The Void as Dedication: Proceeding From a Space of Transgre... http://www.artandeducation.net/paper/the-void-as-dedication-...

Papers

Yesomi Umolu is a London-based curator, writer and

researcher whose practice deals with interrogating the
politics of translation and participation across a wide range
of critical spatial practices. Her recent projects include
co-curating the archival space AGM 10: Collectivus CPS at
Manifesta 8, Region of Murcia (2010), co-curating the
exhibition John Smith Solo Show and collaborating on
Department 21 at the Royal College of Art, London (2010),
and curating Performing Localities at Iniva, London
(2009). Yesomi has held positions as a Curatorial Assistant
for Chamber of Public Secrets at Manifesta 8, Region of
Murcia (2010), Public Programme Assistant at the
Serpentine Gallery, London (2009) and Project
Coordinator at Tate Modern, London (2005-8). She is a
regularly invited critic and seminar tutor at the Bartlett
School of Architecture, University College of London.
© Centre Pompidou, Georges Meguerditchian, 2009
Yesomi holds an MA (with distinction) in Curating
The Void as Dedication: Proceeding From a Contemporary Art from the Royal College of Art and a MA
(Hons.) in Architectural Design from the University of
Space of Transgression to Veneration Edinburgh. http://on-errantry.com

Yesomi Umolu

Print | Email Share this: Facebook | Twitter | 1. Marincola, Paula (ed), What makes a great exhibition? (Philadelphia
Exhibitions Initiative, Philadelphia Center for Arts and Heritage, 2006).
The ‘List of Questions Leading to More Questions and Some Answers’
is found on the front cover and bookmark.
INTRODUCTION
2. Voids: A Retrospective, February 25 2009 – March 23 2009, Centre
In the seminal curatorial anthology What makes a Great Exhibition? Paula Marincola Pompidou, Paris. Nine empty rooms featuring empty exhibitions as
asks ‘Can we ever get beyond the essential conservatism of displaying works of art in artworks by Art & Language, Robert Barry, Stanley Brown, Maria
conventional, dedicated spaces?’1 To find a definitive answer is clearly problematic as Eichhorn, Bethan Huws, Robert Irwin, Yves Klein, Roman Ondak and
once we attempt to do so other complex questions undoubtedly arise. Thus, what is Laurie Parsons.

important to interrogate here, is not the answer in itself, but why the question is asked
3. Marincola, Paula (ed), What makes a great exhibition? (Philadelphia
in the first place. The following discussion is an attempt to reflect on this through an
Exhibitions Initiative, Philadelphia Center for Arts and Heritage, 2006).
analysis of the 2009 exhibition Voids: A Retrospective, 2 with specific reference to what The ‘List of Questions Leading to More Questions and Some Answers’
we come to understand as the ‘space or architecture’ of an exhibition and the is found on the front cover and bookmark.
constraints imposed on or by it.
4. The exhibition The Specialization of Sensibility in the Raw Material
This text will conclude by addressing another question posed by Marincola; ‘Must a State of Stabilized Pictorial Sensibility presented in an empty space or
great show be a watershed production, in some way causing us to rethink the void at Galerie Iris Clert, Paris in 1958.
methodology and even the format of exhibitions, or can it also be one that seeks to
engage the conventional parameters in particularly creative or surprising way?’ 3 In 5. Buchloh, Benjamin, ‘Plenty of Nothing: from Yves Klein’s Le Vide to
doing so it will consider the limitations of Voids: A Retrospective and its capacity to Arman’s Le Plein’, pp. 336-348, in Armleder, John; Copeland, Matthieu;
provoke new curatorial and institutional thinking, eventually speculating on alternative Le Bon, Laurent; Metzger, Gustav; Perret, Mai-Thu; Phillpot, Clive and
Pirotte, Philippe (eds), Voids: A Retrospective (Centre Pompidou,
strategies that could have been employed.
Paris, and the Kunsthalle Bern, 2009), pp. 345
VOID AS EXHIBITION
6. Le Bon, Laurent, ‘He Who Dares, Wins Nothing’, pp. 163-66, in
On discussing the concept of the void in relation to exhibition space, we must return to Armleder, John; Copeland, Matthieu; Le Bon, Laurent; Metzger,
its first inception into artistic discourse. It is widely concluded that this begins with Yves Gustav; Perret, Mai-Thu; Phillpot, Clive and Pirotte, Philippe (eds),
Klein’s Le Vide 4 in 1958, which publicly exhibited an empty gallery space. This Voids: A Retrospective (Centre Pompidou, Paris, and the Kunsthalle
intervention presented the exhibition as artwork. Its title, invitation card and private Bern, 2009), pp. 163

