The best way of considering art may be the amount that it leaves you changed but discovering this is difficult and may take some time. An easier metric is measuring the amount of time that it holds the attention. This has its own difficulties and is easily detracted from by setting or personal state- temperature, companions, energy, hunger, etc. The criticism that galleries tend to receive seems to ignore the ways that they can offset this.
Recently, I spent a long time in the Kasmin gallery looking at the Ciao Fonesca exhibit especially at the smaller, sister gallery a few doors down. From the corner, I shifted my glance every few minutes to the next painting. Whatever thoughts I had on the second might switch me back to the first or the third. After tiring of this, I moved to an adjacent corner, and looked another set of paintings, comparing them individually, together, and with some of the first set.
I often hear criticisms about the need to get art out of galleries- since they are too sterile, white, unnatural, elitist, etc. This seems to be by people who need to reinvent art more than create it. The gallery is the only chance that most people have to see multiple original works by the same artist at the same time- to see how they relate.
The works reinvigorate each other. It is difficult to continue to stare at a single painting- the majority of the time it is harder to do so for more than a few minutes. But it isn't so difficult to repeat these minutes if you look at related works inbetween.
Galleries can be viewed as elitist. It's hard not to be distracted by the people selling, viewing, buying, or creating the art or the prices. But I see many people in the galleries with their friends and classmates examining and discussing pieces. They aren't buying anything or showing off, they are friendly, and they point out works they like.
No comments:
Post a Comment