Using the Rosskam exhibit as an example, I noticed several aspects of the exhibition (some which worked effectively, others which raised questions) which paid special attention to the artist's perceived wishes. One of the most effective manifestations of this was the arrangement of Rosskam's photographs in eight chronological sections. Each section, introduced with a well-written wall text, focused on one of the artist's photography projects (her work for Standard Oil Company, her images of post-WWII Puerto Rico, etc.). These sections were cohesive and flowed fluidly around the exhibition room. By arranging the works in this way, the curators paid respect to Rosskam's development as a photographer, from her early days to her later works.
Another aspect of the exhibition which worked to the exhibit's benefit while honoring Rosskam's wishes was the attention paid to her social consciousness. In our class discussion with the curator, she especially emphasized the artist's dedication to socially-committed photography, or photo-documentary, as she called it. The curators included in the exhibit newspaper clippings and other ephemera that supported Rosskam's commitment to making a difference in the world through her photographs.
I was a bit confused, however, about the choice to include photographs by Rosskam's husband Edwin, also a prolific photographer, in the exhibition. The curators' reasoning was that Rosskam worked so closely with her husband, who was her teacher and her inspiration, that it would be an injustice not to include his works as well in the exhibition. Additionally, the curators were uncertain about the attribution of some works - in the cases where they were not sure if Louise or Edwin had taken the photo, they attributed it to both of them. The entrance to the exhibit also featured an image of Louise and Edwin, not an image of Louise alone. The curator explained to us that the family of the Rosskam's had expressly asked for a photo of both Rosskams to be placed at the entrance, not Louise by herself.
Something that raised a red flag for me was the use of the term 'retrospective' to describe the exhibition, meanwhile it was not a full retrospective of all of Rosskam's work. The curators decided to exhibit only her work from the beginning of her career in the 1930's to her work in the 1960's, excluding all work done in the 1970's-1980's. The reasoning behind this was that her later work was "not up to the quality" of her earlier work. Is it still a retrospective if the curators decide some of the artist's works are not up to snuff for the rest of the exhibit? Hmm...
In any case, I like to advocate a balance - and I think that applies here too. There is a fine line between catering to an artist's every whim and respecting his or her ideals.
This is just a taste of what lies in your future should you choose to work in the world of contemporary art. Mercurial, hyper-sensitive artists crafting their position in the larger art scene! When I was a young professional, the demands artists placed on curators and others drove me crazy. I now understand the need to be in control of one's image--like, say, a movie star or Lady Gaga. The issue touches on the locus of authority and, when dealing with living artists (especially), the curator is not necessarily the final word on an exhibition. Interestingly enough, though, as you point out, the design of the exhibition can make a big difference. A good exhibition designer can have the conversation with the curator and artist to encourage (them) to highlight certain works as jewels and eliminate excess. I think the curator might have pushed back a bit on the Rosskam family, but she remains grateful to them for cooperating at all. You have to choose your battles wisely, no matter what you do!
ReplyDelete