Exhibition of works by Andy Warhol (1928-87) in Hong Kong
with scheduled tours in Shanghai, Beijing and Tokyo.
(image ∣ www.thetimes.co.uk)
(image ∣ www.thetimes.co.uk)
With a mock-up impression of The Factory at the
foreground,
'Silver Clouds' - conceived for the Leo Castelli Gallery
in 1966 was re-enacted.
Andy Warhol, Reclining Male Torso, 1950s
(image
∣ The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh)
.JPG)
Andy Warhol
and Jean-Michel Basquiat,
Collaboration (Crab), 1984-85
(image ∣ The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh)
My Forbidden Camera
With more than four hundred exhibits comprising artworks,
photographs, films and an array of accoutrements, the Warhol exhibition held in
the city is a well-executed retrospective.
It captures the artist’s oeuvre from every stage of his career in
delineated timeline, though skimming at surface regarding his colorful
lifestyle that could open doors for viewers.
As for exhibition design, the warehouse-like set-up mimicking ‘The
Factory’ studio was a nice touch that added an extra dimension the
canvases alone could not tell.
Endangered Species prints, 1983 shown
in Singapore in early 2012.
in Singapore in early 2012.
(image ∣ www.insing.com)
Andy Warhol, Michael Jackson,
1984
(image ∣ www.newspicsltd.blogspot.com)
Andy Warhol, Mercedes-Benz
C111 Experimental Vehicle from
the Daimler Collection – commission for the car
maker’s
centenary, 1986 (work not appeared in the exhibition).
(image ∣ www.artrepublic.com)
Apart from the multitude of silk-screen works that people are so
familiar with, it is a relevation to find a few of his line drawings which
demonstrate solid training in his formative years. The inclusion of a few joint paintings with
Jean-Michel Basquiat, completed at the last stage of his life, left a glimpse
of the creativity endgame Warhol might perhaps try to pull together. (This
thought is deduced from the general criticism on his late works including the Endangered Species Suite, Michael Jackson and Mercedes-Benz series, which
are considered to be too commercial and repetitive.)
Empire – the film and other footages showing
him
paint before the camera are run in the exhibition.
Curiously dark lighting on
the Campbell soup cans.
From the quality of the exhibition photos above, readers might
have observed that I have contravened with the ‘No-Photo’ condition. Rules are rules; everyone should always have
the courtesy to comply. The act was not
intended to pose a challenge to the institution but rather committed out of a
necessity to make a point. The debate in
focus is: Non-flash photo-taking in public museums and galleries should be
allowed.
The Arguments
The objections are empirical and well-versed: imperfect photographic quality; distraction to oneself and other visitors; lack of grace and
etiquette; shortcomings to publication sales; infringement to rights; and
potentials for forgery. All above
reasoning related to monetary issues already have existing channels to deal with;
they have nothing to do with casual photography in museums.
Thousands of Warhol’s works
including these already exist on the internet and publications. Why insist on disallowance?
Li Wei performing Mirror at
ART Hong Kong -
liberal photo-taking policies are adopted in
increasing number of art fairs today.
Improvisation for conceptual art – John Baldessari’s
Brain/Cloud,2009 at Tate Modern. Well-mannered good fun only stimulates
creativity and life; and Warhol’s works, or Pop Art in general, are not meant for
pontification.
(photo ∣
Nils Jorgensen for www.guardian.co.uk)
On the contrary, not only is photo-taking an enjoyment in
itself, it may be argued that this could be an active form of interaction
between the viewer and painting – a medium much lamented lacking in. It needs little reminding that the images
taken in museums are not kept in photo albums as in the past; nowadays they are
posted, circulated and talked about on web-based social networks. Painting, if existing inattention summons its slow death, must try every means to explore on the digital age and the power of propagation for survival; on this, art museums have a pivotal role to play.
Should photo-taking be tolerated in this exhibition, one would never know if serious discussions on art might occur among the public to the liking of most art purveyors. Surely this is an effective way of spreading art, be it in the form of appreciation or criticism. By containing it in the conditions-filled setting of museum for sole viewing is one way of preserving the dead, just like what we do in a morgue. To speculate further, LCSD might unknowingly help foster exclusivity – a practice well mastered by the auction houses (notably, Sotheby’s and Christie’s*).
Should photo-taking be tolerated in this exhibition, one would never know if serious discussions on art might occur among the public to the liking of most art purveyors. Surely this is an effective way of spreading art, be it in the form of appreciation or criticism. By containing it in the conditions-filled setting of museum for sole viewing is one way of preserving the dead, just like what we do in a morgue. To speculate further, LCSD might unknowingly help foster exclusivity – a practice well mastered by the auction houses (notably, Sotheby’s and Christie’s*).
'Double Elvis [Ferus Type]' sold at Sotheby's for
a stunning 37 million (US$) in May 2012.
(image ∣
www.telegraph.co.uk)
A Shutter for Opening
Warhol - an avid photographer himself, would not
like to turn
away other photographers.
