Artists and friends of Common Goods gathered at Craft Victoria last night to reflect on the event and look at the catalogue. The evening evoked many fond memories and a curious exchange of information. One artist had received an email in perfect English from a Rafoogar in Najibabad. Everyone was keen to continue the exchange, and were regretful that there was less time for everyone to spend time together. Let's hope that this is not a one-off. Mark McDean and Mary Louise Edwards can be seen astounding themselves at the Common Goods publication.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
The publication has arrived
Artists and friends of Common Goods gathered at Craft Victoria last night to reflect on the event and look at the catalogue. The evening evoked many fond memories and a curious exchange of information. One artist had received an email in perfect English from a Rafoogar in Najibabad. Everyone was keen to continue the exchange, and were regretful that there was less time for everyone to spend time together. Let's hope that this is not a one-off. Mark McDean and Mary Louise Edwards can be seen astounding themselves at the Common Goods publication.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Some thoughts from the Exhibition Designer
The exhibition design of Common Goods was particularly distinctive, with the use of netting rather than perspex. Here are notes from the designer with background to her choices in the display solution.
Design Notes - “Common Goods” Exhibition
By Rosemary Simons April 2006
Introduction:
Amongst the factors that influence design decisions are: exhibits,venue, budget and themes.These notes examine these factors and the design response to them, in relation to the exhibition “Common Goods: Cultures meet Thorugh Craft”, Curated by Kevin Murray, Director of Craft Victoria, for Craft Victoria.
The exhibition was designed by myself, Rosemary Simons.
Exhibits
All were craft objects but there the similarity nearly ended.
Many items demonstrated an ability to ‘make do’, where a limited range of existing materials and construction techniques, was responded to with inventiveness and ingenuity.
The artists were from a number of different countries.
Shape, size, materials and manufacturing techniques all varied. Some materials were man made and some were natural; some approaches were contemporary, whilst others were traditional; some items were 2D and some 3D; some were free-standing and some required suspension.
A portion of the exhibits would not exist until after the initial opening. These absent exhibits could have spaces left for them, or their exhibition furniture could be introduced with them.
There was no hierarchy of importance amongst the objects, all were to have as equal a status as possible.
The exhibits needed some protection from damage or theft.
Venue
No venue is entirely neutral however some announce themselves more strongly than others. This venue was the latter, the work of Denton, Corker Marshall making a strong architectural statement . The exhibition could quite easily have been made to look ridiculous or insignificant within the scale and strength of the architecture.
The space was not designed for exhibitions. It is a foyer to the Temporary Exhibition Hall , a ‘’shop front’ for the museum and a thoroughfare generally. It displays two impressive, large scale, exhibits and visible through a vast, glass wall, is a large scale granite art work.
On one side of ‘Common Goods’ was constructed a stack of giant flag cards, whilst half way through the life of the exhibition, the eye-catching, “Spirit of the Games’ exhibition, would be visible through the open doors of the Temporary Exhibition Hall.
Unless we opted for the other end of the museum foyer, which appeared too far from the action, ‘Common Goods’ must be made to appear entitled to its place within this setting.
Budget
The limited size of the budget imposed the need for very creative thinking in order to draw as much from the funds as possible.
Even if we had wanted it, a slick, highly finished, composition of glass or perspex showcases, was out of the question, as also was a lighting rig.
Themes
The brief, both verbal and written, stressed the theme of hospitality and the capacity for cultures to meet through craft.
Representation from a variety of countries and a broad range of works was essential to presenting these themes.
Design Decisions
Exhibit and Budget led:
Designing a stand to suit each exhibit was rejected due to cost, the possibilities of imposing status, and the fact that some exhibits were unknowns. A range of stands might also weaken the impact of the installation which clearly needed to have a presence within the space.
The tactile nature of the exhibits suggested a tactile component to the stands and the ‘make do’ quality seemed fitting for the stand design also.
Market places featured in early discussions and the experiences of the curator, Kevin Murray, as he travelled to visit the artists. Market stands were temporary, improvised , suited a range of items and were approachable. Even the layout of such markets suited the space. Markets and their stalls thus became a source of inspiration.
Objects may be protected by electronic beams or sensor pads, however these, like glass or perspex protection, would not have been possible for all the exhibits, given the budget. Further to this, and more importantly, such protection did not lend itself to a ‘make do’ construction. Another protection was needed.
Kevin recalled a country museum, no doubt ‘making do’, using chicken wire as a protection for a glass bottle exhibit. Whilst this could be perceived as a greater barrier than glass or perspex, it did not cause reflection problems and did not place a solid albiet transparent, material between the viewer and the object. Wire, in the end was replaced by netting. The netting had a tactile quality that was sympathetic to the approach and allowed the object to ‘breath’.
Stand materials were unpainted steel, ply, fabric, hardwood dowel and netting. Whilst man made, the materials are not particularly ‘high tech’.
The construction techniques utilised, was to tie the stands together using cable ties. Whilst some fabricators doubted the viability of this approach, I took confidence from the large tied bamboo scaffolding and permanent villages I had seen in Asia.
Scenic Studios devised a finish for the ply, that took away the newness. The air would do the ageing for us in regard to the steel. Terracotta tiles became the plinths or supports where needed, adding a final stand material to the mix.
Nothing was fixed to the walls as if the ‘market’ could pack up and move on.
Venue led:
The colour chosen contrasted with the surroundings, to help this modest installation stand out.
Whilst the stands had a ‘make do’ feel about them they nevertheless, needed a strong presence and an acceptable level of finish in order to have a legitimacy with the surrounds. This was the design tight rope to walk.
Height was incorporated to allow for suspension of objects, add to the presence, carry graphics and to provide a scale balance between the installation and the venue.
The layout made use of the available light and left the pathways free for people and machinery.
