So Long As It Doesn't Frighten The Martians:

October 11, 2002 3:59 AM

So Long As It Doesn't Frighten The Martians: The already quite spaced-out Tate Museum [Shockwave permitting, check out Anish Kapoor's enormous new sculpture in the Turbine Hall] is now seeking new premises in Space.[More inside]
posted by MiguelCardoso (9 comments total)

Three architectural projects have already been proposed: by ETALAB, Softroom and Sarah Wigglesworth Architects. Earthlings are invited, albeit at arm's distance, to choose their favourite. Naturally, the Tate In Space will focus on Space Art and make a firm stand against obsolescent earth-weighted concepts such as gravitropism [via our old friend Eduardo Kac, the creator of Alba, the fluorescent bunny]. All of which prompts me to ask, reminded of Heidegger's famous misgivings about unrooted, inauthentic modern art, whether contemporary art museums are perhaps not getting a bit too big for their boots?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:02 AM on October 11, 2002

following in the footsteps of the first exhibition ??????
posted by roobarb at 4:17 AM on October 11, 2002

Perhaps it's the cynic in me, but the content of Tate Modern struck me as fairly patchy at best. Do they really need more space when they seem to have trouble filling what they've already got?
posted by zygoticmynci at 4:56 AM on October 11, 2002

I was actually just at the Tate Modern last week during my little holiday to the other side of the pond. Overall, it was pretty impressive, but like any modern art museum of its size, it seemed to catalog a lot of rather dubious human achievements.

As a side note, I was watching them build that thing, and tons of people were photographing the construction. I found it to be an excellent comment on the industrialization of art.
posted by ph00dz at 5:46 AM on October 11, 2002

Fantastic! I cannot comprehend the sheer scale of such a structure, judging by the shockwave installation shots, but the the ambition is simply overwhelming.

The first thing that occurred to me was the utterly exorbitant cost of such a venture which may have to wait for the advent of space elevators.

The second thing was how to prevent the thing from falling like skylab and even if it did, imagine the craters it might make.

Fascinating post, M.C.
posted by hama7 at 5:48 AM on October 11, 2002

Went to see it last night courtesy of Bloomberg (his company, not the Mayor) and I can confirm that it really is profoundly, viscerally overwhelming. A fabulous achievement.

On the industrialisation angle, it amused me that the same engineering company - Arup - who cocked up the installation of the Millennium Bridge in front of Tate Bankside were the company to assemble Kapoor's work. Allegedly they provided their services for free... Riii-iiight....

[tangent]
Might be funnier if Arup weren't one of the companies responsible for the errosion of safety on Britain's railways.
[/tangent]
posted by dmt at 6:16 AM on October 11, 2002

the content of Tate Modern struck me as fairly patchy at best.

I think it depends when you go they change/move the exhibits fairly regularly. Also it depends on how much you manage to get to see - I have never yet managed to complete the place.

But personally I think that the method of display in the Tate Modern is one of the best you can find.
posted by roobarb at 6:51 AM on October 11, 2002

I'm surprised the viral-model Guggenheim expansionists weren't the first to propose exhibitions in space. I happen to think that dealing with the whole idea of "space art" is going to sound pretty funny when we're all clad in fur loinclothes and living in caves in the year 2130.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 7:32 AM on October 11, 2002

Hey, just as long as they sell tea and little sandwhiches on it. Does anyone smell Murdoch?
posted by DenOfSizer at 11:58 AM on October 11, 2002