2 0   /   0  9   /  2 0 1 4

M u s e  u m   a n d   e x h i b i t i o n   r e v i e w  
( p a r t  1 )


Today I went to the Victoria and Albert Museum in perspective of the Exhibition Review task. 

Before I chose were I wanted to go I did a few researches on the internet (official websites, forums, articles, pictures...) to check out what were the themes and the style of all the choices we had.

 Desobedient Objects (at the V&A) caught my attention beacause I thought that it must be interesting to see such a modern and untraditional exhibition in an instituation famous for it's conventionalisme. 
This contraste  attracted me.

In plus, during the last summer holidays I went to New York and I saw the exhibition of Ai Wei Wei at the Brookline Museum. I thought that going to an other political exhibition was a good way to deepen my knowleg within this subject.

I was very surprised by how the exhibition was aranged. I was expecting something more tidy but it was an (thoughfully aranged) chaos.
That fact made me quite enthousiaste and I knew right away that I wanted to do my exhibition review about this exhibition.

I navigated in the exhibition and tryed to think first with a genral view, a few words and ideas came to my ming and I wrote them down on my sketchbook:
-The imortance of the plurel
-The multiplicity
-"Uninon makes the strenght"
-Strong link woth spech and signes and symbols
-Colourful which catched the spectator's attention 

I thought about an exhibition I went to see last year in Paris called The surrealism and the objects and I thought that I could link that exhibition to Desobedient objects because they both use objects to anchor ideas (immaterial) in the reality throught objects (material).
For the surrealistes it was a major element because they ideas were "sur" "real" so they needed to find a way, a medium to conjuguate those two things and here I think that this technic also applies here because the artists tends to vehiculate quite abstract ideas like Utopia (a word which's meaning has never occured in real life, it's only an idea), so they need to find tangible elements to communicate in a more eloquant way theire messages.


Then I visited the exhibition a second time and this time I spent more time on every pieces. I didn't realy tried to annalyse every single object one by one because I beleive that there's a part of the exhibition that can only be understand when the spectator has an overveiw of the exhibition. 
But this time I noticed other things:
-There were some pieces that requiered the spectator's action, the pieces were interactive. Maybe it was a way to make the public actif to (politicaly) throught theire contribution and trhought that join (in a metaphorical way) the action.
-The disposition made the public circulate in a very thourougly thought way: it is like in Paris Hausman created bouleveards so that the government could control the mouvements of the crowd durring protestes. Here there is also a manipulation of the movements of the public in the space of the exhibition.
-This exhibition, although it is based on union, plurel and mutiplicity, it also hightlights that it's in a first place individual acts that changes the situations as we can see t=with the number of pieces whitch shows only one indivudual, or that makes us listen to one voice...

© Camille Clara Yunn Liu, all rights reserved