While George Ciscle's project with the students was a rigorous endeavor and surely a success, I was most interested in Ciscle's discussion of Fred Wilson. The artifacts he highlighted spoke for themselves, but his arrangement of them was truly gut-wrenching. His purpose was clear, but it did not seem as though it was beat into the ground. It was a very effective means of both reflecting two vastly different cultures living side-by-side, and taking a blow at the horrible tendency of the museum to reflect one facet of history and label it as though it is all-encompassing.
I feel that if artists had their way with artifacts more often--as long as it was very carefully researched--"museums" would be far more interesting and insightful. Viewers would be more engaged and museums would function to put forth ideas to be considered rather than presenting chronological or categorical moments in time. Then again, I'm really not a museum-goer.
I found George Ciscle’s talk very interesting, especially the parts concerning his work with Fred Wilson. One reason that Wilson’s work resonated with me is that I have often thought about how limiting it is to display artwork in a museum or gallery, not because of the standards of the curatorial process, as Wilson is clearly considering, but because these are not spaces we live in, but instead have a sort of emptiness to them. However, this emptiness allows for a lot of freedom, too. It’s this fundamental emptiness of museums as spaces that allows Wilson to play as he does with arranging objects. The manner of curation is less malleable, however, and this is why his work is such a striking critique of the museum.
In my own work I see myself simply working within the limitations of the gallery, quietly accepting them, trying to make them work for my own purposes, rather than overtly critiquing them. This is something I have considered though—I want my work to be lived, not just seen in a “neutral” space. In other words, I’m not sure that my work necessarily belongs in a gallery, which is a conversation that I had with Mike a while ago.
The funny thing is that I feel the same way about most of the objects in museums. They’re not touched, not used—the chairs just sit and are not sat in. Not being able to use the only-looked-upon objects has killed them in a way. They have no more life. Wilson’s work doesn’t give the objects a new life in the present, but his juxtapositions energize their past lives. A beautiful chair is not just a beautiful chair when it is placed next to a whipping post. Wilson’s activating the past, calling forward the past lives of objects and also pointing out how we view them based on their context.
My last comment is more what I see in Mike’s work rather than my own, so feel free to disagree or respond. Last night when Mike said he related to George Ciscle’s position as a curator and museum founder, I definitely could see that. Ciscle is an organizer, a facilitator, someone bringing people together, helping them to the resources they need to make a larger effort happen. The art in Mike’s work is that he’s bringing people together, he’s community building. Or at least that’s where I see the art in it. But Mike’s work is also like Wilson’s because he’s the one with the idea and the vision of what he wants to say specifically about the shortcomings of our education system. Just as Wilson is using the limitations of the museum to critique the museum, Mike is using the limitations of the school’s administration and institutions to critique that same learning institution. Both are making things change.
While George Ciscle's project with the students was a rigorous endeavor and surely a success, I was most interested in Ciscle's discussion of Fred Wilson. The artifacts he highlighted spoke for themselves, but his arrangement of them was truly gut-wrenching. His purpose was clear, but it did not seem as though it was beat into the ground. It was a very effective means of both reflecting two vastly different cultures living side-by-side, and taking a blow at the horrible tendency of the museum to reflect one facet of history and label it as though it is all-encompassing.
ReplyDeleteI feel that if artists had their way with artifacts more often--as long as it was very carefully researched--"museums" would be far more interesting and insightful. Viewers would be more engaged and museums would function to put forth ideas to be considered rather than presenting chronological or categorical moments in time. Then again, I'm really not a museum-goer.
I found George Ciscle’s talk very interesting, especially the parts concerning his work with Fred Wilson. One reason that Wilson’s work resonated with me is that I have often thought about how limiting it is to display artwork in a museum or gallery, not because of the standards of the curatorial process, as Wilson is clearly considering, but because these are not spaces we live in, but instead have a sort of emptiness to them. However, this emptiness allows for a lot of freedom, too. It’s this fundamental emptiness of museums as spaces that allows Wilson to play as he does with arranging objects. The manner of curation is less malleable, however, and this is why his work is such a striking critique of the museum.
ReplyDeleteIn my own work I see myself simply working within the limitations of the gallery, quietly accepting them, trying to make them work for my own purposes, rather than overtly critiquing them. This is something I have considered though—I want my work to be lived, not just seen in a “neutral” space. In other words, I’m not sure that my work necessarily belongs in a gallery, which is a conversation that I had with Mike a while ago.
The funny thing is that I feel the same way about most of the objects in museums. They’re not touched, not used—the chairs just sit and are not sat in. Not being able to use the only-looked-upon objects has killed them in a way. They have no more life. Wilson’s work doesn’t give the objects a new life in the present, but his juxtapositions energize their past lives. A beautiful chair is not just a beautiful chair when it is placed next to a whipping post. Wilson’s activating the past, calling forward the past lives of objects and also pointing out how we view them based on their context.
My last comment is more what I see in Mike’s work rather than my own, so feel free to disagree or respond. Last night when Mike said he related to George Ciscle’s position as a curator and museum founder, I definitely could see that. Ciscle is an organizer, a facilitator, someone bringing people together, helping them to the resources they need to make a larger effort happen. The art in Mike’s work is that he’s bringing people together, he’s community building. Or at least that’s where I see the art in it. But Mike’s work is also like Wilson’s because he’s the one with the idea and the vision of what he wants to say specifically about the shortcomings of our education system. Just as Wilson is using the limitations of the museum to critique the museum, Mike is using the limitations of the school’s administration and institutions to critique that same learning institution. Both are making things change.