http://antiquesandthearts.com/Archives/Images%5C2007-04-10__09-56-25Image3.GIF
Allegorical Landscape- Robert smithson describes it as though he can't even make out what is in it, but it's supposedly the ideal
http://www.licnyc.com/amolRoot/drownout/france/300602/palaisroyal.jpg
Buren's Play on the idea of a 'pedestal' and the higher classes' love of mimicing ancient greece and rome. He takes Institutional critique out of the museum and into a public plaza, the type of space Smithson described as a void.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Smithson
The museum is constantly being reverberated as a place of clashing purposes. Within this context a soci-economic matter evolves, creating the question of whether it would be best to represent art as a form of public works or just leave it in the museums for a select group of people to witness? Art has adopted this sense of worth based upon monetary value, but this then can describe the art as adopting utility. Smithson states that art should NOT have utility, as that would defeat the purpose of the art in the first place. My question revolves around the fact that if the art adopts utility and prestige, then is it really art? For only a select few can admire its worth.
Museums have also been criticized at attempting to combine life and death. The museum itself would be the morbid environment while the art itself would be the more lively aspect. Combining these two is as Kaprow states "are a canned life" or "like making love in the cemetery". I personally disagree with this statement as the museums provide a contrast between two very opposite subjects, the museum and the art and makes that idea art itself. Art is intended to be odd and disturbing (as Smithson stated), thus if this is the case shouldn't a completely odd relationship between the art and the museum itself be a figure of artwork?
Museums have also been criticized at attempting to combine life and death. The museum itself would be the morbid environment while the art itself would be the more lively aspect. Combining these two is as Kaprow states "are a canned life" or "like making love in the cemetery". I personally disagree with this statement as the museums provide a contrast between two very opposite subjects, the museum and the art and makes that idea art itself. Art is intended to be odd and disturbing (as Smithson stated), thus if this is the case shouldn't a completely odd relationship between the art and the museum itself be a figure of artwork?
Smithson
1. In “Entropy and the New Monuments”, Robert Smithson talked about there are many architectural concepts found in science-fiction, which most of them have nothing to do with science or fiction, suggest a new kind of monumentality that is more similar with what today's artists are doing. I was confused about what are the scientific characteristics he is referring to? It seems like he didn't really explain that part well enough, or did I just overlook some important points?
2. Smithson talked about the relationship between time and the art work. He claimed that both the past and future are placed into an objective present, however, the past is important while the future is insignificant. Smithson argues that people are influenced to forget about the future than to remember the past, which was his definition of a monument. My question is that if the past has the power over time, which is the reason why past is more influential than the future, how can the artworks has what Flavin called the "inactive history" (10)?
2. Smithson talked about the relationship between time and the art work. He claimed that both the past and future are placed into an objective present, however, the past is important while the future is insignificant. Smithson argues that people are influenced to forget about the future than to remember the past, which was his definition of a monument. My question is that if the past has the power over time, which is the reason why past is more influential than the future, how can the artworks has what Flavin called the "inactive history" (10)?
Smithson
1) In What is a Museum?, Smithson tells Kaprow that there is a tendency toward purity as the acceptable context for art, yet he believes that art should not conclude some sort of point which purity does, but rather art should be "the pursuit of the useless, and the more vain things are the better [he likes] it, because [he's] not burdened by purity" (47). Useless by definition would mean that art should have no ability or skill in a specified activity or area. Doesn't this mean the viewer should not be able to interact with art in a meaningful or purposeful way? This seems to contradict his entire notion of The Spiral Jetty, which is a site-specific piece of artwork. Isn't site specific art often useful in that it forces and often allows viewers and bystanders to engage in activity with and/or around its presence?
2) Smithson's take on Some Void Thoughts on Museum reveal his condescending attitude towards museums. He says that "the museum undermines one's confidence in sense-data and erodes the impression of textures upon which our sensations exist" (41). Is this becuase we aren't experiencing the artwork in nature or their natural element when in a museum? Here, it seems that Smithson only supports what would be his interest in site-specific art in nature, which is created out of the elements in the environment such as his Spiral Jetty. Here, he disapproves of museum art calling it void. However, he then goes onto say that "the categorizing of art into painting, architecture, and sculpture seems to be one of the most unfortunate things that took place. Now all these categories are splintering into more and more categories" (48). But isn't site-specific art such as his own style and interest another splinter of a category that has been created and labeled as its own style of art? His views only seem to contradict each other as if he assumes everyone considers his art to be above this kind of critique.
2) Smithson's take on Some Void Thoughts on Museum reveal his condescending attitude towards museums. He says that "the museum undermines one's confidence in sense-data and erodes the impression of textures upon which our sensations exist" (41). Is this becuase we aren't experiencing the artwork in nature or their natural element when in a museum? Here, it seems that Smithson only supports what would be his interest in site-specific art in nature, which is created out of the elements in the environment such as his Spiral Jetty. Here, he disapproves of museum art calling it void. However, he then goes onto say that "the categorizing of art into painting, architecture, and sculpture seems to be one of the most unfortunate things that took place. Now all these categories are splintering into more and more categories" (48). But isn't site-specific art such as his own style and interest another splinter of a category that has been created and labeled as its own style of art? His views only seem to contradict each other as if he assumes everyone considers his art to be above this kind of critique.
