I understand that one mustn’t accept the white cube just because, but going from the rug-covered walls of the nineteen century to post-Germany (and linking the white cube to the post-war destruction) erases the precise and quite mysterious moment when the white cube started forming, a history that is fascinating because it is a slow often anonymous and collective determination against the wealth superimposing itself onto the image (ornamented frame vs the painting), but also against excess of information and the impracticality of ornament (see Adolf Loos in Vienna and many others) in Glasgow, in some places in Germany but also Paris at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. In fact, when the Nazis came to power, a sort of transversally, if occasional plainness that also happened in Russia, for example, had been established already, in order to focus on the art. Coming from a time where the bourgeoisie was associated with abundance of decor and objects (see Walter Benjamin and his hatred of the family silver cutlery and precious objects), art, to be SEEN, had to appear in a single line on a monochrome wall. Whether the latter was yellow or light grey, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that, if you look at the Klimt exhibition room in the Venice Biennale in 1910, it is a plain old white cube, and not the only instance where this happened.
I get wanting to re-establish a sense of domesticity and proximity with art, but the white cube, whether we like it or not, is very much associated with a reverence of the image, which, like any rule, became quite dogmatic, at a certain point, but is far from being untouchable nowadays. Now, the “minimal” style as it is understood nowadays is the new “rug on the wall”, the new way of show wealth because it requires space and an interior design hiding functional objects. It’s interesting how wealth always tries to take over. Funnily enough the first shows that had those artists who “needed” the white cube often had benches, armchairs or even a couch, which is now seen as bad taste by many, I don’t know why. However, I hope we don’t go back full circle and start coordinating paintings to couches and rugs to sculptures in colour coordination schemes! In some ways art has to be separated from life so that we can experience it in a museum which is where art belongs to all - at least in public collections. You’re not going to read a book in a nightclub. I’m all for a plain house with good couches, nice books and great art, like O’Keefe’s in the desert or Motherwell’s…
This is a really useful corrective, and you're right that I didn't elaborate further on it. The point about minimalism as the new wealth display is one I keep coming back to.
I understand that one mustn’t accept the white cube just because, but going from the rug-covered walls of the nineteen century to post-Germany (and linking the white cube to the post-war destruction) erases the precise and quite mysterious moment when the white cube started forming, a history that is fascinating because it is a slow often anonymous and collective determination against the wealth superimposing itself onto the image (ornamented frame vs the painting), but also against excess of information and the impracticality of ornament (see Adolf Loos in Vienna and many others) in Glasgow, in some places in Germany but also Paris at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. In fact, when the Nazis came to power, a sort of transversally, if occasional plainness that also happened in Russia, for example, had been established already, in order to focus on the art. Coming from a time where the bourgeoisie was associated with abundance of decor and objects (see Walter Benjamin and his hatred of the family silver cutlery and precious objects), art, to be SEEN, had to appear in a single line on a monochrome wall. Whether the latter was yellow or light grey, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that, if you look at the Klimt exhibition room in the Venice Biennale in 1910, it is a plain old white cube, and not the only instance where this happened.
I get wanting to re-establish a sense of domesticity and proximity with art, but the white cube, whether we like it or not, is very much associated with a reverence of the image, which, like any rule, became quite dogmatic, at a certain point, but is far from being untouchable nowadays. Now, the “minimal” style as it is understood nowadays is the new “rug on the wall”, the new way of show wealth because it requires space and an interior design hiding functional objects. It’s interesting how wealth always tries to take over. Funnily enough the first shows that had those artists who “needed” the white cube often had benches, armchairs or even a couch, which is now seen as bad taste by many, I don’t know why. However, I hope we don’t go back full circle and start coordinating paintings to couches and rugs to sculptures in colour coordination schemes! In some ways art has to be separated from life so that we can experience it in a museum which is where art belongs to all - at least in public collections. You’re not going to read a book in a nightclub. I’m all for a plain house with good couches, nice books and great art, like O’Keefe’s in the desert or Motherwell’s…
This is a really useful corrective, and you're right that I didn't elaborate further on it. The point about minimalism as the new wealth display is one I keep coming back to.
Loved this one Rachel, I’m all for some more comfort and life in galleries!
Me too!