Have you ever noticed how some exhibits in the USA feel limited, lifeless? This goes to say, every artwork may fall within a—sometimes quite—limited parameter. Perhaps it’s a group show and the theme is “Water.” This might include lakes, rivers, oceans. Perhaps visitors may note that all the works are similar in size. Maybe even the palettes contribute to a harmonious whole. No funny red rivers, dribbles or bathroom sinks on display in this show.
Or a group exhibit of landscapes may be hung very tidily: all works about the same size, all work done in similar mediums, specifications on framing quite exact, lighting egalitarian so all receive equal attention. Looks fine, but….
Sometimes this works to keep audiences pleasantly entertained, yet I do not believe it needs be the only way to stage an exhibit.
Curators, those that select show pieces and exhibit themes, naturally seem to prefer something fixed to grasp, hang onto or circle around. A retrospective or solo show can be quite illuminating. Or not. Depending on how it’s curated. Often only one period of well-known work is featured, eliminating any stumbles, diversions and questionable pieces every creative person produces. Though this might have common appeal, it doesn’t always produce a thrilling experience or illuminate.
I want more fun. I want to learn. I want expanded range in a solo show. I want to see everything possible without censorship on style or merit. I want to use my own critical thinking skills and encourage those skills in other visitors. And especially in a group show, I want to see mixed curatorial choices that jar my sensibilities, wake me up, allow me to see what each artist is saying and when.
But hey! I just learned that PDXOS (Portland Open Studios, http://portlandopenstudios.com)
staged a one-day exhibit mixing up their 2016 participating artists. Thank you PDXOS and I hope to see much more of this sort of mingling.
Or a group exhibit of landscapes may be hung very tidily: all works about the same size, all work done in similar mediums, specifications on framing quite exact, lighting egalitarian so all receive equal attention. Looks fine, but….
Sometimes this works to keep audiences pleasantly entertained, yet I do not believe it needs be the only way to stage an exhibit.
Curators, those that select show pieces and exhibit themes, naturally seem to prefer something fixed to grasp, hang onto or circle around. A retrospective or solo show can be quite illuminating. Or not. Depending on how it’s curated. Often only one period of well-known work is featured, eliminating any stumbles, diversions and questionable pieces every creative person produces. Though this might have common appeal, it doesn’t always produce a thrilling experience or illuminate.
I want more fun. I want to learn. I want expanded range in a solo show. I want to see everything possible without censorship on style or merit. I want to use my own critical thinking skills and encourage those skills in other visitors. And especially in a group show, I want to see mixed curatorial choices that jar my sensibilities, wake me up, allow me to see what each artist is saying and when.
But hey! I just learned that PDXOS (Portland Open Studios, http://portlandopenstudios.com)
staged a one-day exhibit mixing up their 2016 participating artists. Thank you PDXOS and I hope to see much more of this sort of mingling.