Robert Smithson
From these different articles, it seems that Smithson seems to really dislike the idea of art being displayed in museums (Cultural Confinement) and apparently spends a lot of time outdoors exploring nature for different sites, so it's no wonder he decided to create the Spiral Jetty eathwork. I enjoyed reading the background behind the Spiral Jetty from his perspective, with his very detailed descriptions. It sounds like he has an affinity for nature and its history and a disdain for man made things, but isn't this a bit hypocritical, considering the fact that he used a helicopter, "two dump trucks, a tractor, and a large front loader" (146) during its construction? Smithson sounds like he really enjoys criticizing others, but what is the extent to which he actually follows his own ideologies?
Also, in the entropy article, I got very confused when Smithson started describing laughter as "entropic 'verbalization'" and even more lost when he started comparing different types of laughs to different shapes (21). He applies the "ha-ha-crystal " concept to Alice in Wonderland (22), and I can vaguely understand the "grin without a cat" indicating "anti-matter," but I don't understand what Smithson means by "laugh-matter." What is the reason for associating laughter with different geometric shapes? What is it supposed to mean, and what are the differences between the types of laughs/ what they represent?
Also, in the entropy article, I got very confused when Smithson started describing laughter as "entropic 'verbalization'" and even more lost when he started comparing different types of laughs to different shapes (21). He applies the "ha-ha-crystal " concept to Alice in Wonderland (22), and I can vaguely understand the "grin without a cat" indicating "anti-matter," but I don't understand what Smithson means by "laugh-matter." What is the reason for associating laughter with different geometric shapes? What is it supposed to mean, and what are the differences between the types of laughs/ what they represent?
Smithson
Question 1: In the article “Entropy and the New Monuments”, Smithson talked about Laughter as the fourth dimension to art. He described it to be “a kind of entropic verbilization”. What exactly does he mean by this? Is laughter a symbol here? Or is laughter suggested to be a hidden key to the fourth dimension like the example used of “The Annotated Alice”? Why is the crystal system used to represent laughter and how does it become “a device for unlimited speculation”?
Question 2: In the dialogue about museum with Allan Kaprow, Smithson commented on how he disliked the categorization of art. He said that “Now all these categories are splintering into more and more categories. You have about forty different kinds of formalism and about a hundred different kinds of expressionism.” (48) This reminds us of Krauss’s discussion of the sculpture in the expanded field and how Krauss found a need for categories such as axiomatic structures, “both landscape and non-landscape” and such. It seems as is Smithson is answering to Krauss’s complicated diagram. What I’m confused about is what point Smithson is trying to make by saying “I never saw an exciting space. I don’t know what a space is.”(49)
Question 2: In the dialogue about museum with Allan Kaprow, Smithson commented on how he disliked the categorization of art. He said that “Now all these categories are splintering into more and more categories. You have about forty different kinds of formalism and about a hundred different kinds of expressionism.” (48) This reminds us of Krauss’s discussion of the sculpture in the expanded field and how Krauss found a need for categories such as axiomatic structures, “both landscape and non-landscape” and such. It seems as is Smithson is answering to Krauss’s complicated diagram. What I’m confused about is what point Smithson is trying to make by saying “I never saw an exciting space. I don’t know what a space is.”(49)
Monday, February 23, 2009
Smithson
Q1: Smithson discusses in this article the construction of Spiral Jetty and the relation to crystals this artwork has. Additionally, Smithson articulates his ideas regarding the interaction between size and scale. He believes " size determines an object, but scale determines art" (147). He indicates that scale is a personal experience with the artwork. If scale is subjective and artwork can be viewed and perceived from various scales, then are scales a site? Should artists leave scale to be determined by the audience an how does that impact the artwork itself?
Q2: The application of entropy to art reveals the incorporation of time and space into the realm of the artwork. Time begins to "lose energy" (11), while energy is more easily lost than obtained. This stresses the importance of the past and the insignificance of the future. Smithson believes the future will bring mass assimilation, and therefore the audience is influenced to forget the future rather than remember the past, as a normal monument would (11). Yet, I have difficulty understanding the concept that time is broken down in "many times" (11) if all time is being viewed from an objective standpoint in the "objective present" (11). If the past has an omnipotent power over time, then how can the discussed artworks contain "inactive history" (10). ?
Q2: The application of entropy to art reveals the incorporation of time and space into the realm of the artwork. Time begins to "lose energy" (11), while energy is more easily lost than obtained. This stresses the importance of the past and the insignificance of the future. Smithson believes the future will bring mass assimilation, and therefore the audience is influenced to forget the future rather than remember the past, as a normal monument would (11). Yet, I have difficulty understanding the concept that time is broken down in "many times" (11) if all time is being viewed from an objective standpoint in the "objective present" (11). If the past has an omnipotent power over time, then how can the discussed artworks contain "inactive history" (10). ?
