We leave in an isolated part of the world, off the beaten track for most cultural events. Now that our State's economy is booming, there is a demand for Art. More precisely, a demand for conventional traditional classic Art. Masters of the Past. Historical Pieces. Pieces exhibited in big Museums overseas. The problem with some of the paid exhibitions is that, many times, the material we get is the one other galleries want to lend us, not what we would like to see, or what is excellent. Still, this is better than nothing, and a sort of luxury we have to pay for.
Now, we have the flashy exhibition and the masterpieces, and what does the Gallery to exhibit them? Let me think. Hanging the pieces from the wall. Having paid information earphones. Having security people around. Controlling the access to the paid area...
How many times have you seen the image of a bulb (or two) reflected on a canvas in a way that affected your viewing of it no matter how much you moved around it? This was the case in the last two paid exhibitions I have visited: the Picasso to Warhol exhibition, and the Picturing New York.
Both of them had the same problem. Lighting was bad. What I call bad?
1/The lighting is not specifically adapted to the pieces exhibited, but the general one of the room with directional lights that are mediocre and work well for large format exhibition or rooms with a better layout. Therefore, the lighting reflects on the masterpiece, and it does not allow you to appreciate the colours, shapes, textures or images on display from a frontal point of view.
2/ The glass used in the frames is not mate but glossy glass, so it reflects the lights, and the framed piece becomes a mirror where you see yourself (and the rest of the room) reflected. See, as an example, the image that accompanies this entry. Hello, me! Most of the photos hanging from the wall had the same problem, although some of them were less affected than others.
This would not be a problem, if were talking about an independent money-lacking exhibition or institution. However, this is the Art Gallery of Western Australia, and these are paid exhibitions. Our ticket should serve to have the pieces better exhibited, no? However, adjusting lighting and glass panels would cost more money and would take more effort. How is possible that the curators of the Gallery and the original owners of the pieces do not care about this? Perhaps because everybody seems to be content with the poor display, no matter the quality of the piece exhibited. Nobody seems to be complaining in Perth, Art critics, newspapers or the general public. So no one is making an effort to change it. My guess.
If I pay for an exhibition, I expect it to be exhibited in a way that honours the artists and pieces on display. Otherwise, I leave, as I did last time, feeling that I should have paid for the Catalogue; at least there the the pieces are beautifully photographed and can be appreciated properly. This is a bit sad, really. Especially because some of the pieces hanging from the walls are fantastic.
