Exhibition design can make or break a show in a museum. Do it wrong, and the visitor response could be irritation, feeling stupid, or even worse, walking right pass the exhibition entrance. Do it right, and it becomes like a subconscious guide, revealing the power of objects and a story to tell.
With design in mind, think to your own experiences in museum exhibitions: Was there one you remember that resonated with you in part because of its good design? Or was there one that fell flat thanks to elements that interfered with your appreciation of artworks on view, or your overall experience? Recount your personal experience, using details of museum location, design aspects, and specific show, in at least four sentences. Feel free to jog your memory with a bit of research, and post your entry no later than 5pm, Monday, October 26. Thanks, and happy homecoming to all!
In 2013 I got the chance to visit the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond and tour their Chihuly exhibit. This was before I decided to pursue art in school and represented one of the pivotal moments in me deciding to switch to an art major, largely due, I imagine, to the fantastic presentation of the works. The exhibit was kept in very low light with powerful spotlights on the works. The colorful, space-activating works were given incredible attention by the lighting and large space designated for each work. The walls were also in place so as to move the viewer through in a determined path according to the designers. Though this could’ve been viewed as constricting, I think it actually added to the sort of mystical quality of the works. One was led through a dark walkway to be overwhelmed by beautiful glass colors. All in all it was a beautiful showcase of the artist’s mystical color studies.
ReplyDeleteAn exhibit that I felt was very successful was one at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond, Virginia called “Forbidden City: Imperial Treasures from the Palace Museum, Beijing.” The show ran from October 18, 2014 – January 19, 2015 and included objects and works from the Ming and Qing dynasties such as portraits, clothing, and decorative arts. The show was set up in a chronological order throughout multiple rooms, each room with works hung on the walls as well as a large work of sculpture or display of furniture or decorative art set up near the center of the room. I remember feeling that the flow of the exhibit was very natural- it was clear to me where I was intended to go next. This was assisted by an informational booklet that was given out at the beginning of the exhibit that provided background information on the dynasties and time periods of the pieces- enough information to give the viewer context, but not so much that the viewer was overwhelmed or could not form his or her own thoughts about each piece. The use of rich reds and blues as paint colors, as well as the dim, spotlight-effect lighting, created a dramatic, reverent effect on the objects that made the viewer want to slow down and take in the objects for a longer period of time.
ReplyDeleteOver this past summer, I helped work with Fernbank Museum just outside of Atlanta, Georgia and in that time, I got to walk through the exhibits. There was one particularly impressive exhibit that spanned several rooms entitled "A Walk Through Time in Georgia." The exhibit was a linear, fully-immersive experience in which the atmosphere of the development of Georgia is explained. One room starts out as a very forested area with many swamps and showing ancient animals that used to live there, whereas in another room it shows a much more modern show of the wildlife that would be seen in present day. The flow of the exhibit creates a literal timeline that visitors follow and tells the whole story in a very sensible, chronological way.
ReplyDeleteIn the Summer of 2014 I had the chance to visit the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh. The building was very large and had an open atrium area, which initially drew in the visitors, but the exhibit layouts were very poorly organized, detracting from the overall experience. There was a large mixture of natural history, ancient art, and technological innovations that they divided into three different sections of the building, however the organization methods were poorly executed. Random works of art were put next to each other, for example a traditional Chinese dress and english china, without an explanation of a connection. They did not label the rooms clearly so unless you had a map to the museum it was very difficult to navigate. In the Scottish history section they had half-foors which made navigating around the exhibit difficult and it seemed as if the museum was used more as a storage space then as a museum to display works for the public with a solid mission. The National Museum is a perfect example of exhibition layout gone wrong, which is a shame due to the fact that they have so many beautiful works.
ReplyDeleteA couple of weeks ago I had to go the National Gallery in Washington D.C. for a class. This was a very convenient opportunity, especially because of this class. I was lucky even further to be able to see the Caillebotte exhibition that is touring, and it was amazing work from a French Impressionist, but I found it a little lacking. In class we were taught that the new big thing is the “hook” piece of work, the one that draws the people into the gallery to look at it. And that is exactly what the National Gallery did, but the initial surprise of seeing the famous Paris Street in the Rain was from so far away I could not see the edges of the painting. I then had to go and stare at early Renaissance baby Jesus for an hour. Maybe the span of time that the initial ‘wow, look at it’ reaction, as well as the number of people who were clearly taller than I—walked around me and in my way with their little tours playing in their ears—made the atmosphere a little less than brilliant for such deserving work. From what I could see it was a beautiful painting up close, I could not read the label, though. I still blame the man who was about six feet tall standing directly in my path—I know he saw me. I do understand that the number of people is important to a functioning museum, especially around the National Mall, but as a guest, it made me sad that I felt like I couldn’t have that personal experience with the art in that particular exhibit, as I did with some of the others.