Organic vs. Entropic
In the section on entropy, Smithson differentiates Earthworks from new monuments through the depiction of objective and timeless structures. He argues that modern monuments freeze action and eliminate “time as decay or biological evolution” (11) which is featured in Earthworks. However, to what extent are new monuments lacking “value of qualities”? Furthermore, is architecture of entropy fully devoid of idealistic and organic perceptions but its surfaces remain “inaccessible and deny definite meaning in the most definite way” (20)?
Also, Smithson claims that museums are an example of architecture of entropy. These creations are meant to be timeless settings for the exhibition of timeless pieces that evoke timeless ideas such as emotions. Is entropy confined to a four-walled space or can exist in nature as well? To what extent is the significance of new monuments altered by its placement in an organic setting? Shouldn’t its importance be uniform regardless of the setting it’s placed in?
Also, Smithson claims that museums are an example of architecture of entropy. These creations are meant to be timeless settings for the exhibition of timeless pieces that evoke timeless ideas such as emotions. Is entropy confined to a four-walled space or can exist in nature as well? To what extent is the significance of new monuments altered by its placement in an organic setting? Shouldn’t its importance be uniform regardless of the setting it’s placed in?
Monuments of man
Robert Smithson, in The Crystal Land, talks about, yes, crystals, but he also talks about man-made quarries. His fascination seems to extend to both equally. While it’s easy to understand someone’s fascination with crystals, it is more difficult to see the relevance of quarries. There is a clear connection among the crystals, nature, ice, quarries, dashboard of “a complex of chrome fixed into an embankment of steel,” and other such details but the essence of it escapes me. Is this mostly a backlash against the gallery institution?
New Jersey….monuments? Again, he is fascinated with man-made things, and not just any man-made things, but ugly leftovers – like the quaries. I don’t know if his photos hung in a gallery, or if they were ever art commodities, but he is really bending the idea of art. Duchamp found objects and put them in a museum, and I know Smithson has as well, but here….what is he getting at? His writing is fantastic and he clearly has something in mind. But because of the overly philosophical nature of his writing I feel like we’re drifting away from a discussion of art.
New Jersey….monuments? Again, he is fascinated with man-made things, and not just any man-made things, but ugly leftovers – like the quaries. I don’t know if his photos hung in a gallery, or if they were ever art commodities, but he is really bending the idea of art. Duchamp found objects and put them in a museum, and I know Smithson has as well, but here….what is he getting at? His writing is fantastic and he clearly has something in mind. But because of the overly philosophical nature of his writing I feel like we’re drifting away from a discussion of art.
Smithson articles
Q1: In "Cultural Confinement" Smithson argues that "a work of art when placed in a gallery loses its charge." He says that galleries nuetralize the art work and cut it off from interaction from the outside world. I somewhat disagree. I feel that everyone coming into the museum is "the outside world" and that just because it is not out in the public somewhere it will be seen often does not mean that has no charge or connection. My question is why does Smithson see the artwork meaningless inside the gallery when the people coming into the museum are interacting and thinking about what the art work means or stands for?
Q2: In the discussion "What is a Museum?" Smithson discusses "gaps" in between artworks in a museum. I was really confused about this at first but then thought about it literally and decided that he is talking about the literal spaces between artworks. He says that emptiness can be installtions of art. How can emptiness be art and how can installations empty rooms rather than fill them?
Q2: In the discussion "What is a Museum?" Smithson discusses "gaps" in between artworks in a museum. I was really confused about this at first but then thought about it literally and decided that he is talking about the literal spaces between artworks. He says that emptiness can be installtions of art. How can emptiness be art and how can installations empty rooms rather than fill them?
Robert Smithson
Q1: In Smithson's article, "The Crystal Land", he begins making the crystallography relates to Judd's artpiece the "pink plexiglas box" and how you can see the wiring of the inside of this structure that basically holds it together. Because you can see the inside of this structure, it makes it seem as if the "works verge on the notion of dissapearance". Then basically the rest of the article is a description about a trip that he and Judd took to explore nature. He mentions once of the crystallizing structure resembling the landscape of highways and suburban homes, then the rest of the essay is about the rest of trip. I don't know if I missed the point of this article, but why did he go on to explain his trip in such detail and only noting certain information that seem to be unnecessary like the flipping of the newspaper in the car?
Q2: In Smithson's second article, "Entropy and the New Monuments", he talks about the new way artists are viewing art. He also mentions that problems lead to the "illusion of [a] purpose", which to lead to categories of opposites that cause reaction, action, and then inaction. What is the actual problem between artists and problems? Is it because problems fit people into square boxes that doesn't allow to go beyond the label for what they're standing for like the formalist against the content?
