After reading Jonathan Jones' article about the Met displaying modern art and old art together, and this becoming a recurring thing in other museums in Britain, I have to say I agree. When I went to see the Turner Monet Twombly exhibition, I was in awe of how well these different time periods fitted together, and I think that its undeniable that modern artists are influenced by older, established artists, if not for their technique but for their subject matter.
Putting together a range of time periods will also broaden peoples knowledge of artists and further their appreciation. People regularly get into comfort zones, as they do with anything else in life, and showing a range of art can be seen as refreshing. The argument comes in when you start to discuss whether 'group exhibitions' are a good idea. It's all well and good having mixed art in a private collection but when it comes to exhibitions, some artists aren't happy. Rothko says that he feels 'that they only detracted from the concentrated power of his work displayed in its own company' and this is a very valid point - an artists work, solely together, has a much more powerful impact, as it can be collected thematically or chronologically, and this shows the progress and technique of an artist. Sometimes art and artists seem to get lost if they are placed with other artists, especially if there work is the least hard-hitting.
As I have said before, people do favourite certain areas, and this can also lead certain artists who are in the same exhibition to be bypassed. Modern art is normally brighter, more graphic, whereas older art is darker and it's content is normally more obvious, meaning less time spent observing as there is with modern art.
However, with the Turner Monet Twombly exhibition, I felt that all the work in fact added to the impact of the exhibition instead of detracting from it, and this is something that artists should consider.
No comments:
Post a Comment