Enter the Academy
What a fascinating week. I have always been intrigued by the ways in which photography is shared and shown. And have also always felt rather annoyed by pretentious art galleries, whatever they are displaying.
For me, art, and photography in particular, is something that doesn’t need to give itself airs and graces. And photography doesn’t need to feel inferior to painting.
I have often heard people decry the point of art or say I could have done that (whether you think Damien Hirst’s work is art or not his response to that latter statement levelled at his Shark piece of “well you didn’t, did you?, is refreshing and very much correct). But perhaps it is the exaltation of art that alienates so many people. But can you imagine a world without it?
So maybe when we think about how our images should be displayed what we first have to consider is why are we creating it? Is it a personal drive that has to be sated whether paid for or not? Is it to build reputation and attract commissions and/or buyers? But as with great artworks such as the Mona Lisa that are reproduced in various commercial forms and are therefore accessible and affordable as a keepsake of the real thing for many, why is gallery space seemingly so revered as the best means to showcase our work?
I’m not actually against gallery space for photography – although the Guardian’s art critic Jonathon Jones not only seems to think that it’s “soulless” but he doesn’t seem too fond of photography either – as taking time to consider and enjoy images is often a great experience; it’s more the welcome the gallery staff afford you, and perhaps the interaction or immersion within the show that beguile and adds something extra to it that for me works best.
This week we were asked to take a visit to a museum/gallery and consider how the displays were, displayed.