Click here to view the embedded video.

Director Matthias Waschek explains why the Pulitzer doesn’t label the artwork in its galleries.

Over the summer, StudioSTL’s director, Beth Ketcher, read for A Marathon Metamorphoses and wrote on the event’s corresponding blog what she felt the marathon was about. Her attitude reflected a principle StudioSTL and the Pulitzer share: the arts are for everyone.

The goal of December’s workshop was not for the participants to produce refined art reviews but to get them to think comfortably, descriptively, analytically, and creatively by jotting down verbal sketches of what they saw in the galleries. Given optional cues in a worksheet, the young authors were asked to investigate the space, write down what they thought, and read their writing to everyone as a conclusion to the session.

Below, one of StudioSTL’s mentors reflects on the workshop.

Paula Davis is an Engineering student at Washington University and a mentor for StudioSTL.

On the twelfth day of the twelfth month, a few young writers–high school students–and a number of volunteers from StudioSTL, sat holding gray pamphlets, on the gray concrete floor of the Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts, in its gray concrete building, under St. Louis’ cold gray sky. It was quiet.

We were gathered to explore the world of art, the world of architecture: their intersections, their motivations, their repercussions, etc. More specifically, we gathered to explore the Pulitzer’s current exhibition, Urban Alchemy, and the Pulitzer itself–the building, the space, the light. After brief introductions and explanations, we did what we came to do: we explored.

With notebooks in hand, teens and adults alike slowly wandered through Tadao Ando’s carefully calculated space. We observed records of Matta-Clark’s work and his work itself. Photographs of walls with chunks removed–looking in, looking out. Pieces of walls, pieces of roofs, their layers and layers of shingles made visible by cross-sectional slicing. We looked at garbage made into a wall and pictures of subway cars covered in graffiti and line drawings of a house and its roof and its pieces. We pondered. We scribbled notes in our notebooks. We noticed there were no placards on the walls explaining the art. We asked questions. We looked closer (but never got closer than two feet). We stepped back and took in the larger picture. We sat and stood and leaned and squinted and smiled.

When we came together near the end of our time in the Pulitzer, we shared our thoughts and writings. The art made us think about more than just cutting up buildings with a chainsaw, more than squishing garbage together to make a wall. The space, the art, the light, the sounds, and our overall experience triggered much more. We wondered and wrote about what makes art art, what constitutes “modern” art, and the importance of the art’s arrangement. We were inspired to recall old memories, to wonder about the back stories of objects, to write poetry. One young writer was even inspired to design clothing based on what she had seen.

During our brief stay, we didn’t draw any conclusions. We didn’t score each piece of artwork. We didn’t give the exhibition a grade. But we were inspired by the art, by the space, by our peers. And we wrote. We created our own art. And we were satisfied–pleased.–Paula Davis

As my position is jointly appointed with the Brown School of Social Work, who recently founded the Institute for Public Health, this is adding further fuel to this intellectual fire. For this particular partnership, my current mode of exploration, while broad in focus, continues to return to the theme of health disparities—how can art museums use an engagement around art to address health disparities? I would love your thoughts and comments about this particular train of thought.

Crew members from Earthworks Urban Farm in Detroit pose with their produce.

So my personal Detroit visit included conversations with Matt Sikora, head of evaluation at the DIA, and Jennifer Czajkowski, Direct of Interpretive Programs at the DIA. For those of you into evaluation, the DIA conducts what I consider to be an unprecedented amount of formative evaluation, or evaluation that is done during the formation of an exhibition (like market testing), which dovetails nicely with their strong commitment to innovative interpretive strategies, an effort in which Jennifer is highly instrumental. These interpretive strategies, the incorporation of which is based on the theoretical work of Abigail Housen and stages of aesthetic readiness, include thematic curation of exhibitions, specific language in wall text that isn’t necessarily rooted in art history, and other assistive devices, such as “I Spy” plaques and, my personal favorite, the table in their Fashionable Living exhibition that shows pieces on display being used in an 18th century dinner. The truly innovative model of how learning and interpretation (formerly, education) and curatorial interact to create one type of “optimal visitor experience” is somewhat antithetical to our approach, yet both of our institutions are striving toward the common goal of supporting the relevance of art in everyone’s lives.

The afternoon at the DIA was followed by a tour of Detroit, courtesy of our friends at the MOCAD. Specifically, Luis Croquer, Director, and his staff and colleagues in the community shared what, in combination with the innovation occurring at the DIA, make for great beacons of hope for art in the aforementioned “challenging urban environment.” Among the truly inspiring sites we toured stands the Earthworks Urban Farm and Capuchin Soup Kitchen (which is one of the famed urban agriculture projects that have, pardon the pun, taken root in Detroit, given the amount of unused urban land—fascinatingly enough, policy appears to lag behind the projects that have put Detroit on the map in a new and admirable way and composting and gardening as a primary function for a plot of land in the city remain illegal on the books). Art flourishes in a variety of environments and we witnessed homegrown, community, and what could be considered outsider art blooming in various parts of the city.

