Exhibitions are kind of ephemeral moments, sometimes magic moments, and when they're gone, they're gone.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Works of art often last forever, or nearly so. But exhibitions themselves, especially gallery exhibitions, are like flowers; they bloom and then they die, then exist only as memories, or pressed in magazines and books.
You cannot always make such big exhibitions, because they consume too much time and energy.
I'm constantly making exhibitions in my head.
Photographers deal in things which are continually vanishing and when they have vanished there is no contrivance on earth which can make them come back again.
These small shows were decidedly a success. The exhibitions were not too large to be seen easily. It was not an effort, as larger collections of pictures usually are.
I'm trying to expand the notion of curating. Exhibitions need not only take place in galleries, need not only involve displaying objects. Art can appear where we expect it least.
If only we could persuade galleries to observe a fallow period in which, for two months every other year, new and old works of art could be sold in back rooms and all main galleries would be devoted to revisiting shows gone by.
Museums, I think, are becoming more and more aware of how to turn themselves into a must-see spectacle.
There is more to representing art than selling art. The life of the gallery is dependent on the renewal and refreshment of its artists and dealers. When that stops happening, it's the end.
Argumentative exhibitions bring issues to life in a way that very much irritates traditional curators who want to see their pictures valued for themselves.
No opposing quotes found.