view night were carefully crafted to build up curiosity and anticipation amongst the
7. Italicised – I am here refereeing to the exhibition and will continue to do
public, engendering the exhibition-as-event.
so in this manner
For Benjamin Buchloh, Klein’s work and those of his counterparts marked a radical
departure from the early avant-grade in that they interrupted its discursive field, playing 8. In his essay ‘Plenty of Nothing: from Yves Klein’s Le Vide to Arman’s
Le Plein’, first printed in 1998, Buchloh argues that Klein developed in
out ‘the dialectic of inexorable amnesia and inevitable spectacularization.’ 5 In these
his work an ‘aesthetics of contingency’, whereby the artwork reveals
works the prevailing explorations of perception, phenomenological space and the itself simultaneously as being an autonomous object and as dependent
architectural installation were decidedly absent. Through the enactment of gestures of of conventions. With the Le Vide, whereby the gallery space was the
action/inaction based on the singularity of an idea and the ensuing process of artwork, Klein extends this thinking to architecture and shows it function
mythification, the neo-avant-garde refused to continue the inquiry into the assumed in the same manner.
support structures of the exhibition space, proceeding instead to its negation through
silence. Such gestures would go on to instigate a questioning of the historical, 9. See: http://www.centrepompidou.fr/pompidou/Communication.nsf
/0/B90DF3E7C7F18CAEC1256D970053FA6D?OpenDocument&sessionM=3.1.12&L=2
institutional and social framework of the ‘white cube’, challenging its claim to neutrality.

And so in Spring 2009, a major retrospective at the Centre Pompidou Paris brings 10. Buren, Daniel, ‘Function of Architecture’, pp. 313-319, in Greenberg,
Klein’s uncompromising act of disavowal to the fore. Alongside Klein’s void sits a Reesa; Ferguson, Bruce W and Nairne, Sandy (eds), Thinking about
series of other voids, creating a somewhat paradoxical exhibition of (anti) exhibitions. exhibitions (London : Routledge, 1996), pp 314

In Voids: A Retrospective the discourse not only moves in and out of the theological,
11. The exhibition was situated in the northern end of the 4th floor
philosophical and art historical concept/theme of ‘the void’ but also its curatorial concourse of the Centre Pompidou, preceded by the centre’s
implications. Focussing on the latter, this analysis now turns to an extract from the permanent collection. This juxtaposition is perhaps intended to echo
Curatorial Committee’s General Introduction in the comprehensive exhibition the conflict between Klein’s empty space and the abundance of
catalogue: information and activity surrounding the event. It is also a reference to
Arman’s Le Plein 1961, which is considered to be the dialectical partner
With this perspective, a number of works, of empty exhibitions, were selected with the of Klein’s action.
idea of devoting a room to each of them. These surfaces are used almost allegorically
to represent the exhibitions in question. Only a label marks the works allocated to each 12. Le Bon, Laurent, ‘He Who Dares, Wins Nothing’, pp. 163-66, in
room. These have not been modified and partake of the permanent architecture of the Armleder, John; Copeland, Matthieu; Le Bon, Laurent; Metzger,
museum where the retrospective takes place.’ 6 (my emphasis) Gustav; Perret, Mai-Thu; Phillpot, Clive and Pirotte, Philippe (eds),
Voids: A Retrospective (Centre Pompidou, Paris, and the Kunsthalle
It is clear from this and the exhibition’s pretext as a ‘retrospective’ that the curatorial Bern, 2009), pp. 163
intentions behind Voids 7 support the methodology Marincola questions. If it is the case
as Marincola suggests that this is a given in contemporary exhibition making, then why 13. Heidegger, Martin, ‘The Origin of the work of Art’, pp. 139-203 trans.
does it have to be made explicit? It is possible that this overstatement underlines the David Farrell Krell, in Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings (New York:
Harper and Row, 1977), pp. 169
exhibitions attempt to carry out the same questioning through its own construction.
Moreover, the Curatorial Committee’s statement can be seen as an attempt to 14. Sontag Susan, ‘The Aesthetics of Silence’, pp. 3-34, in Styles of
undermine any assumptions or expectations that the void – as a physically immaterial Radical Will (1969; London; Vintage, 1994), p.7
artwork and expansive artistic concept – would illicit greater curatorial freedom and
demand a different handling of space. 15. In The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, 1979, Lyotard
denounces the tradition of ‘meta-narratives’ in Western Thought,
VOID AS ARCHITECTURE introducing the post-modern condition as the proliferation of ‘micro-
narratives’.
Buchloh argues that the first installation of Le Vide completed the progressive shift of