Q2: In Smithson's second article, "Entropy and the New Monuments", he talks about the new way artists are viewing art. He also mentions that problems lead to the "illusion of [a] purpose", which to lead to categories of opposites that cause reaction, action, and then inaction. What is the actual problem between artists and problems? Is it because problems fit people into square boxes that doesn't allow to go beyond the label for what they're standing for like the formalist against the content?
On Smithson
Smithson embraces this idea of the void, emptiness, of distance as a “consciouness devoid of self-projection”. He appreciates indifference and acknowledges that ”art is the pursuit of the uselessness”. Once again there exists an incongruity with the ideals of art (or ‘not art’) with art as a realistic practice; even Smithson and Kaprow themselves realize the impracticality of this art. I understand that there is value in the theory and ideas generated from new thought, but in the end, in every field and industry, it always comes back to being a business. You see it in healthcare, in nonprofit works, how does it continue to remain relatively pure and uncontaminated by the politics of money in the art world?
I am confused on Smithson’s idea of “non-sites” bringing social/political/etc influences into the “center” of a work or location. He also talks about how the center can be everywhere and the limits nowhere, or about how certain ideas and concepts can have inaccessible circumferences. Is this another way of him illustrating the continuity and fluidity of time and mediums, combining physical things with theoretical ideas?
I am confused on Smithson’s idea of “non-sites” bringing social/political/etc influences into the “center” of a work or location. He also talks about how the center can be everywhere and the limits nowhere, or about how certain ideas and concepts can have inaccessible circumferences. Is this another way of him illustrating the continuity and fluidity of time and mediums, combining physical things with theoretical ideas?
Smithson and Art
Question 1 - In "Cultural Confinement" Smithson states, "artists are expected to fit into fraudelent categories. Some artists imagine they've got a hold on this apparatus, which in fact has got a hold of them. As a result, they end up supporting a cultural prison that is out of their control. Artists themselves are not confined, but their output is (154)". Although to some extent I agree with Smithson that artists are not themselves confined to categories and yet their product is, I would disagree and say that by the nature of an artist work they necessarily must belong to a category. What are we to make of artists and their works if we have no category for which to identify them? Wouldn't this "anti-category" lead to chaos where there would no longer be a base for comparison?
Question 2 - In "What is a Museum?" there is this moment of art and value. Smithson states, "it seems that all art is in some way a questioning of what value is, and it seems that there's a great need for people to attribute value, to find a significant value (48)". If art is to be valueless, or not thought of in terms of value, how then can artists make money and thrive? Furthermore, is value for Smithson strictly economic value, or it is value in a more utilitarian sense?
Question 2 - In "What is a Museum?" there is this moment of art and value. Smithson states, "it seems that all art is in some way a questioning of what value is, and it seems that there's a great need for people to attribute value, to find a significant value (48)". If art is to be valueless, or not thought of in terms of value, how then can artists make money and thrive? Furthermore, is value for Smithson strictly economic value, or it is value in a more utilitarian sense?
Smithson has a lot to say about contemporary sculpture and their use of materials. When discussing entropy, he is commenting on the notion that based on the materials use and lack of temporal trajectories in art create an entropy in which energy is drained rather then created. He makes the claim that the current sculptures not only forgets the past but hides the future. Therefore, my question for Smithson is that if one needs temporality exhibited in their artwork in order to create a master peice, are earthworks the most useful medium of installations?
Again, reading the conversation about the museum, time again plays an important role in the creation of art. A museum, as seen in modern art, can be made to be timeless through the use of unchaning materials in an unchanging environment. My other question is thus, can an earthwork be constructed in a museum and would it have the same meaning, or how would the meaning be affected. also, can there a museum be created that is actually an earthwork. For instance, a museum that changes over time due to its location that also has the ability to hold other different works of art?
Again, reading the conversation about the museum, time again plays an important role in the creation of art. A museum, as seen in modern art, can be made to be timeless through the use of unchaning materials in an unchanging environment. My other question is thus, can an earthwork be constructed in a museum and would it have the same meaning, or how would the meaning be affected. also, can there a museum be created that is actually an earthwork. For instance, a museum that changes over time due to its location that also has the ability to hold other different works of art?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Roslind Krauss
Krauss says that logically equivalent statements are different.This is due to a failure in the use of logics, a confusion between linguistical and mathematical.What of these ambiguities? (quote, second page)What of historicism? What of categorization? Genealogy?
