Our brief encourages us to explore how to “promote engagement” with the University Art Collection, alongside the guiding question What is the purpose of the Art Collection, how should it be used, and who is it for? While refining our exhibition theme, we’ve been asking our own, related questions:

• How can museums make their collections accessible to the public?
• What does it mean for a collection to “belong” to a public if they are unable to view the works held within it?
• How can people be made aware of collections they may not even know about?
• How do people wish they could interact with collections?

We’ve been thinking about place in art, but have also been reflecting on the contextual place of the collections and exhibitions in which those works are situated. The Art Collection is a unique collection to ask the above questions of. Not only does it not have a permanent exhibition space, meaning that the vast majority of its works are never visible to the public, but as a university collection it is virtually unknown outside of the institution (not to mention the number of individuals at the university who also seem unaware of its existence).

Even aside from these barriers, it can be difficult for members of the public to grasp what a collection is, let alone how it can be relevant to them. While considering these things during our last group meeting, Barbora had the fantastic idea of displaying the works in the Travelling Gallery on collection storage racks. Unlike a “white cube” exhibition model, mounting the works to appear as they are the majority of the time in storage offers a unique way for visitors to encounter the art and consider how it is stored and displayed.

An interesting case study to consider as we discuss these questions, themes, and display techniques comes from the Van Abbe Museum. From November 2013 to July 2017, the Van Abbe Museum ran a project called the DIY Archive as part of their exhibition The Collection Now. The museum describes that “[the DIY archive] was a combination of a storage facility, a workplace and an exhibition space”; visitors were encouraged to take works from the racks and work with museum employees to mount them in their own, temporary exhibition.[1]

As seen in the above video, this rack system was formed of magnetic strips on the wall. However, I got in touch with Aurora Loerakker about the Van Abbe Museum’s use of racks in exhibitions and she additionally directed my attention to their Viewing Depot, which ran from 2006 to 2009 and displayed works on the same racking system used in their collection storage.

The Van Abbe Museum’s use of storage racks in this way is interesting from the perspective of staging an interactive exhibition and inviting public engagement with collection holdings. However, with particular relevance to our project, I am interested in the aesthetic effects of arranging the exhibition space in this way. Although there is, clearly, a lack of scholarship on collection storage hanging, the critical literature on how context informs encounters with art can be usefully extrapolated to our considerations.

A range of studies—both psychological and art critical—have shown that encountering art in a “gallery context enhances the aesthetic experience—both of art appreciation and aesthetic emotions.”[2] Surveying this literature in the context of their own 2019 study, Szubielska et al. also find that in addition to the physical context of being in an art gallery, “elaborative contextual information semantically corresponding to the artwork increases viewers’ ratings of comprehension and/or appreciation.” But what about the effect of the visual contextual information of the gallery space itself?

In 2001, the Walters Art Museum completed an extensive renovation, which included re-installing its artifacts in galleries that aesthetically mimicked their original contexts. In a Washington Post review by Jo Ann Lewis, Museum Director Gary Vikan explained: “What we’re after… is the effect of an icon in a Byzantine church, or a Limoges book cover in a Gothic cathedral.”[3] Lewis comments that the new installations engage the viewer “not only with labels but also with four different audio tours and suggestive, often moody and theatrical (occasionally overly theatrical) installations that echo the architecture of each period.”[4]

Unique installations do run the risk of being overly “theatrical,” and can overwhelm the art or artifacts being shown. However, many critics suggest that the white cube model is not, in fact, without its own risks. In the seminal 1976 trio of articles titled “Inside the White Cube,” Brian O’Doherty outlines how the white cube, rather than being a “neutral” backdrop, is itself an aesthetic object. O’Doherty argues that the white wall context of art galleries has become a “transforming force” that heavily influences the viewer’s experience of the art hung upon them.[5] In this understanding of the gallery space, “context becomes content”: “The wall, the context of the art, had become rich in a content it subtly donated to the art.”[6]

This argument of the almost insidious subtlety of the white wall’s influence continues to inform critical discussion about the role gallery context plays in aesthetic experience. In a 2011 Tate Etc. interview, Charlotte Klonk, Niklas Maak, and Thomas Demand discuss how sensory aspects of gallery spaces are controlled to affect viewers’ experiences. Against these tactics, Charlotte Klonk proposes that what is most important is that the room is honest:

I argue that what makes the Van Abbe Museum’s use of racking effective is how the resulting gallery installations correspond to Klonk’s description of an honest room. Unlike the subtle “illusion” of timeless neutrality created by a white cube gallery, but also unlike the overt theatricality of immersive, sensorially domineering spaces, the use of collection racks to display works is straightforward and honest in its depiction of an active art collection.

Considering the lack of alternatives to the white cube model, O’Doherty writes that “a rich constellation of projects comments on matters of location, not so much suggesting alternatives as enlisting the gallery space as a unit of esthetic discourse. Genuine alternatives cannot come from within this space.”[7] The Van Abbe Museum’s Viewing Depot successfully presents an alternative that enlists not the gallery space, but a place outside of it: the collection storage room. The result is a space that hangs in between storage room, exhibition, public, and private; a fascinating fusion that seems all the more compelling in relation to the unique setting of the Travelling Gallery and its mission to bring contemporary art accessibly and honestly to a diverse audience outside of the white cube model.

