In the article titled
“Intervention, Interaction, and the Will to Preserve”, Glen Brown discusses the
politics of preservation and display in galleries and museums, and the practice
of museum intervention. The first few paragraphs in this article contain
sentences and phrases loaded with meaning, any of which could be discussed at
length in their own respective essays. In the first sentence, Brown brings to
our attention the “revisionism” that has come through museum galleries, which
challenge cohesiveness, and “ostensible objectivity” in display practices. By “ostensible
objectivity” he means outwardly appearing as intended to attain or accomplish
(in regards to the ways in which things are displayed).
Brown notes that in the West,
convention in museum galleries has brought about a recontextualization of
objects, which, in turn, brings about new meanings. This idea of
recontextualization is an interesting one in my opinion. If an artist creates a
piece specifically for a certain setting, say, in a gallery, that is the
context in which that piece was intended to exist. If the artist then took the
same piece, and placed it elsewhere, like in a museum very different from the
gallery, this is recontextualization, and it can still be just as interesting.
Now, if we take an object that was never meant to exist in the neutral space of
a gallery, and place it in a gallery, not only is the meaning of the object
changed, but we also may begin to question the gallery space itself.
I agree that it was really interesting to think about whether or not it is right for any and every object to make it's way into a gallery space. I think that most people would probably just say initially that placing a object into a museum would just give it a place to be actively looked at an appreciated as well as educate the viewer. But this article that this cannot happen if the object or gallery space is falsely appropriated. This actually kind of makes me understand why we struggle with displaying our work so often. It really does change everything, sometimes accomplishing things we had no intention for.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and find your explanation quite intriguing but it brings up a huge question, "Is this an ok thing to do"? Is it not the creator that decides the meaning behind their art, and if its changed is the ownership still the same?
ReplyDeleteWhile reading your response, I think of the Denver Art Museum. Specifically the installation called "Fox Games" by Sandy Skoglund. That piece looks like it is designed for the space as it interacts with the hidden niches underneath the stairs and contained in the corner of the gallery. The piece has been a permanent installation for quite some time. When looking at that piece with the red walls and path that walks the viewer through the chaos and into the abyss of red, this piece could be moved with the same layout. But everything would not feel the same. The location under the stairs helps contains the piece and somewhat makes the viewer sneak through the installation like they might wake up one of the foxes if they were too loud. In an open room with no stairs, I wouldn't feel that that same impression.
ReplyDeleteIt also raises the question that if a piece was intended for one gallery, is it compromising the piece to be moved to another gallery? I agree with Logan that it reflects on the ethics behind making a piece of art as well as sticking to the artist's intention.