The Key of Dreams: http://www.aci-la.org/images/the_bird.jpg
Joel Shapiro: http://wirednewyork.com/museums/metropolitan/metmuseum_roof_garden.jpg
abstract http://artscenecal.com/ArtistsFiles/ShapiroJ/ShapiroJJPGs/JShapiro1a.jpg
floating http://chrisashley.net/resources/images/2005Oct/JoelShapiro1SM.jpg
Serra "dreams": http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7820/serrafv6.jpg
The Key of Dreams: http://www.aci-la.org/images/the_bird.jpg
Joel Shapiro: http://wirednewyork.com/museums/metropolitan/metmuseum_roof_garden.jpg
abstract http://artscenecal.com/ArtistsFiles/ShapiroJ/ShapiroJJPGs/JShapiro1a.jpg
floating http://chrisashley.net/resources/images/2005Oct/JoelShapiro1SM.jpg
Serra "dreams": http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7820/serrafv6.jpg
The Genealogy of New Buzz Words
Krauss uses a "logical" process to explain her invented set of categories for sculpture-type artworks. However, what is the actual differentce between "not landscape" and architeture, or "not architecture" and landscape? In her didagram she draws boldface dotted lines, which she calls lines of "implication." Meaning N.A =>L and N.L=> P. My question is, what IS the difference? If a Japanese garden is "landscape and architecture", and a sculpture is "not landscape and not architecture" then doesn't this therefore imply that a Japanese garden IS sculpture? I can see a difference between the two if I think about it subjectively, but according to her diagram and her "mathematical logic" they ARE the same.
Krauss begins her article by talking about how we have stretched the meaning of the word sculpture so much that it has "collapsed" under the stress of the eclectic category of things now called sculpture. The instead proposes her own set of categories. How is this not just as bad as what she is criticizing people for doing? She uses "logic" to make the reader think that her categories came from somewhere other than her own mind, but it seems more like she invented it. The problem is that in order for there to be a difference between NA and L, or NL and A, you can't think of it in her either/or methodology. Things make sense when she gets to her examples and starts speaking English again, not abused and misused logic. My question is why did she feel the need to justify her new categorization with something so phony? And also, if that diagram and such were removed, would anyone have paid attention to her, and started using her new buzz words like "axiomatic structures" ?
Krauss begins her article by talking about how we have stretched the meaning of the word sculpture so much that it has "collapsed" under the stress of the eclectic category of things now called sculpture. The instead proposes her own set of categories. How is this not just as bad as what she is criticizing people for doing? She uses "logic" to make the reader think that her categories came from somewhere other than her own mind, but it seems more like she invented it. The problem is that in order for there to be a difference between NA and L, or NL and A, you can't think of it in her either/or methodology. Things make sense when she gets to her examples and starts speaking English again, not abused and misused logic. My question is why did she feel the need to justify her new categorization with something so phony? And also, if that diagram and such were removed, would anyone have paid attention to her, and started using her new buzz words like "axiomatic structures" ?
I find myself trying really hard to understand what exactly Krauss is trying to say in her chapter. She starts out writing about how sculpture is comparable to a commemorative representation. When she starts talking about Robin’s sculpture, she mentions that one of his sculptures has entered something called the negative conditions. My question is what is the meaning of negative condition? She talks about this negative condition while she is analyzing the bases of certain sculpture. The conclusion of her analysis seems to be how the bases of the sculpture suggest that they are transportable therefore implies their homelessness. What is the relationship with homelessness and negative condition? Or is homelessness the meaning of “negative conditions?”
Krauss explores the expansion of sculpture, which she then categorize them as being architecture/ non-architecture and landscapes/ non landscape. She describes this expansion as an historical rupture. She writes that this rupture is the shift into postmodernism. So far, in every reading we have had, each author has his or hers' own definition of postmodernism. What does Krauss suggest is postmodernism?
Krauss explores the expansion of sculpture, which she then categorize them as being architecture/ non-architecture and landscapes/ non landscape. She describes this expansion as an historical rupture. She writes that this rupture is the shift into postmodernism. So far, in every reading we have had, each author has his or hers' own definition of postmodernism. What does Krauss suggest is postmodernism?
Sculpture in the Expanded Field
Question 1: Krauss quoted Newman saying that “Sculpture is what you bump into when you back up to see a painting.” Is he suggesting that the domain of sculptures is so hard to define that we do not recognize the works as sculptures? Or does he mean that the sculptures are now disguised as an inseparable part of the landscape/architecture? What exactly is meant by this “black hole in the space of consciousness” and this “categorical no-man’s-land”?
Question 2: Is the example in the beginning, Mary Miss’ “Perimeters/Pavilions/Decoys” categorized in the group complex (both architecture and landscape)? I am really curious about what the artist wants to express using this piece of earthwork. Does it not “sits in a particular place and speaks in a symbolical tongue about the meaning or use of that place” (279), following the internal logic of the sculpture like what Krauss described on page 279? As long as a sculpture is representational and has a relation to its site, no matter if it’s nomadic or not, does it not still fit into this category?
Question 2: Is the example in the beginning, Mary Miss’ “Perimeters/Pavilions/Decoys” categorized in the group complex (both architecture and landscape)? I am really curious about what the artist wants to express using this piece of earthwork. Does it not “sits in a particular place and speaks in a symbolical tongue about the meaning or use of that place” (279), following the internal logic of the sculpture like what Krauss described on page 279? As long as a sculpture is representational and has a relation to its site, no matter if it’s nomadic or not, does it not still fit into this category?
