Modern art museums don’t always work for modern art. At least, where the point of the art is subversion, heavy-handed critique, or commentary that’s more contextual than can be reduced to wall text, the atmosphere of the museum doesn’t always serve the art well. The New York Times comments – and I agree – that, no matter how awesome the Met’s rooftop gallery exhibition of Jeff Koons may be, it loses the imposing and threatening meaning that Koons intends. Koons’ pieces become familiar and lovable in their own right. It’s like trying to cuddle with an intellectual bear (and somehow succeeding); it’s not natural!
But that’s not to say it’s not good in its own right. I think Koons does well in his new context, with its new meaning, and my heart isn’t so hard as to turn my back on a scenic cityscape and a comforting atmosphere just because it offends my inner art critic. But, some recontextualizations of modern art are a little more damaging to the artist’s intent, and cut off the entire dialogue between art and audience that the artist intends.
For example – the Whitney doesn’t let you take pictures in the galleries. Obviously, that didn’t stop me, but to ban the photographing of modern art is to interrupt its “train of thought.”
"After Walker Evans, After Sherry Levine" (2008), Pixels on iPhone Flash Memory
Photography is an obsession of modern art. Much better minds than my own have wondered aloud about the meaning of this new art form, and what “creativity” means in the post-photographic art world. Sherry Levine, on display in the Whitney and rephotographed to the right, is one of the artists who poses that very question, while also questioning what “art” is if “creativity” is so muddled. Levine “rephotographed” Walker Evans’ iconic images of the Great Depression and, without the slightest modification, published them sub nom “After Walker Evans.” Levine suggests that the meaning of creativity, and consequentially of art, is simply the inflection of the artist upon the work, rather than any “kick galvanic” of creativity. Thus, by interacting with Evans’ original, and capturing that interaction in her new photograph, Levine creates (at least under this definition) new “art.” And since I think rephotography is silly – a thought experiment, rather than a new form of art – I’ve rephotographed Sherry Levine’s piece, in violation of the Whitney’s rules.
Ideally, a modern art museum should pose the question posed by the artist, and allow viewers to answer, encouraging viewers to do as much as possible, short of damaging the pieces. At least for Levine’s work, allowing viewers to photograph the piece would facilitate the piece’s meaning. Even if you don’t know the context of what Sherry Levine is doing, there’s a certain self-consciousness associated with photographing a photograph in a museum that Levine would probably appreciate. By framing and holding inviolate Levine’s “authentic” rephotographs, the Whitney cuts off the message, and misses the point.
