Friday I went to see Water, currently on display at the Zimmerli Art Museum. Our group was led by the curator herself, Donna Gustafson who told us a little about how she set up the show, etc. When we first walked in, we were able to see an eye-catching piece by a New Hampshire artist entitled, "Ice and Ark." In this piece there was a net that hung from the ceiling, holding 300 bottles of luxury Berg water. The piece itself was meant to incorporate the environment, attacking the growing problem of global warming. I feel that the piece is very bold and a great choice for opening piece, but I feel that it may give gallery-goers the first impression that this show is entirely on global warming and environmental awareness.
The show consisted of many existing works that were borrowed from the gallery itself and also accepted from other galleries such as Princeton University. The gallery was divided up into sections such as Water in Landscape, Urban Water, Women in Waves/Men on Boats, etc. For each section, the curator chose pieces to fit into each category. Doing so, I felt, raised a curious question…if the curator groups pieces in a certain context, does that change the meaning of the piece itself? I continued and asked the curator if she tried to keep the artist's original interests at heart but she replied and told me that she did not know their original interests and set up the show according to her own interpretation. By doing so, is this violating the artist's artistic vision? I feel that in a sense we are overriding the artist's creativity by doing this. It is understandable that the curator could not possibly know the exact intent of each artist in the show but it is not exactly her right to change the artist's vision by giving pieces a specific classification. I don't think this would be so much of a question if the labels were eliminated. Towards the other end of the spectrum we could also ask: when an artist submits work to a gallery, to the hands of a curator, are certain rights to the work being forfeited? Regardless, the pieces stand on their own and don't need help from text. Classification, in this case, is problematic.
As we went through the gallery space, Gustafson mentioned that she set up the show in a specific order that when walked through a specific way, it completed her artistic vision. In my opinion, if she had not mentioned that, I would not have known. If the show was meant to be experienced in a specific way, it should have been made more apparent. One thing I thought was interesting about the setup was the decision to paint the walls. The paint consisted of different shades of blue. It is interesting because gallery walls are normally white, so I felt that this grounded the whole idea of expressing the idea of water in a way that we identify it unanimously.
The pieces themselves were all very interesting. One of my favorites was Iceberg II, Disko Bay, Greenland, 2004 by Lynn Davis, a black and white photograph. It was absolutely beautiful, showing us a side of nature that we don't normally have the opportunity to see. What's interesting to see was that the show was multi-faceted.It showed not only water, but also water in its solid form, people and water, and nature forms associated with water. The piece I felt that spoke the most, however, was in the latter part of the gallery, Piaus, 2006 by Atul Bhalla. This piece consisted of 20 color photos depicting the state of drinking water in urban areas. It was a very powerful piece because it makes the viewer more aware of an issue that may not have ever been questioned or fully contemplated. It breaks the mold of the common misconception of feelings that we experience when we hear the word water, showing us that there are places in the world in which people are forced to live the reality of having dirty and unhealthy water to drink on a daily basis.
Overall, I think Water has reached its goal of showing the viewer that we experience water on a day to day basis through many different ways. The brochure for water also mentions that the goal is for viewers to "immerse" themselves in water which is definitely accomplished and accentuated through the painting of the walls and artwork that surrounds the individual (sculpture from the ground up, installations from the ceiling and pieces hung at eye level around the gallery). There were many strong pieces in the show and it is something definitely worth seeing.
In my own curation…
If i was given the opportunity to curate the show, I would have combined the categories of work. I chose these 5 pieces specifically because they are not all featured on the wall but on the floor and from the ceiling as well. I feel like this aspect of the show would work more towards the concept of water and how it affects life. In a sense, water engulfs us. It is everywhere we look, stand and are (since we are filled with more than 75% water). By putting various instances of water together, we are linking them visually as well an conceptually.
My first choice would be the hanging installation by Ross Cisneros, Ice and Ark, 2009. It consists of a large fishing net filled with 300 bottles of luxury water. This piece is both memorable and very large as to attract viewers and induce importance upon the show. This piece would be followed by a colored woodcut entitled The Sea at Satta, Suruga Province by Ando Hiroshige. This woodcut shows an oceanic landscape that surrounds Mount Fuji. The focal point is a large wave that appears to be in the distance. I would show this piece in the beginning because people will be able to identify with the idea that it is a common representation of water. What makes the piece interesting is that it is a landscape from over seas and may not have been an ocean we would readily think of when asked to describe one. The third piece would be a black and white photo entitled Iceberg II, Disko Bay, Greenland, 2004 by Lynn Davis. The photo depicts a large iceberg that rests on a body of water. It is an interesting piece and would serve the purpose of showing a different source of obtaining water as well as representing water in its solid form. Following this piece would be a series of 20 photos by Atul Bhalla entitled Piaus, 2006. This piece, I feel, would be extremely important because it exploits the topic of "urban water." This piece is a typology that shows different water sources in urban areas that do not look particularly clean. Most of the plumbing looks out dated and appears to be falling apart. It is an important idea that needs to be instilled in the minds of the viewers because it is an issue that may not have been made known. The last piece in this series would be the piece by Maya Lin entitled Dew Point 18, 2007. It is an installation of blown glass that sits on the floor. Having these pieces together, in my opinion, would better connect the idea of water. These pieces may have different categories but are all connected by the common theme of water and should therefore be laid out in that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment