Institutional Narratives
looking at the Museum of Contemporary Art and the Denver Art Museum for the arguments these art institutions make
It is no secret that a huge part of art’s narrative and rhetoric is decided by curators who choose to display it. Curators for museums and other cultural institutions have great power behind their decisions. Artists’ worth often hinges on how many times they have been featured in galleries and museums. When a curator decides to buy a piece for the permanent collection of a museum, the act alone adds unbelievable value to other work done by the same artist. Perhaps more impactful is the arrangement in which these artworks are displayed. Museums and other cultural institutions have an incredible ability to make statements through the artwork they choose to show at any given time. Thus, every cultural institution is given the task of saying something with each gallery they put together.
At the Museum of Contemporary Art, the top floor was recently used to display twelve contemporary artists alongside Georgia O’Keefe in an exhibit called “Aftereffect: Georgia O’Keeffe and Contemporary Painting.” Pieces from different artists, who had, in some way, been inspired by O’Keefe, were placed together to show how large of an impact her work had on the artists of today.
This message is being carried out through careful arrangement of the different art and blurbs from the artists about the role that O’Keefe’s work played in the development of their own style. One or two O’Keefe paintings were placed in each of the gallery rooms, to allow for the museum-goers to compare the art styles. After seeing all of this, the viewer is to create the sense that much of contemporary art has been inspired by O’Keefe.
The blurbs that were placed around the gallery shared few details about O’Keefe. A few, such as Melissa Thorne’s, which said that the minimalism used in O’Keefe’s work influenced her to pare down her paintings into abstract landscapes, drew from broad concepts that were seen in the body of O’Keefe’s art. Other examples would be, Mary Weatherford, who stated that she was inspired by O’Keefe’s ability to paint empty spaces when she was doing her cave paintings. Nothing was said about how O’Keefe could have possibly inspired the bright light strips that are attached to several of her paintings. Some connections were less concrete. Leslie Smith III’s blurb was used to describe that she, like O’Keefe, strives to be “communicating emotion through the fusion of abstraction and figuration.” Loie Hollowell declared that the largest inspiration that O’Keefe gave her was the length of Georgia’s career.
I would say that the proof that the museum displays for their argument falls short of making this point. Walking through the exhibit, it feels as though they are grasping at straws, or maybe throwing too many themes and styles into one exhibit. It seems harsh to say that O’Keefe had no impact on these contemporary artists. However, from walking around the exhibit for hours, it feels like a pretty big leap to say she was the main influence for all of them.
Thus, from the viewpoint that the Museum of Contemporary Art set out with the clear intention of making the argument that Georgia O’Keefe has a clear impact on contemporary art, the museum has failed to effectively back up their claim, creating a low-impact narrative for the exhibit. Perhaps the narrative would have been more successful, had the Museum of Contemporary Art narrowed down their scope and focused on contemporary artists who truly felt a strong and undeniable connection with O’Keefe. However, from the viewpoint of the museum getting to bring value to artists, this was very successful. They were comparing the artwork of smaller contemporary artists to that of Georgia O’Keefe; they were saying that these artworks were deserving of that comparison. They successfully argued for the worth of these artworks and artists in this exhibit.
At the Denver Art Museum, the top two floors currently house an exhibit, The Light Show, which pushes a very different narrative. Part of the exhibit is focusing mainly on spirituality and the juxtaposition of different religions. Religions that stood out were Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam. This religious theme is, unexpectedly mixed with different contemporary artists playing with light in very modern ways.
On my first visit, before much of the exhibit was open, I thought that the museum was sending a clear message through the groupings they had created within this exhibit. Historical altars are placed next to pieces by Keith Haring. A chandelier representative of Christian and Islamic cultures hangs from the ceiling. A sculptural, whispering, Bible is next to an incredibly old Qur’an. There was no doubt that the museum was trying to push a narrative about inclusiveness and acceptance through the comparison of different religious artifacts. With the additions of other pieces, void of religious intent, this message has to change.
It is hard to fit “Corridor #2,” an interactive mirror hallway installation, into a religious narrative. “Big Chandelier” sits in complete contrast to “The Way the Moon’s in Love with the Dark.” The first is modern and playful, the second is undeniably meaningful — standing for the bringing together of Islamic and Christian cultures. Still, these other pieces clearly fit into the idea of light that the Denver Art Museum is deciding to show off.
On the bottom floor, there are a few impressionist paintings that show how that style displayed light and the way it reflects. There are sculptures that are coated in chrome so that they reflect back the viewer. There are pieces that play with glass and mirrors, two materials that rely on light to have any visual significance. Some pieces appeared to be floating because of the glass material and the right lighting. One piece was created by making cut-outs from metal to create an incredible background. These all display, in their own way, the beauty and masterpiece that is light in more literal ways.
There are several bigger names on display in this exhibit as well. The previously mentioned “Corridor #2” is being shown alongside one of Anish Kapoor’s reflective disks, “Untitled.” Pieces like these, for me, cheaped the experience of light that the Denver Art Museum was trying to create. While they are fun to look at and exciting to see and walk through, the hallway of mirrors has been done over and over again; Lucas Samaras was neither the first nor the last artist to recreate this piece. The blue reflective disk in one of many of Anish Kapoor’s fabricated pieces. While they might look pretty, and be expensive, there are dozens of examples of them in every color of the rainbow available. There was the same cheapening feeling with “Floating Time (Marine Blue).” It is hidden within a very dark room, but ultimately creates no feeling for the viewer.
Perhaps, overall, the argument becomes about the relationship that humans have with light, whether it be literal light or metaphysical religious enlightenment. By putting these things together, the museum may be saying that these relationships are equal. Perhaps they are saying that there should be equal respect as there is play in this world.
This is all to say, this exhibit became more and more lost on me as it was more and more put together, and I explored it deeper. What had originally stood in starch contrast to my experience with “Aftereffect: Georgia O’Keeffe and Contemporary Painting” quickly became something akin to it. However, I still would argue that the organization and placement of art within “The Light Show” allowed for stronger, through multiple, narratives for the museum-goer to follow as they walked through the white-walled rooms of the Denver Art Museum.
Thus, from the viewpoint that the Denver Art Museum set out to create some sort of message for their viewer, the Denver Art Museum was more successful than the Contemporary Museum of Art. Though the narrative is not fully realized, and, again may have been better off with a more refined collection of arts. It is clear, from the exhibit a floor down — “Serious Play” — that the Denver Art Museum is capable of creating a clear and fully realized narrative within its walls. Interestingly, from the viewpoint of the museum getting to bring value to artists, in some cases “The Light Show” was very successful, and in others, it was simply following trends that have existed in the art world for years.
While museums are tasked with creating messages within their gallery walls, there are varying levels of success that different exhibits have in this field. For me, the Denver Art Museum landed on stronger messages than the Museum of Contemporary Art. Both ended up muddled by the sheer number of art pieces that were put into each exhibit, and the vast range of styles and themes that were within those works. However, through the lens of museums continually deciding the worth and value of artists and their work, there is no question that both institutions had this effect.