Kiss the frog!

Kiss the frog, exhibition in the National Gallery, Oslo. (Photo: Norwegianblogger 2005)

I'm not talking about me, neither am I talking about fairy tales, but yesterday I went to see the much hyped exhibition "Kiss the frog" at the National Gallery here in Oslo. The exhibition was opened by Queen Sonja of Norway earlier this year, and will be in the museum until September 18th. Seeing the exhibition left me with a few questions about modern art and where the art world is headed. The main question is: What is the difference between art and design at one side and art and entertainment at the other side? First of all: Is it really important to discuss that at all? The theme of the exhibition is "the art of change", and to be art, I guess the artifacts should make us think and reflect. Was I challenged to reflect yesterday? Both yes and no, immediately after I left the building I felt a little empty and I asked myself: was this all? Was this really everything? Do I have to think of art as something that has to be discovered everywhere, or is it the setting it's placed in that makes it art? It's in the most prestigious museum in Norway, and that makes it art? I started to wonder, because parts of the exhibition could have been on a ride in Disneyland or as a part of the decoration in Vienna's Prater. Would I have reflected about the message and what the artist want to convey if I'd seen the same artifacts in Disneyland? Probably not, but is that a problem? Andy Warhol was known because he put the artifacts of everyday life in a museum, and suddenly it was art. In some ways I like that. The video installations was a part of the exhibition that in some ways left me puzzled. Yes, they were about the possibilities for change. One was about things that suddenly was alive, another one was about a dog flirting with a woman at a bridge, I guess both is about the possibilities for change, and we are challenged to think "what if....". At the same time we're living in an age were life is threatened by terrorists, threats to the environment, political upheavals, hunger in Africa and a lot of uncertainty. There are elements in the exhibition that points in these directions, but mostly I felt like I walked through a theme park. Again, I'm not opposed to theme parks, and I'm happy about change, also in the National Gallery. I heard a woman complaining to one of the guards yesterday that she was annoyed that everything had changed, and that the paintings not were in the exact spot they've always been. I don't share that view at all. If the art is going to challenge us and speak to us, I think it constantly should be put in new contexts. In one of the rooms at the exhibition, Erik Werenskiold's famous drawings from the Norwegian Folk tales was put opposite Vanessa Bairds enormous painting of weird situations involving children and adults. Did it work? Yes, in some ways I felt that Baird's painting made me think about the grotesque and challenging in the folk tales all over again, because, believe me, her painting is really challenging! All in all, the exhibition left me with a lot of questions about art and few answers. Perhaps we have the answer right there? If we are challenged to think and reflect, and are challenged to feel and react we are in the presence of art. Was I yesterday? Yes, I was challenged to think about art and were it is headed, but I'm not sure if I was challenged to reflect about the world, the future, the human race or my own life, in some ways I raise the question if the art world only loves itself. If we kiss that frog, what do we get? Maybe Narcissus?