How does the way we exhibit art affect the meaning of it?
Art has to connect with the public so they can then talk about it and get more publicity. If you have no opinion on something are you going to go and tell everyone about it? But how do you connect if you can only look and can’t make the connections through touch... Are galleries preventing us from the full experience? I hate going to galleries where you aren't allowed to touch or stand close to the art work. When I look at something I usually want to run my hand over it and feel the textures that are in it, I want to hold it in my hand to see that it’s real and I want to stand extremely close and see the tiny brush strokes that the artist has made. In most galleries now they have sensors, glass boxes, railings or something else along those lines that mean you can’t get close to the art work. They usually have security guards in the rooms as well and they watch you and come over and tell you to stand back, this has happened to me, the guard was actually able to tell us a lot about the painting, not just one piece but the majority of the gallery, he genuinely seemed to have an interest.
Some galleries don’t always have the work surrounded but you still aren’t allowed to go to close too it. I went to a gallery in Dublin, one of the pieces was in the centre of the room sitting on a large rug/blanket, I lost my balance and stumbled onto the edge of the rug/blanket (I touched about the size of a stamp at the very edge) there was an employee that sat in the room he basically shouted at me that I shouldn’t be so careless and that I should have more respect for it, etc. Okay it was his job but it was an accident. The point of the story is, that because of this, I don’t actually remember what the piece of art was. The vibe in the room was awkward and I just wanted to get out of there as quickly as possible because the employee was still looking at me. The atmosphere that's created where the artwork is exhibited, is important. If somewhere has an awkward and uncomfortable atmosphere you won’t enjoy it and you won’t go back to it in a rush.
Have galleries changed the perception of what an exhibition space should look like? Which would people prefer, a clean, warm, white, bare room or an interesting, old, dark room, which in itself is a piece of art? I think that as long as the space doesn’t distract or take away from the art and if it adds to the experience then it should be used. But then you have to ask the question of who is your audience? Will it appeal to them? Will they see the beauty in a dark dirty, beautiful area and appreciate it? Or will they think it doesn’t look like a gallery space and therefore it isn't real art being exhibited.
Do we really even need galleries anymore when there are things such as land art and site specific art, which the public can get more involved with? Land art is about changing the landscape into a piece of art, and in some cases it can be functional. Site specific art uses concepts about the place, an exhibition would then be set up in that place, members of the public can then go and look, and explore the art. The fact that it is about the community and for the community, means that people can have a better relationship with it and they understand it better. They can go and look and touch it without having to go into, the sometimes uncomfortable, setting of a gallery.
The art of attention. Nowadays the world is so fast moving that you only have a few seconds to grab people’s attention, it has to be interesting enough in those first few seconds or they just don’t have time for it. Does it really have to be amazing though? They do always say “Any publicity, is good publicity” If a piece of art was awful people would be more likely to talk/complain about it quicker than they would praise a good piece. The society that we live in now enjoy/glorify insults. Although if you’re going to use this approach of bad publicity you should really know what you’re doing and that the thing they are complaining about is not the “art” this could create a bad reputation for the artist.
Marcel Duchamp redefined art. His work proposed the questions “What is art?” “Where do you see it?” and “How do you get people to connect with it?” Duchamp was part of the Dada movement. Dadaism was a cultural movement which peaked between 1916 to 1922. It was an anti art and a rebellion against everything before. Dada had the opposite beliefs as art. It ignored aesthetics and intended to offend. Collage, Photo montage, Assemblage and Ready-mades were all art techniques developed during this movement. Duchamp used the ready-made technique for his piece “fountain” he signed and dated the pieces to make them "real art". This technique used manufactured, real life, objects and called them art. This really changed how art is perceived because now in contemporary art, basically anything can be seen as art.
 |
| "Fountain" - Marcel Duchamp |
"Generate ideas, no matter how wild or far-fetched, and enable new associations to be made in the gray matter of your brain." - Marcel Duchamp
No comments:
Post a Comment