http://www.vimeo.com/5626446
Emily Hickner, a Pulitzer gallery assistant, talks about two different kinds of saints she sees in Ideal (Dis-) Placements: Old Masters at the Pulitzer.
Emily Hickner, Gallery Assistant, is interviewed by Amy Broadway, Web Communications Assistant:
A: How long have you worked at the Pulitzer, and what exhibitions have you worked?
E: I’ve worked at the Pulitzer for approximately three years now. I started out as a volunteer at the Hiroshi Sugimoto exhibition and have since worked Portrait/Homage/Embodiment, Water, Dan Flavin: Constructed Light, and currently, Ideal (Dis-) Placements.
A: How did being a GA change during the different exhibitions?
E: Every week I spend about an hour in each gallery, revisiting the artwork. With exhibits like Portrait/Homage/Embodiment and Water, I found that I discovered more about the artwork over the course of each exhibition. These exhibitions showed works of art that go beyond realism and aesthetics, therefore I spent a lot of time trying to analyze the artist’s intention.
For example, Roni Horn’s Asphere which was on display during the Portrait/Homage/Embodiment exhibition. At first, I saw a dull metallic, misshapen ball on the floor, but after spending more time with it, I contemplated its meaning. Roni Horn called Asphere a self-portrait of sorts. After spending hours in close proximity, I started to understand why. It’s a reflective object, but it lacks sheen. In that sense, Asphere is a muddled reflection of its environment. The object’s shape is slightly warped, hence the name Asphere, displaying imperfection. I feel that Asphere is not just a self-portrait, but a portrayal of what it means to be human. In my opinion, we are distorted versions of our surroundings. Each of us a little misshapen.
To get back to my point, I believe that I fulfilled the intention of the artist by having this conversation with myself. Had I not spent the time in that gallery that I did, I would not have seen beyond what my immediate observation was.
On the other hand, the Dan Flavin did not produce the same results for me. Not only did the lights take a toll on my eyes, but the pieces did not seem to develop for me in the way that Roni Horn’s Asphere did. Flavin’s work has an immediate “wow” factor. I think people are naturally drawn to the colorful, soft electric glow of his works. Beyond my immediate response, I felt that there wasn’t much else to contemplate about his light installations. I enjoyed the way Flavin’s work showcased the building, and as a visitor, it is exciting to see. But as someone who was working around the light installations 5-7 hours a day, it was a little like working at a carnival instead of going to one.
A: What is your favorite station to be at for Ideal (Dis-) Placements: Old Masters at the Pulitzer? Read the rest of this entry »