I took a trip to the Baltimore Museum of Art (BMA) about a week ago to see a photography exhibit, and it turned out to be a much more fulfilling and thought provoking trip than I had planned for. First off, I had never been to this museum before, and was very pleasantly surprised at how fantastic the whole collection was, and I really liked the overall layout and organization of the museum. The sculpture garden is also quite beautiful, and the landscaping plays along and adds to the works in a way that I have not often seen. The carefully maintained trees, bushes, and flowers seemed to compliment each work perfectly, while providing a sense of calm and peacefulness.
The BMA is full of a lot of Matisse, Monet, Picasso, etc., but the main reason I went there, was to see the exhibit, “Seeing Now: Photography Since 1960.” The show included works from Diane Arbus, Cindy Sherman, and Lewis Baltz, among others. One of my favorite pieces in the show was, “Black Supper” by photographer Andres Serrano. He is often a controversial artist who deals with much of his childhood and comments on his catholic upbringing in much of his work. This series in particular is incredibly creative and thought provoking—if you haven’t seen it, I urge you to look it up. The process is just as interesting as the image itself.
The other artwork that really caught my attention was called, “Misunderstandings (At Theory of Photography)” by Mel Bochner. This was essentially a series of quotations by various people about what photography is and what its role is in the art world, as well as society in general. I found myself reflecting on both Serrano and Bochner’s work throughout the rest of the exhibit, and felt that the show was grouped in such a way that allowed for the artists to make strong statements individually, as well as be a part of a group statement by the entire show. The photographers all fell under the theme of “Seeing Now,” yet, each photographer portrayed the present quite differently, which provided a connection between all the work, as well as a platform for dialogue and creativity.
This visit to the museum was later juxtaposed with a spontaneous exploration of some street art and graffiti in the city. I stumbled upon some cool and interesting things, and then somehow discovered something called ‘graffiti warehouse’ where I shot a lot of photographs. The location is basically composed of two perpendicular alleys that connect next to an abandoned warehouse, and the whole area is being transformed into a place where graffiti can legally be created and displayed. A photographer who is associated with the project gave us an impromtu tour of the interior of the warehouse, and we were able to check out the really amazing studio spaces with all types of works in progress. The backdrop of exposed piping, old wooden floors, and an antique piano contrasted with stencils, tags and bright photographs was visually stunning. The whole concept of this project, which allows for photographers and graffiti artists to collaborate as well as rent studio space inside the warehouse, is amazing to me, and I found myself really wishing it was in DC so I could be an active part of this community.
Having viewed works in a museum just before encountering such a large display of public art, my mind was filled with ideas on everything I had just seen, and how I was reacting to it all. As many of you know, I am a huge fan of street art, and making art public and attainable to everyone who wants to see it or create it, and even for those who don’t even realize yet they want to be around art at all. People who may find museums and foreign and distant from their lives and the art inside of the buildings unable to represent or talk to the experiences they live out, may find public art much more relatable and they are more likely to come in contact with it. Simply by using the integration of the city itself, the asphalt, the concrete, the bricks, of the shared location between the artist and the audience, public art can bridge gaps that the museum cannot.
On the other side of the spectrum, museums are vitally important in the preservation of history and culture, as well as a necessary part of education in showing how humans over time have used art to express themselves. Museums and galleries have come a long way since the days where ancient artifacts, and the most prized and beautiful works of art were only reserved for the homes of the people who could afford to own them, or display them in a cabinet of wonders. These buildings provide people with the ability to see, over time, how and why artists chose to paint, draw, etc. in specific styles, as well as why they chose particular subject matters. Additionally, museums and galleries are full of information on what was happening historically at the time the artworks were created, in addition to what other artists before and after were doing. All of these particulars in the way in which artwork is displayed and the information that is kept with them allows audiences to gain a greater appreciation for the artists’ statements, as well as view first hand the advances in technique and creativity over time.
The BMA is a beautiful building that holds incredible works by world renowned artists, and displays them delicately in a controlled, neutral environment. Graffiti in the city does the polar opposite, using the city as the framework for displaying an artist’s work, taking into account the city noise, the weather, and all environmental factors. The museum provides the security of the art to not be defaced or made to say something that was not originally intended, under the protection of security guards and a building to house it, whereas street art can be painted over in moments, vandalized, or overlooked by many, blending in and becoming part of the city’s facade. On the other hand, museums require people to have enough interest take time out of their day and to walk inside a building for the purpose of viewing artwork; whereas public art, such as ‘graffiti alley’, can be seen by anyone who passes by the street. In this case, both art locations were free, both inside the same city, and both held inspiring and thought provoking art, yet they seemingly spoke about what art is, and who art is for, completely differently.
I enjoyed and was affected by both encounters with art, which shows the importance of both, while at the same time, recognizing their differences.
Art is not limited to displays in a sparse, quiet building, nor can it be fully encompassed through bright paint on a busy street.
Art can and does effect people anywhere, so long as the onlookers allow for themselves to be affected by it.
