The article began by speaking of the idea of a white cube gallery being Modernism, which I couldn’t agree with more. It speaks on the views of the mobile fifth-dimensional visitor. That sees the space before the art and not the other way around. I didn’t really think too much into the idea of a white cube gallery space and what this does for art, except offer a blank canvas of sorts. But thinking about how the space is perceived and consumed by the eyes of a visitor before the art is interesting. It does propose the idea of whether a white room is correct for the presentation of a piece of art and whether the whole room should be the art?
The article continues to speak on the ideas of themes and vibes of rooms and uses churches, courtrooms and the mystique of the experimental laboratory to be others. Again something I hadn’t thought too much off but definitely experienced internally myself and brought to my ideas for what to do in the space. Initially, my reactions were that I didn’t fit within these spaces or it wasn’t for “someone like me”. But it truly is a reflection of the space, not that I’m not welcome.
Another interesting line was.
Things become art in a space where powerful ideas about art focus on them
My interpretation is mainly that when you place art in these white cube environments, where the norm is to overthink perhaps and analyse a piece put in front of the fifth mobile visitor it is the focus of the piece. Not to live in time and space amongst where it might have perhaps been taken from. For example, a Banksy graffiti piece that is originally on the streets to be there temporarily, which is then taken and sold and displayed in a white cube gallery. Does the observer enter with powerful ideas about art that the initial piece didn’t choose to display?
Another thing was the laws within a gallery, no lights must come in. Only from the ceiling. No windows either. Nothing must interfere with the art on display. The walls are painted white and the floor is polished. The art is free to take its own life as such.
The only issue I would have with this as mentioned by the article is that the problem that occurs with this is that art exists in a kind of eternity of display. No time, no sense of place with where this work exists. Which for art can be important.
It also speaks about the idea of a body in a white cube context and how it feels almost uninviting and that, eyes and ideas are welcome but bodies interfere with the angles and thoughts of a gallery. I couldn’t agree more. I always feel uncomfortable in a gallery, like I need to be quiet and can’t touch or express my feelings inside. I’d be interested to see and plan an installation that embraces this and allows a visitor’s physical presence to be okay and welcoming.
Lastly on the placement of art. The article suggests that larger paintings rise to the top and are placed higher up due to them being easier to see from a distance. The best pictures stay in the middle zone; small pictures are at the bottom. This creates a relationship between the gaze of the eyes and where the art placement is. Something I will consider for my installation proposal and setup.