Reading about the many forms of artistic context is fascinating to me, adding a new dimension to not only thoughtful critique, but influencing countless choices made by the artist themselves. The chapter points out that recognizing the cultural or physical implications of a work can make it’s message more powerful, like the example of the flag being shown in a window as opposed to the floor of the gallery space. Not to speak of the stark contrast of viewing a subject in a gallery as opposed to that same subject in a trash can. Criticism should address a work on this basis to be fully comprehensive, but weighing these factors exclusively is as reductive as it is unhelpful.
There are many other issues brought to light by the reading as well, like the often forgotten bias and influence of curators in exhibitions and museums, choosing the sequence in which art is presented. These small but important changes effect the viewing context, and most damning of all twists the artist’s intended viewing experience, acting as a creative bureaucrat in an industry where one bad showing can make or break your career. I firmly stand with the artists that choose to criticize this practice, harm to career be damned.
What seems so topical to culture today is the Historical and Social context in the era of re-litigation and posthumous indignation, neglected is the time and place an artist worked in, and the broader ripples in the greater artistic world they made. The gap between the greater audience and art should ideally be made as small as possible if we want to create a system where an artist’s work can reach the mass audience receptive to it, and in turn we as honest appreciators owe it to everyone to stop paying attention to the one guy at the party who never misses an opportunity to tell you how John Lennon beat his wife.
Nathaniel's Blog 