Artists and Institutional Critique

by Paula Booker

Responding to your article Art and Architecture 20 April, I agree that often European institutions seem able to modernize their existing buildings with an overarching respect for the original architecture style of the institution, while updating the interior gallery spaces to the needs of contemporary artists — and in acknowledgment of the current prevalence of the 'white cube style' gallery space as standardized model for exhibition design.

However, some of the recent re-developments in New Zealand, while often necessary improvements and additions, are often appallingly ill-considered from an art experience, art conservation or heritage perspective. The Auckland Art Gallery redevelopment is an unfortunate example of waffly council brief and show-off architecture combining to ruin a lovely heritage building. This re-development is the work of Sydney-based FJMT and, Auckland-based Archimedial and collides french Neo-classicism and a post-pop jigsaw style with echoes of Te Papa and also Auckland's Queen St imax/Civic Theatre development (we can blame architecture firm JASMAX for both of the latter). Hopefully the AAG will look and work better than images and models show. See here for details of the Auckland developement http://www.thebigidea.co.nz/node/30343


Others, such as the newish Christchurch Art Gallery attempt to create statement buildings, for reasons often including the purposes of promotion of the institution at the cost of exhibition space and unreasonable cost to the gallery/taxpayer (It is often mentioned that the annual cost of cleaning the glass-fronted CCAG is greater than their annual collections acquisition budget!) and all that heat, light and condensation
must affect the exhibition spaces and ultimately, the art.
I was fortunate to attend a very interesting conference convened by Artspace Sydney last weekend. Some sessions addressed what was referred to as the 'neo-liberalisation' of museums and galleries internationally. This blight - suffered by te papa among other NZ institutions — sees institutions increasingly reliant on visitor numbers for viability/funding. (Imagine where Enjoy would be if this was a blanket rule for state/government/CNZ funding!)



Neo-liberalisation, when applied to art institutions, sees the growing of publicity departments and shrinking of curatorial staffing and academic/research investments, as institutions pursue cultural equity in the form of commercial sponsorship and stampeding attendance figures at the cost of audience development, support for new research and presentation of challenging cultural output. It also has the unfortunate side-effect of turning the exhibition and artists into products to be pared down, simplified and sold to a mass public.

A key example of this in evidence during my time in Sydney was the blatant commodification of Yayoi Kusama's work for her survey show at the MCA. Banners everywhere were covered not with Kusama artworks, but spots a bit like her work. The Sydney public was encouraged to 'go dotty over art at the MCA'. I saw a notice at in the entryway advising that a special 'Kusama spotted chocolate brownie' was available during the show from the gallery cafe...eek! Art=symbol=marketable product=cash. Market and audience forces have always been at play but this felt so crass...FYI - the Sydney MCA's Kusama exhibition will feature prominently in the opening program of the re-developed City Gallery Wellington. (The issue of the commercial exploitation of what this exhibition shows to me to be a deranged individual is another issue, however interesting. You can read the wall text/artist statement and make up your own mind about that)
the show is listed here: http://www.mca.com.au/default.asp?page_id=10&content_id=4737

Anyway the Artspace conference was very interesting, and addressed "questions crucial to the future of art institutions and their relationship to contemporary practice in the 21st century, with particular reference to curatorial and artistic strategies in Australia and the Asia-Pacific" ...and discussed the way the principles of institutional critique has been incorporated into institutional practice. Some more info on the conference Spaces of Art here:
http://www.artspace.org.au/public_archive/conference_spacesofart.php

Many speakers also talked of the opposite to this neo-liberalisation, and developing new spaces, centered on projects and context and with artist-centred approaches. Nina Montmann talked about European examples working in this way and I thought of Enjoy, and Artspace Auckland among other local examples.


Getting back to local institutions and their redevelopments... perhaps it is simple, as Billy Apple constantly and vocally claims — artists should be consulted on the specifications of a new art space or a major redevelopment. Don't artists naturally have a professional sensitivity to the needs and also future use of the space, at least equally if not more finely tuned than any architect?

//
the end

attached images:

redeveloped auckland art gallery - artists impression
CCAG glass fronted building
Kusama