 

[Word Count: 1,097]

 

Footnotes

[1] “DIY Archive,” Van Abbe Museum, https://vanabbemuseum.nl/en/research/highlighted-projects/diy-archive/.

[2] Magdalena Szubielska, Kamil Imbir, and Anna Szymańska, “The influence of the physical context and knowledge of artworks on the aesthetic experience of interactive installations,” Current Psychology (June 15, 2019): https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00322-w.

[3] Qtd. in Jo Ann Lewis, “Renovated Walters Museum sheds light on its collections,” The Washington Post, October 20, 2001, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2001/10/20/renovated-walters-museum-sheds-light-on-its-collections/77223ecd-06b7-4bdb-905e-4add093dcfd2/.

[4] Lewis.

[5] Brian O’Doherty, Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space (San Francisco: The Lapis Press, 1986), 45.

[6] O’Doherty, 15; 29.

[7] O’Doherty, 80.

Bibliography

Lewis, Jo Ann. “Renovated Walters Museum Sheds Light on Its Collections.” The Washington Post, October 20, 2001. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2001/10/20/renovated-walters-museum-sheds-light-on-its-collections/77223ecd-06b7-4bdb-905e-4add093dcfd2/.

Maak, Niklas, Charlotte Klonk, and Thomas Demand. “The White Cube and Beyond: Museum Display.” Tate Etc. (January 1, 2011). https://www.tate.org.uk/tate-etc/issue-21-spring-2011/white-cube-and-beyond.

O’Doherty, Brian. Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space. San Francisco: The Lapis Press, 1986.

Szubielska, Magdalena Kamil Imbir, and Anna Szymańska. “The influence of the physical context and knowledge of artworks on the aesthetic experience of interactive installations.” Current Psychology (June 15, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00322-w.

Van Abbe Museum. “DIY Archive.” https://vanabbemuseum.nl/en/research/highlighted-projects/diy-archive/.

Van Abbe Museum. “Viewing Depot—Plug In #18.” https://vanabbemuseum.nl/en/programme/programme/viewing-depot/.

Oct 24, 2019

Our initial conversations about theme were equally informed by two considerations: the works in the Art Collection, and the unique characteristics of both the Collection and the Travelling Gallery.

During our first visit to the Travelling Gallery, driver and guide Andy Menzies showed us some archival images of the bus. He said the Gallery’s most popular social media posts are those showing where the bus is on its travels.

Thinking about Andy’s comments and the bus as travelling gallery, during our next group meeting I proposed a potential focus on landscape art—I was interested in the curatorial dynamic of having static images of Scottish landscapes travel through contemporary Scotland in a mobile gallery. We quickly realized, however, that restricting ourselves to landscapes would not do justice to the Art Collection, and would potentially limit our exhibition overall.

To revise this idea, we returned to our project brief, which centres the collaborative relationship between the two partner institutions and asks us “to test the potential of this partnership.” With this in mind, we outlined several intriguing parallels between the two institutions:

1. The Art Collection does not have an exhibition space; the Travelling Gallery is an exhibition space, but does not have a fixed or permanent home.
2. The majority of the Art Collection is inaccessible to public view; the Travelling Gallery aims to make art broadly accessible.
3. Neither the Art Collection or the Travelling Gallery are usual spaces in which to encounter art.

We realized that we kept circling back to the concept of place. Thinking about art about place allowed for a greater diversity of the Collection to be shown than just landscapes, as well as encouraging a meta-reflection on the sites in which these works are stored, displayed, and viewed.

For our project pitch, I summarized these concepts in a mock-up promotional postcard.

Our theme and description remained mostly unchanged from this point, although we did continue to tailor our concept to the partner institutions as we worked more with them. Our broad focus on art collections in general, for example, gradually became more rooted in the specificities of the University Art Collection. For the final exhibition description, which was used on our public promotional material, I edited our guiding questions slightly to reflect this increasingly “behind the scenes” focus.

 

[Word Count: 381]

Oct 15, 2019

1. Identify your key responsibilities and list the main areas of work you have been involved in. Briefly highlight the skills and competencies that are relevant to this project/work area.

Our approach to delegating responsibility was different over the first few weeks than it was for the majority of the project. After receiving the brief, the first month was spent settling into the project, learning about each other and our group dynamic, and starting to map out our ideas and approach. We found it most effective to work together during this introductory period, rather than delineating individual roles and responsibilities.

The focus of the first month of work was to brainstorm and explore an overarching exhibition theme. I discuss this process further in my next post, but it included a visit to the Travelling Gallery, group discussions about what general themes interested us, and familiarising ourselves with the Art Collection catalogue and the works within it. From an interpersonal perspective, group communication skills were a key aspect of this process, encompassing active listening, brainstorming, and constructive critique of ideas. The ability to competently navigate the collection catalogue was also an important skill to develop, as we learned together how to efficiently search, locate, and browse for different pieces and genres of work in the catalogue.

