The trouble is…

The trouble is, once you say something is a gallery space, it automatically takes on the connotations of the multitude of gallery spaces that have come before it. So what happens if you don’t say it is an exhibition, and don’t mention that the space is a gallery? This is one of the key issues I’m interested in exploring in both my written and studio-based work.

What if you take works of art and show them in places that are outside the normal realm of gallery type spaces, for example, a party or a domestic space that is in its original use? Or for that matter, what happens if you take a piece of work and put it in an exhibition, but not one that it is intended for? I also want to experiment with found objects, or ‘readymades’, in a variety of spaces, both functioning gallery spaces, and places that are not traditionally used for exhibitions. Initial thoughts for spaces I could appropriate are: Leeds City Art Gallery; the school of Fine Art reception; somewhere around the university, such as on the grass near the union; a bedroom (in bed with someone); a library; a supermarket… there are almost unlimited possibilities – only money and red tape stand in my way!

———————

The Value of Art in the Public Sphere

Currently writing my dissertation on the value of art in the public sphere, and the public’s reception of artworks based purely on the context they are in. I am attempting to collect and compare as many different opinions as possible on this theme, both professional and from the general public, in order to better understand the nature of the gallery space, and art in the public sphere.

I am hoping to make a case study between a large, popular gallery and less well-known, ‘alternative’ galleries, as a way of seeing how the different art spaces focus on presenting the art works, and on getting people through the doors.

What are your opinions? Below are some questions to think about – it would be really helpful if you could answer them either in the comments section below, or by sending them to my e-mail address ‘khbstevens@hotmail.com’.

Thanks! 🙂

1.            How would you define a ‘gallery space’?

2.            When looking at a piece of art, do you also consider the importance of the space the work is presented in, and the ways in which it is interacting with the work to create meaning?

3.            Do you think the general public ascribes higher value to works that are in a more traditional context?

4.            Do you consider the meaning of an artwork to be intrinsically linked to the context? If a work changes its location (for example, if it is loaned to another art gallery or displayed outside after originally being shown inside), do you think that automatically changes its meaning, or do you believe some works can hold the same meaning no matter the context?

5.             Is understanding the intended meaning of the work crucial to determining the value of an artwork?

6.            Most art space visitors only ever go to the larger galleries that are highly advertised in public spaces. Do you think there should be more advertising of smaller, more unconventional art spaces so the general public gets more variation on who they see, instead of mainly seeing the ‘big names’ in art?

7.            Would you regard the worth of a piece of work to be higher if displayed within an art gallery rather than outside, for example, in a busy street? (providing it was the same piece of work)

8.            Do you think knowing who the creator of an artwork is affects how you think about the piece? Would you consider a piece of work to be better if it was done by a famous artist? On the other hand, do you think it can have a negative effect on how you view a piece of work? For example, if you have only heard about the controversial art Damien Hirst has made, would you value his work less?