The White Cube
“The ideal form of the gallery as a white cube is inseparable from the artworks exhibited inside it.” (O’Doherty, 1986)
The white cube is a content analysis proposal that involves ideological implications that address the issue of the spectator’s place in new spaces of the spatial exhibition, an aesthetic that came to define the idea of space in an art gallery. The proposal focuses on the intense relationship between space and visitors.
The white cube display model should have even walls and discreet artificial lighting with a modern design, a space undisturbed by time.
The author Grespan (2015) explains that the interior must be completely white and aimed to abolish any perceptual connection or reality, creating an almost religious atmosphere in which time and space are excluded. This neutrality focused on concentrating the viewer on individual masterpieces, without anything interfering with the experience. The museum visitor in an aseptic space, with little human presence (a space where the reception and bathroom are so hidden), theoretically should free the public from the sensation of being observed, promoting a personal connection with the works of art. With this lack of “real life” connections, the viewer would be drawn into a reflective mode.
One of the most significant moments in the history of the exhibition, in the opinion of McDemott (2015), was the expansion of the white cube method, a term as already mentioned conceived by the art critic and artist Brian O’Derthy, who, in the 1970s, was claiming due to the growing movements of “institutional criticism”. Institutional critique began in the late 1960s when artists began to create art in response to institutions that purchased and exhibited their work. In the 1960s, the art institution was often branded as a place of “cultural confinement” and therefore something to attack.
The white cube is to be experienced in a neutral space without any distractions so that it could affect its task of self-assessment. The spectator himself was passive and alienated in the sacredness of the gallery space.
In his influential essay Inside the White Cube Brian O’Dherty (1986) provides an extensive and provocative analysis of the history and operation of the white cube. Using rich, often sarcastic language, unfolding the white gallery’s layers of time, interests, and intentions. The author carefully dismantles the myth of the neutrality of the gallery space. His narrative goes through the space that is considered neutral to the context, to their proliferation, at times, it seems that he considers the white cube as a long farewell to modernism.
Elements of criticism became more common according to Gelburd (2015) in the 1980s, during the period of “deconstruction” that was part of postmodernism. This critique concluded that many aspects of Western culture made the white cube an almost unconscious element, an unexamined assumption, thought to convey and reflect certain values of the art displayed there.
Art, largely abstract, was often thought to transcend the specifics of any culture, to engage a universal audience through universal forms. The post-war world and American hegemony seem to lend credibility to this “universal” approach in many areas, including art and its exhibition. In the 1970s, the white cube was no longer apprehended as a context; it was just the way the art was shown (Bright, 2015).
Brian O’Dherty explains that gallery space is not a neutral concept, but a historic building. Furthermore, it is an aesthetic object in itself. The ideal shape of the white cube that modernism developed for the gallery space is inseparable from the works displayed inside. The white cube not only conditions but also subdues the artworks themselves. The white cube is conceived as a context-free place, where time and social space are considered excluded from the experience of artworks. It is only through the apparent neutrality of appearing outside everyday life and politics that the works inside the white cube can seem self-sufficient — only by being freed from historical time can they achieve their aura of timelessness (Sheikh, 2009).
O’Dherty and others like Brightt (2015) reminded us that no space is neutral, that all situations and environments affect art and, conversely, how spaces are experienced. It could be argued that the white cube space is now the “traditional” space for viewing art. It is certainly the most common art produced in the last century.
References
Bright, P. (2015, s/d s/d). why-are-art-galleries-white-cubes? Retrieved from hopes and fears: http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/question/216781-why-are-art-galleries-white-cubes
Gelburd, G. (2015, S/D S/D). Why are art galleries white cubes? Retrieved from hopes and fears: http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/question/216781-why-are-art-galleries-white-cubes
Grespan, E. (2015, Maio 1). WHITE CUBE | An idea of gallery space. Retrieved from archiscapes.WordPress.: https://archiscapes.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/white-cube-gallery-space-idea/
McDermott, C. (2015). Theory of the Object. Kingston: Kingston University MA Curating Contemporary Design.
O’Doherty, B. (1986). Inside the white cube, The Ideology. San Francisco: The Lapis Press.
Sheikh, S. (2009, February 03). Positively White Cube Revisited. Retrieved from e-flux: https://www.e-flux.com/journal/03/68545/positively-white-cube-revisited/