Once we settled on a theme and began discussing more of the tangible, logistical aspects of the exhibition, it became necessary to divide roles and responsibilities. My key responsibilities and main areas of work—as well as their pertinent skills and responsibilities—were as follows:

Coordinating the design, printing, and installation of the wallpaper.

• Researching and contacting different print companies for project quotes; collating and pitching the results to my group with attention to budget, timeline, and project specifications.
• Liaising with our hired photographer and CRC staff (Julie-Ann and Anna) to coordinate a trip to the South Gyles store to photograph the rack.
• Creating design layouts and wall plans to communicate project specifications to the photographer and to the printers (ECA Reprographics).
• Measuring and trimming the printed wallpaper sheets; bundling and labelling them for efficient installation.

Coordinating the commission of the musician.

• As a group, we hired Glasgow-based musician and composer Carla Sayer to create a musical performance for our opening event. I took on the role of coordinating this process.
• Communicating with Carla on a regular basis regarding venue details and PAT testing specifications, the Scottish Sound Archive archival research process, and opening night logistics.
• Keeping an inventory of, and invoices for, all charges associated with the musical commission and relaying this information to the group for discussion and input into the budget.
  • We established Carla’s fee in accordance with the Scottish Artist’s Union Guidelines.

Ensuring the high standard of our written content and material; this included co-writing, editing, and proofreading the text for our interpretive leaflet.

• Researching and writing the “Place” section of our interpretive leaflet.
• Revising and copy-editing the four sections of our interpretive leaflet to a high standard, with a focus on unifying tone and voice, ensuring clarity and readability, and adding relevant, researched material on each work of art in the exhibition.
• Writing, copy-editing, and proofreading promotional material for the exhibition, including the text for our promotional postcard and the Facebook event for the opening night.
• In taking the lead on the interpretive leaflet, I additionally coordinated its printing, which included selecting the printing press, communicating timelines and budgets with the printers, and coordinating the pick-up and drop-off of the material.

2. Looking ahead, list your key objectives for the GRP. 3–7 SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timed) objectives should be noted with realistic timescales and focused outcomes.

Group goals:

By the end of October, to have worked as a group to generate a clear exhibition title and description, as well as a list of relevant works from the Collection.

To create and implement a program of public workshops and talks to run concurrently with the exhibition tour in mid-February.

To use this exhibition as an opportunity to evaluate public engagement with both the Travelling Gallery and the University’s Art Collection, by collecting information on engagement during the tour that can subsequently be presented as a report to the partner institutions.

Personal goals:

To develop my personal knowledge and skills of writing interpretive exhibition text, by researching this style of writing, practicing writing interpretive copy, and, by the time of the exhibition, contributing significantly to our own exhibition’s printed interpretive material.

3. Discursive self-reflection. Use this section to, 1) reflect upon the progress of the project to date (both as a whole and with regards to your own specific area/role). 2) Critically reflect upon your experience working with the group. Here you may consider your contribution so far, the value of your specific strengths and expertise, the effectiveness of group communications and your performance in group meetings. Looking ahead, how might the group enhance its performance?

Our collaborative first month of brainstorming themes and big-picture exhibition ideas as a group felt effective and productive. Working as a group (rather than individually researching different components of the collection) meant that we encouraged each other to think creatively and expansively, and to build off of one another’s ideas.

As the project progressed, we had to develop a balance between maintaining these creative group discussions and dividing tasks so as to efficiently make progress on the project. Many of our individual roles arose organically over a number of weeks as we received our budget, met with the Travelling Gallery, and worked together to create a timeline for the project, based on our individual interests, skills, and prioritization of tasks. For example, I identified near the beginning of the process that I wanted to take the lead on the interpretive text, and communicated that I was able to contribute strong writing and editing skills to written copy throughout the project. Other responsibilities, however, were picked up more fluidly as they came to light—I volunteered to coordinate the musical performance after serendipitously being able to meet Carla in person and represent our team at an event in Glasgow.

Throughout the project, our group continued to communicate clearly and effectively about the larger picture of the exhibition. However, some obstacles did arise as our working arrangements shifted to working within more specific roles and responsibilities. We had hoped to create a system wherein we would check in about our individual action items at our weekly group meetings and maintain open lines of communication. Ultimately this was only moderately successful; although some items were completed on schedule, many other tasks were repeatedly delayed to later dates. While everything was done on time in the end, we could have worked much more efficiently and calmly in advance by holding each other more accountable to the personal deadlines we had set.

On reflection, this project differed in a significant way from co-curatorial projects within paid employment environments. Although we had individual areas of responsibility, since these were not “official” positions I noticed we had a wariness of “stepping on toes” or clearly holding each other accountable to our tasks. Although our working arrangement positively facilitated a non-hierarchical, creative space to explore the project together, outlining clearer expectations for each others’ roles and feeling empowered to communicate in a more straightforward, professional manner may have helped us work more efficiently and confidently as a team.

 

[Word Count: 1,095]

Oct 10, 2019