▲ 47 points
back
16 comments
I would like to see an art gallery where the surfaces were treated with Vantablack. I think it would further enhance the experience by effectively disallowing the eye to focus on anything but the work in question.
It might be a tiny bit expensive though.
Expensive both in material and then again in the inevitable Anish Kapoor lawsuit: http://hyperallergic.com/279243/anish-kapoor-gets-exclusive-...
It's an interesting question though, as I would think that the use of Vantablack in the gallery itself would be a structural use, which limits Kapoor's rights. It's not being used in an artistic work directly, it's being used to highlight other artistic works. In fact, it would be about the only place Kapoor couldn't show any of his theoretical Vantablack work (to my knowledge, he has yet to exercise his Vantablack exclusivity rights). It wouldn't register as existing.
Probably not a good idea:
"Vantablack surface is easily damaged by any direct impact or abrasion". From [1]. People would be touching the walls all the time.
There are cheaper very black alternatives. Even flat black paint and controlled lighting could be a starting point to try it out.
I went to the moma once. Something about it was bothering me the whole day. I finally realized it was mismatch of the intense sterility (white cube rooms) of the musuem itself, against the art (which is especially full of character at the moma).
I think the works on display there would benefit from a more appropriate environment.
Well that's kind of like going to a library and complaining that nobody wants to chat. Art goes to the MoMA specifically to be "taken out of the world" and isolated.
I think it's more like going to a zoo and complaining that it's not a safari.
Logistically, it makes sense to sometimes put up with the artificiality of a zoo, but I think it's the superior option to appreciate animals in their natural context when you have the option :)
I think the works on display there would benefit from a more appropriate environment.
Problem is that creating such environment for each individual piece, or set of pieces, is itself sort of an art. I've indeed seen paintings on a white background which was just way too much brightness to my liking, making it hard to focus on the work. I've also seen paintings on a black wall which made the entire thing look dull (possibly because of badly positioned spots as well). I've seen paintings for which background didn't seem to matter. I usually don't really like what churches look like but Caravaggio's stuff fits well in them, imo. I went to a small exhibition in a forest once which because of the style of the paintings made all kinds of sense. Etc.
Arguably the only one who can tell what the proper environment would be, is the original artist.
Or maybe the idea is for the environment to be neutral, to highlight the works?
Many years ago I met Ted Carter, owner of the Carter Gallery at 560 Broadway in New York and was pleasantly shocked by the walls there. They were a neutral grey - and fabric! It was an amazing way to see the art and nothing else . . .
Any ideas as to what might be more appropriate, without being distracting?
You might be excited by smaller galleries hosting installation rotating artists then. These spaces are more unique and have artists building to complement the specific sites.
The art wasn't created in a depthless, contrastless, colorless hospital room and it shouldn't be viewed in such.
Sculpture and video art are often shown in more interesting settings. For example, at MOCA in Los Angeles:
http://www.moca.org/exhibition/hito-steyerl-factory-of-the-s... http://www.moca.org/exhibition/mickalene-thomas-do-i-look-li... http://www.moca.org/exhibition/rickowensfurniture
And at LACMA, Five Car Stud was memorable:
http://www.newmuseum.org/blog/view/five-car-stud-still-gripp...
I suppose that in these examples, the display setting is simply part of the work.
That picture of the Louvre looks like my twitter feed.