Institutional critique has long since been one of the driving forces in artistic and cultural development. Art responds to what confines it, the biggest culprit being institutional spaces (museums, blue chip galleries, etc). However, it’s also clear to see the value in these places – they offer a mass public a chance to see historically significant art, they allow a chance for education and often engage a community. On the other hand, "alternative" gallery spaces (basement venues, "underground" collectives etc.) arguably provide artists more freedom in what kind of work gets put on display, but there are also drawbacks to this setting too in that it often only meets a niche audience. Weigh the pros and cons of the different ways in which art exists. What is most important in viewing art and putting it on display? What works, what doesn’t and why? What should change? What shouldn’t change?
Interesting topic! ++ I would just add that, as you know, this struggle to build stronger connections between everyday life and everyday people and art has a long history. In the 1930s, in the US and elsewhere, for instance, there was a trend toward mural art—art that was out of the museums and galleries and could be seen and appreciated by everyday people. Another tricky question, and one that I hesitate to bring up, is what counts as "art." Obviously for many art is painting, sculpture, etc. But a wider definition might even include things like sophisticated cosplay as a form of performance art. But the bigger question, which your topic addresses, is how to get more people engaged with the arts no matter how the arts are defined. Having a wider definition of what art is and where it might be experienced can help enrich society in non-monetary ways. – Ben Hufbauer12 months ago
Good topic...personally I believe art should be accessible in numerous venues. There are many museums that offer free or reduced admission for individuals possessing student ID, but for museums that do not, enjoying the arts can be a very costly activity. Art should be visible in every venue...
– danielle57710 months ago
It is difficult to define art in concrete terms, since it is very much a subjective field; I do believe that more classical forms of art such as old paintings and marbles work best when presented in a museum setting, while modern pieces such as abstract sculptures and kinetic pieces might achieve maximum effect in a nontraditional venue, i.e. an outdoor space. The most important thing for viewing art, I believe, is placing it in an environment that allows it to be viewed to the best degree, whether it be in a credited museum, or in an underground gallery. – angelofmusic66010 months ago
I love this topic because I believe that art can be seen in a variety of ways such as nature or graffiti. – boyerj10 months ago
Such a great topic. It would be interesting to compare work in a museum with art that takes on a more guerrilla approach, such as installation art or graffiti, even advertising.
People are looking for different things at different times, in different settings.
When you ask the question,"What is most important in viewing art and putting it on display," it makes me think about the bridge between abstract and hyper-realism. Should abstract art be displayed in a different way than realism?
These are all intriguing questions. – EmilyMarie9 months ago