Unfortunately, on short notice this week I was not able to visit the gallery with a friend to engage in a discussion. I will try to do this later on this week, I definitely see the merit in doing this to understand our “museography” because there are some particular items I am curious about and how they are translated by a public that is more distanced from this project than the class and I. My main question is how the public interacts with the timeline and projected piece in the hallway. I wonder if it is blatantly obvious that this is a part of our exhibit, particularly the projection as it is located farthest from the entrance to the exhibit. At the same time, it engages students who naturally flow through the building and are aware that there are often shows exhibited in the space, which I have witnessed with past exhibits and with ours.
I also have some questions that may seem obvious, but have not thought about until the opening. In general, I am curious about how the public at large engages with our exhibit, meaning outside of The New School Community. The location of our exhibit in the Aronson Gallery is a great location and the window looking in is welcoming and inviting to the public. However, access to the public in reality seems somewhat limited. In order to gain access to the exhibit students have to use their ID cards to first enter the building. I understand why this security check is in place, but also wonder what effect this has on the outside public coming to visit the gallery. I would think it would be an immediate deterrent and have some logistical questions about whether and how the security guards allow the public into the gallery (especially when there are not specific events going, like the grand opening).
Before the exhibit was installed, I wrote that a major curatorial consideration would be not only how we tell the story of Guatemala after the Genocide, but how we could guarantee that certain projects voices weren’t heard more than others. This is where the O’Neill reading was particularly helpful, especially his idea of “The Exhibition as Form”, which focuses specifically with group exhibitions, like ours. I think we were able to address this issue which was difficult- the challenge of having a cohesive exhibition that allowed the works to still speak their individual stories, but would need to hear more feedback from the audience and how the artists who presented work felt that they were understood.
O’Neill’s categorization of spaces within the exhibit as being either background, foreground, and middle ground was helpful to me in understanding our group exhibit. The background is the structure/architecture of the space, this area was easier to figure out. I mentioned the hallway and window structures before. I think the window structure was especially helpful and crucial to ensuring that more projects were able to be shown in the foreground and not fall by the wayside. Pointing the microphones to the street, as if poised to ask a question was a great way to give this piece a more of a headlining position . If the window was a wall, this piece would be relegated to the farthest corner from the entrance and may have gotten less traffic.
I am interested to observe the public interact with the exhibit and will reflect more when I engage a friend about the exhibit. what do they