Saturday, 23 May 2009

Answers... (2)

... from Ada Van Hoorebeke.
1. If you try to read the exhibition in the classical way without knowing why and how the exhibition was made, it might give a rather weird impression. But I think it is positive if one remembers Temporary City as a remarkably weird exhibition. The idea behind it and the process of making it give it more value. You need to be attracted by something that you can’t place so easily. Isn’t that the nicest thing about contemporary art?
2. In the end the works retained their original meaning, but we certainly touched the borders… It was a challenge to do something with the architecture where necessary, in order to show the works in their original meaning. Sometimes an artwork became surprisingly different in a certain ‘accrochage’. Then you have to consider whether it is a desecration or not. The interesting thing is to find these border zones: from one spot the work feels right, but if you watch it from another, it looks weird. In this way the visitor has to discover the artworks behind, on top and through these blue bars. This gives the exhibition a special dimension.
3.I think a 'strange exhibition' is a compliment. We dared to make a strange exhibition! Why should we, with the concept of Temporary City, copy an exhibition model made by a curator?
1. We chose not to use a theme because we thought it didn’t make sense here. It‘s always a bit banal to show links between works in an obvious way, since everyone has his own theme. I think diversity is more interesting for this kind of project. But you could choose the artists you want to group, according to their approach to art. Although there should be opposites, they need to be willing to work and think together.
2. Why an architectural structure? I think it was interesting and helpful to start from one architectural skeleton, which keeps the works together. Important is that the architect hands it over to the artists. His traces are very much present, but we used, even tortured them freely. Another remarkable thing is that the ‘struggle’ with the structure made struggle between the artists unnecessary; it made us more cooperative: ‘How can we deal with this obstacle?’ That was our main concern. Probably it would have been interesting to work further on the first structure made by the architect with another sculptor or architect: to make more walls between the wooden pillars, or make niches in order to create some empty spaces; interventions made for individual works, during the building up of the exhibition.
3.I think artist's exhibitions are not so new, but to really reflect on how to show your art together in a different way with more than ten artists together, not led by anyone in particular, or by an institution, is probably not very common.

1 comment:

Travis said...

I will come meet you at the feast on Saturday... I want to please make an art piece inside of your structure for a few hours... I am a weaver, and I will make a section of the architecture into a loom, and make a cloth. And teach you and anyone else to weave with it, too. Maybe I should call, but blog comment and in person is my favorite. is my portfolio website. I like what you are doing and I want a piece. Found your clown flyer on the sidewalk. Travis