A couple of weeks ago I took advantage of a discount coupon and went to the Art Gallery of Ontario to see Drama and Desire: An art experience unlike any other. Featuring artwork inspired by the theatre, presented “on stage” with live performers, full-scale sets and period lighting.
It's rare for me to go to special exhibitions at art galleries (i'm more inclined to spend my money on museums instead), but this one seemed thematically interesting and had potential for me in its practical aspects.
Much of the style of art in the first 2/3rds of the exhibit was not necessarily to my taste, but they were great examples of theatre in art - grand and rich paintings of dramatic scenes. Much of the later artwork I found more interesting - and this is where my obvious lack of note-taking is apparent because I cannot recall any artist names. I did especially like one of the little niche rooms, hung with sparkly black velvet curtains full of Aubrey Beardsley illustrations from Salome.
What I enjoyed most about the exhibit - even despite my usual shallow interest in art history - is the physicality of the space and the use of props, etc. There are a number of props from Stratford's Shakespeare festivals hung throughout the exhibit, providing an interesting companion to narrative. I also liked the interactive spaces - being able to play with wind and rain noisemakers while "lightning" flashed over a dramatic painting was very inspired, and sitting in front of a tableau from King Lear with audio being read from the play while spotlights trained your eyes to the characters envelops you in the space. We also caught some real live performances by a small troupe, which is something i've never seen in a museum or gallery previously (staff dressed in costume yes, but not performing in exhibit space).
Like the areas where you could sit and watch or listen to performance, there were aspects of theatre in the very structure of the exhibit - from the ticketed entrance looking like an old style theatre complete with flickering candles to the very end of the exhibit where grand pillars are drowned in light, allowing you to cast dramatic shadows as you pass by. All these little things throughout, the tangible materials, almost set dressings, serve to pull you into the feel of what they're telling you about and I think it's fantastic to set that atmosphere - it's so hard to do with a lot of topics.
As i've said, despite my novice ways when it comes to art, I still appreciated the exhibit. It's thematically strong, looking on one hand at theatre in art, and on the other, art in theatre. It runs for another month, and is well worth grabbing the discount and checking out - then you can spend some time aimlessly wandering the gorgeous curves of the building afterward!
Friday, August 27, 2010
Drama and Desire: Art Gallery of Ontario special exhibit.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Art in nature
The other evening I went to the Royal Ontario Museum to see the Vanity Fair Portraits exhibit, one i'd missed when I was living in London and it was on at the National Portrait Gallery. The exhibition was excellent - a good range of photos/subjects/info, and quite a lot to see! Well worth a look if you can get along.
After seeing that exhibit, my companions and I wandered around in some of the natural history sections of the museum - dinosaurs and the biodiversity section mostly. A lot of people ran out of steam after all of that, but I managed to have a cursory look around in the minerals and gems gallery - i'd never made time for it before, usually having reached the point of museum fatigue before then.
I'm not super into geology as much as I am other -ologies that turn up in museums (more on the anthropology or zoology side of things really), but i'm always interested to see how any things are displayed in museums. This gallery was part of the ROM's refurb I guess, because the whole thing is gleaming and beautifully laid out.
The gallery is almost like something you'd find in a modern art museum, or in a art/design kind of museum. (It actually reminded me a little of the asian ceramics display at the British Museum). Cases were in aisle-format, filled with precious little specimens gleaming in perfect light; objects too large for these cases were given pedestals or large cases in focal points. Each little or big piece was like some sort of objet d'art.
The best part about all of this, of course, is that it's art from science. There's no need for an artist's statement, no driving force behind the creation of each little piece other than the drive of the earth itself. Unlike older types of museums and displays where objects were laid out in a fashion to show as much as possible with very little information, this gallery has not only a good range of specimens, but also a high level of labelling and interpretive information (from what I could see on a cursory walk around). I love the gallery and the layout, the design of it all. I may not be as passionate about the subject matter as I am some other things, but even in a 5 - 10 minute wander I got a lot out of it. I'd like to go back and poke around a bit more I think.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Museums and Galleries - is there a difference, and should there be?
Two major exhibits are starting here in Toronto soon - one is Vanity Fair Portraits and the other is the major King Tut exhibit. The Vanity Fair portrait exhibit was in London when I lived there, at the National Portrait Gallery. The King Tut exhibit was also on while I was in London (and I even worked in the front of house section part time), in an exhibition space at the O2 Arena in Greenwich.
I'm surprised at the choice of venues here in Toronto, though.
Vanity Fair Portraits is being held at the Royal Ontario Museum, a mix of cultural and natural history. King Tut is opening soon at the Art Gallery of Ontario, home of a great collection of Canadian art, historic pieces and modern art.
It seems to be a mix-up, right? I would assume the portraits would be right at home hanging in the AGO, while King Tut would slip right into the ROM with its already existing Egyptian content. I understand a lot of large art institutions (for example the Tate Modern and the V&A Museum in London) have enough money and staff to develop excellent interpretive content and educational programs - they aren't just hanging space for pieces of art. And I also understand that much of the content of the King Tut exhibit are gorgeous and indeed artful. But to me, that exhibit has a strong cultural and historic element as well. I know this is an exhibit that's been developed externally and is being brought in lock-stock-and-barrell, but I believe if it were to be situated in the ROM instead there could be a stronger supporting stream of interpretation and education in the hosting institution.
Vanity Fair looks to be a gorgeous exhibition - I missed it in London so i'm definitely looking forward to seeing it. But at the ROM it will seem a little out of place. Again, no doubt a lot of the cultural artefacts on display at the ROM have artistic value - but the portraits would do better in an art-filled environment where their significance could be appreciated more fully.
It was not so long ago that museums and galleries were similar in their lack of interpretation. Content alone was different, and items were put on display with basic labels for identification only, generally. As time has moved on and the museum industry has flourished with regard to producing written exhibition content, interpretation and companion educational programs. These sorts of things are almost written into the process of exhibiting now.
Art galleries still feel different to me. Primarily displaying art with indentifying labels only, there is still very little interpretation on display to accompany pieces of art in art galleries large and small. As I noted above, it seems to be only the larger art galleries with time and resources who develop information past the basic need for most people viewing art.
Having come out of my tertiary education with anthropology and museum studies qualifications under my belt, I gravitate toward the museum world rather than art galleries. I do not doubt that I could enjoy working with objects and pieces of art in a gallery collection - however, I feel there is more cultural relevance and an opportunity to educate about this relevance in a museum.
I could be wrong about the ROM hosting art and the AGO hosting culture - i'd love to be proven wrong! There's an unspoken divide between museums and galleries - we'd be much better off if that gap could be bridged, and both types of institutions could do more to thrust their collections and education about them into the public eye.
And regardless of where they are, at least these exhibitions are touring and have somewhere to be shown.