Sculpture in the Expanded Field
1) Krauss mentions that in the 1960s and 1970s people had to fight for their artwork to be in the sculpture category saying, "anything at all could be hauled into court to bear witness to this work's connection to history and thereby to legitimize its status as sculpture" (279). She makes it seem like the definition of sculpture required that it had to have historical implications in order to be considered in that classification. If that was the case and people indeed fought for their art to be considered part of what sounds like a "sculpture market," then what would a large monument or statuesque piece of art be considered if it did not have historical significance? Do these historical requirements still exist when determining whether a piece of art is a sculpture, or has the distinction changed?
2) Krauss also talks about criticisms of sculpture as becoming eclectic revealing that "with regard to individual practice, it is easy to see that many of the artists in questions have found themselves occupying, successively, different places witin the expanded field. And though the experience of thefield suggests tat this continual relocation of one's energies is entirely logical, an art criticism still in the thrall of a modernist ethos has been largely suspicious of such movement, calling it eclectic" (288). However, just because the artists goes outside the normal boundaries in mediums or types of projects or even multiple projects, why should that determine the quality of the artwork? Shouldn't each piece that the artist makes be judged individually sort of like a blind experiment, where they don't know who the artist is or the process behind how it was made? How can criticism be made about a piece of art based solely on how the artist divided his time and energy between projects and how he used mediums?
2) Krauss also talks about criticisms of sculpture as becoming eclectic revealing that "with regard to individual practice, it is easy to see that many of the artists in questions have found themselves occupying, successively, different places witin the expanded field. And though the experience of thefield suggests tat this continual relocation of one's energies is entirely logical, an art criticism still in the thrall of a modernist ethos has been largely suspicious of such movement, calling it eclectic" (288). However, just because the artists goes outside the normal boundaries in mediums or types of projects or even multiple projects, why should that determine the quality of the artwork? Shouldn't each piece that the artist makes be judged individually sort of like a blind experiment, where they don't know who the artist is or the process behind how it was made? How can criticism be made about a piece of art based solely on how the artist divided his time and energy between projects and how he used mediums?
WITNESS THE ENIGMATIC BEAUTY OF PROOF BY INTIMIDATION
Krauss states that "not-architecture is, according to the logic of a certain kind of expansion, just another way of expressing the term landscape, and the not-landscape is, simply, architecture" (283, Krauss).
So she tells us, straitforwardly, that the negation of landscape is architecture. By using mathematical statements of logical equivalence, she is basically saying that modernist sculpture, or in other words "not-architecture and not-landscape" is really, or simply (as Krauss would have it), "landscape and architecture," since landscape and architecture both have their own logically equivalent alternative names. How is it then that she later tells us that modernist sculpture is not the same as "site construction," its logical equivalent? How is it possible that she can differentiate between the two, when the logic that she used to derive its combinatory components tells us that they are not different at all, but in fact, "simply," the same?
Answer: In math, all terms, or "vocabulary" are defined to the point of complete unambiguity; a mathematical statement must be devoid of all such ambiguities if we are to begin even the most basic topics of mathematical discourse. On the contrary, the english language is full, rich in connotations and ambiguities, with any one word having many different meanings. Essentially, Krauss uses mathematical logic to "prove" something about the categorization of art, and when the logic frame of math doesn't fit her needs anymore, she shifts over to an opposing frame of logic to incorrectly, wrongly, falsely, prove her point.
Mathematically, modernist sculpture is the same as any of the other three terms on Krauss' diagram -- however, she uses the different combinations of wording (which are logicallly equivalent if her initial statements are to hold true) to mean different things; after all, the "negative" of something has somewhat of a dual meaning, it could mean either an absense, or it could mean an exclusion: an absense entails that there remains nothing, while an exclusion entails that there remains anything but the mentioned thing (mathematical logic is defined more closely as the latter). To understand why Krauss places pieces such as Smithson's Spiral Jetty into the marked-site category, you have to understand that she deems not-landscape as DIFFERENT from architecture, even though she clearly and unambiguously defined them for us as "simply, the SAME."
Notice what this says about Krauss. Right at the offset, Krauss essentially states that our reason for categorizing these new artworks as sculpture is because of "historicism" (277), in other words because we are comforted by this feeling of familiarity which we achieve by placing new things in old categories. As a consequence, as Krauss whimsicallly states, "And so we stare at the pit in earth and think we both do and don't know what sculpture is." So Krauss shares an intimate passion with disambiguity; but why would she criticize others' methods for categorization, if her own broken method of categorization is bent on ambiguity? The source of her argument depends on it, why if her logic weren't broken, she would have concluded that all four categories in this so called expanded field are the same, and she'd be right back where the other art critics are. Shameful that her method for disproving others' methods is itself a disprovable method (and by rightful means this time).
Thinking on the larger picture of Krauss' discourse, her motivation for arguing with the typical method of historicism was that it vaguely coats over obviously distinct and independent elements, elements with their own defining particularities, or distinctive qualities or what have you. So then why would she even bother to categorize these remaining artworks into smaller categories, if the artworks themselves all differ so much from piece to piece as well? Why categorize, if the simple act of categorizing is the act of drawing new, unknown elements into a better defined, familiar, coherent mass that exists for the sole purpose of comforting Krauss herself, by this familiarity which she so despises?
