Painting After Performance @ Tate
We always perceive the infinitude of a moment, but we cannot capture it, which made this exhibition seem appetising. Naturally, to say this contradicts some important thinking on perception -- the name Merleau-Ponty looms forth -- and so what I mean exceeds the literal. Being present for a moment, part of its simultaneity, is partially to absorb it and to experience its energy or presentness: this is to be present to the moment in its infinitude, not to apprehend the impossible totality of it. Infinite is infinite. This exhibition claims to explore this complex between the presentness of a performed moment and its representation. And so, when we look at the David Hockney, the jarring of stillness and action creates the overall energy of the piece. The instant after the dive is artistically (gesturally, figuratively) captured upon the canvas. This painting of an action after the performance of it aligns perfectly with the ethos of the exhibition, and, of course, A Bigger Splash has the force of artistic effort. The same goes for the exciting Jackson Pollock in the same room.
On the whole, however, the exhibition disappointed me because of the inconsistency between its vision and its curation. At times I felt like I was supposed to feel excited, like the pieces on display were supposed to trigger pre-imagined responses, not to provide opportunities for thinking and feeling, for seeing anew. The exhibition felt outmoded. This is not to downplay the artefacts and to deny them their inspirational force, but to criticise their combination and arrangement. Walking around, the sense of having to identify the motivation behind the exhibition and its constituent elements, and of being preempted in feeling educated, astonished, amused was heavy-handed. Dutifully I resolved to stay to find something else that proved my judgment to be hasty and dismissive, but then I left, because it struck me that the title of the exhibition drew on the motivation behind it but ultimately capitalised on an respected name and then used the opportunity to educate simply and mechanically, uncreatively. I will probably visit again, but with the intention of learning about unfamiliar artists and not of seeking artistic or curatorial inspiration.
On the whole, however, the exhibition disappointed me because of the inconsistency between its vision and its curation. At times I felt like I was supposed to feel excited, like the pieces on display were supposed to trigger pre-imagined responses, not to provide opportunities for thinking and feeling, for seeing anew. The exhibition felt outmoded. This is not to downplay the artefacts and to deny them their inspirational force, but to criticise their combination and arrangement. Walking around, the sense of having to identify the motivation behind the exhibition and its constituent elements, and of being preempted in feeling educated, astonished, amused was heavy-handed. Dutifully I resolved to stay to find something else that proved my judgment to be hasty and dismissive, but then I left, because it struck me that the title of the exhibition drew on the motivation behind it but ultimately capitalised on an respected name and then used the opportunity to educate simply and mechanically, uncreatively. I will probably visit again, but with the intention of learning about unfamiliar artists and not of seeking artistic or curatorial inspiration.
Comments
Post a Comment