(photo ∣www.renttopapartments.com)
However, considering the increasing portion of venues worldwide is adopting a more liberal approach on this issue, the public-owned museums in
Hong Kong have definitely a very stiff and stern attitude to turn. These museums invariably forbid non-flash
photography in non-permanent exhibitions and at places even permanent
collections (the exception I remember was the Hong Kong Contemporary Art
Biennial 2009). Under this restrictive confines, they might contribute as incubators for pensive onlookers.
In the spirit of the
artist, I trust Warhol would not mind if his works are photographed and images are spread
around in public. After all, the ideas
of Pop Art were extracted from mass culture; and the act of reproducing
imagery was what he believed in. To
allow casual photography in public museums, it is essentially the manners of
which that need to be considered, not the causes. By starting early and catching up with the
rest of the world in the case of Hong Kong, is the only way that good behavours
can be developed promptly enough to meet the future.
*In September 2012, an agreement was made between Christie’s (the major sponsor of this exhibition) and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts on the exclusive sales of Warhol's works kept in the foundation. Click here for details.
The touring exhibition of ‘Andy Warhol – 15 Minutes Eternal’ is held at the Hong Kong Museum of Art from December 16, 2012 to March 31, 2013.
E-mail Exchanges
with the Curators:
[18
January, 2013]
To: The Hong Kong Museum of Art
Attn: Curators concerned
Dear
Ms Tam and Ms Ng
I have just seen the Warhol exhibition at the Hong Kong
Museum of Art.
As a stakeholder of the arts and a patron of museums in
Hong Kong and other parts of the world, I would like to express my opinions on
the issue of 'no photograph' prevalent in the public museums of this city.
This rule, applied in strict-jacket, does not help the
development of art and audience building.
Please see below link with my complete view for your
careful consideration.
Best regards
Sundial
[18 January, 2013]
Dear Sundial,
Thank you for your
email. Your writings and views on Andy Warhol and the exhibition are much
appreciated.
We understand the enjoyment that phototaking
could bring to the general public. In this regards, phototaking without flash
is allowed in most of our exhibitions displaying our own collection, such as
"Collecting for 50 Years - The People and Their Stories" and
"Cruising the Universe: Fantastic Animals in the Arts of China".
However, there are cases in which the lending
institute of the works does not prefer phototaking by the general public, such
as The Andy Warhol Museum. Phototaking is not allowed even at their museum in
Pittsburgh due to copyright reasons. It is a pity, but we do respect their
preference.
As a substitute, we are displaying graphics of some important pieces on the walls around our building where phototaking is allowed. Although it cannot be compared with the real objects, we believe it can bring some good memories to our visitors.
Thank you again for your opinion. It will help us do more and better in the future!
With best wishes,
As a substitute, we are displaying graphics of some important pieces on the walls around our building where phototaking is allowed. Although it cannot be compared with the real objects, we believe it can bring some good memories to our visitors.
Thank you again for your opinion. It will help us do more and better in the future!
With best wishes,
KL Ng
Curator (Modern Art)
[19
January, 2013]
Dear Ms Ng
I
am glad to receive your response to point out that two exhibitions out of
twenty-four allowed photo-taking in the museum in the last two years. The
figure, as we all know, is few and far in between. This situation is not
exclusive to the Museum of Art in which you manage, but applies across the
board to the special exhibitions at The Museum of Heritage, Museum of History
and Museum of Teaware. On this, I must stress that LCSD has a vital role
to play in such an outdated policy.
I
do not think your office need any reminding that most progressive
museums/gallery in the world have adopted a liberal approach on this. To
name (out of an endless list), they include the National Gallery London,
V&A, Tate Modern, MOCA Shanghai, MOMA, Lourve, Hamburger Bahnhof, Arken
(Copenhagen), Louisiana Museum of Modern Art (Denmark), and indeed most museums
in the Scandinavian countries. The Hong Kong Art Centre is an equal on
this score. The Pittsburgh Warhol Museum only demonstrates a very dated
approach to art curating philosophy; or it represents a protective
administration with monetary interest at stake. Need I go any
further on their business relationship with the Warhol Foundation and
Christie's.
I
hope your office can understand that I am not the lone voice on this repressive
policy; it is a policy that most people in HK have some opinion but they do not
bother to raise. It is up the professional people like yourselves who can
steer the right path and lead the way. I would be glad if your office can
express an willingness to adopt non-flash photo-taking policy as much as
possible, or in case where persuasion to art lenders are required.
I
would like to copy this to M+ and hope that they can allow non-flash
photography when the museum is open in the near future.
Your
sincerely
Sundial
[26
January, 2013]
To:
The Asst. Director (Heritage and Museum) LCSD
Attn:
Dr. Louis Ng
Dear
Sir
Since
I do not receive any further response from the curators at the Museum of Art or
your office – the policy making body, I consider that the LCSD is in no
position to adopt a lenient approach to the issue of non-flash photography in
public museums in Hong Kong.
On
this, I am disappointed at the lack of commitment for the public good this
branch of the department demonstrates.