So she tells us, straitforwardly, that the negation of landscape is architecture. By using mathematical statements of logical equivalence, she is basically saying that modernist sculpture, or in other words "not-architecture and not-landscape" is really, or simply (as Krauss would have it), "landscape and architecture," since landscape and architecture both have their own logically equivalent alternative names. How is it then that she later tells us that modernist sculpture is not the same as "site construction," its logical equivalent? How is it possible that she can differentiate between the two, when the logic that she used to derive its combinatory components tells us that they are not different at all, but in fact, "simply," the same?
Answer: In math, all terms, or "vocabulary" are defined to the point of complete unambiguity; a mathematical statement must be devoid of all such ambiguities if we are to begin even the most basic topics of mathematical discourse. On the contrary, the english language is full, rich in connotations and ambiguities, with any one word having many different meanings. Essentially, Krauss uses mathematical logic to "prove" something about the categorization of art, and when the logic frame of math doesn't fit her needs anymore, she shifts over to an opposing frame of logic to incorrectly, wrongly, falsely, prove her point.
Mathematically, modernist sculpture is the same as any of the other three terms on Krauss' diagram -- however, she uses the different combinations of wording (which are logicallly equivalent if her initial statements are to hold true) to mean different things; after all, the "negative" of something has somewhat of a dual meaning, it could mean either an absense, or it could mean an exclusion: an absense entails that there remains nothing, while an exclusion entails that there remains anything but the mentioned thing (mathematical logic is defined more closely as the latter). To understand why Krauss places pieces such as Smithson's Spiral Jetty into the marked-site category, you have to understand that she deems not-landscape as DIFFERENT from architecture, even though she clearly and unambiguously defined them for us as "simply, the SAME."
Notice what this says about Krauss. Right at the offset, Krauss essentially states that our reason for categorizing these new artworks as sculpture is because of "historicism" (277), in other words because we are comforted by this feeling of familiarity which we achieve by placing new things in old categories. As a consequence, as Krauss whimsicallly states, "And so we stare at the pit in earth and think we both do and don't know what sculpture is." So Krauss shares an intimate passion with disambiguity; but why would she criticize others' methods for categorization, if her own broken method of categorization is bent on ambiguity? The source of her argument depends on it, why if her logic weren't broken, she would have concluded that all four categories in this so called expanded field are the same, and she'd be right back where the other art critics are. Shameful that her method for disproving others' methods is itself a disprovable method (and by rightful means this time).
Thinking on the larger picture of Krauss' discourse, her motivation for arguing with the typical method of historicism was that it vaguely coats over obviously distinct and independent elements, elements with their own defining particularities, or distinctive qualities or what have you. So then why would she even bother to categorize these remaining artworks into smaller categories, if the artworks themselves all differ so much from piece to piece as well? Why categorize, if the simple act of categorizing is the act of drawing new, unknown elements into a better defined, familiar, coherent mass that exists for the sole purpose of comforting Krauss herself, by this familiarity which she so despises?
Sculpture vs. monument
1. At first Strauss stated that the logic of a sculpture is inseparable from the logic of monument; they are the “commemorative representative.” The question is, how does one distinct the difference between these two? Does a sculpture become a monument when it represents something significant? What does the negative condition have to do with this?
2. Strauss mentions that sculptures cannot function as both architecture and landscape at the same time, using Brancusi's Beginning of the World as an example. So if we looked at Goldsworthy's Egg, which has the same subject with Brancusi's, is it not a sculpture anymore? since it is both an architecture and landscape. If it were not sculpture, is it then a monument?
2. Strauss mentions that sculptures cannot function as both architecture and landscape at the same time, using Brancusi's Beginning of the World as an example. So if we looked at Goldsworthy's Egg, which has the same subject with Brancusi's, is it not a sculpture anymore? since it is both an architecture and landscape. If it were not sculpture, is it then a monument?
Sculpture in the Expanded Field
Question 1: It was said in the article that sculptures are a "historically bounded category" and have their own internal logic. But when the article began to discuss when the logic fails, and there is negative condition ("a kind of sitelessness, or homelessness, an absolute loss of place"), I was a little confused. Why is it that if "multiple versions can be found in a variety of museums in various countries," that this sculpture loses it's logic? Does it not have its own logic in itself? Why does it have to be based on other pieces of art?
Question 2: What is the difference between a sculpture and a monument? Is it that the sculpture becomes a monument when it represents something or stand for something (maybe in memory of history?)? When do you know a sculpture is a monument; is it not one when there is negative condition? Is it only a monument when the piece has logic?
Question 2: What is the difference between a sculpture and a monument? Is it that the sculpture becomes a monument when it represents something or stand for something (maybe in memory of history?)? When do you know a sculpture is a monument; is it not one when there is negative condition? Is it only a monument when the piece has logic?
