956 emphasized the interaction between the art and the viewer. She also drew its comparisons to a department store. I like art exhibitions that engage viewers to a point where he/she 'purchases' something from the experience. The viewership takeaway from the exhibition is good while the exchange between the viewer and the art is even better. The latter has been heavily used in new media arts whereby the the viewer becomes the artwork. This interaction stemmed from the heavy influence of Marshall Mcluhan's famous theory of "The Medium is the Message". I wont go deeply into explaining that conceptual text. But what I do foresee in the next decade is more of such new media works are in the making. What we have seen and experience is just the tip of the iceberg. The gallery's role is to transform art from being a window to another world.
No comments:
Post a Comment