1 of 4 27/06/2014 18:15
The Void as Dedication: Proceeding From a Space of Transgre... http://www.artandeducation.net/paper/the-void-as-dedication-...

Klein’s conceptual project into the realm of architecture. 8 However, he goes on to 16. Le Bon, Laurent, ‘He Who Dares, Wins Nothing’, pp. 163-66, in
delineate Klein’s approach from that of the early avant-garde, whose pictorial Armleder, John; Copeland, Matthieu; Le Bon, Laurent; Metzger,
experiments acquired an architectural dimension. Klein’s work called into question the Gustav; Perret, Mai-Thu; Phillpot, Clive and Pirotte, Philippe (eds),
(material and immaterial) parameters of the exhibition space, challenging its guiding Voids: A Retrospective (Centre Pompidou, Paris, and the Kunsthalle
logic and the power it exerts on the artist or artwork. These preoccupations are equally Bern, 2009), pp. 163

present in Voids, in fact, they function on the same register.

17. Ibid.
In line with tradition, the artworks in the exhibition are subjected to an orthogonal
arrangement of spaces. Co-curator Laurent Le Bon adding that the occupied section of 18. [1] This is counter to Le Bon’s conclusion that Voids allows you to
‘…think about everything except for nothing’, I would argue here that
the museum is in the same condition (spatially at least) as it was following the
the nothing-as-construct becomes the overriding subject of the
Pompidou’s renovation in 2000. Revisiting the history of exhibitions at the Pompidou,
exhibition not the individual works in themselves
although originally conceived by its architects as ‘an evolving spatial diagram’, 9 there
appears to be continuity in the spatial tectonics of the exhibition. Even when we 19. Stéphane Mallarmé quoted in Basar, Shumon, ‘Nothing Will have
consider the centre’s ‘landmark’ exhibitions, for example, Lyotard’s L’immateriaux in Taken Place But The Place’, pp. 362-364, in Armleder, John; Copeland,
1985, this treatment remains consistent. In a context where perceptual space was Matthieu; Le Bon, Laurent; Metzger, Gustav; Perret, Mai-Thu; Phillpot,
being explored, documentation shows that the installation design remained somewhat Clive and Pirotte, Philippe (eds), Voids: A Retrospective (Centre
typical in its Cartesian logic and subsequent demarcation of spatial ‘zones’, defining Pompidou, Paris, and the Kunsthalle Bern, 2009), pp. 363

experience accordingly. Regardless of the transparency, permeability or deconstructed

