Presentation vs Progression, Thiago Menezes

This reading seeks to critique and analyze the “Metropole/Colony: Africa and Italy” exhibition at the Frost Art Museum, as its mode of presentation succeeds while its circulatory progression fails.

Given that the exhibition features various types of media, including (but not limited to) posters, paintings, sculptures and books, it becomes difficult to present all the material in a singular unified way. Nonetheless, the choice of material and display methods chosen, make it extremely clear as to how one experiences and views the items on display.

Bearing that in mind, we look into the movement allowed throughout the room, and it becomes apparent that there are a few more options in regards to layout that could have been explored and ease the means of progression throughout the space.

As one enters the room, one is faced with a tall tabular wall of text and a glass table display. Here one is presented with the choice to go left or right. Thus far either way works, as the perimeter of the room is clearly cladded with frames displaying the art with glass tables underneath them, displaying various other items.  It is not until one reaches the center that the progression becomes a somewhat confusing and the choices made about where certain items were placed come into question.

Three items inhabit what would seem to be the main part of the exhibition, forming the shape of a triangle whose points face the entrance the right wall and the back wall. These items will be noted as “The Book and Case” (as the name indicated a book and it’s artfully crafted wood case) located the entrance point, “Platter” (a set of two carefully decorated plates) located at the right wall point and “La messe” (a bronze sculpture of a man caressing wheat) located at the back wall point.

Before continuing, it must first be noted that both “The Book and Case” and “La messe” must be viewed from all sides of their clear cube display in order to be fully understood, while “Platter” can be understood merely by looking at it from up top.

Understanding that “La messe” is a three-dimensional sculpture and compels one to revolve around it, one must question its placement in relation to both the wall and “Platter”. If coming from the right, one can clearly walk around “Platter” and come around to “La messe”, and if coming from the left one can do the same around “The Book and Case”. However given its proximity to the wall one can only view 3 out of the 4 sides and questions whether or not to squeeze between the wall and the piece’s container. Here is where the progression truly becomes hindered.

Presented with this scenario, one might suggest a few minor adjustments in which progression will not be interrupted due to the break in thought, and thus a lessened level of involvement with the exhibition, as one ponders what to do. Suggestion “A” would to simply move of “La messe” about another 6 to 12 inches away from the wall. Assuming everything was done for a reason, and this break in thought and forced circulation as pre-mediated by the curator, suggestion B would come in place. Here everything would essentially stay the same, except “La messe” was to be switched with “Platter” as platter does not require a 360 degree turn around it for one to fully understand it and thus its display can be as close to the wall as desired.