ReplyDeleteI have searched high and low about the exhibit I visited years ago,
ReplyDeleteI had recorded everything in my highschool notebook, which is at home,
but I remembered the overvall exhibit and one piece that stood out. It
was in DC, if I recall correclty it was in the National Portrait Gallery, on
the lower bottom floor of the museum. The overall exhibit showcased a mixture
of Pablo Picasso, Rembrant, and another notable Italian artist.There were many
things that I enjoyed from this exhibit, but I thing I remember was the layout
of the exhibit. A majority of the pieces were no bigger than a computer size paper
which to me was so interesting because I have never seen an exhibit display such
small works in my life. The pieces were all at eye level, hung on dark blue walls,
and think there were only two rooms the gallery used. The entire exhibit was lit
very dim, because of how old the pieces were and what materials they were on. As
far as the flow of the exhibit, it was so nicely done because it would start out
showing etchings from Italian artists, then show a couple of Picasso works. The only
thing that I thought was difficult was the location of where the exhibit, the only
way I found out about the exhibit was from the museum booklets that hang at the main
entrance of museum. Another thing was that I think I remember correctly was that the
gallery was moving certain pieces to another location so, they had certain parts of
museum closed off to the public.
Meagan Stuck
ReplyDeleteRecently, I had the good fortune of going to the National Gallery in Washington D.C. and I got to see the Caillebotte exhibit! The pieces in the show were wonderful, and had the exhibit been designed differently I would say that it could've been one of my favorite exhibitions that I have seen in the national gallery. The lighting was the same as the rest of the museum, and the pieces were all placed very closely together within the rooms. There were so many people in the rooms at one time, and so much noise, that it really took away from my viewing experience. Had I been able to appreciate these works in a dimmer light and a more calm environment perhaps with them more spaced apart, my experience would have been much better. I was at the museum with my sister who likes to learn about art and I was excited to share with her my knowledge of the works on display, but she could barely hear me when I was speaking to her, and I know that really took away from her experience as well, as someone who wanted to learn more about art and the show on display. Overall the National Gallery should have changed how they curated this show, in my opinion, to better fit viewers. While it is important to get people through the door, as we have talked about, the experience is what is the most important to those viewers that you get in the door.
The most recent museum I visited was the Museum of the Shenandoah Valley. Their exhibit going on now is called "Action!". "Action!" features many elaborate costumes from films over the years including Pirates of the Caribbean, Sherlock Holmes, Jane Eyre, and The Duchess. The exhibit took place in three adjoining rooms with dim lighting featuring spotlights on the works. Each work was on a platform which featured a bio about the film and facts about the attire. The lower platform helped slightly raise the works up, so you weren't looking really far down on them. The labels helped describe what the clothing was from and could still interest you even if you had not seen the film it was in. In each room, there was always a piece centered in the middle. This helped catch your eye when you were in another room to guide you along. Overall, this design was great because it accented the works perfectly yet took away no focus from the works presented.
ReplyDeleteOver the summer for the first time ever (shameful to admit this as a History student) I visited Ford Theatre and subsequently the Peterson House where Abraham Lincoln was carried after he was shot. As I walked through the different exhibits in Ford's Theatre there was something that really struck me, and it is something I still think about often. One of the last exhibit rooms you walk into before you go into the actual theatre itself is a room of artifacts that belonged to the conspirators. There's the boot and spur that Booth was wearing when he jumped onto the stage after shooting Lincoln, his diary, personal affects of Mary Suratt, and then when you walk around that display case there are figures and images, and then one lone artifact. It's the gun that Booth used to kill Lincoln. I think this particular display spoke volumes about what we were all looking at. By isolating the gun you were forced to think about what happened with this tiny weapon, and I was overwhelmed to see just how small the gun and bullet was that Booth used. I think in this regard, the display both speaks to the visitor on a historical level, but certainly speaks to us through human emotion. None of us were alive when Lincoln was killed, but it is hard to not be in that room looking down at the tiny gun and not feeling SOMETHING in terms of human emotion. I think the low lighting in the room was also very useful because you were forced to feel as if you were in this sacred spot. One of the exhibits in the adjoining Peterson house is a mock train car that was made to look just like the Presidential train that carried Lincoln's body back to Springfield. When you walk into the car there is a coffin inside draped in an American flag. It was again an overwhelming display and done very well.