Theme:
Warm colours, the tactile nature of the stands, the use of fabric and the simplicity of the layout, was designed to enhance the friendliness of the installation and draw people into look at the objects.
Ideally, objects are best with no barrier and even the possibility of being handled. The netting, whilst forming a grid between the object and the audience, also had the effect of drawing people to the object and created a type of ‘fascinator’ for the object.
Whilst netting or wire may not have the acceptance or versatility or glass or perspex, it nevertheless deserves a place in the repertoire of options available for protecting works on display.
© Rosemary Simons 2006
Design Notes - “Common Goods” Exhibition
By Rosemary Simons April 2006
Introduction:
Amongst the factors that influence design decisions are: exhibits,venue, budget and themes.These notes examine these factors and the design response to them, in relation to the exhibition “Common Goods: Cultures meet Thorugh Craft”, Curated by Kevin Murray, Director of Craft Victoria, for Craft Victoria.
The exhibition was designed by myself, Rosemary Simons.
Exhibits
All were craft objects but there the similarity nearly ended.
Many items demonstrated an ability to ‘make do’, where a limited range of existing materials and construction techniques, was responded to with inventiveness and ingenuity.
The artists were from a number of different countries.
Shape, size, materials and manufacturing techniques all varied. Some materials were man made and some were natural; some approaches were contemporary, whilst others were traditional; some items were 2D and some 3D; some were free-standing and some required suspension.
A portion of the exhibits would not exist until after the initial opening. These absent exhibits could have spaces left for them, or their exhibition furniture could be introduced with them.
There was no hierarchy of importance amongst the objects, all were to have as equal a status as possible.
The exhibits needed some protection from damage or theft.
Venue
No venue is entirely neutral however some announce themselves more strongly than others. This venue was the latter, the work of Denton, Corker Marshall making a strong architectural statement . The exhibition could quite easily have been made to look ridiculous or insignificant within the scale and strength of the architecture.
The space was not designed for exhibitions. It is a foyer to the Temporary Exhibition Hall , a ‘’shop front’ for the museum and a thoroughfare generally. It displays two impressive, large scale, exhibits and visible through a vast, glass wall, is a large scale granite art work.
On one side of ‘Common Goods’ was constructed a stack of giant flag cards, whilst half way through the life of the exhibition, the eye-catching, “Spirit of the Games’ exhibition, would be visible through the open doors of the Temporary Exhibition Hall.
Unless we opted for the other end of the museum foyer, which appeared too far from the action, ‘Common Goods’ must be made to appear entitled to its place within this setting.
Budget
The limited size of the budget imposed the need for very creative thinking in order to draw as much from the funds as possible.
Even if we had wanted it, a slick, highly finished, composition of glass or perspex showcases, was out of the question, as also was a lighting rig.
Themes
The brief, both verbal and written, stressed the theme of hospitality and the capacity for cultures to meet through craft.
Representation from a variety of countries and a broad range of works was essential to presenting these themes.
Design Decisions
Exhibit and Budget led:
Designing a stand to suit each exhibit was rejected due to cost, the possibilities of imposing status, and the fact that some exhibits were unknowns. A range of stands might also weaken the impact of the installation which clearly needed to have a presence within the space.
The tactile nature of the exhibits suggested a tactile component to the stands and the ‘make do’ quality seemed fitting for the stand design also.
Market places featured in early discussions and the experiences of the curator, Kevin Murray, as he travelled to visit the artists. Market stands were temporary, improvised , suited a range of items and were approachable. Even the layout of such markets suited the space. Markets and their stalls thus became a source of inspiration.
Objects may be protected by electronic beams or sensor pads, however these, like glass or perspex protection, would not have been possible for all the exhibits, given the budget. Further to this, and more importantly, such protection did not lend itself to a ‘make do’ construction. Another protection was needed.
Kevin recalled a country museum, no doubt ‘making do’, using chicken wire as a protection for a glass bottle exhibit. Whilst this could be perceived as a greater barrier than glass or perspex, it did not cause reflection problems and did not place a solid albiet transparent, material between the viewer and the object. Wire, in the end was replaced by netting. The netting had a tactile quality that was sympathetic to the approach and allowed the object to ‘breath’.
Stand materials were unpainted steel, ply, fabric, hardwood dowel and netting. Whilst man made, the materials are not particularly ‘high tech’.
The construction techniques utilised, was to tie the stands together using cable ties. Whilst some fabricators doubted the viability of this approach, I took confidence from the large tied bamboo scaffolding and permanent villages I had seen in Asia.
Scenic Studios devised a finish for the ply, that took away the newness. The air would do the ageing for us in regard to the steel. Terracotta tiles became the plinths or supports where needed, adding a final stand material to the mix.
Nothing was fixed to the walls as if the ‘market’ could pack up and move on.
Venue led:
The colour chosen contrasted with the surroundings, to help this modest installation stand out.
Whilst the stands had a ‘make do’ feel about them they nevertheless, needed a strong presence and an acceptable level of finish in order to have a legitimacy with the surrounds. This was the design tight rope to walk.
Height was incorporated to allow for suspension of objects, add to the presence, carry graphics and to provide a scale balance between the installation and the venue.
The layout made use of the available light and left the pathways free for people and machinery.
Theme:
Warm colours, the tactile nature of the stands, the use of fabric and the simplicity of the layout, was designed to enhance the friendliness of the installation and draw people into look at the objects.
Ideally, objects are best with no barrier and even the possibility of being handled. The netting, whilst forming a grid between the object and the audience, also had the effect of drawing people to the object and created a type of ‘fascinator’ for the object.
Whilst netting or wire may not have the acceptance or versatility or glass or perspex, it nevertheless deserves a place in the repertoire of options available for protecting works on display.
© Rosemary Simons 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)