displays/exhibits, art and biomed
Suspended between aesthetics and documentary
Earlier today I went to the opening of Mette Bersang and Louise Bøgelund Saugmann’s exhibition “Suspended between breathing in and breathing out” in the subterranean passage between the Panum Institute and the Danish National Hospital (Rigshospitalet) in Copenhagen (see announcement and flyer here). It’s a fairly small exhibition (only 14 pictures) of photos of interieurs of lab benches, storage rooms, instruments etc. from two clinics/laboratories. Soft colours (ink jet print on aluminium), no people visible, only traces and remains of their activities. A series of aesthetically very pleasing works that would fit nicely on the walls in the lunch room, but in my mind don’t raise any questions — perhaps other than: where goes the line between aesthetic and documentary photography?
23 Aug 2006 Thomas
Really? I thought I saw some similarities between the artwork and Museions ’new’ approach to recent biomedicine. That is, I think that the mixture of medical fascilities and art is interesting in itself – what can art show that you wouldn’t see otherwise? And I thought that the chosen photographic representation of the hospital was a visual parallel to one of the approaches I have seen from Museion on recent biomedicine. The fokus in the artwork was on the hospital as a place where people lived and worked and on the details, the human touch in the otherwise clinical environment – not on the treatment itself or the politics or events or achievements taking place there (the traditional view). Specifically I was reminded of Hanne Jessens approach to collecting new items and her insistence on also collecting the things that showed the emotional attachment of the people who worked there to their workplace and, in the case I’m referring to, also the guineapigs. To show that you can’t separate what goes on from the place it goes on in. And the art exhibition was able to show this without people in the pictures – which in a way is what a museum should be able to do with its artifacts, wouldn’t you say? So I think, that this opens for a lot of questions – is this a valuable approach for example? Can a museum use art as a medium to effect certain feelings or recognitions from its audience? etc. If Hanne reads this, I hope that she will visit the exhibition and come up with more questions.
Best wishes
Morten Bülow
Hi Morten, I both agree and disagree. I agree that the exhibition has a great value as a collection of documentary photographs that (as you say) “represent” clinics and laboratories; it “shows” how things “are” in the biomedical world, and opens one’s eyes to aspects of this world that are otherwise closed to the public. In this sense I think the exhibition is an example of excellent documentary photography and I wish there was more photo representations of the biomedical world with the same high quality.
My problem, however, was that I couldn’t make any other aesthetic judgement than “nice” and “pleasing”. In my mind, the photos were neither sublime, nor ugly, neither really beautiful, nor disturbing. I “saw” the world they wanted me to see, and I reflected on what they “represented”. But they didn’t really touch me. My response was “okey, this is a laboratory — nice shot, great colours, excellent technique” — but not: “oops, there is something uncanny going on here”; or: “I really wonder …”; or: “wow, strikingly beautiful”. Whatever emotional reaction I may have had, it was gone already when I left the room.
Compare this lack of aesthetic reaction with my response to Louise Hindsgavl’s and Mette Saabye’s “I virkeligheden …” (In reality) which opened in the Danish Museum of Art & Design (Kunstindustrimuset) two days later. Their ceramic figures are neither nice nor pleasing, and they are still imprinted on my retina.