Ki yaa aamil Nishli
Was it "Ki yaa aamil Nishli-" the title of William Wilson's MFA show- that indicated a respectful approach to all representation, a holy acknowledgement of the power of everything purposefully or unpurposefully rendered to actually create reality?
It seems to me that, when we recognize this quality in everything we put out into our world, we are likely to be more concientious, more thoughtful with respect to what it is we do, and what we are saying about it, especially when it will be welcomed within a public space.
And yes, the way a piece of art is framed in every way determines how it is to be received, even to the extent that the artist's personal intentions may be subverted, their original energy or vibrancy of expression dulled, deadened, petrified. What is it we want from art, then? Why are we so hasty to preserve, and by our preserving, to destroy?
There's lots of reasons for this. Like for instance, nostalgia; sentimentality; an urge in the face of unbridled solipsistic capitalism to retain or shelter something remotely natural which speaks to archaic desires and enterprises. In this way the gallery is something like a church, as O'Doherty says. On nothing but the surface, it harbors utopic visions for humanity and aspires to foster a democratic environment wherein every "layman" is received on equal footing.
But, that's not all. A gallery is less of a cultural ideology, in my opinion, or, if it is, being so doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Plenty of constructs we have created represent ideology in principal, like free public education. One can argue for or against them, but I still believe they represent something noble. It is unfair to characterize and classify all gallery spaces in the same way, and for everyone, even if you are writing a book. Me, for instance, I don't actually imagine a "white" space when I picture the things I am going to see in a gallery. Not only are all galleries not white, but I do think that the metaphorical sterility of a galleriy's "whiteness" traditionally exists in order to better emphasize uniformly the power of the art, and minimize the hegemonic influence of the gallery. It is, essentially, none other than a compromise. Defying this compromise makes O'Doherty and people like him seem somewhat elitist, only interested in their own personal gain by influence.
Questions
Is illusionism really gone? What about magazines like Vogue, which are consumed via everyday grocery store product racks? Does this wide dispersal of printed material make check-out lines our new galleries?