ReplyDeleteMy only regret was that I had not visited Ford's sooner and I honestly could go again and again.
In the spring of 2014 my dad decided to treat me a week in NewYork City in order to visit a numerous of art museums. I was so very excited to see contemporary shows as well as the good old fashion ones. In regard to exhibition design I do remember one very vividly, the MOMA. The Museum of Modern Art. This is a museum that is very famous, and has a big name. The surprise is that, the exhibition designs weren't very good. The museum as a whole wasn't very organized. In fact, we didn't know where to buy tickets, we didn't know where the museum started, we couldn't follow the map very well. I distinctly remember walking into to an exhibit from the wrong end. We walked in through the exit, and we weren't the only ones. For a big fancy museum like that, I would have expected more organization. But then on the other hand, the museum might be so big that they don't have enough time or staff to prepare accordingly. Its such a shame because its a museum we paid a good amount to get into and what I remember most is the fact that it was a mess.
ReplyDeleteOver the summer, I was able to visit the Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey, California. The exhibit that stood out to me the most and that was the coolest in the aquarium was the jellyfish exhibit. Lighting in the space is almost non-existent except for the bright, fluorescent blue tanks the jellyfish are in. There are numerous circular tanks throughout the exhibit that almost seem to pop out of the walls and contrast incredibly well with the light pinkish color of the jellyfish. When walking through the exhibit, it is very quiet and the brightness of the blue backgrounds in the tanks immediately attract people to them. It almost appears as if the jellyfish are simply floating around within the walls. There are small labels next to each display that give basic information about the jellyfish such as where they live, unique features, and size. Overall, the near blackness of the space with light only emanating from the tanks make this an incredibly powerful exhibit and one that definitely draws visitors to the displays.
ReplyDeleteAn exhibit that I thought did a very good job with design was the "Van Gogh, Monet, and Matisse: The Art of the Flower" exhibit at the VMFA in Richmond. The show was presented in chronological order, which was helpful in creating historical meaning especially for those pieces that were more current- it aided in showing a progression of style. One thing that I paid attention to (aside from the art) was the wall color. Each area was colored in a vibrant color that really added to the overall design of the show. I feel like wall color can easily distract from the artwork if done poorly. However, the addition of various colored walls added an excitement.
ReplyDeleteAn exhibit that I have visited time and time again is Yayoi Kusama's Repetitive Vision, permanently located at the Mattress Factory in Pittsburgh. The room consists of white mannequins on a white tile floor, all of which are covered in red spots. The walls ceiling are completely covered in mirrors, which is what I believe makes this exhibit so successful. They help to transform what could've been looked at as sculpture into an exhibit that the audience feels a part of and can interact with. This exhibit has become extremely popular with the public due to social media. Mirror pictures or "selfies" of visitors standing with that mannequins are commonly found on Facebook, Instagram, etc. The exhibit is placed towards the rear of the museum, which causes visitors to be exposed to the other works in the museum on their way to see Yayoi Kusama's pieces.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite exhibits that I have been to is the Dutch still life paintings at the National Gallery of Art. The paintings are so elegant, so rich with texture and they all have such a real element to them; it’s as if you can grab a flower from the arrangement that is painted. With that said, the National Gallery have them hung in a very elegant fashion with beautiful frames and dark wood behind them. The choice of wood make the paintings pop and it is appropriate because the paintings would have been in very luxurious homes in 17th century Holland. With that said I actually felt like I was actually walking through a 17th century home.
ReplyDeleteThe exhibit would have been unsuccessful if they had been hung on a very clean white wall. The exhibit would have felt sterile; but the dark, rich color of walls really added to that elegant and realistic feel that the paintings possess as well.