VIEWER, WHO?

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