Quote:
|
Originally Posted by phoenix
But.... again.. if you are comparing a piece that is on display in a gallery for 3 to 6 weeks, to one which lives in the same spot, for a hundred years.. and draws in people and money with which to pay for the 'grounds' which surround it... So, then which do you think will have the more majestic location/presentation..
|
Yeah, there's always a lot to be said for the context - as you say, a short-term thing doesn't need to be perfect. But it's things like the National Portrait Gallery is so busy... it almost feels like a teenager's bedroom, every available space plastered with picture. I mentioned Whiteread before because I think she's one of the few people to do something with the Turbine Hall at the Tate Modern. Potentially such a brilliant space, but fucking impossible for anything with much of a degree of subtlety. The Twombly exhibition at the same was great, but the Richter pieces felt very much like they were plonked in a room (and they were meant to be first-time showings).
But, having said that, I'm really not the greatest appreciator of art, I don't seem to manage one gallery a month nowadays.