Light Years Review

Light Years Review (outline)

1. The Light Years: Conceptual Art and the Photograph 1964- 1977 exhibition is an immense and incredibly explicative summation of the development of the conceptual art movement and, consequently, the acceptance of photography as a legitimate medium. The pieces included in the show seem to have been pulled directly from the past, however, the sheer multitude of pieces in the exhibition ultimately convolute the power of the works chosen.

a. On entering the show we are confronted with large black and white images arranged in a monumental sculptural form that are aggressive and seemingly disjointed from the rest of the show- they sit between the end of the exhibit (if one moves through as was seemingly intended) and the Cy Twombly sculpture room that is unrelated to the show- a strange, liminal space that feels it’s not yet part of the exhibit and still sits at the threshold and conclusion as a bookend.

b. The “Camera Work” room is an immediate visual bombardment. Originally, I had thought this room encased the entire exhibit, but upon turning the corner I found it flows into still more rooms. Though the pieces chosen support the theme of the room, their close proximity to the “Misunderstandings” works confuses the selection of pieces when scanning the room. Had I not dedicated my self to one space at a time, I might have missed the “Misunderstandings” printed on the wall and counted the rest of the works as following from the previous sign.

c. Eventually, for times sake and my own ability to concentrate, I began to move over pieces more rapidly (occasionally skipping some altogether) in an attempt to ensure each room was visited and at least some respect was paid to the arrangement of the work in each area.

d. The underlying genius, if I may use the word, of the conceptual art movement was that it attempted to demystify the complexities of art into something more accessible and even simplistic. The show, I worry, appears at first glance to be complicated an overwhelming- undermining the intention of most of the pieces.

2. Despite the large size, the division of the pieces into separately titled rooms allows the viewer to flow through the show with relative ease while still understanding the important role photography played.

a. Although the show is at first somewhat confusing, when considering the pieces in their specific groupings they begin to support each other and create a dialogue between themselves and the exhibit in general. I read each room as a sort of chronology, each room an evolution of the last and although that may not be the case, it aided in my understanding of photography’s role in this new movement.

b. For instance the pieces in the room titled “invisibility” deal with singular philosophies that, when placed side by side, create a conversation that discusses the impact of human presence.

c. The rooms in opposition to each other complicate photography’s ultimate role- in some rooms it is a tool for documenting what can be seen/ what the artist created and in others it attempts to document what is not there.

d. The limits of photography are also called into question- still shots versus projection, projection versus video, photography versus painting, the photograph as an object versus sculpture.

3. Rooms and pieces

a. Considering these factors, perhaps the most successful room of the show was “Invisibility”. The pieces were easily accessible- based on experiences common to many of us yet exemplifying highly complex ideas.

b. For example, Giovanni Anselmo’s Entering the Work, 1971 piece allows the viewer to physically feel as if they are entering the work for its scale and perspective from the figure, but can also recognize the figure in the piece is attempting to enter the frame before the picture is captured. This creates an interesting dialogue on human interaction in a work both in creating and understanding a piece.

c. In contrast, the room that was most problematic for me was Painting, Photography, Film. The numerous projectors firing often and in several directions on several different surfaces were difficult to decipher from one another (they were labeled as separated works) and seemed in strange contrast to Bruce Nauman’s holograms floating in their own darkened space. It was a little bit like watching a nostalgic romance and then following it up with a sci-fi thriller.

4. Conclusion of review.

a. In summary- I enjoyed the show but found it to be a little over crowded though well organized.