This week, I had the pleasure of reading Tony Bennett’s “The Exhibitionary Complex,” and was really intrigued with his explanations and justifications behind the complexities of the formation of both exposition and spectacle. Drawing upon numerous examples from past institutions, such as a “cabinet of curiosities” and a “Great Exhibition,” Bennett brings up the notion and case of the Crystal Palace. A cousin to the panopticon, which was an architectural method that allowed maximum observation of inhabitants, the Crystal Palace “reversed the panoptical principle by fixing the eyes of the multitude upon an assemblage of glamorous commodities. The Panopticon was designed so that everyone could be seen; the Crystal Palace was designed so that everyone could see.” Interestingly, the Crystal Palace combines the functions of both spectacle or participatory observation, with the concept of surveillance. Bennett continues to explain how the Crystal Palace is a useful term in the exhibitionary complex; society itself is a spectacle, institutions’ involvement of providing spectacles, and above all, allows for permanent displays of knowledge, thus asserting power.
I found this idea of the Crystal Palace and its purpose to be reminiscent of many of today’s museums and their exhibits. Like how we had discussed in class, it seems as if many museums are employing the use of installations and interactivity to better exhibit art. But a question is raised; with the purpose of many pieces being audience participation, are the users then pieces of the art itself? It can be said that a museum is a Crystal Palace, where museum goers are not only encouraged to view works, the spectacles, but are also assumed to be “under surveillance” of the museum. Heavy words, I know, but it is essentially observable in how power is displayed by what is called for in an exhibition, as well as how museums essentially “curate” the public as viewers themselves.
“…The development of the exhibitionary complex also posed a new demand: that everyone should see, and not just the ostentation of imposing facades but their contents too.”
To further surmise, I especially feel that Bennett’s words are imperatively relatable to the expositions of the digital age– everyone should see, but with the addition of evolving forms of digital display and creation, everyone should be seen as participants of these expositions, as well.
I think the concept of the Crystal Palace is an extremely interesting one, especially with its purpose being surveillance through transparency. The notion of the guests becoming the art is certainly one that Bennett touches upon, especially since he views the Exhibitionary Complex as one that is supposed to help people with self-regulation. The tie-back to modern day museum etiquette and expectations is incredibly relevant– as museum-goers, we are held to a certain standard of behavior that is in itself a form of surveillance. This sense of obligation toward a certain behavior gives a certain prestige to idea of a “museum.”
I think you bring up a great question of whether art needs to stand alone or can our interaction with a piece be a requited to validate the art. If the art draws from interactions but is not interacted with, is it still art? i think it is a cool point because art becomes less of something we observe but rather something that we can interact with and hence how the art interacts with us. Then also is art still art if it is not open to interpretation but an experience that has been designed for you to have? I think the question you pose is important to our discussion of what is art and how we interact with it.