The exhibits were pretty sweet. I went to the gallery with the Speicher paintings first. I really liked the dudes technique. His ability to express the aura of his subject immediately made itself apparent to me. His technique reminded me of expressionism, similar to Renoir or Marisot, although Speicher’s style had a strong academic feel to it that was not as freeing as those guys. This observation was reaffirmed when I was set to leave the gallery. There was a, because I don’t know the correct way to say this, thing on the wall with words written by Speicher. He was talking about the way he paints, his views on painting. He said, if I can remember correctly, something about not just imitating the object he is painting but infusing himself or his view into it as well. He expresses his artistic vision, his soul, through the impressionistic brush work that creates a strong sense of texture and liveliness to his work.
Having something like this on the wall is beneficial to the curating aspect of the museum. It allows a context through which the viewer can better understand the artist’s work.
The arrangement worked out well too. The uniformity of the rooms made it easy to move from work to work without being thrown off in a change of genre. Most of the portraits were in the first room, then as one progressed along the wall there were still life paintings and landscapes. The organization made it easy to navigate and gain a pretty good basic understanding of Speicher’s work.
It was cool to move from Speicher’s section of the gallery to the 80’s section in the back. Two very different vibes. When moving through Speicher’s section the words on the wall didn’t really effect the composition as much. They were pretty much names of who he had been painting, the area the painting illustrates or the flora being depicted. In the 80’s section the captions, yes! there’s the word, the captions meant much more. Almost every piece in the 80’s section had some type of social or political message so the captions really helped give some clarity to the artist and/or message the piece was trying to convey. Within a fairly small collection I was able to gain a sense of the adversities that had faced individuals during that time. The art work was very expressive, even when it was minimalist, and captured a theme that seemed to permeate the entire collection. That theme being the aforementioned social and political turmoil during the time. Interesting to see how art can be utilized as a scope into the human condition and how the human condition deals with its environment.
When I left the 80’s exhibit I mozied over to the other side. The other side bugged me out a bit. It was really dark and violent. The aggression and anxiety in the room was somewhat off set by the sober black and white colors but the monochromatic color scheme of the room did not mask the vibe. The pictures and paintings on the wall were all a bit eerie. I walked over to the movie on the wall and watched. I kind of wanted to stop after a while because it was unsettling but at the same time interesting. I’m not sure how much of it I watched but from what I did see seemed to be a feminist critique concerning the image of women in society. I remember there being points in the movie and images in the gallery, such as the writings that sounded something like, “die slut”, when I could sense an attack on status quo beauty, and an anger at the fact such pretenses exist.
This gallery seemed to revolve strongly around the film. Pieces that were out on the floor looked to be the same ones used in the film, so from a curatorial aspect what was being presented all linked to the film project. The color scheme tied the collection together as well. The space felt way different than the other gallery.