Charles Esche was at the forefront of developing new institutional strategies that moved art into an active social engagement with the spectator. In this process, new institutionalism adopted the corporate vernacular of industries such as media, corporate culture, and science. Eschew advocated the new institutional spaces "have to be part community center, part-laboratory, and part academy, with less need for the intended showroom function. Descriptions of this work are peppered with phrasing such as "construction site," "laboratory," discussion platform," "distribution channel," and "think tank."
Claire Doherty responds to these strategies by asking, "If the exhibitions and projects which have emerged from this discourse (particularly those in Europe) mimic the experience economy of the real world does this lead to yet more coded patterns of behavior for visitors rather than potentially surprising or liberating points of engagement."
Discuss how the adoption of Esche's new institutional;l strategies for engagement are altering the contemporary spectators (and your own) experience of "the exhibition." Compare Esche's and Doherty's positions on the topic and offer your own thoughts on ways these approaches impact the roles of the curator and artist by providing both exciting new possibilities and also potential pitfalls.
In your discussion consider the final quote in the book by Jacques Ranciere: "The fundamental question is to explore the possibility of maintaining spaces of play. To discover how to produce forms for the presentation of objects, forms for the organization of spaces, that thwart expectations. The main enemy of artistic creativity as well as of political creativity is consensus - that is, inscription within given roles, possibilities, and competencies"
2 paragraphs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWords like unpredictable, open-ended, or experimental get attached to institutions in order to keep a flux capacity instead of a fixed identity. Doherty is concerned with an institutions becoming stagnant and complacent with art and never growing. Esche believes the institution model should be ever changing.
ReplyDeleteWith this “advanced capitalism,” the patterns are already encoded, it’s almost like a language that we can all speak. In that language, the artist and curator can break preconceived notions with more accuracy. And the main difference is that these exhibitions are not trying to monetize it’s views. Like Carsten Holler’s Experience, it is for an experience outside of the confines of this typical experience.
I believe that art changes and institutions should be sensitive to that and be flexible enough to accommodate anything. Curators must be aware of what is new and exciting. The mission must have a flux philosophy of this sort.
Your last paragraph is a provocation or challenge you are putting forth to institutions and curators. Do artists have a responsibility in this equation (beyond the obvious response - "make groundbreaking work")?
DeleteI believe these exhibitions can be successful depending on how the space is laid out. The spectator enters the space and immediately begins to look for cues. I think the space's success depends on how viewers are able to interpret the space.
ReplyDeleteThe less obvious the intended behavior in the space is the more likely it is to become a space of play. You must be careful not to get an automated response.
For Esche, he believes in the purpose of New Institutionalism since it ultimate phenomenological space for the discussion of the demands of spectators and artists but he suggests that there needs to be an institutional change and this change could only happen when there is both laboratory which is working space and the academy which is the space for acquiring knowledge, all as unified content of art in an institution where as Clair Odoherty is coming from the perspective where art particularly contemporary context of art is supposed to surprise the spectators and activate a kind of interactive condition for the spectators but then she tends to be curious about the role of this ideology in terms of its ideas driven by the desire for economic improvement and demands of spectators and how this effectuates engagement in an exhibition space.
ReplyDeleteThe final quote of Jacques Ranciere is a critical apparatus for the consideration of political aesthetics in the process of producing art. The artist needs to influence the space with his or her art where the display of the object then becomes a critical decision to take. The challenging part is how to make all these agreements come together and that is an artistic creativity but sometimes, it becomes difficult to achieve this in the production of artwork. It takes time and critical thinking to succeed in such expectations.
"...it becomes difficult to achieve this in the production of artwork..." is understandable in terms of some of the ideas Voorhies is discussing. However, what if the artist is thinking about the exhibition as form as he/she produces projects comprising the exhibition (maybe it makes the process a little easier)?
DeleteThanks to Esche and his contemporaries museums are no longer just places for viewing objects. Instead they think of themselves in terms of audience engagement. Exhibitions employ symposiums, lectures, art making activities, and more in order to satisfy the viewer and become communal spaces.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, this attempt to engage the audience arose at the same time as the corporate experience economy. Which leads to selfie exhibitions, and carefully scripted TED-like talks. While these events draw visitors it’s possible their prescriptive modality lessens spontaneous and creative thought. However, I would argue that these attempts at incorporating new institutionalism are no more prescriptive than the white cube. Therefore they should not truly stifle serious engagement and creative thought. If they bring a sense of play to the museum, perhaps, that simply makes the environment less intimidating and more approachable.
I like that argument. It is optimistic. Hopefully every museum and gallery staff has people talking about these conditions and making these comparisons (artists obviously can remind people about this as well through their activities and levels of engagement).
DeleteI think it is nice to use these strategies to make the institution more approachable for the spectators. I believe there is always an up and down in styles or strategies. I think the idea of art has become fixated to conceptual art in the minds of the general public and less and fewer people bring their family to the gallery because they do not expect to see anything they can understand. In my opinion, this is why the new institutional strategies are popular right now because the museum or galleries need to bring back their audiences. Maybe one day, audiences will be fed-up by visiting this kind of museums space and that will cause new strategies to come in.
ReplyDeleteAs for right now, I think it is important for my work to be part of this “participatory art” flow. I can envision my work to incorporate technologies in some ways and I think allowing the spectators to have a more active role in my work can create larger effects.
Is it the job of institutions to make audiences understand? Should exhibitions be completely understandable? Can someone enjoy an artwork without completely understanding it?
ReplyDeleteVoorhies is actually advocating "dissensus" not consensus in museum audiences? What do you think of his view on this? Do you feel that participatory art offers a kind of "hands-on" entry point to art that reveals a certain kind of understandability?