I didn't quite know what to expect coming into the Cultural Center, having not looked into the name of the show much beyond the previous exposure I had had to Stefan Sagmeister. I was overjoyed at the fact that the exhibit (unlike most exhibits that just hang work on a wall as if to say "look admire me! Take nothing away from this experience!") actually engaged the viewer, not just by the fact that some of the parts actually required you to interact with them to work properly but because of the format in which the exhibit was presented required you to actively read the information. I'm a bit embarrassed to admit this but I rarely read the information that is presented along side work put up in an exhibition. Usually I do this as a way to form my own opinion, considering the context is already established (work on wall out of commercial setting to be viewed), but in this exhibit the context was the words on the wall. The context in this instance is the exhibit itself. Sagmeister has taken the space and according to the space arranged his key pieces that travel from showing to showing and mix them in with site specific content that the viewer can only experience from that exhibit in that one showing. The exhibit itself flowed from one part to another with only a few stones thrown into the river, so to speak. Having been a fan already of his work I found it hard not to fawn over the work, and fangirl.
After going once I returned again, my excitement and initial reaction dispersed I was able to take in the exhibit as each part. Whereas the first time I went I wonder though overwhelmed by all the inputs and ideas being proposed to process (that and I may have selfishly wanted to bring more friends along to see and watch there reactions to the work and maybe wanting to get a candy since they were out the first time I went). While the end hall coated in yellow and the entryway cloaked in the same color felt connected the portion between (where the blown-up monkeys where) seemed disconnected from the rest of the show a limbo between the start and end, or maybe I was simply over thinking it. There was a curious thing that I noticed upon my second time in the exhibit. The gumball machines representing a scale of happiness from 1-10 did not specify if 1 was representative of the most happiness or 10 was. Yet the highest numbers were empty ... so either there are many extremely satisfied and happy people (which judging from the faces and sighs of people in the exhibit seems off, maybe they are lying to themselves) or there are many dissatisfied people walking around. This reminded me of when you walk in the street if you look at other peoples faces everyone always looks so upset, or angry.
I could go on more about the exhibit but part of this is to relate it to the reading that was to be done in relation to this exhibit. While making this exhibit he must have gone through his own processes to create a cohesive show with flow dealing with his chosen subject (happiness), there are a few parts of the reading that I believe fit better than others to talk about. Without talking to him directly it's hard to know his process exactly to making this show, although he is very inviting and self exposing, inviting the viewer into his work, journal and mindset we can't say much about the process leading up to this show. There is however a great display of site research. Curious I looked into if "The Happy Show" had been shown in other settings. What I found was that it had been shown at other places in fact it had been shown at ICA Philadelphia too which has a blog for it here which is work looking at in comparison to the show that was shown here in Chicago. The differences and the little "easter eggs" of the exhibit as specific to the space that they are shown in along side the more key parts of the exhibit. To be able to do this well he had to think of the space in a different way then most people did. In Philadelphia there was a prominent fire alarm so he used that to his advantage, in the space he had here he was unable to do that but got crafty with the door panels and electrical outlet at the end of the area.
He adapted his work to the space tailoring an otherwise usually dull and straight forward experience (like normal exhibits) and making it more engaging. Overall it was a wonderful experience and like he has asked I have told my friends and will be bringing them to see this exhibit and watch there reactions. His execution of site specific alterations (site research) added to the overall impact of the show and created a well thought out, well executed exhibit.
No comments:
Post a Comment