Of particular interest is the work of Mitch Cope and Gina Reichert, and in a convergence of the sort that makes my work particularly exhilarating, Mitch and Gina are currently installing “The Neighborhood Project” at the DIA in preparation for an exhibition they will be installing at MOCAD. As part of this installation, they will be highlighting the stories of the neighborhood in which they live, including one gentleman who can tell you the automotive history of ownership up and down the block. Mitch and Gina are at the heart of a project that is growing within their neighborhood—buying inexpensive property (as low as $100 for an abandoned home) and renovating those spaces in the name of purpose of the arts (writing, visual, and otherwise). Mitch and Gina are currently working on “the Power House,” which is a home that for financial reasons was kicked off the grid and through Mitch and Gina’s efforts to use sustainable technology will remain off the grid, integrating solar and wind power, among other techniques to create this artists’ space. Ironically, they paid less for the land and home than they did for the adjacent lot, which now houses the solar panels and converter for the Power House.

Artists like Mitch and Gina are living legacies of the work and vision of Gordon Matta-Clark, and in some ways, we all felt that visiting Detroit was long overdue, but perhaps it was simply the perfect time to, as being immersed in the building cuts, collages, and spirit of Gordon Matta-Clark opened us up in just the right ways to appreciate all that Detroit is just starting to teach us. After experiencing just a taste of what Detroit has to offer, we’re excited to share the community and art treasures of St. Louis with our colleagues in Detroit.

Andrew Raimist, an architect, talks about Bingo for Frame of Reference. To watch video of part of his talk, and to read his thoughts on the Pulitzer and Gordon Matta-Clark, visit Architectural Ruminations.

On the first Saturdays of every month, the Pulitzer hosts Frame of Reference, discussions lead by special guests about specific artworks on display. It’s a wonderful opportunity to gain insight on the art and artist, as well as the chance to ask questions and engage in invigorating conversations.

A couple Saturdays ago, I listened to our Senior Curator, Francesca Herndon-Consagra talk in the Cube Gallery about the Matta-Clark piece Four Corners. About ten other people were  in the room, walking in and around the objects as we discussed and learned what these four corners of a now demolished house meant as a physical document and how we can mentally interpret this work in the present day.

Frame of Reference Saturdays are a great way to further explore the Pulitzer space and visual art.  It welcomes anyone and everyone to participate in a fun and interesting discussions about art, without making you feel like your in a class lecture. It’s great to see familiar faces in the art community and to share a viewing experience with a group of people.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Gallery Assistant Kay Renner talks about Conical Intersect and invites you to come to the Pulitzer.

For me, this vista really emphasized an important aspect of this exhibition: the correlation between the architecture of Gordon’s work, the Pulitzer building and the surrounding city. Jane Crawford, Gordon Matta-Clark’s widow, was present for the event and gave a poignant speech, saying she thought that Gordon would have been especially touched with this exhibition because of its corresponding community outreach programs, which is not something other galleries and museums have done in the past with his work.

All in all, an auspicious beginning to what will surely be a successful and unique exhibition!

The next event being planned is a Symphony Concert on November 18^th, where we will be featuring the work of György Kurtág (Wind Quintet, op. 2 -1959), Bartók (Sonata for solo violin – 1944) and Ligeti (Ten Pieces for Wind Quintet – 1968) – buy your tickets here!

It’s my duty to schedule group tours, and Exploring Art workshops usually include free cookies, but this was the first time we started with lunch down the street at the Best Steak House, one of Grand Center’s notable eateries. Dining there might be the perfect way to start an Exploring Art session. People in the group were from wide-ranging organizations in St. Louis, and they and their docents for the day, Hannah and Christina, were able to introduce themselves over steak burgers and A1 sauce. It was really an inviting way to begin talking about the Old Masters we would experience next. 

Once back at the Pulitzer building, our guests continued to converse, exploring the building and their personal convictions of likes and dislikes. However, most important to this experiment of the Pulitzer working with docents, we investigated how docents can be facilitators of conversations in Exploring Art. It seemed they helped the gallery conversations go deeper, encouraging visitors to look again at a work and perhaps see something new. Without labels on the wall, viewers can experience the works with no prompts. A docent can, though, simply provide extra questions or information like an encouraging professor. Their proddings may encourage deeper digestion of a visual image. And when I read evaluations of that day’s visitor evaluations of the program, their comments made clear their personal discoveries and the groups’ new incites.       

Groups (8 people or less) can contact chenson@pulitzerarts.org to schedule their own Exploring Art experience.   

I wrote a post on one of their featured artists, Doris Salcedo, whose work Atrabiliarios is one of the few owned by the Pulitzer.  To me, Salcedo goes beyond compassion to fully envelop herself in the reality of her subjects.  Check out the full post here.

This article from NPR discusses the shift from the web being page-based (and focused on displaying past information) to a constant stream of active information (a la Twitter) and what that says about our society today.  The Pulitzer has a Twitter page and participates in this “stream” – do you?  And do you think this type of constant information will eventually replace static information on the web?  Which also ties in with something else I heard on NPR this morning – will these musings online have any hope for longevity?  What will our version of Shakespeare’s sonnets be?

The other piece I just finished reading was by Kimberly from the Kemper.  She wrote about social media and art on the Saint Louis Art Map and discussed how what we do on the web as museums needs to relate back to our mission and audience.  It reminded me of the paper Nina Simon presented at Museums and the Web, which takes this idea one step further.  She discussed how our approach to an online presence – with it’s emphasis on accessibility and the interactions with Web 2.0 – and how we should bring these ideas back inside the galleries.  As she calls it, “going analog”.  It’s an interesting read -check it out here.