"Dignified" -- maybe a poor choice of words because it deflected the
discussion toward cultural influences a museum/gallery/any space exerts on
our perception of meaning in a work of art.  (or any object, as M. Duchamp,
his offspring, and an '80s avalanche of French philosophy declared).

The original question was about what kind of wall to build for temporary
displays and it sounded as if the writer might be headed toward something
designed to expedite the process of changing exhibitions, i.e.,
self-healing walls.  My experience is that wall systems which are designed
to circumvent labor are usually so heavily burdened with hardware,
textures, little corner gadgets, clever hinges and dangling things, that
the art displayed on them becomes trivialized -- unwillingly
contextualized, if you will, like commodities in a hastily assembled flea
market.  In the Williamson Gallery we have punched holes in, drawn on,
painted, textured, eliminated, built, pierced, and tilted walls for
installations in which the artist wanted to engage and comment upon the
gallery space as a content-laden cultural object.  It is actually hard work
to alter the gallery and deconstruct its status as icon.  But in the
absence of such artistic intention, I agree with Julia that the best
context to provide is one that is as neutral, flat, and unassuming as
possible.  This is clearly the context from which the original post sought
advice.

Stephen Nowlin,
Director, Williamson Gallery
Art Center College of Design

Richard Perry writes:

>On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Julia Moore (Indianapolis Art Center) respondedto my
>earlier comments regarding exhibition gallery construction  ("If the
>choice is between being approachable/informal or dignified, I would
>prefer the former")
>as follows:
>"Maybe the choice is not "warm vs. cold," but rather "distracting vs.
> unified."  I find that portable displays (i.e. wire screens, peg board) and
> low-maintenance surfaces (i.e. self-healing fabrics) have too much of their
> own visual identities and meaning cues, and often conflict with focused
> viewing of the art they support.
>>
>Two thoughts (and I promise to try to avoid forcing this into a
>continuing debate with aim for the last word):
>
>1.      ALL such arrangements "have ... their own identities and meaning
>cues"; there are some that we associate as "normal" and "natural,"
>taken-for-granted for an art museum space; but that emphasizes that they
>are communicating something about expectations for what should be there.
>
>2.      What does "focused viewing" mean?  Is there a cultural message
>underlying this phrase that at least needs to be reflected upon before
>automatically assuming that the way we have always done it is not in
>itself interfering with approachability?  Perhaps this "natural" way to
>expect what a gallery should look like is part of what makes museums
>"unnatural" places for some groups of (non-)visitors.
>
>
>
>Richard Perry
>Univ California, San Diego