I thought about doing this post in September, but the Barnes Foundation (may it rest in peace!) helped to bring it to completion. I had been thinking about ways to display art, but I could only think of a few ways. Art museums I'd been to typically had their collections arranged by art style (ex. Abstract) or format (ex. portrait gallery) and geographic location created (continental, then broken down from there), often with rooms as well dedicated to artists, medium, and time period (being different art styles from the same time period shown in contrast). Besides that, the only "unique" arrangement I'd ever heard of was the Vatican Museum organizing some of its rooms based on collector; that is, rooms filled with art collected by certain popes.
I'm certain that there have to be more options to display art than that--perhaps by content (ex. boys and their dogs), political message (ex. the king is a dolt), or historical relevance (ex. art that survived the Great Chicago Fire)--but arrangement in art museums just seems so restrictive compared to what can be done in history and science museums. Maybe its just the traditional, slow-to-change culture of the art world?
That's why the Barnes Foundation seemed so great to me. It gave me a new way of looking at arrangement of art, and an obvious choice in retrospect. He arranged his collection by aesthetics and teaching purpose, what some might argue is art's prime focus. Maybe I'm just not very creative, but it was certainly a big revelation to me, and it gives me hope that there are yet ways to arrange that I haven't yet discovered. Perhaps art museums should more frequently venture into new ways of displaying their permanent exhibitions besides the comforting standards we all know and acknowledge.
Finally, because I don't suppose I can talk about art without any pictures, here's a completely irrelevant photo I took of Randolph Rogers' "Nydia" (1858) in the St. Louis Art Museum. She's a fictional blind girl who was in Pompeii went Vesuvius erupted. I like how the photo turned out.
I'm certain that there have to be more options to display art than that--perhaps by content (ex. boys and their dogs), political message (ex. the king is a dolt), or historical relevance (ex. art that survived the Great Chicago Fire)--but arrangement in art museums just seems so restrictive compared to what can be done in history and science museums. Maybe its just the traditional, slow-to-change culture of the art world?
That's why the Barnes Foundation seemed so great to me. It gave me a new way of looking at arrangement of art, and an obvious choice in retrospect. He arranged his collection by aesthetics and teaching purpose, what some might argue is art's prime focus. Maybe I'm just not very creative, but it was certainly a big revelation to me, and it gives me hope that there are yet ways to arrange that I haven't yet discovered. Perhaps art museums should more frequently venture into new ways of displaying their permanent exhibitions besides the comforting standards we all know and acknowledge.
Finally, because I don't suppose I can talk about art without any pictures, here's a completely irrelevant photo I took of Randolph Rogers' "Nydia" (1858) in the St. Louis Art Museum. She's a fictional blind girl who was in Pompeii went Vesuvius erupted. I like how the photo turned out.
 |
| Say what now? |
No comments:
Post a Comment