>>3946471>add an additional layer of complexityI'm a noob but I would think, for art that's unaware of its exhibition, simply setting its environment as a significant subject (emphasis on external framing using glass separators, or ropes that you have to stand behind, or something of the sort) will take it from art-as-entity to art-as-entity-in-the-world.
This would be easiest to achieve in a photographic museum, but a lot harder in museums where the art is often designed for an exhibition. In that case, art-as-entity already satisfies art-as-entity-in-the-world.
You might also get a similar effect by photographing multiple pieces in the same picture. This might even work for art that's designed for its exhibition, since now you are showing two exhibitions, unrelated, and you're connecting the two with a pattern that the art itself doesn't acknowledge (unless it IS designed to fit with the next exhibition, but that's rare). You're essentially taking it from art-as-entity-in-the-world to art-as-genre-of-entities, a more pronounced focus on the what art is or can be rather than what the individual piece is or can be.
One option would be to look for apparent flaws in the artwork and use them to give a sense of history; rather than a painting on a wall you may now pick up a nick in the frame or a faded colour which tells much more than the original artist intended. I think this option is best for trying to minimize using the "museum" as a subject itself, but is also more dependent on your luck in finding opportunities to shoot something like this.
