After noting the overwhelmingly positive New York Times review of the new ICA this morning, the Exhibitionist seems a little sheepish to find that the inaugural exhibitions didn't fare as well. Like I said, I haven't been yet, but as I warned below, too much shouldn't be made of the early exhibits, especially when they are still competing with the reception of the building. The architecture clearly is the star right now, having the 'wow' impact before any one has had a chance to experience it over time, under different circumstances, and see how it wears. I think it will wear well, mind you, or that's my guess, but few exhibits, especially those put together during a time a transition, when the curators are still learning the space themselves, and possibly dealing with lenders shy of a space with no track record. Enjoy what they've been able to do so far, and see what they can do in the future. That said, I've often found the curatorial hand more than a little heavy and didactic at the ICA. And while a more jaded New York perspective may have inspired it, the line about how "Andreas Gursky, Tony Oursler and the unconditionally beloved Ed Ruscha could do with a rest" made me laugh--not only as a putdown of curatorial provincialism, but because the Ruscha dig rings so true.
Looked to me like the curators said to themselves, "all sorts of people who are unfamiliar with contemporary art will be coming to see the new building. We must educate them!" And so they put up a show of artists such people might actually have heard of, and then a page of explanation next to each piece. The whole thing kind of felt like an exhibit specially designed for high school field trips.
I thought the show of Boston artists was more interesting, if only because less predictable.
Posted by: mcmc | December 11, 2006 at 12:05 AM
I meant to ad this before I posted that comment:
This isn't a strategy likely to excite a critic from the Times, but maybe not the worst choice for the suddenly much larger Boston audience. But the labels really were intrusive, I thought.
Posted by: mcmc | December 11, 2006 at 12:16 AM
But the labels really were intrusive, I thought.
(Catching up--internet access was down yesterday) The ICA, in my experience, is second only to the Harvard museums for intrusive, heavy-handed labels and general curatorial approach. And even Harvard's better than it was a decade or so ago. But yes, there probably was an added bit of anxiety on the part of the curator's to explain everything. We'll see if they settle down.
Posted by: JL | December 12, 2006 at 10:13 AM