I suppose you have a point; but then it's the degree to which the viewer is
willing to be confronted and on which subject.
I was outside the British Museum last weekend, but I couldn't bring myself to
enter. It was quite crowded but the fact of late night (duty adult at a
students' party) and early rise (because I can't sleep late) meant that I was
weary of public places by then. Perhaps another time.
I was going to mention your use of "discomforted", Andrew, but I see that it is
now in general use (rather than "discomfited").
Oh well; I'll find something else to confront you with :-)
Chris
On 8 Nov 2010, at 10:57, Andrew Fildes wrote:
> The instinct to confront is essential to art. Many pieces that we regard as
> unchallenging now were extremely shocking in their time.
> If someone is not discomforted, then there seems little point in churning out
> 'acceptable' pieces.
> Then I've seen some explicitly pornographic material on ancient Greek
> ceramics and in friezes from Pompeii which were regarded as unremarkable in
> their time.
>
> Don't know about the V&A but in the Tate Modern, photography is allowed
> except on the fourth floor. Exhibits there are specifically 'protected' and I
> was almost thrown out this year, as I think I said here, for shooting patrons
> in an exhibit on candid photography. The irony was irresistable. It was
> nothing to do with protecting the material from light - merely an insurance
> requirement for visiting exhibitions and borrowed exhibits. The British
> Museum has no restrictions at all.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|