Engaging with art as a spectacle

ARTWALK

I have always been one to make sure I see the mega shows in the world's leading art capitals, if I am going to be there. By mega shows, I mean those giant, grand huge exhibitions, typically devoted to a single artist or a theme.

They are all over, and someone recently described them, quite accurately, as blockbuster shows. But now, these years later, and several mega shows consumed, I am getting anxious. Have I become an art tourist?

For me, it all began at the Brooklyn's Museum of Art's Elizabeth A Sackler Centre for Feminist Art. I was working my way through the landmark show, Global Feminisms. This was, no doubt, an important show and I could not have missed it.

When I was done with seeing the works, I realised how physically and mentally washed out I was, how overwhelmed. I could hardly get through the entire show and I had to make a conscious effort not to miss the works of specific artists I was looking out for.

But I was not the only one ""almost everyone else was in need of mental rest as well. This, of course, is not intended to belittle this show. But, for unlikely reasons, I cannot help comparing it to WACK!

This was the other show that looked at feminist art, through a different lens. WACK! was much smaller, contained and easier on the viewer. You could take your time to see most of the video works because you would not spend the entire day or two in the museum if you did this.

In sum, if the idea is to interact with a curatorial concept through multiple art works, how do you control the expanse of the exhibition? If you don't, hindsight suggests that visiting such exhibitions is more a pilgrimage, less a thinking, experiential moment.

So then, at what point does a mega show shift from throwing an idea (or a range of them) to the public to being a spectacle that wows the viewer before wearing him out?

There are few museums or exhibitions that don't have special shows but the bigger, richer and better-known ones create an event "" something like an experience; like an art park. Before you even walk in, glorious banners and posters already excite you. Inside, coloured walls, impeccable displays and well-produced catalogues combine to create an art lover's Disneyland.

In museum after museum, giant, expensive or rare works create the same sense of wonderment as whale-watching or tiger-sighting. Individual works are made into iconic images of the show. They becomes talking points.

If you look around you, more and more international museums are putting out these spectacles. People like me, who live in India, know this is our only chance to see a large amount of contemporary art in one place, during a travel capsule. I pay the typically almost-unaffordable entrance fees and go ahead. I become an art tourist.

This is not a bad thing to happen. But it is in danger of removing critical thinking from the realm of art for most people. It is just not easy to engage with a spectacle in any other manner except as a spectator.

With the booming art market, such shows will continue. I am likely to try and catch as many as I can. And art in many parts of the world will be designed less for reflective assimilation and interaction and more as spectacles for tourists and locals alike. The only thing I can think of, for myself at least, is to balance such shows with smaller ones that allow for these spaces.

(bharati@chintan-india.org)