I
would keep monitoring on the running of the venues managed by the government,
and if necessary raise you from the comfort zone of civil administration.
Yours
sincerely
Sundial
[1 February, 2013]
Dear Sundial
Thank you for your emails.
As a public museum, we are dedicated to enhancing visitors' museum experience, and we certainly would allow non-flash photography of most of our collections in the galleries, just like many of the museums you mentioned. While it is our wish that the no photography restriction could be relaxed as far as possible, I hope you can also understand that there are cases when the exhibits o display are on loan from private collections or other institutions which, for copyrights or other reasons, do not allow photos to be taken.
Thank you very much for your patronage and thanks again for your kind advice.
Yours sincerely
KL Ng
[1 February, 2013]
Dear Sundial
Thank you for your emails.
As a public museum, we are dedicated to enhancing visitors' museum experience, and we certainly would allow non-flash photography of most of our collections in the galleries, just like many of the museums you mentioned. While it is our wish that the no photography restriction could be relaxed as far as possible, I hope you can also understand that there are cases when the exhibits o display are on loan from private collections or other institutions which, for copyrights or other reasons, do not allow photos to be taken.
Thank you very much for your patronage and thanks again for your kind advice.
Yours sincerely
KL Ng
雖然對他的生平有點忌諱，著墨不便詳細，香港舉行的華荷展覽不失為一個深究的作品薈萃。是次回顧展總括了他漫長又具影響力的創作道路，其中包涵四百多件展品，策展規模堪稱相當認真.
除了大量絲印畫，較具啟示性的選作是他的單線畫及與尚米榭．巴斯奇亞聯合創作的油畫，前者揭示華荷紮實的繪畫歷練，後者窺探到作者晚期尋找創作明燈的可能動機。
從展覽現塲照片, 讀者也許發現筆主已違反藝術館〝不准拍照〞的規則。在此本人申明不存在冒犯主辨方之意願。此舉亦無意挑戰大會，無疑參觀條件理應遵守。拍照行為除帶率性外，此舉屬有理據的必然表達。循以上前文帶出焦點主題：「公共博物館及美術廳應接納無閃光拍照」。
反對意見原歸傳统，現闡述論點如下：攝影效果不彰、影嚮自己及他人参觀、不雅舉止及禮儀、打擊刊物銷售、知識版權及偽造作品的契機。以上涉及金錢利益層面的問題已有針對方法應付，亦跟參觀拍照無關。
從贊成角度考慮，拍照可提高觀眾對展品的興趣。考量平面藝術及繪畫的限制，拍照不失具備互動的效益；況且，照片拍好後並不像以往保存在傳統相簿裡。今天照片已進入普及數碼化時代，網絡上載，流傳及分享盡是當下指定動作。就公眾關注漸趨冷漠的困局，繪畫藝術的生存必需發掘網絡時代的傳播能力。在此，美術館有不可推卸的責任。
若這拍照取態在港得以接受，肯定對藝術傳播和普及有一定推動，不管這些參與的曲和調是批評還是讚譽。但現今封閉式的嚴控參觀模式，只准嚴肅探視，不無與停屍間瞻仰行為一樣。往下推理，康文處公共展館彷彿有助經營專貴之勢，令人感覺與拍賣行的作風有異曲同工之效（蘇富比及佳士得*為當中的最成功的佼佼者）。
若這拍照取態在港得以接受，肯定對藝術傳播和普及有一定推動，不管這些參與的曲和調是批評還是讚譽。但現今封閉式的嚴控參觀模式，只准嚴肅探視，不無與停屍間瞻仰行為一樣。往下推理，康文處公共展館彷彿有助經營專貴之勢，令人感覺與拍賣行的作風有異曲同工之效（蘇富比及佳士得*為當中的最成功的佼佼者）。
就世界各地博物館已採取較寬鬆的態度而言，本港的公共展館是相對固守本位的。這些場館壓根禁止無閃光攝影；非常設展品不在話下，固有展品亦不獲容許。它們也許是間接培育冷眼旁觀者的訓練場。
以華荷精神來說，我猜想他也不介意作品被拍並廣泛流傳於民間。普普藝術的源流不是始於大眾文化嗎？而複製圖像亦不是他倡導嗎？實話實說，考慮展館拍照的課題，其關鍵在於攝影者的態度和修養而並非他們拍攝的因由。越早放寬這規則，大眾拍照的修為方可以演化成熟，與世界其他場館接軌。
以華荷精神來說，我猜想他也不介意作品被拍並廣泛流傳於民間。普普藝術的源流不是始於大眾文化嗎？而複製圖像亦不是他倡導嗎？實話實說，考慮展館拍照的課題，其關鍵在於攝影者的態度和修養而並非他們拍攝的因由。越早放寬這規則，大眾拍照的修為方可以演化成熟，與世界其他場館接軌。
巡迴展 —《安廸華荷：十五分鐘的永恆》由二○一二年十二月十六日至二○一三年三月三十一日於香港藝術館舉行。
就上述議題與展覽策劃人對話見上英語原文。
