Lacking Depth
I'm sorry it's been ages since I wrote one of these. A combination of travel and not having much to say sort of curtailed things a little.
I will say that I am looking forward to my own hot boy summer and will be writing these fairly regularly :)
What I wanted to write about today was something I've been thinking about a lot the past year or two: most exhibitions lack physical depth. I realise that for half of my audience this is a pointless and dull statement (sorry) and for the other half this could be a sort of grenade launched in your midst.
But let me share my point of view. I really love exhibitions, art installations can really excite, move, drive and enchant me. So when I go to a show I'm always super keen to be blown away, but then there's a percentage of art shows where one walks into the gallery/space, turns 360 degrees on the spot and you've seen it all. We've all been to a show like this, hell I've PUT ON a show like this and, facing facts, these really blow.
They blow because there is nothing to engage or reward the viewer - the images at that scale - are more or less the same as viewing them anywhere else. Online, in a book, on a phone, whatever. If all the effort to see the work can be reduced to doing one static turn then it seems to be it's fair to say that such a show is really, really not taking advantage of the space and opportunity it presents.
Going a step deeper: I think most 2d artists (painters, photographers, illustrators) are unused to thinking of the depth of the space that they work in. The walls become the furthest extent of their imagination (which is fine, lots can be done on a wall), and the middle of the room, the floor, the ceiling - these are all ignored. How interesting it is, for me at least, when I go to a show where the ceiling matters as much as the wall, or the middle of the room commands as much dedication as anywhere else. Where I can't JUST turn, but I also have to walk, to move, to peer up, to stare down.
I had this sort of rush of thinking while I was at the Rodin museum in Paris, where I kept thinking that photography and sculpture can have a lot in common. Both often start by reducing what's in front of them, finding representation and artistry in an inherently more minimal rendering of a person, place, idea or feeling. Similarly, both are mediums that have, at times, functioned in single works and now often demand a series or project or ouvre for an artist to be taken seriously (which is a-ok with me, single images don't do much for me, except when I see them online).
What makes photography's lack of physical depth surprising is how malleable the medium is. One can print on paper, plastic, fabric, tiles, vinyl, etc, etc, etc. You could literally make a tent and print photos on top of it, if you wanted. You could make a collage on the floor, a skylight that's an illuminated image. So much space for experimentation - but when do you see those things?
By way of wrapping up, two final quick things:
a) A lot of artists object to the idea that their work (or any art) looks good online, or that screens are a good way to view things. I think this is just snobbery and completely untrue. Some things look better on a screen, most look comparable. There's nothing inherently more meaningful about paper. Especially if people can't touch it (at least with the books I make we get to think about the texture and weight!).
b) One argument for photography's stagnant exhibiting practice is that those installs are all about 'the print'. Print, as a medium, is often so dull, overly obsessed with rendering rather than interpreting. The most interesting prints I've seen have always incorporated errors, mistakes and play. Otherwise I honestly cannot pretend to care about print quality or anything like that.
Anyway - I think I'm getting close to repeating myself - I think there's so much untapped potential, it'd be great to see more depth and less repetition.