20. The ground breaking and inspirational nature of Klein’s action cannot
nature of these spaces, they continue to adhere to the way in which the exhibition
be ignored. In the essay On the Haus Esters Piece, Julian Heyman
makes-space-for-itself. By default, the curatorial language is to dedicate (by way of speculates on the historical basis of Bethan Huws’ Haus Lange and
tribute) specific spaces and time frames to forms of artistic enquiry, which exist in an Haus Esters. He undoubtedly pinpoints Klein’s Raum de Leere (an
historical time-space of their own. appropriation of Le Vide for a retrospective exhibition in Haus Lange,
1961) as a starting point.
In Voids, the return to a ‘primary’ state is important in considering its installation
design, for in its support structure of white partition walls it returns to what maybe be 21. Copeland, Matthieu, ‘Qualifying the Void’, pp. 167-171, in Armleder,
viewed as the zero degree of contemporary exhibition making in any given John; Copeland, Matthieu; Le Bon, Laurent; Metzger, Gustav; Perret,
architectural space. Where we would imagine that this would be completely empty from Mai-Thu; Phillpot, Clive and Pirotte, Philippe (eds), Voids: A
its onset, the display apparatus are rather the starting point. And there is indeed a Retrospective (Centre Pompidou, Paris, and the Kunsthalle Bern,
fullness that is always present in the exhibition space, whether physically or 2009), pp. 171

conceptually. The gallery space has not been stripped down to nothing, for there it
22. Calderoni, Irene, ‘Creating Shows: Some Notes on the Exhibition
becomes mere building, as according to Daniel Buren ‘an empty museum or gallery
Aesthetics at the End of the Sixties’, pp. 63-79, in O’Neill, Paul (ed.),
means nothing.’10 Consequently, with the framework of the exhibition walls and all Curating Subjects (London : Open Editions, 2007), pp. 70
other support structures, the void becomes architecture-as-display space. 11
23. Siemons, Marc, ‘The blindness of negation’, in Bouteloup, Mélanie and
At this point we could bear in mind the Pompidou’s status as an institution and so
Dietrich,Cyril (eds), bd n*4: Le journal de bétonsalon (Bétonsalon,
submit to the fact that the institution cannot escape its own language. Yet, this does not 2009)
mean that it is incapable of changing perspective or engaging in an innovative
rethinking of its paradigms. How Voids attempts to do so is what is in question and 24. Ibid.
what is so perplexing about its curatorial strategy. What is clear from this exhibition is
the self-consciousness of its curatorial language, which betrays a desire to outline the 25. With Money at the Kinsthalle Bern, Bern 2001, Eichhorn chose not to
exhibition’s scope however extensive it claims to be. Le Bon asserts that ‘far from mount an exhibition, instead using its production costs to renovate the
Kunsthalle building. Leaving the exhibition spaces empty the public
being a practical joke, Voids in fact asks a series of simple yet radical questions about
was invited to explore and discover tot otherwise hidden ancillary
the nature of museums today.’ 12 These are ultimately asked via its art historical stem
spaces.
and through a discourse on the spatial limits of an exhibition.
26. Laurie Parsons’ gesture at Lorence Monk Gallery, New York, 1990 was
VOID AS LANGUAGE
to present no works on the occasion of her third solo show at the
For Heidegger ‘to dedicate is to consecrate’, 13 thus to set up a world in which one gallery. In their absence was a mailed invitation card (sans artist or
dwells, which underpins man’s being on earth. This moves notions of architecture exhibition details).

