I went to the Cold War Modern Design 1945 – 1970 exhibition at the V&A last week, followed by The Saatchi Gallery. I just want to express the differences in Curation between the two exhibitions. The Cold War Modern is an exhibition of art and design made just after the Second World War to the mid 1970’s. It showcases the way in which art and design played a central role in representing and also challenging the dominant social and political ideas of the age. I feel the Curation of the exhibition was very well thought about. There was a huge amount of quantity and variety of media on show in a number of different rooms. I felt engaged in the exhibition the whole time and never felt exhausted or overwhelmed by the amount of things to look at. I feel the exhibition was successful for a number of reasons. Firstly the space wasn’t a stark white canvas, which is the format in a lot of galleries. It was softly lit similar to some museum exhibitions. This made the space easy on the eye and comforting to walk around. Secondly the wide variety of displays, from design objects to video to objects in boxes and large-scale models and sculptures helped to break up the space and made the rooms more interesting. Lastly there was a limited amount of text in each room with a to the point explanation of each area as you entered the room. This meant that you weren’t inundated with long-winded text about everything and you where free to take in the work yourself. Their where items of text with specific facts and explanations but you could walk around and understand the exhibition without reading everything. These things made for a good experience and were extremely successful in showcasing the theme of the exhibition.
I next went to see the Saatchi gallery in Sloane Square. The work there was by young artists from all over the world who are generally unknown in the UK and internationally known artists who rarely or have never exhibited in the UK before. The work there was very interesting with a range of installation, painting and sculpture, which was all hugely varied. The work itself was amazing but the space it was in made looking around quite exhausting. There are around 14 different rooms in the gallery all of which are white walled and wood floored. None of the work had much more than a title next to it, which I liked because I prefer to make my own opinion of the work first before reading what the artist has said about it. So without walking round with the gallery catalogue which contained all the blurbs abut each artist and there work you where free to look at the work yourself and draw out your own meaning. The work was a lot more intellectual and made you think more than the exhibition at the V&A. This as well as the stark spaces the work was in resulted in my exhaustion. I enjoyed being able to come my own conclusions about the work and taking time to think about it but I feel the space kept you constantly on edge and unable to relax as your eyes where never comfortable in the harsh white space. This is where I feel that the Cold War Modern exhibition was more successful curatoraly as because the thought about the background to the work as much as the work itself. This meant that even walking round and seeing a large amount of work at one time didn’t feel draining on the mind or exhausting on the eye like the Saatchi exhibition was. I t me a lot more aware of the importance of curation and not only where the work is displayed but also the scene or background it is placed into.
3 comments:
i went to see the cold war modern design exhibition a couple of months ago and i agree it was great! it really brought out my inner nerd as i really love so much about that period, science fiction, the space race and the design. i was so excited to see a messerschmitt scooter and a cosmonaut's suit that had been on a space walk! i agree with owen, there was a lot of information available so you could get as much background as you needed but it was fairly easy to follow and enjoy without having to do too much reading and i liked the way it was organised into categories relevant to the period and how the western and soviet products, films, propoganda and posters etc were set up so you could directly compare their differences and similarities.
another good exhibition is darwin:big idea at the natural history museum, next year is the 200th anniversary of charles darwin's birth so there's going to be a lot on about him and the nhm are going all out with the opening of darwin centre 2 and this exhibition. i come from a scientific background and i'm a big fan of darwin and took 2 similarly minded friends to see it, but even we were overwhelmed by the amount of exhibits and information that you had to read and became a bit bored. it goes into such depth into every aspect of his life, you feel a bit of editing would have been useful. also because a lot of the exhibits were his original documents the lighting was very low, which was very bad to view them under so it wasn't a great combination. It's a shame because on the plus side there's some really amazing important stuff in there and it's nicely set out and they've decorated the galleries in nice complimentary colours.
If you ever get a chance to hear Colin Wigins (Acting head of Education at the National Gallery) talk on this subject do. He has very strong feelings about it, and to say that he hates Tate Modern for it might be a bit strong, but not far off.
Yes the National Gallery's collection is of a different era and the use of coloured fabric background is more in keeping with the traditional environment that the pictures might have been intended for. Yet, when the last Associate Artist - Alison Watts (the seventh Assoc' Artist)- had her exhibition last year they payed special attention to the background that these paintings would be hung on.
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/exhibitions/alisonwatt/slideshow/default.htm
Annoyingly the pictures here imply that the background was this dark red, but in actuality the background was much closer to the grey of the exhibition title 'PHANTOM'
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/exhibitions/alisonwatt/default.htm
contains links to video of her working.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/mar/16/art19
has a brief review and a video link.
One striking thing is the 'points of entry' (or even intrigue) where the (painted) folds of fabric create a bottomless/un-seeable realm which you know to exist, reminiscent of Doris Salcedo's "Crack" (Shibboleth) in Tate Modern 2007-2008. http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/dorissalcedo/default.shtm
[Note how collectively through the media etc. we've taken this work by a female Colombian(non-european 'non-white') artist about 'a long legacy of racism and colonialism that underlies the modern world' and given it a somewhat (if not highly) derogatory over familiar nickname. My memory of press coverage was more to do with 'how was it made' rather than what was it about.
This is very much off topic apologies - although the Health&Safety aspect of handing out a leaflet to every visitor seemed like a curatorial nightmare. see Martha Rosler 'Decoys and Disruptions' 2004 for further reading on ideology/media/the female. Specifically 'For an art against the mythology of everyday life'1979- pp 3-8 (most of it can be read on google books) ]
Tate moderns use of white is surely for its perceived neutrality (controversial), but even where Modern art is concerned (white and Modernism?) this creates an issue. Especially where colour is used creating an 'edge' at the point the canvas meets the wall on which it is hung....although this should maybe read 'in front' of which it is hung. (Jules Olitski 'Painting in Colour' 1966, p134 in David Batchelors 'COLOUR' (part of the excellent series 'Documents of contemporary Art' of which 'Participation' by Claire Bishop is also one (reading list)) published by Whitechapel.
Tate Modern (with regard to background for hanging work in front of) has from its outset been sympathetic to one artist, namely Mark Rothko... see the Rothko Room http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue7/rothko.htm
and until 1st February the Rothko exhibition where the eight paintings from the Rothko Room are hung with their sister paintings from the 'Seagram group' works. Although this larger space is less contemplative and quite and more meeting area.
http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/markrothko/roomguide/room3.shtm
yes, i remember the alison watts exhibition at the national gallery and do remember the grey of the walls and thinking what a refreshing change it made to the usual starkness of a white wall or the heavy colours that you usually see in the national gallery. i seem to have become a bit obsessed with what colours galleries paint their walls! i think i even mentioned it in my evaluation as a for instance! but it's something that can make a difference, or rather if done wrong or unthinkingly makes a glaring difference and can spoil things.
yes, it's definitely a controversial but widely accepted statement that white is a neutral colour. looking at a white surface causes strain on your eyes after a while and in a gallery context flipping between white and coloured artwork causes the lens in your eye to be dilating and contracting constantly and is very wearing. david batchelor is the man to ask about all things colour theory and his book chromophobia has a lot to say about the case against white.
interesting side point about the "crack" i hadn't thought about that. i was going up the escalators whilst it was on and there was a french man talking to his friend behind me and he said "yes, i like zeese crack. it is zee best crack i ave ever seen" (apologies for straying into allo allo comedy foreigner territory) but i thought it was hilarious at the time. i think he was being sarcastic
Post a Comment