I've heard so much about the Victoria and Albert Museum in my History of Modern Design class, so I was quite excited for this day. Today was also the day we met Glenn Adamson, writer of one of our pre-departure readings titled 'When Craft Gets Sloppy.' He led us on an informative tour around the museum, talking about its history and its values; the V&A kept its casts as part of its ideology to educate the public, while other museums threw the copies out, seeking the originals instead.These casts of relics from classical history exhibit skillful craftsmanship and their textures closely imitate the originals. Adamsom brought up the fact that casts are easily more accessible to a larger audience, and they are more well-preserved in the museum setting whereas the originals have likely suffered years of weathering. Seeing the cast of Michelangelo's 'David' statue was interesting, if a bit giggle-inducing--seeing this magnificent sculpture in the corner of the exhibit room, in the company of other sculptures protectively wrapped like hospital invalids was too funny in my mind. My art history professors have monumentalized Renaissance art that perhaps I have subconsciously stuck it on a very high mental pedestal. I became very aware of this when I saw the David in his very humbling surroundings. I was also very aware of how big his head was in proportion to his body. I know Michelangelo did it purposely, since it was originally intended to be placed at a great height so he wanted to emphasize the figure's most expressive parts, but it added to my giggles.
The galleries devoted to design were a personal favorite. Henry Cole, we meet again! Although I grew tired of hearing/seeing the designer mantra of 'form follows function' everywhere, I still respect it. I enjoyed seeing the tea sets that Cole designed himself, as well as the gas lamp that he blasted for being dishonest.
More giggles: the rather lamentable display of Twentieth Century Design, all in one showcase--funny because the V&A is so packed with stuff.
At one point of our tour Adamson talked about museum politics, and the Tate Modern and Ai Weiwei came up. Should the museum dictate the purpose of the art once it acquires said art? I understand that the Tate had public health in mind, but as Adamson pointed out, what of the thousand Chinese villagers who were working on the seeds for two years? I would have loved to sit or roll around in the sunflower seeds for a moment, dangerous dust or not.
On another note, I can say proudly I saw a real Eames Lounge Chair Wood, but visitors were not allowed to sit on it. It's a chair, sitting is part of the chair experience, is it not? I suppose one could relate this to Ai Weiwei's sunflower seeds and how they are off limits to the public. It's a museum thing. I understand. The V&A is forgiven, as I was able to access work by William Morris, Le Corbusier (a chaise lounge!), Alvar Aalto (another chair!), and I had a plate silently yell the following message to me: 'FINE ART IS THAT IN WHICH THE HAND THE HEAD AND THE HEART OF MAN GO TOGETHER.'
The question I wanted to ask was, 'Do you think sloppy craft will cause traditional techniques in painting, sculpture, ceramics, etc., to eventually disappear from academic curricula?' As a follow-up: 'What impact does sloppy-craft have on cultural values?'
I don't like sloppy craft. The concept may be more prominent, but I want to at least be able to look at the work without feeling disgusted at its presentation. I am a fan of well-executed techniques that back up a strong concept--which is why I love Ai Weiwei's work so much. He does very interesting things with objects but the craftsmanship is very careful and clean.
No comments:
Post a Comment