Visiting the new exhibition at the Saatchi was a really interesting and relevant experience in terms of investigating the current existence of popular culture within the art world, and the idea of 'dumbed down art' for commercial purposes.
With one of the leading galleries in the UK hosting a 'Selfie' exhibition - a phrase coined from the phenomenon that took off as a result of the prominence in front cameras on phones, and extended (punny) by the invention of the 'selfie stick'. The exhibition also has an underlying focus on the prominence of social media and 'mass communication' within our contemporary society.
Moreover it is interactive in more ways than simply the viewer with the art - much of the art was from competitions for the public to enter, or sponsored by (mobile phone thus technological) companies - capitalising the art industry - advertisement - all popular culture
art by the people for the people
Is the dumbing down of art for mass consumption a good thing for society - eradicating the elitist institutions - does this speak up for equality or quality of life in the developed world - or are we just dumbing down at the expensive of all this smart technology?
On the surface this exhibition appeals to all, as people are aware and understand the premise of what the art or concept is getting at. However, digging deeper and knowing the history of art and its trends and movements, this exhibition was somewhat breaking all norms within the institution. The idea of high art on screens, which isn't actually there, opens up a whole new idea of exhibiting art. The famous self portrait (selfie in this case) of Warhol, as well as famous Basquait paintings were shown on screens whilst their originals hang in another gallery around the world, thus presenting an emergence into a completely new age of art at the expense of technology. Moreover the prominent interactive qualities of the exhibition seemingly dumbed it down, yet presenting an all inclusive experience that could present art as moving in a posivite directions
nonetheless,
surely it could be considered a good things that there can be a forum for art where some people don't gage the deeper psychological or social meaning behind it, yet everyone enjoys it all the same?
or are we threatening the authority of the institution by lowering the standards of art simply to make money on a commercial scale - does this threaten the chance art has as ever being taken seriously by, for instance, the government (who cut finding to artistic courses)?
dividing the scape of the audience, as only those who know the institution would gage the deeper significance behind the exhibition.
- Making the people the art
- Relating to everyday people
- Indulging in popular culture: using everyday peoples photos and placing them in a formal institution thus constituting them as art - does this make them art?
- Focusing on celebrities - much like the Pop Art movement, but in a new relevant way - is the art aspect lost?
- Does the fact that everyday people indulge in this
From a branding standpoint, the Saatchi adheres to simplistic everything - clean san-serif capitalised font with a greyscale pallet of simply white and grey. Is this essentially trivialised the the bare minimum - it quite literally can't categorise any target audience due to its literal and strait to the point branding, there is no confusion or 'smile in the mind'.
The outside branding:
note: people were taking pictures in front of the plaques
Famous self-portraits of historical painters - on screens as to be set up on 'Instagram' - one could like by double tapping on the phone next to the screen, and the screens flicked through various paintings to mirror our behaviour on social media.
Famous, more contemporary styled self portraits of artists on screens:
A room filled with projections of hundreds of videos of people from the internet - the sounds of all of them on to enable an intense setting that begins to feel quite overwhelming and trapping:
Saatchi competitions - art by the people for the people
Interactive art - mirroring the idea of filters on social media - encouraged people to take selfies in new ways and within the exhibition - often in some high art exhibits you aren't allowed to take photos -breaking normal stigmas:
Interesting idea that now smart phones (which are accessible to most people) have as good cameras as professional photography equipment, thus taking a specialised skill and making it accessible to everything - what does this do to the industry?
This was the most interesting and thought provoking part of the exhibition as someone currently investigating this idea of how to integrate popular culture into formal art institutions. However, for the majority of other people there, this was simply a room with 'selfie images' either on screens or printed on canvases, of relatively low quality. Is this art? Are people understanding a deeper societal message behind this, or simply laughing at the selfie? Have we lost our connection with events at the cost of picturing ourselves there? Why are internet memes, or edited pictures of Winston Churchill taking a selfie in a highly respected art institution? Is this a wakeup call to society, or just an art exhibition that is all-inclusive in nature? Why do we care about a picture of a celebrity taking a selfie, and why is this art?
You are the art. An installation where the room has cameras around and all the walls are projected with the CTV style surveillance aesthetic, of what the cameras in the room pick up - making the public themselves the art. It is interactive, as well as raises questions of government surveillance and tracking, especially in London where the exhibition takes place. It also plays of perspective and perceptions of the room the viewer themselves are in:
No comments:
Post a Comment