beyond the fixity of the physical and into the metaphysical. The metaphysical space of
27. With Experimental Situation, Ace Gallery, Los Angeles, 1970, Irwin left
the exhibition is all that is present with or without the art-object. One stresses art
the gallery space empty, returning regularly to think about what would
objects here, i.e. art-as-object, for as history has taught us art (as with architecture) be realised there.
can acquire objecthood and permanence through other media beyond the material. As
Heidegger so aptly demonstrates, language is one of these forms, and is critical to an 28. Le Bon, Laurent, ‘He Who Dares, Wins Nothing’, pp. 163-66, in
understanding of beings existence and its relationship to place. Consequently, Le Armleder, John; Copeland, Matthieu; Le Bon, Laurent; Metzger,
Vide’s extended title and its narrative as event forms a large part of the Gustav; Perret, Mai-Thu; Phillpot, Clive and Pirotte, Philippe (eds),
conceptualisation of an empty exhibition as artwork. The work is constructed from Voids: A Retrospective (Centre Pompidou, Paris, and the Kunsthalle
Bern, 2009), pp. 165
these information sources, grounding it in a specific place and time.
Returning to the catalogue extract that prompted this discussion, the permanent 29. Ondak’s More Silent Then Ever, gb agency, Paris, 2006, works on the
architecture of the contemporary museum extends from the freestanding partition wall premise that hidden eavesdropping devices are present in the gallery,
this is announced via the wall label. By doing so he draws the visitors
to the chronological layout of space, wall labels, didactic text, extensive catalogue and
attention to the museum’s invisible structures and its capacity for
even, in the era of post-modernism, the ‘free-wandering’ experience of the audience. In
deception and/or truth
the particular case of Voids as with Le Vide, information prevails over aesthetics. The
labels and the titles become important in differentiating the original void from its 30. Le Bon, Laurent, ‘He Who Dares, Wins Nothing’, pp. 163-66, in
devotees, for they are all the same materially but conceptual detours from each other. Armleder, John; Copeland, Matthieu; Le Bon, Laurent; Metzger,
It is here and most critically in the catalogue that the differences between the Gustav; Perret, Mai-Thu; Phillpot, Clive and Pirotte, Philippe (eds),
exhibition’s voids are so clearly expressed. The idea of the artwork in this case is all Voids: A Retrospective (Centre Pompidou, Paris, and the Kunsthalle
the more objectified through the language of the exhibition, which is its permanent Bern, 2009), pp. 166

architecture.
31. Le Bon, Laurent, ‘He Who Dares, Wins Nothing’, pp. 163-66, in
Voids represents itself as an addition to a longstanding set of critical discourses Armleder, John; Copeland, Matthieu; Le Bon, Laurent; Metzger,
surrounding curatorial practice. Le Bon’s essay ‘He Who Dares Nothing, Wins Nothing’ Gustav; Perret, Mai-Thu; Phillpot, Clive and Pirotte, Philippe (eds),
Voids: A Retrospective (Centre Pompidou, Paris, and the Kunsthalle
in the catalogue’s anthology discusses the importance of this exhibition in the current
Bern, 2009), pp. 163-164
context and the ‘idea’ of the void as a tool for rethinking institutional space.
Furthermore, the catalogue, which by some conclusions is indispensable to the 32. Quoted in Copeland, Matthieu, ‘Qualifying the Void’, pp. 167-171, in
‘completion’ of the exhibition, demonstrates the necessity to validate the curatorial Armleder, John; Copeland, Matthieu; Le Bon, Laurent; Metzger,
concept behind the exhibition through intellectual discourse and pedagogy. Henceforth Gustav; Perret, Mai-Thu; Phillpot, Clive and Pirotte, Philippe (eds),
in this space, the void achieves permanence and is made material through its Voids: A Retrospective (Centre Pompidou, Paris, and the Kunsthalle
thematisation, historicisation and institutionalisation. It is inscribed through memory Bern, 2009), pp. 169
and scholarship, attaining inclusion and authority, hence becoming the subject of, or
33. Mies Van der Rohe’s conception of ‘an architecture of almost nothing’,
rather, subject to, (newly formed?) museum conventions.
one of reductionism.
The museum’s permanent architecture exhibits itself naturally in its functionality, (that
is, in Heideggerean terms in its setting up the artwork) and use value, which do not 34. October 7 – October 10, 1974, Anna Leonowens Gallery, Nova Scotia
College of Art and Design, Halifax, Canada, 1974
have to be explicit but implicit in the working processes and the language/tools of the
exhibition. The void reveals to us the language/tools that are at our disposal, but one
enquires; to what end? Is it to reveal them as are functionless, null-and-void or as full,
apt for their use? Or is it somewhere between these two states? Maybe it is in this
space that deliverance from conservatism is offered?
We must exercise some caution at this point because this conception is in itself
problematic. For all the post-modern eulogising of this space-in-between and the
multiplicity of experience and methods it offers, we cannot deny the fact that this
approach has its own internal logic and as Susan Sontag expresses, is complicit in ‘a
particular spiritual and cultural rhetoric.’ 14Voids is consequently entangled in a
post-modern logic of anti-logic expounded by Lyotard, that of the diversity and inherent
difference of language and meaning. 15 This occurs on a number of levels, firstly in its
claim as a ‘limitless and atypical project’ 16 (with reference to its handling of the
void-as-artwork and use of the void-as-concept for re-reading(s) of the museum and
exhibitions space) and secondly in its ‘aim to enfold the space in one single idea,

