

But the mix of Western and non-Western works created stunning visual impacts. The curators took great pain in the catalog (which was beautifully done) that this exhibition is not trying to draw conclusion on whether African/Oceania art has influenced Western artists like Picasso, Leger, Matisse, etc, in their works (though it did say that, as a fact, some of these artists do collect and have viewed African/Oceania art during their lifetime).
The meticulously put-together exhibition juxtaposes Picasso, Mondrian, Matisse, Leger, Cezanne with different African/Oceania sculptures. The Western works follow a chronological order, and the non-Western works are arranged by origins/themes. You can see the similarity - and sometimes the contrast - between works from these very different worlds (sometimes in particular chosen from the same time periods). While the Western works are all important in their own rights already, they serve only as "background" to lift up the non-Western works.
This reminds me of the YSL collection - when Christies took pictures of St Laurent's home showing how he thoughtfully displayed works from different periods, paintings and sculptures together, and each work speaks to each other - a true showcase of how a tasteful owner with a broad art interest (not just one country, or one culture, or one medium) should tastefully show his/her collection. (Somehow I felt only Europeans are good at doing that!) And indeed, the curator at Beyeler did again just that in this show.
This show wasnt an accident - Mr Beyeler has always been a fan of African/Oceania art, and has a big collection. It has been his fascination to mix Western and non-Western works, to display them together, and create a dialogue.
I havent read anything academic on "how to curate", but I felt this show at Beyeler was pretty world-class (in comparison, I actually think the Gicometti and Quinn exhibitions displayed "important works" in a retrospective form, but honestly not nearly as interesting). I wonder if Asian/HK curators have thought of putting together shows like this? For instance, can they mix contemporary Chinese art with modern, traditional paintings? Or Chinese antiques? What's the limitation - narrow understanding of art history, limited collection, poor access to interersting works, limited connections between works since contemporary Chinese works draw more from Western ideas than Chinese ones....or all of the above? Pace did sth similar in its first (and last?!) show in BJ during the Olympics. I think it's called "Reflection", where it showed "echoing" works from Chinese contemporary artists and their Western counterparts. Wonder if HK museums will be able to do that in future?
Another thought - when such great shows were put together, why shouldnt they travel so that more people can see them? It's almost wasteful that shows are taken apart after a few months of showing it in one museum, in one city. Why havent museums do more "traveling shows" - is it that curators need to find a reason for their existence, and they dont want to share any "glory", hence the need to curate their own new shows every time rather than borrowing others' - or that it's just a market void and museums havent caught up with the reality of increasingly limited exhibition budget and the potential to cut exhibition cost by "sharing a show"?
No comments:
Post a Comment