On page 82 Voorhies discusses how Szeemann's initial proposal for Documenta 5 was to augment the event-like quality of the exhibition by evacuating altogether the interiors of the Museum Fridericianum and Neue Galerie and turning the entire city of Kassel into a backdrop of mis-en-scene, for the exhibition.
Szeemann declared in his goals for Documenta 5: "The slogan of the last two documentas, "100-Day Museum" is to be replaced with "The 100-Day Event." The term "museum" and "art" imply the idea of viewing objects and material property, then confirming, transporting, and insuring the goods. In contrast for documenta 5 we can expect that all the events will be prepared and staged at Kassel, and that the organization will focus on projecting events rather than judging or transporting objects. documents 5 is not, in the first instance, a place for a static accumulation of objects, but a process of events that refer to one another. This concept is essentially didactic."
How does the implication of the city as a context for art compare to the museum(s) as the context in the instance of Documenta? More broadly how does a site-specific citywide exhibition vs. a museum white cube exhibition differently impact the viewer(?), the city(?), and artist(?). How do these two approaches impact exhibition planning, creative decisions, the community/audience, and exhibition outcomes/impacts.
On page 92, paragraph 2, Voorhies questions and compares the roles of the artist, curator, and institution in framing or producing the critical insights or critical voices for exhibitions. What are your thoughts on the hierarchies and/or distribution of work between these three agents in the production of exhibitions? Do you agree with Szeemann(?), Smithson(?), or maybe Bourriaud's ideas(?)... or other curators or artists approaches in the text? State your philosophy.
Discuss these ideas in at least 3 paragraphs.
Using the city as a backdrop for an art event instead of a gallery makes sense if you view a gallery as a “static accumulation of objects”. Putting up a tent outside is a temporary static accumulation of objects. The outside space allowed the curator to bring in larger works that would not make it into the building which has its benefits. These works would have to be able to withstand weather. Having work outside a building eliminates most video art, works on paper, it affects sound art, and there is no control of light. Having all the art in one central location would allow people to easily find the art, and give them a comfortable place to view it. Disrupted esthetic norm by using the norm of the white cube to an advantage is more interesting to me. Having unusual art in an unusual place has a double negative effect to it.
ReplyDeleteGillick's approach of creating an esthetic within a gallery space that feels and functions as a completely different kind of space with a different kind of function appeals to me. I have been talking to Sue Montoya about doing a performance in the attic of the 4most that will hopefully capture an experience different that what will be expected.
Bourriaud's idea of "learning to inhabit the world in a better way" is in line with the idea that artists are able to break the historical context of the gallery while still working within it's walls.
Your response in paragraph one is interesting in its pragmatism. We need to protect the art. Yes. I also like this statement, "Having unusual art in an unusual place has a double negative effect to it." because it leaves me wondering whether the "unusual space" is the museum or the city as a context...? I think your point is that the city is an unusual context but then I start the think many people are more "used to" walking around in the public realm. Hmmm.
DeleteHarald Szeeman, a curator as artist has inspired numerous curators to think as artists. His curatorial strategy forms part of the discourse of both institutional critique and new institutionalism. I’m interested in the form of exhibition Documenta 5, “Questioning Reality-Image Worlds Today” as determining the way art should be experienced within the community where he made the exhibition happen outside and inside the gallery space questioning our perception of images and objects in the context of everyday life, categorizing spaces according to idiosyncratic values in terms religion, politics and commercial interest.
ReplyDeleteSzeeman had a concrete structure for his exhibition as curatorial strategy and his decision then became the ultimate discursive phenomenon, he became the idea producer inspiring artists to create work for show. The exhibition “when attitude becomes form” altered both the museum and the town and consciously shaped the spectators’ conception of art, for instance the work of Michael Heizer smashing the sidewalk outside the museum and Jan Dibbets who dug the corner of the building to disclose their foundations. The artists were asked to come to the city without any material but their mind. The city became their immediate source of material informing the artists to create work. I am fascinated by the fact that he incorporated a lot of artists working in the context of Arte Povera such as whose practices sought to challenge the commercial art market.
There is an intermediate relationship between the curator and the artist; the curator needs the artist whereas the artist also needs the curator. Artists produce works for historians, critics and curators to write about them and coin theories around such as Process Art, Institutional Critique, and Relational Aesthetic or even Minimalism.
Like Robert Smithson, artists tried to counter the ideal autonomy and the self importance of the white cube space perceived as totalitarian monopolist. They then initiated the idea of site specificity making exhibition outside the gallery. For me I think that site specific exhibitions achieve similar interaction by spectators as within the gallery space. It depends on the thoughts of the artist. There would probably be a unique reason why some artists even choose to perform outside or inside the gallery depending on the theme and what category or target group of spectators their aim to achieve. I believe that in some instances for site specific exhibitions, spectators are freed to experience work without going through institutional normative disciplines
good comments.
DeleteThe gallery space with its windowless white walls and cube-like architecture structure gives spectators a sense of forbidding while entering it. The white cute detach the spectators from the outside world and add power to the artworks within it. The atmosphere within the white cute makes spectators act in certain ways. The white cube also separates people who enter it from those who don’t.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of using a site-specific city-wide exhibition allow the spectators to break the concrete expectation of what an exhibition suppose to be like. People are free from the illusion created and forced on them by the white cube.
I agree with Bourriaud's relational aesthetic where the line between spectators and artists blur. Spectators have played an important role in the art world and I think engaging them in a more active way can give people a different impression of the exhibition space.
When you say, "The idea of using a site-specific city-wide exhibition allow the spectators to break the concrete expectation of what an exhibition suppose to be like. People are free from the illusion created and forced on them by the white cube. " What are your thoughts about the way(s) the new context of the public sphere or the city shapes viewers relationship with the art?
ReplyDelete