Yes, agree, not the strongest of exhibitions. I struggled to see the link between some of the pieces shown and the photography theme. I mean it’s full of big names but the story didn’t flow for me. My stand out piece was the portrait by Pauline Boty—she doesn’t get recognition and it was great to see her work in a room of household names.
Hi there, thought-provoking as always - thank you. I wasn't familiar with Semmel's work either. Curious how she went from abstract into figuration. I always wonder how that change occurs. The show, as you said, was filled with a lot of heavy hitters. I don't know that I pay too much attention to a curator's intention (maybe I should...) Can you say more how that affected how you saw the show, the works? If there'd been no curatorial "intention" (some might say, blah blah) would you have viewed it differently - hard to say, I know.
Interesting question Laurie. Is there ever not a curatorial intention in art galleries?
With special exhibitions like this at the Tate I think part of what you're paying for is the curator's skill at presenting a set of ideas / a particular viewpoint of an artist's work / an overarching theme that is examined from a critical perspective. I was on the look-out for some coherence or clear connection between the artworks or an historical narrative or something. There were many rooms, and such a lot to see. Many of the works absolutely gorgeous or interesting in themselves. But I was constantly searching out what it was that the curator thought was connecting the one painting or artwork from the next. I just couldn't find the point, and it was frustrating. Labelling on the walls didn't help much either. As I say, as a collection of modern and contemporary artworks together in one space it was top league. As an exhibition exploring the links between painting and photography, I didn't learn a thing.
Thanks for your reply. To your Q: is there ever not a curatorial intention, yes, of course, I'm just not sure I often get much from it/give it much credence. I'm wary of art-world packaging. I feel there's a big schism between appreciating art and those who spin stories around it. Maybe I'm in a temporary bias as just finished learning about Lee Bontecou whose critics imposed all sorts of meaning that she said had nothing to do with her intention/work. As for your comment about learning something new, three cheers for that when it happens - love it. I mean I always learn something from an exhibit just not necessarily what someone else/curator may have intended for me to learn. I like that you called this Tate exhibit out on it, takes the preciousness out of it.
I'm wary of art world packaging too, but I'm definitely in the business of communicating how I interpret the art I see -- which is I suppose a form of spinning stories. Does it matter that critics see meanings in Bontecou's work that had nothing to do with her intention?
Great question and my immediate knee-jerk answer is yes only because, in the case of her work, they went to the obvious, easy, lazy? interpretation which may also may have been influenced by the era - 60's male-dominated ab ex. She was the only women to be asked into the Leo Castelli gallery and I don't think it's any coincidence because her wall-mounted reliefs have strong masculine energy. When she 180'd into nature, she basically got the boot and retreated for oh about 30 yrs to a farm in PA. I know artists, if they want success, have to play some form of the game (she refused!) and yet art's creation, it's impetus/core is so much more than a thing to be sold. Those who sell should try creating - my god, good luck.
This is what I LOVE to hear Amanda! Let me know what you think of Semmel's work. I want to hear more about your photography project too... you're on my list to message.
Yes, agree, not the strongest of exhibitions. I struggled to see the link between some of the pieces shown and the photography theme. I mean it’s full of big names but the story didn’t flow for me. My stand out piece was the portrait by Pauline Boty—she doesn’t get recognition and it was great to see her work in a room of household names.
YES! That is a good reminder -- I wanted to find out more about Pauline Boty.
Hi there, thought-provoking as always - thank you. I wasn't familiar with Semmel's work either. Curious how she went from abstract into figuration. I always wonder how that change occurs. The show, as you said, was filled with a lot of heavy hitters. I don't know that I pay too much attention to a curator's intention (maybe I should...) Can you say more how that affected how you saw the show, the works? If there'd been no curatorial "intention" (some might say, blah blah) would you have viewed it differently - hard to say, I know.
Interesting question Laurie. Is there ever not a curatorial intention in art galleries?
With special exhibitions like this at the Tate I think part of what you're paying for is the curator's skill at presenting a set of ideas / a particular viewpoint of an artist's work / an overarching theme that is examined from a critical perspective. I was on the look-out for some coherence or clear connection between the artworks or an historical narrative or something. There were many rooms, and such a lot to see. Many of the works absolutely gorgeous or interesting in themselves. But I was constantly searching out what it was that the curator thought was connecting the one painting or artwork from the next. I just couldn't find the point, and it was frustrating. Labelling on the walls didn't help much either. As I say, as a collection of modern and contemporary artworks together in one space it was top league. As an exhibition exploring the links between painting and photography, I didn't learn a thing.
Thanks for your reply. To your Q: is there ever not a curatorial intention, yes, of course, I'm just not sure I often get much from it/give it much credence. I'm wary of art-world packaging. I feel there's a big schism between appreciating art and those who spin stories around it. Maybe I'm in a temporary bias as just finished learning about Lee Bontecou whose critics imposed all sorts of meaning that she said had nothing to do with her intention/work. As for your comment about learning something new, three cheers for that when it happens - love it. I mean I always learn something from an exhibit just not necessarily what someone else/curator may have intended for me to learn. I like that you called this Tate exhibit out on it, takes the preciousness out of it.
I'm wary of art world packaging too, but I'm definitely in the business of communicating how I interpret the art I see -- which is I suppose a form of spinning stories. Does it matter that critics see meanings in Bontecou's work that had nothing to do with her intention?
Great question and my immediate knee-jerk answer is yes only because, in the case of her work, they went to the obvious, easy, lazy? interpretation which may also may have been influenced by the era - 60's male-dominated ab ex. She was the only women to be asked into the Leo Castelli gallery and I don't think it's any coincidence because her wall-mounted reliefs have strong masculine energy. When she 180'd into nature, she basically got the boot and retreated for oh about 30 yrs to a farm in PA. I know artists, if they want success, have to play some form of the game (she refused!) and yet art's creation, it's impetus/core is so much more than a thing to be sold. Those who sell should try creating - my god, good luck.
This is what I LOVE to hear Amanda! Let me know what you think of Semmel's work. I want to hear more about your photography project too... you're on my list to message.