The exhibition that requires our attention is the one at the Sculpture Center named is In Practice: Fantasy Can Invent Nothing New. Considering the somewhat large name and the game of words in it one would expect to find something exceptional despite the negation at the end of the name. However, this is turns out to be a reference to a lecture made by Freud, where he states that the creative process only facilitates the regrouping of already existing elements into a new perception.
Despite the high level of expectation this exhibition did not deliver. Most importantly as it was not clear what the artist wanted to say. It was difficult to make out some works what they were and what each piece in the whole picture meant. Therefore, it was difficult to assess and analyze what has been seen. From start it is best to discuss the curatorial decisions on the presentation and layout of the whole exhibition. What was good on the part of the curators is that the exhibition was distributed on two levels in terms of flooring, with the main part being in the basement. This is a great idea that somehow tunes the visitors to the idea of depth and hidden meaning of each presented piece.
However, the basement has narrow pathways making it difficult to move around or to pass someone or simply let someone through. What is even worse is that you cannot have a look at the art piece from afar and assess it as one whole piece, plunge into it and try to understand the meaning of what the artist was trying to say. You come close up to the piece and cannot see what the artist did want to say. Though, the curators did try to put some space between the exhibits this did not work out. If one rather large corridor has only three or four exhibits that would make us work out in walking instead of enjoying art. The walls were left in the building’s natural tone and nothing was done to cover up the bare brick and stone of the building foundation. Sometimes it makes you think that you’re in a dungeon, but then where were the knights and shining armor, or the gates of a jail. There is a significant amount of conflict in terms of the choice of the location.
As part of this analysis, it is impossible to review in detail all the work seen at the exhibition. To identify the main principles of the exposition of the art exhibition, to understand the variety of forms of exhibition activities, it seems important to classify the exhibition by the following criteria: by type of exhibition space, the type of the exhibited material, the nature of the exhibitors, features, aims and objectives of the exhibition as an event.
It is best to start the classification from types of exhibition spaces this a private art gallery facility, centers of contemporary art, culture and design (located in the premises of either a former factory hall, warehouses or garage). According to the type of the exhibited material classification this exhibitions is about the world contemporary art, which can be divided into traditionally conceptual and with multimedia inserts.
It was difficult to understand the artists’ conception and what the author was trying to say. Only after reading the wall pieces (description of the exhibit) things start to bright up a little. However, again the curators have arranged everything so that it is difficult to even find these descriptions and one has to either Google (where there is not much information on this particular exhibition), look up the brochure or even ask for a curator to explain, only to find the latter bringing you to a description of the piece around a corner or someplace hidden where no one would find it. This seemed slightly off and unprofessional. People pay money to attend these exhibitions and venues and expect to get what it is worth. I have seen people discontent and disappointed with this experience. Nonetheless for us it was important to actually understand what the authors’ were trying to say. What their message to the viewer is and whether it corresponds to the perception of the art piece that we actually did have.
Each artist who exhibited his / her works offers us an insight on various fantastic settings which differ by means of distinct material and conceptual approaches. The works of three artists did stand out and it would be a crime not to analyze their works, the perception of which was quite clear and understandable. If the viewer has understood the concept the author, artist, sculptor, painter and the like have attempted to convey than the art piece is a success no matter if it is popular or not. Chuke presented a historic piece describing our evolution and development. Ford depicted something resembling fan fiction based around desire, admiration and adoration. Whereas Meredith James present us with an image of split reality that shreds time.
One might think that this is all the information about these art pieces we are able to provide, but they have so much more to tell. If the retrospective of our development and trade into the reversing decades by Chuke and the mirrored altered perception of Meredith James speak words about the development and how time passes by us are interconnected around the same topic of time. Ford has created somewhat totally different. His work stands out by its concept alone as no other exhibit has attempted anything as close. The polyptych made of Plexiglas is an erotic encounter between two figures bearing close resemblance to Rihanna and Beyonce. The artist has made an enigmatic narrative of song lyrics, interview and personal conversations, bringing in also various symbols as of angels, Statue of Liberty and many other unattainable objects. His work shows how one can react to the unreachable, to the almost forbidden and out of reach. However, he nonetheless tries to reach out and grab what he wants.
Chuke has provided us with a retrospective time voyage through mappings of trade routes, oceanic imagery and even the religious topics of Christ resurrection and symbol of Independence in the face of our Statue of Liberty. He shows us the very impact man has on the surrounding in his attempts to build an empire of mass production and consumation. The only resemblance this art piece has to the installation of James is time. She has worked hard to achieve what she did as her concept seems to be the most unrealistic from all of the art pieces presented at the exhibition. By means of using two opposite walls where the walkway is narrow and having inserted a wall partition James presents her vision of altered reality perception. We can at once see scenographic dioramas appear doubling but at the same time different through architecture and light. If one is to think about it the two mirrors denote the different moments in time of one and the same location with a change of physical appearance and ageing.
The exhibition all in all was not a fail, however certain moments did cause concern ad may times visitors wanted to simply leave despite the paid entrance fee. In general this was not the issue with the authors and the art pieces, but more of an organization problem as the curators did not work their best to interest the people, to tell the people the story and make them want to see all of the exhibits. What was seen at the exhibition is highly conceptual and not everything is clear and understandable. This makes the exhibition slightly more mysterious and desirable in terms of attendance and seeing the unknown. If some art pieces have been made rather sloppily (from my point of view), others have a great concept behind them that provokes thinking and thus enjoying the whole tour.
Bibliography
Dekalo, Olga. Curator’ Preface: In Practice: Fantasy Can Invent Nothing New. Sculpture Center. 2016. Retrieved from http://www.sculpture-center.org/exhibitionsExhibition.htm?id=113235
Osborne, Peter. Conceptual art. New York: Phaidon Press, 2011.
Smith, Terry. Thinking contemporary curating. New York, NY: Independent Curators International, 2012.