2 of 4 27/06/2014 18:15
The Void as Dedication: Proceeding From a Space of Transgre... http://www.artandeducation.net/paper/the-void-as-dedication-...

expressed in different ways.’ 17

The post-modern conception of the void as ‘indefinable’ is a definable entity although it

denies this in its very own self-construction, like for example, a mathematically
irrational number. The willingness to define the void as a historical and epistemological
narrative, and by extension Voids eagerness to define itself is in essence
self-contradictory. This thinking, which attempts to refrain from the realm of
meta-narratives and places value on unbounded interpretation, clearly forms the basis
and power structure of the contemporary art gallery. It is representative of a culture of
ambivalence to meaning and not one of vagueness that the void-as-structural tool
could possibly provide. What is suggested by this is that the void achieves a totalising
effect, becoming a thinly spread concept, producing an exhibition that is accountable to
nothing but not everything. 18 The compulsion to over define or rather under define the
possibility and multiplicity of experiences within an exhibition space does not leave
space for these experiences to spring forth. This is not to say that nothing occurs, for
‘nothing will have taken place but the place’19, which is always rooted in human
experience. It is to say that they are overshadowed and burdened with the weight of
institutional and curatorial rhetoric.
VOID AS MEMORY

Voids is a dedication to the void as memory (in terms of its erasure) and as artwork,
which belongs in the first place to Klein. So, subsequent works are an indirect
dedication to this great work, 20 they become infinitely referential in that they are art
about art, always departing from this original action. Voids by extension turns the cult
value of the original intervention into art historical value.
Accordingly, Klein’s dialectics collapses. Repression and spectacle are replaced by
memory (as positive action) and conformity. The artworks presented in Voids and the
exhibition itself, are as Buchloh puts forward, about the assimilation of the avant-garde
into institutional space. This act is a double negative, a negation of an original
negation. Thereby producing a positive affirmation? Matthieu Copeland testifies to this
in his catalogue essay, expressing that reminiscence is in play here; ‘A retrospective of
empty exhibitions presents itself as an exhibition of memories, empty places
commemorating their own empty place pasts’ 21, calling forth their own past victories
perhaps? The value of memory in artistic and curatorial practice cannot be
underestimated, as Nietzsche proclaims history must serve life and not be its
possessor. However, a consideration of this would require a shift in attitude from a
return to history and to a return from history, which would engender a dislocation that
makes space for new innovations and thinking.

Herein lies the dilemma of Voids, is it enacting a rupture through the same subversive
negation of what is already present in the exhibition space as Klein did or is it merely
handling what has become conventional and continuing with the rhetoric of the
museum? Is it defending the void from attack or in defence of the void as offensive
tool? Is it rousing a rebellion from within? One in which new agents are inevitably
engaged, or has it become redundant? Impotent in its call to arms, for time and its
advocates have moved on? Is the exhibition space thus a space for remembrance in
the name of transgression or veneration?

VOID AS EXHIBITION OF TRANSGRESSION OR VENERATION

Nevertheless, the exhibition space as ‘white cube’ remains a priori. Art history has
witnessed the dematerialisation of the art object and its mutations as minimalism,
land-art, conceptual art, performance art, site specific-art, which have all attacked the
indestructibility of the white cubes’ walls. But this architecture of stark purity and
totalising force is every persistent and resilient, it has tamed those who can be tamed
and expelled its agitators, so that they go on to find new accommodating contexts. And
so with Voids we return to the scene of the crime, whether with the intention to simply
excavate old questions or formulate new ones is what is so clearly fuzzy about this
exhibition’s logic.

