Tempting to draw comparisons between the two exhibits of artwork by filmmakers, but what was truly striking by way of comparison: issue of space -- that is to say, the available square footage of gallery space -- and its influence upon the grandly minimal arrangement at the Chelsea exhibit, with its cavernous white expanses, or the intimate and abundantly covered walls -- seeking to maximize the miniscule -- in Bushwick's aptly named Microscope Gallery. Is larger space the ideal? The hanging of the Fotopoulos show invited the perusing of the drawings through a meandering of the eye from one work to the next: up, down, this work to the side, and that work above or below, making sequences and comparisons through a zigzagging from one drawing to another. A larger space might not have been as conducive this type of hanging: Perhaps an eye-level ribbon of drawings -- providing a more linear experience -- would have been more appropriate to a large space?
Intimate spaces seem to have been increasing within the past few years: Microscope, Spectacle Theater, and even the storefront-located Union Docs, all functioning within small-sized spaces of one sort or another (compared to the full-sized theater seating 100 or more). The little Maya Deren Theater (which seats 72) on the ground floor of Anthology seems cavernous compared to these more recent venues. Of course Bradley Eros's E.P.I.C. = E(xtreme) P(rivate) I(ntimate) C(inema), in which several screenings took place for an audience of exactly one, may be the ultimate example of this small-sized venue (or perhaps the Edison Kinetoscope, which by its nature can have no more than one viewer at a time?).
***
And so begins the new year and a new year of Cine Soirees as the blog is now one year old.
Cheers!
"but it can sometimes be difficult being too many places all at once."
ReplyDeletean exquisite conundrum to be sure!...