inside the white cube: the ideology of the gallery space

- The author's prose is incredibly poetic but it is to the extent that it is coupled with continuous repetition of his argument, phrased with difficult and sometimes unnecessary terminology, that convolutes his point and so after a while you forget what he's actually trying to say. As a reader I found this incredibly frustrating.

- The white cube is a historical construct and an aesthetic in and of itself. It is an emblematic gallery space of western modernism, ensuring the optimum or ideal environment for the presentation of artworks which are exhibited in a way that they are detached from the outside reality; where they are independent of their historical, economical, and social context, ensuring a timelessness and sacrality to infiltrate the viewer's encounter with the piece of art. 

- He talks about the importance of the frame and it's ability to isolate an image from the surrounding artworks so that it is can be seen as a "self-contained entity" but then goes on to talk about photography and edges and how it kind of transcends the need for a frame so the question is, what is the difference between a frame and an edge?

- The bulk of the discussion was about the rules and restrictions in a gallery space and why they are put in place. Who decides whether a piece of work can or can't be touched or photographed? The artist or the curator? I thought it would be the artist but I suppose you have to build yourself up to that stage of authority since it's the curator who contextualises and exhibits the work in the space.