Irene Calderoni states that site-specific practices that challenge the canons of the
museum do so through ‘a complete submission of the exhibition context to the logic of
the works.’ 22 We could argue that the logic of the void is to empty out the exhibition
space, showing its architecture as a mere container of objectified ideals. In doing so,
architecture’s gaze turns in on itself with the anticipation of internal collapse. But, in the
case of Voids, where the void has become enslaved through history and caught up in
the ideological framework of the museum, to what purpose would its enactment serve?
Under consideration here would be to what extent is this exhibition imbued with irony
and self-reverie, what Marc Siemons calls ‘joyful fatalism’ 23, which is to say that it is
engaged in a closed circuit dialogue of actors or agents that are in on the ‘joke’,
despite Le Bon’s claims otherwise. Siemons points to the cultural currency that is now
found in these ‘formulaic expressions of negation’ 24; this is definitely in play
throughout the exhibition and its catalogue as the curators hail the exhibition as a risk,
a wager and atypical (but yet, it is played out within an institutional setting). The
problematic being that out of this legitimising process and the self-evidence of the
contradiction comes blindness, whereby the negation expresses itself alone.

Moreover, Voids has been successful in subsiding the exhibition-as-event present in

the original artworks. Whether it is Klein’s opening, Maria Eichhorn’s renovation, 25
Laurie Parsons’ invitation 26 or Robert Irwin’s presence in the gallery space, 27 the
happening that is internal and critical to these voids is decidedly absent. This is of
course symptomatic of the difficulties faced when re-presenting ephemeral works, yet
their absence is essential to upholding the value of the exhibition’s negation.

VOID AS GREAT EXHIBITION?

Voids revealed that the exhibition is contingent upon space (architecture), language
and memory. It is far from being an empty exhibition for it is full with content and intent.
In a manner of speaking, the show has truly shown ‘what makes art art, exhibitions
exhibitions, museums museums’ 28, to the point where it seems merely to be covering
old ground. However, its supposed neutrality and ambivalence is what unhinges it. It is
as if lessons have not been learned from past as well as present artistic and critical
discourses surrounding the totalising ‘ideas of’ art, exhibitions and museums. What is
left to question then is what has been left out of the void, what has been excluded by
the curatorial methodology behind Voids? Although the argument would follow that
nothing has been left out, the void offers an openness to cover everything, it has been
the focus of this analysis to highlight the precarious nature of this assumption.

Resisting the compulsion to point to concrete objects or narratives that have been lost
(intentionally or unintentionally) in the void, one rather focuses on the lack of an

3 of 4 27/06/2014 18:15
The Void as Dedication: Proceeding From a Space of Transgre... http://www.artandeducation.net/paper/the-void-as-dedication-...

attitude towards innovation in the curatorial medium. This is to say that to choose a
particularly fascinating and timely subject matter is not solely what it takes to make a
constructive exhibition let alone a great exhibition. To make a conventional exhibition
about formerly unconventional works is not remarkable. An exhibition of great work is
simply that, an exhibition of great work, not a great exhibition. This reasoning does not
imply complete failure, but highlights a missed opportunity to break free from
constraints and move beyond Klein’s achievements.
The power of the void in institutional critique has been affirmed through time, reaching
its most recent iteration with Eichhorn and Roman Ondak, 29 who both seek to reveal
the hidden mechanisms of the museum. Would it then follow that Voids is the
institution’s attempt at self-critique and exposure? But lacking critical distance? If this is
true, then we must speculate on who has a stake in this action. The museum’s agenda
is clearly to demonstrate that it is invested in radical gestures whilst at the same time
seeking to reach an audience beyond its general public. It would be fair to suggest that
this project serves those with a vested interest in these discourses whether they are
scholars or curators. If the museum space is up for reconsideration then it is these
individuals who will be tasked to shape its future, but always following on from the
artists.

