RA2: Exhibit Review

Why are we doing this? (objectives)

  • Identify and discuss issues in contemporary art as it relates to their studio practice.
  • Recognize and utilize the intellectual community of the College of Visual and Performing Arts and resources of the University at large.
  • practice writing by reviewing art events in the community
  • employ critical thinking through analysis of contemporary art topics (in this case, the content of our chapter on Identity)

Process

You will write an 800-1000 word exhibit review of an exhibition that is currently up (double-spaced, 1″ margins, 12pt Arial, Helvetica or Times). It can be a review of a show at any art gallery/museum you like. The review should focus on the exhibit, the artist’s personal statements, the works of art that have been included in the space, and how it relates to our chapter on Identity (from the book). You need to cite specific passage from the textbook as you write your review.

IMPORTANT: When selecting an exhibit, if you cannot find a connection to our chapter on identity, you should select a different exhibition to review. 

Imagine that you are an art critic for a weekly magazine with an educated but non-art-specialist audience. You have been asked to write a review of the exhibit. Your task is to inform a would-be audience about the exhibit, explain how it relates to identity, and provide some context for it. To achieve this, you need to both describe and critique the exhibit and its rationale. Don’t simply walk through the exhibit. In order to critique the show, you should view each work of art carefully, and become conscious of how you and other visitors interact with the works of art and exhibition space. If there is an artist talk or curator’s talk, be sure to listen to that. The review should analyze the organization, design, themes, and issues raised in the show, as well as how it relates to identity.

This is NOT a research paper, so you do not need to provide any biographical detail on the artist(s), but you can provide context by citing materials from exhibition labelling, catalogues, the media and our own discussions. What are your initial impressions? Critics tend to write from their own backgrounds, so feel free to bring in things you have learned in class or from your own reading. Also feel free to mention when the exhibition confirms something you’ve learned elsewhere, and when it challenges it.

Your review should give the reader an overall impression of the exhibit, its relationship to identity, and your responses to it. Please do not be afraid to take a critical stand, but be sure to justify your opinions. Do not simply express an opinion – you must explain why. If you quote other reviews, be sure to cite your sources, otherwise you will be plagiarizing someone else’s work.

More things to consider (some may apply, others may not – each exhibit is unique)

  • Why are things arranged the way they are? What seems to matter the most? How were works chosen for inclusion in this space – why these and not others?
  • What is the scale of each object? What media and techniques are represented? Do you have a sense of why different media are used for different purposes?
  • Notice placement, space, and lighting – what difference do these items make (individually and collectively)? If there are frames, how do they affect the work?
  • How do you feel in the exhibit? Is there noise or sound that adds to the ambience of the space?
  • Is learning an importnt part of the experience? How did you learn? How would you evaluate the labels, wall text, gallery guides (if any), or materials available elsewhere in the museum/gallery? Do these represent the best way to provide such information? What other alternatives might there be? Would you provide other kinds of materials in other formats?
  • Is there a work you find particularly interesting? Why/why not?
  • What were the artist’s objectives?
  • What do you think could be improved or changed?
  • Which works affected you the most? (describe them so thoroughly that a new visitor could pick out the works you are talking about without having to read wall labels)
  • Were you impressed or disappointed by the exhibit?
  • How does this exhibit contribute to your knowledge of the history of art/design?
  • Are there any references to identity as it exists in art history?
  • Are there any communal or relational connections to identity in this exhibit?
  • Is there an opportunity to discuss identity politics in terms of essentialism, diversity, or hybridity?
  • Can you related the construction of identity to any part of this show? (otherness and representation, deconstructing difference, the fluidity of identity)

Last steps: Submit your paper on Canvas (word doc or PDF), and be ready to share your paper on your laptop during class – we will be critiquing each other’s exhibit reviews.

Grading

2pts – correct formatting as described above
5pts – how well do you describe the works/space (use of vocabulary, such as the elements/principles of design and components of an artwork)
5pts – how well you convey your opinions (are they clear and convincing?)
3pts – demonstrating time spent/attention to detail (referencing artist talks, wall labels, etc.)
5pts – thorough examination of identity in the exhibit with citations from our textbook