The instinct to confront is essential to art. Many pieces that we regard as
unchallenging now were extremely shocking in their time.
If someone is not discomforted, then there seems little point in churning out
'acceptable' pieces.
Then I've seen some explicitly pornographic material on ancient Greek ceramics
and in friezes from Pompeii which were regarded as unremarkable in their time.
Don't know about the V&A but in the Tate Modern, photography is allowed except
on the fourth floor. Exhibits there are specifically 'protected' and I was
almost thrown out this year, as I think I said here, for shooting patrons in an
exhibit on candid photography. The irony was irresistable. It was nothing to do
with protecting the material from light - merely an insurance requirement for
visiting exhibitions and borrowed exhibits. The British Museum has no
restrictions at all.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 08/11/2010, at 7:30 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> Technique, the ability to produce, is certainly important in assessing
> whether art is worth travelling to see; I'm glad that he has that. But the
> instinct to shock is not one I recognise as a pre-requisite in an artist.
> But then I see no reason to watch violent films . . .
>
> I don't visit galleries or museums very often, but in the Victoria and Albert
> I seem to remember that photography was explicitly forbidden. Perhaps it is
> because of the age of some of the exhibits and the damage that light will
> cause, not a problem with modern sculpture, I imagine.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|