Can we imagine an art gallery without art objects in it? (unless the
gallery is under maintenance)
If
the answer is ‘no’ then is it true that we (the art
community) assume
the viewer’s presence too?
noun: viewer vyoo-u(r)
A close observer; someone who looks at something (such as an exhibition of some kind)
The
current art-world has diametrically different practices all surviving in the
same time frame, and the viewer’s position and the role has been tossed and
ignored significantly leading to a gulf between high art and the viewer’s
comprehension of it. Let’s examine the subject with different observed
instances. Perhaps the discussion should be taken with a pinch of salt
considering the hypothesis of normative statements.
A
three-part engagement is a general composition of the art world, today formed
by the creator, the viewer and the third set of individuals and institutes that
keep the enterprise afloat.
A brief study of the timeline of art
history allows us an understanding that the museums and art galleries emerged
as alternative spaces to house art permanently and temporarily. The purpose
they serve is to conserve, promote and support heritage as well as current art
practices in both public and private domains. Considering the diverse human occupations,
the variety in creative objects range from the crafts, scientific advancements,
tangible-intangible cultural records, loosely termed art objects etc. The type of
objects being housed institutionally is defined by the interests of the persons
and people forming the collection. This idea spontaneously widens the scope for
the viewership that a member of society could be interested in. Hence, we’ll
limit the range of our perusal to visual arts and its dissemination avenues.
Viewership could be understood through a model of a cube or a polygon (like
cubism) where many planes exist simultaneously and adjacent to each other but
are never to be seen together in the same glance. Emotional, cerebral,
cultural, economic, social, political, geographic elements direct the viewer’s
perception (appreciation, inhibition, or access).
Artists (creators) hope and expect an
overwhelming response to their display of works, despite the genre they could
be classified into; and it stands justified. The current art-world around us in
India is an eclectic (or a derivative) mix of traditional art forms, academia,
classical forms, modernism, ultra-modern, conceptualism and contemporary so on
so forth as informed by the communication sources throughout the globe. Perhaps
the dynamics of art-making itself are so complicated and layered in the present
times that in order to identify or associate certain values to each genre is a
mighty task. The task is partially borne by a set of viewers who specialise in
classifying the value system broadly listed as art historians, art critics, art
writers and the trending curator. They, in turn, present us the(ir)
world view or micro-view and the rest of the world in most cases accept them
and also often validate the propositions. These individuals or set of viewers’
can be further collectively termed as non-art practising authorial viewers.
Perhaps our discussion right now too is in-line to the aforesaid authority of
thinkers where ‘you’ the reader is placed on the receiving end of the table.
The hierarchy is naturally established
further through the agency of the viewers with an interest in the role of the caretakers
or the custodians of art objects in the public domain and authority and
ownership of a collection in the private domain. In both domains, access to art
objects is closely monitored to safeguard the asset and its life. For e.g., on
one hand, the most valuable objects like Mona Lisa or La Gioconda in a museum
is either in safe vaults or in public display with high-security barriers. On
the other hand, some of the privately collected art objects of historic
importance are rarely or seldom seen in public, rather even declared to exist
establishing the exclusivity of the viewership to a select few. In the latter
case, the artworks lead a phantom life. The cultural objects taken apart as the
raid proceeds in the medieval periods from different lands suffer
de-contextualisation e.g. Egyptian mummies in the British museums et cetera et
cetera.
However, the same act by an artist
establishes a new context to the work or challenges the value system. E.g. the
Fountain by Marcel Duchamp, 1917. The pace with which the artists have been
playing with the creative and mental frames in the last century coupled with
technology and liberty of the media has resulted into a gulf between the
comprehensions of art its relevance to the viewers who haven’t graduated with
the similar pace. We may even have risked the ability of distinction from the
popular and the virtuous, leave alone what defines the later.
It is a separate discourse to factor
the disjunction caused between contemporary art and the general regional
viewership of India where the former mostly demands the cultural alienation and
detached perception. But the onus of engagement with the viewers lays upon the
creators and the backing-institutional set up to make the discourse inclusive.
Perhaps this leads to the core factors of the viewership viz. disabilities,
linguistic diversity, gendered perceptions, faith-based mental makeup, and
politically influenced engagement with the arts. A range of Why, What, When,
How will be presented the moment we think to take up the aforesaid factors.
Especially when people become more sensitive about the factors rather than integrating them while designing art-based gatherings viz. exhibitions,
previews, seminars, workshops, performances etc.
It would be irresponsible to assume
that artists or the community don’t address or account for these factors et al.
However, no formal approach is evident in the larger scenario noting the same.
Let’s us engage by enlisting the
qualities and scope of the viewer(s) and find out for ourselves if we had
actively or vaguely considered them before planning an art-based event.
- The viewer may be of different age groups viz. children, teens, adults, senior citizens etc
- The language
the viewer might be conversant with might not be commonly English but some
regional dialect.
- The literacy
level or educational background could have a high impact on how and what the
viewer interprets.
- The viewer can
have gender orientation or difference that could influence the work’s
interpretation.
- The socio-cultural backgrounds, the economic
class, would possibly define the openness or shy character of the viewer.
- The association
of contemporary lingo of the exhibits might be overwhelming for the viewer to
access the work mentally as well as physically.
- The viewer
could be confined to limited mobility either due to lifestyle or disability and
probably making it impossible to reach out to an art venue beyond regular
reach.
i. The
viewer might be used only to looking at illustrations and paintings of academic
style defining the scope for further or diverse art appreciation.
ii. The
viewer might or might not have affinity or understanding of the skill or
artisanship and may look at the art objects with amazement only toward the
digital avenues that require lesser efforts by the viewer for comprehension.
iii. The
viewer might be convinced of certain ideologies and may reject art forms based
on other ideologies viz. 1. an abstraction lover might never prefer to engage
with narrative styles. 2. Faith may determine their acceptance to any new
imagery other than prescribed by the faith.
iv. The
economic condition(s) might either over-expose to a type of art objects and
styles or underexpose them to the possibilities of particular art forms.
This enlisting for the qualities or
abilities of the viewer can be exhaustive. However, the art fraternity could
have counter thoughts which could be equally debatable and worthy of
consideration for curatorial designing of art events.
- The artwork is self-expression and doesn’t’ need to be interpreted in any way.
- The artworks are conceptual works and require only intelligent viewers.
- The resources necessary to cater to diverse types of viewers are insufficient or unavailable etc.
- The socio-political ‘will’ to invite responses from a type of viewer could be tokenistic or even engaging to the end.
To arrive at a conclusion of who is
your right viewer(s) would appear remarkably simple, but the task to
incorporate their access factoring the concerns raised in the current art-world
scenario is seldom convenient. Further, it is a subjective topic where the viewer
or visitor’s liberty to remain free and interpret the objects presented as
artworks. The viewership in different exhibition formats (types) has added
layers of functioning and could play out to the viewer like simulations.
Growing considerate toward an inclusive act for the viewers would usher a
structural change in art consumption and exchange. The responsibility lies on
each member of the art-ecology to generate interactions amongst the range of viewership.
The article was published in the catalogue of 102nd Annual Art Exhibition • 11th -17th February 2020
