February 12, 2008 ยท

DB: The Art of the Gallery

In creating custom fashion, I have developed an expirographic theory about what people put on their bodies. Most people dress within the confines of the way they wish the rest of the world to see them. Ergo, the way in which most people dress caters to the world in which they wish to live, that is to say, the Context in which they wish to be seen. It could be said then, that I show the outside world the inner world I want to live in. Put simply: My clothes create a context for the story of my soul.

Art, much like fashion, is often lacking in context, being in and of itself an abstraction. That is a limited window, a finite or “framed” view that the artist is attempting for you to see. It is interesting to me, however, that it is actually impossible to view a piece of art out of context. By the laws of reality, one must be somewhere in order to view something. As much as we would like to pretend we are not in our house in front of the computer, or in the grocery store looking at a magazine, those are the contexts in which we are viewing whatever it is we are looking at. Even as the artist is attempting to remove you from where you are into his or her painting, one must assume that you were somewhere to begin with. This starting point is very important, for it is the gateway from which you are entering the abstraction the artist has created. Michelangelo did not paint God touching man on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel just because it was a handy, upside-down bowl shape 68 ft in the air.

Museums then, if they are true to their mission, should be created in such a way that the patron feels a clear palette palate and a fresh hunger to view what the curator has displayed (perhaps more for the benefit of the collector-artist relationship, than to the praise of the curator) while still of course participating in the great artistic discourse of our time. barf. All that to say: there are many ways to approach the creation and operation of the contextual platform that is a gallery.

If my clothes contextualize the story of my soul, then a gallery shall be the clothing in which our art is wrapped. The goal here is for you to understand that story, for that story to connect to you and help you tell your story. That way (hopefully) the context of the abstraction becomes your living room or your kitchen or the ceiling of your church. Most gallery owners will tell you that they want the art to stick out (duh), that the gallery should not be a distraction and in fact should push you into the art. Much in the same way I don’t want my clothing to distract you from knowing me, it then becomes a tool that gives you an approachable characterization from which you approach thoughts of me.

The floors, the windows, the lighting, the architectural viewpoints created by the floor plan, the arrangement of the art in relation to itself: all of these things combine to produce a very concrete and measurable context that is the gateway to the abstraction that is the art. It may seem like a simple formula of lights, camera, action, but the psychology behind a constantly changing gallery is complex and while my humble friends in the business may quickly deny it, I believe it is an art in and of itself.

While there are a handful of startup galleries appearing in Tacoma, I would like to suggest two in particular, partially because in my opinion they are fine examples of the art of the gallery, and partially because their approaches are significantly different in scope and feel. ArtWalk is on February 21st, both of these galleries will have brand new exhibits and both of them will be open until 10pm. Take a look at the reasonably priced side of Tacoma’s art scene, both places usually poor you a glass of wine and slice you some cheese for your cracker.

Fulcrum Art-Space
1308 Martin Luther King Jr. Way

“First Glimpse”
New work by Steven Naccarato

Opening Reception
February 21, 2008, 6pm-10pm

The Helm
760 S. Broadway

“Soap Land”
New work by Issei Watanabe

Opening Reception
February 21, 2008, 5pm-10pm

๐Ÿ“Ž Attached document

Filed under: Tacoma, DB

3 comments

  • Jesse May 17, 2013

    I always thought that when there were goals set, they absolutely required timeframes for achievement. When a study for something is done and that study ends up sitting on a shelf, without achievement, its probably because it's a study about something they want to do "someday." If you attach a timeframe and accountability to that than I'm sure these studies will have a way better chance of becoming actions and accomplishments.
  • fred davie May 17, 2013

    2012 Crimes against persons = 4473 2013 Crimes against persons = 5012 (Targeted) Isn't it a little unusual to target crime rates at a higher incidence? When I was young it was believed to be in the public interest to lower crime rates, not increase them.
    • donnyhead May 18, 2013

      Why is the "target" higher than the number for 2012? Shouldn't we aim for less crime?