When set with the task of reviewing the John
Kaldor family Collection on display in the aptly (?) named John Kaldor family
gallery at the Art Gallery of NSW, one would assume that the focus upon
engaging the space and its collective works would be one of looking into any
possible intellectual , visual, geographic or conceptual links. For me this how
ever it was not the case. In utilization of the day I had attended the MCA
prior to the AGNSW and it was here I found the basis for which my final
thoughts and interpretations fell outside of the very work itself.
In pointing out, how ever, that the
interpretation of the work was not key to my development of a point of view it
is fundamental to address the work. The collection of works with a
chronological range of up to 50 years has been described as a comprehensive
collection of contemporary art both of international and Australian artists[1].
Two major works that were currently on display were Carl Andre ‘Steel-cooper plain 1969’ a minimalist work that aims to
create awareness of the space and question the barriers of the viewer in the institution.
The second the work Hany Armanious ‘Turns
in Arabba 2005’ a sculpture and sound piece that finds its grounds in the
crossing of Arabic instrumentation and ABBA.
The two works are important due to the
years they were produced. If we consider the inception of contemporary art
defined by the development of the internet driven vernacular of globalisation (1989)[2].
It could be seen as about a 50% miss-labeling of the collections periodical placement.
With works that have been made in advance of the 1989 cross over (contemporary)
and those pre (modern). Although this information maybe seen as insider
knowledge we must consider the responsibility that the Art Institution has
towards the everyday individual and the notions of accurate recording of art
history not one that blurs.
It is this labeling along with the
perceived underwhelming and cramp nature of the redevelopment of the MCA that
one could take away the notions of a current volatile position of the high end
institution. One that serves not to assist in the understanding of the concepts
and intentions of ‘contemporary art’ but one that could be seen as abstracting views
of everyday culturally participating individual’s. A holy trinity can be observed when taking into
assumption’s that White Rabbit is actually an institution as opposed to a
presentation of a personal collection. This a dangerous one, also one that the
attendants attempt to dispel to very little avail. It also an assumption that
not only the general public make but one that we bore witness to in discussions
in our classes. In this case the gallery is one that is derived of one persons
taste and acts as an access point for current ideas circulating in china. With
this understanding in place we can critically asses the Kaldor collection and
if it too stands for personal taste or has a place as something more.
In walking away I could not help and be of
the persuasion that the collection stood for a dystopianesque place in the
cultural landscape of Sydney’s current art institution. We are asked to asses
the collection as a whole body of relevant international and Australian
contemporary art (miss-placed use of the term). We to are bearing witness to
what is essentially personal taste of an individual, I do wish to state here
that I acknowledge the importance of John Kaldor in the artistic development of
Australia. I do also how ever wish to state that we must be careful in what we
accept or do not question when dealing directly or with perceptions of the high
end art institution. If we simply follow
blindly, well, I guess I shall se you in the art institution fuelled rubble of
contemporary practice in the wake of the critic of the masses miss-directed understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment