LINE - Frame Edition

The gallery/institution as Frame

There is an irony with the way in which Brian O’Doherty traces the development of the modernist ideal, ‘the white cube’, back to the dominance of the easel painting. It is the predominance of this medium, which has produced the vast number of paintings that adorn our museum’s walls, framed, by anything from the large ostentatious gold frame of the history painting, to the thin black border of the modern photograph.  With the rise of modernism the picture frame gave way to the gallery space, which in turn took on the defining role of marking out the parameters of art. In short, the frame, which previously marked out the picture plain, created, the frame that now determines the difference between a pickled rat in a laboratory and a shark in formaldehyde.

Although O’Doherty’s essays on the gallery space have had a significant impact on the discourse of contemporary display, the ‘white cube’, that powerful ideological tool, still remains unchallenged as the preferred space for display. The 1990’s and the rise of art, as spectacle with the likes of Damian Hirst and Tracey Emin, has also led to the rise of the curator, that figure, revered as producer of cultural meaning, the mediator between artist and public.  The loyal partnership between curator and space, has led to the creation of an environment, so ideologically loaded, that even the plug socket becomes a potential masterpiece.

Such a space is driven by its obsessive negation of the hustle and bustle of the outside world. It is imperative that once through the front door, one is aware that one has entered into a space occupied by art. The series of masterpieces are the focus, and the spaces removal of anything that could possibly detract from the works on display allows for the full transformation from art object to quasi-religious icon ‘untouched by time and it’s vicissitudes’.

With such a framework in place, the institution is able to engender an authoritative voice that defines all inside worthy of attention and contemplation, an aesthetic box if you will, in which, all must be consumed by the eye, nothing missed out. The problem that emerges is that an ideological space, which, is constructed so fundamentally on aesthetics, and the authority of the institution, does not allow for anything else other than voyeuristic fixation upon the defined aesthetic object. The white cube space and the institutional authority that comes with it, thus denies the viewer interaction or the possibility of a discourse between art, institution and public.

Although the white cube - curator partnership has enjoyed a relatively uninterrupted reign over the domain of contemporary art, there are institutions that have sought to redirect the framing, defining force of the museum back upon itself, in the hope of opening up a discourse in which the authority of the institution can be challenged. Such an institution is the Galerie für zeitgenössische Kunst (Museum of Contemporary Art) in Leipzig. The museum stems out of a very specific political context in which art’s role within society was formerly dictated by the rule of two totalitarian regimes, the Nazi party and the German Democratic Republic (GDR). It should come as no surprise then that a main consideration of the institution is the re-appropriation of art and the art institution as devices with a positive social function. This is achieved through a highly innovative curatorial and architectural framework that removes the authoritative voice of the museum, instead placing itself and the works on show under scrutiny.

The curatorial and architectural framework within the GfzK function together as an anti-white cube, reflecting the institutions aims. The permanent collection predominantly consists of works by artists who were active during the GDR or artists, who were born in East Germany, but sought political asylum in the West. Contrary to the masterpiece, generating narrative that is engendered by most large public institutions, the GfzK views its collection as a dynamic, changing entity, which is both unfinished and open to growth. The collection is used to explore certain themes or concepts, which are explored in annual temporary exhibitions that create new relationships between the works within the collection. Additionally the architecture, far from excluding the outside world makes it unavoidable. Large glass windows on the exterior of the space, link the institution, collection and city, whilst creating an environment that prevents mere voyeurism. 

In the most recent annual exhibition ‘Puzzle’, over 6 months 10 participant groups were invited to contribute, which all have a direct or indirect relationship to the collection and institution. By inviting such groups, the fabric of the exhibition remained consistently dynamic and the authority of the museum was challenged through the intrusion and potentially converse interpretations that arose of the collection. The groups ranged from the intermedia class of the ‘Academy of Visual Arts’ in Leipzig, expressing the institutions support of emerging local artists, to ‘GfzK for You’ the educational department of the museum, which worked alongside a local school in Leipzig, encouraging a greater interest in contemporary art among children. The conceptual focus of the exhibition partnered with the inclusion of the public within the curation, resulted in a display that at once remained democratic, whilst raising issues that were both engaging and conceptually complex.

Whilst the GfzK is not unique, it presents an example of a new approach to the public institution, in which the collection, curatorial and architectural framework manifest the aims of the institution. The result is a museum that contrary to engendering a absolute defining power that is concerned with framing the art object, instead seeks to remove the barriers that exist between, art, institution and public, thus endowing art with a social function. The GfzK can best be understood as a ‘Gesamtkunstwerk’ in which the collection is viewed as only one element that can only function alongside the curatorial and architectural framework of the museum. The consequence is that the institution retains its ability to frame, however rather than the fixation upon the aesthetic object, the institution instead frames art and the institution’s role within society.