Thanks to the wonderful world of Google alerts we were able to catch this delightful synopsis of our Vortexhibition Polyphonica show from a blogger who read abut it in The Seattle Times. In the polyphonic spirit of this exhibition we are interested in drawing commentary from a number of different voices, and we were excited to see interest.
Our Michigan Blogger friend seemed particularly concerned with a particular work in the exhibition, Clayton Bailey’s skeleton of a Bigfoot, from the “Mixing Messages” part of the exhibition, which showcases work that challenges traditional notions of perception by exploring various forms of language and allegory through art. This writer felt the piece convoluted fact with fiction, or perhaps even sent mixed messages to visitors.
Seattle’s Henry Art Gallery is currently featuring an exhibition with an unpronounceable title, Vortexhibition Polyphonica, that encompasses all kinds of bizarre “artwork.” The category dubbed Mixing Messages includes a Bigfoot skeleton, a “hand-built bone-china extravaganza” as the Seattle Times described it, showing what the artist thinks a Bigfoot skeleton might look like…Since I live nowhere near Seattle, I can’t visit the exhibit and therefore have no idea what the newspaper means by this statement. It sounds like just the kind of thing we don’t need more of—people confusing fact and myth.
Check out the rest of the post for a full review.
As its etymological namesake denotes, today’s museums are a manifestation of modern mythos, acting not only as the pluralistic daughters of memory, but as living depositories of wonder. With all the intrigue a of modern Wunderkammern, contemporary art museums have a unique opportunity to showcase works that ask visitors to muse on the intentions of a work, and in the case of the piece in question offer visitors the chance to contemplate the potential legitimacy of the object’s intended and perceived goal as an art work. Myth? Fact? Fiction? Both?
Is this the first Bigfoot Skeleton showcased in a museum? I’m not sure, but its the first time we’ve shown one. The question is, how does one personally interpret/fabricate/rationalize relational ‘fact’ within the built environment of a museum?