Since my crit on Wednesday, and after the gallery talk this morning with Jane Lackey, I have been thinking a lot about how a viewer engages with work of art. In the new series of work I have started the objects are designed with the intention of highlighting the didactic experience, focusing on what can be learned through interaction. I have always been interested in how a viewer's willingness to physically engage with a work shifts depending on the location of an object. When a viewer enters a gallery space, it seems as though an invisible wall is subconsciously built in front of a work thereby limiting their potential exchange. On a trip to San Francisco a few years back, I visited the de Young museum and saw a piece by Breton. Physical interaction with the piece was very strongly implied, on it was a big red button with the words "Push Me," yet not one visitor pushed the button. In contrast, in San Diego's Balboa park, sculptures by Niki de Saint Phalle seemed to invite physical involvement. While I am not interested in placing my work in the same outdoor, public environment, I am interested in why this difference in allowing one's self to interact happens.
In a discussion with Rosemary Dardick earlier this week, she talked about how these subconscious physical barriers that occur in the gallery space must be rooted in the traditions of art display. It can be impossible to communicate that an object should be touched because these rules are so strongly anchored to the space. In her gallery talk today, Jane Lackey spoke about a map-like piece in her show at the Lemberg Gallery that is made with the intent of being opened, but that is rendered untouchable because of its fragility. As a result, the function of the piece is denied to the viewer and therefore becomes a space for the viewer to ponder what the experience would be like. In Celia Butler's new work, a stack of unassembled boxes creates the same space for the viewer to think about the experience. This lead me to consider the importance of physical engagement with art. Can the same message be delivered without the interaction? Should the viewer interact? Does it give to much away to let them manipulate the object? and conversely, If the interaction is necessary, how do you break down those barriers?
Posts
I think the answers to these questions all depends on your intent as the artist. If the breaking of barriers is central to the work, then I don't think you are giving too much away by allowing for interaction and manipulation. You are just giving the viewer options for how to approach and experience the work. By having the option to push the button or not push the button, then the viewer is put in a situation where they have to consider those pre-existing barriers. The work can become more about the barriers and rules than what actually happens when the button is pushed. But I think you are going to have to be really obvious about the invitation to physically interact in an unexpected or unusal way, and then put it out there in a space where your viewer doesn't normally cross that line. If the breaking of barriers is not important to the work, then I think facilitating physical interaction can be as simple as a clear set of instructions from the artist or the gallery placed near the work. I do think a work can defintely be physically interactive through its scale, placement in space, etc., and this can happen in spite of--and sometimes because of--the boundaries of the gallery or museum or whatever.
ReplyDelete