Copeland concludes that ‘proceeding from historical experiences, the void is hinged
between a possible return to zero and its opposite, to draw a tabular rasa – two
antithetical possibilities for a result that is identical in appearance’. It’s difficult to find
this continuity in the handling of the void beyond the artworks presented. What is latent
in the exhibition is an over emphasis on the zero-degree, the search for historical and
theoretical origins, producing an exhibition of display and commentary (in the name of
pedagogy and scholarship). Le Bon offers another perspective on this issue, for him
Voids is ‘somewhere between the zero degree of curating and an art project.’ 30 This is
interesting in so far as it highlights the museum’s desire to move beyond its art
historical remit and into curatorial discourse. The shift is only of value to the museum
as the original breach has been made repeatedly within artistic practice and the
exhibition medium. This is an attempt to engage with curatorial concerns but via the
museum’s art historical framing. And it here that the disjunction arises, the radicality
that Voids claims occurs in delayed time as the museum fights to evolve its language.
It is appropriate to return to Klein for assistance in addressing this conundrum, in this
instance, we look to Saut de le Vide of 1960. This staged photograph of the artist
leaping off a wall, arms outstretched into the void is equally as present in art history
and cultural memory as Le Vide. Voids is without the humour and genuine audacity of
this action, the element of the unexpected and uncanny is simply not-there. Where it
does begin to appear is in a dedicated section of the catalogue with commissioned
artist interventions, but suffice to say this in itself follows common practice.
Nevertheless, the artistic propositions provide insights into how Voids discursive path
could possibly have been interrupted. We see here that one step is taken but there is a
reluctance to fall fully and unknowingly into the void, the exhibition space remains
uncontaminated. To do so would no doubt have been regarded as sacrilege on the part
of the curators, undermining the positive dedication that drives the show. Conversely,
to choose to veer away from rupture is equally unsatisfactory.

To speculate on other possibilities at the point would be very difficult for there is surely
an abundance of formats that could have been taken. Le Bon alludes to one of these,
stating that ‘despite the curators’ best efforts, Voids was not inaugurated at the same
time in institutions in different countries or even continents.’ 31 The disappointment is
palpable in his words. And so, the exhibition continues as a touring exhibition (yet
again, as is conventional). This throws up other considerations that appear to already
be in play, namely of Voids’ sensibility to the specificity of interventions in a given
gallery space. One of the selected artists, Michael Asher, who is represented in the
catalogue refused to partake in the physical exhibition. He justifies this decision by
underlining that each of his installations that ‘have no objects, and present just the
exhibition space, addresses specific questions or concerns about that space which are
particular to its context’ 32; thereby the works cannot be returned to and cannot partake
in an exhibition that destabilises this specificity. Working with the ‘almost nothing’ 33
characteristic of the void, Asher utilises minimal interventions to affect the happening of
the void. For an exhibition at the Anna Leonowens Gallery in 1974, 34 he exhibited the
empty gallery, asked that the lights remain off, removed tinted sunscreens from the
window wall and asked that the secretary be absent. Conceptualising the void in this
way, as an empty space differenced gathers resonance to place. Bethan Huws works
in a similar spirit but through a process of addition rather than subtraction. Her empty
gallery spaces function through the insertion of a replica floor, instructions for lighting
or the introduction of a text to disturb the experience of the empty exhibition. Both
practices are enacting a loss in the meaning of the exhibition space and the void itself.
Voids is lacking this essential quality, it neither offers new models nor deals with old
models differently, acting just as a reinforcement of past interpretations and ultimately
as an exhibition-as-exhibition.
Perhaps the solution is to be found in the play between permanence and temporality
that is inherent in architecture. Architecture moves beyond the fixity of building and is
durational in the changing rhythms of use and its limited life span. Architecture once
built is always in the process of deterioration until its ultimate collapse, leaving space
for new building. To allow the exhibition’s permanent architecture to reduce itself to
nothing, to refrain from its maintenance and upholding its conventions and ideology
would be to allow it to speak of a progressive and cumulative history. The first step
then would be to throw the void-as-construct (as essential conservatism) into the void,
removing its function and authority in contemporary critical discourse. In doing so we
search not for its complete disappearance but for its re-appearance with difference.

4 of 4 27/06/2014 18:15