Inside the White Cube : Brian O’Doherty –

Inside the White Cube : Brian O’Doherty
The Ideology of the gallery space

Photo 01-05-2014 13 55 09

1) Notes on the gallery space
첫 번 째 장에서 작가는 회화와 gallery space relationship에 대해서 이야기하고 있다. 시작은 mural과 painting with a frame(easel painting) 이 어떻게 다른지, 그로 인해서 gallery space가 어떠한 관력을 지니게 되는지 살펴본다. 그는 Monet의 Impressionism이 회화의 surface / edge의 문제를 다루는 데 있어서 커다란 전환점이 되었다고 보고 있으며, photogrpahy가 어떻게 frame 과 표면의 문제에 도전했는지도 살펴본다.
Flatness와 objecthood의 문제가 결국 어떻게 modernism에 영향을 주었고, Picture plane, Color-field painting 등을 순차적으로 살펴보면서 painting / frame / wall / gallery space 간의 관계에 대해서 이야기하고 있다.

As modernism gets older, context becomes content. In a peculiar reversal, the object introduced into the gallery “frames”the gallery and its laws.
Modernism’s transposition of perception from life to formal values is complete. This, of course, is one of modernism’s fatal disease. p.15.

The frame becomes a parenthesis. The separation of paintings alng a wall, through a kind of magnetic repulsion, becomes inevitable. In photography, the location of the edge is a primary decision, since it compose-or decompose-what it surrounds. Eventually framing, editing, cropping- establishing limits-become major acts of composition. p.19.

Impressionism in which a major theme was the edge as umpire of what’s in and what’s out. The development of a shallow literal space (containing invented forms, as distinct from the old illusory space containing real forms) put further pressures on the edge. The great inventor here is Monet. p.20.

The definition of a painting as a self-sufficient object- a container of illusory fact now become the primary fact itself.
Flatness and objecthood usually find their first official text in Maurice Denis’ famous statement in 1980s. p.22.

The relation between the picture plane and the underlying wall is very pertinent to the esthetics of surface. p.25.
The attacks of painting in the sixties failed to specify that it wasn’t painting but the easel picture that was in trouble. p.25.

All this traffic across the wall made it a far-from-neutral zone. p.27.
The wall became the locus of contending ideologies. The wall became an esthetic force. The wall, the context of the art, had become rich in a content it subtly donated to the art.

There is something splendidly luxurious about teh way the pictures and the gallery reside in a context that is fully sanctioned socially. We are aware we are witnessing a triumph of high seriousness and hand-tooled production. p.3.4

Covering the wall with an image of that wall all delivers a work of art right into the zone where surface, mural, and wall have engaged in dialoges central to modernism.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s