No stating a choice here, but the gallery is theatre. Treating bricks and mortar any other way doesn't serve the work or its audience. That was paramount when I designed and built my gallery. I used theater techniques and terminology in building it, much to the confused looks of the subcontractors: house lights, spots, staging, presentation, ambience, etc. Today's "viewing public", with all the visual opportunities for their eyes, demands dramatic presentation. Proper lighting and presentation sets the stage (literally) for a print on an otherwise blank wall. This is why I take presentation as seriously as the print itself. Many, many galleries and museums are so dreary, with poorly lit artwork, admittedly and unfortunately due to the decided un-archivalness of many works, only the reputations of known artwork typically draws viewers. They are not fit to show robust classically produced photography as intended by the artist (witness the dreary Elliot Porter show at the Getty from several years ago).
Originally Posted by artonpaper
By objective reckoning, how successful were my methods? The gallery, underfunded at the time of its eventual opening, the very day of the October 2008 Stock Market Crash and subsequent depression, did not survive economically. A total and abject failure. Yet, prior to its restructuring into a straight bank, the investment firm of Morgan Stanley, adopted it as their preferred location in which to host their clients. Vogue magazine scheduled a fashion shoot within my walls. Ahem.
...Hmmm, maybe I am stating a choice after all.