Sculpture In The Extended Field
Q1: " And though this pulling and stretching of a term such as sculpture is overtly performed in the name of vanguard aesthetics - the ideology of the new - its covert message is that of historicism." I understand what historicism is but iss she saying that the message underlying all the new kinds of art sculptures is historicism?
Q2: I don't really understand her example of the fading logic of the monument using Rodin's Gates of Hell and Balzac. Because both sculptures failed, does that mean they shouldn't be considered monuments, therefore not a sculpture?
Q2: I don't really understand her example of the fading logic of the monument using Rodin's Gates of Hell and Balzac. Because both sculptures failed, does that mean they shouldn't be considered monuments, therefore not a sculpture?
Monumental Periphery of Sculpture
Strauss draws on the dichotomy that sculptures can both not architecture and not landscape, but makes it possible to also be architecture and landscape. Therefore, considering the Egg Earthworks by Andy Goldsworthy, which hold both architecture and landscape and if by default a sculpture, to what degree does historicism obstruct the parameters of labeling it a monument?
“Within the limited position of sculpture itself, the organization and content of much of the strongest works will reflect the condition of the logical space” (289). Given that postmodernist sculpture is exists in relation to exogenous actors such as cultural situations and logical structure, does Strauss claim that these, instead, hinder the spatial organization and conditions of medium of the same?
“Within the limited position of sculpture itself, the organization and content of much of the strongest works will reflect the condition of the logical space” (289). Given that postmodernist sculpture is exists in relation to exogenous actors such as cultural situations and logical structure, does Strauss claim that these, instead, hinder the spatial organization and conditions of medium of the same?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Sculpture in the Expanded Field
Q1: I seem to slightly understand the Klein group, but I do have some questions about it. I understand that based on landscape and architecture, the artwork is put into a specific category: site-construction, marked sites, sculpture, or axiomatic structure. What would an piece of artwork be called if it possessed three of the four descriptions, such as landscape, not-landscape and not-architecture? Or what would it be called if it possessed two descriptions accross from each other on the diagram such as landscape and not-architecture?
Q2: Krauss uses the terms "sculpture" and "monument." He says that multiple versions of a work fail it as a monument (p.375). Is he saying that a sculpture is only a monument when there is only one? If not, what defines a monument?
Q2: Krauss uses the terms "sculpture" and "monument." He says that multiple versions of a work fail it as a monument (p.375). Is he saying that a sculpture is only a monument when there is only one? If not, what defines a monument?
Sculpture in the Expanded Field
Q1: According to the article, modernism is characterized by a certain negativity, "a kind of sitelessness, or homelessness, an absolute loss of place" (280). Later, Krauss discusses the idea of an "expanded field" that led to postmodernism. My question is where the line is drawn between the two? For example, how is Joel Shapiro's Untitled (Cast Iron and Plaster Houses) (290) different from Richard Serra's 5:30 (278)? What makes the former considered postmodern while the latter is modern? Both seem to share a sense of abstraction and negativity.
Q2: There seems to be a lot of people arguing over the "correct" use of the term "sculpture" in the wake of the modern and postmodern movements. I don't understand the point of labeling this word in terms of how far the conventional use of it can be stretched. It doesn't seem like the "experts" will ever agree on this issue (which then brings to mind, who is given this authority and why?), so if someone wants to call a pile of thread waste on the floor or temporary lines cut into the floor of the desert sculptures, then who are we to stop them?
Q2: There seems to be a lot of people arguing over the "correct" use of the term "sculpture" in the wake of the modern and postmodern movements. I don't understand the point of labeling this word in terms of how far the conventional use of it can be stretched. It doesn't seem like the "experts" will ever agree on this issue (which then brings to mind, who is given this authority and why?), so if someone wants to call a pile of thread waste on the floor or temporary lines cut into the floor of the desert sculptures, then who are we to stop them?
Expanded Field
Q1: This new movement in sculpture is meant to exemplify a new set of cultural terms, that defies any logic in sticking to one medium, or staying within the traditional guidelines of that medium. The author also says that this new category should map the “axiomatic feature of the architectural experience –the abstract conditions of openness and closure” onto whatever space or site chosen. My question is regarding the difference between sculpture and architecture –once you start using the term architecture, there implies a certain aspect of functionality and practicality. What if these ‘postmodern’ art pieces are only embodying the aesthetics of architecture? Is the term still appropriate? Or do these artworks have a function or use? If so, what are they?
Q2: The author argues that these new sculptural projects embody a nomadic homelessness and occupy a negative space. Yet they are also autonomous by nature, grounded in the nature of their base. Yes, this independence, to be “essentially transportable” and “self-referential” is reinforced by the base of the sculpture, but I would argue that their self-sufficient nature also gives them a positive sense of being, that these sculptures are not just defined by what they are not, by this negative space.
Q2: The author argues that these new sculptural projects embody a nomadic homelessness and occupy a negative space. Yet they are also autonomous by nature, grounded in the nature of their base. Yes, this independence, to be “essentially transportable” and “self-referential” is reinforced by the base of the sculpture, but I would argue that their self-sufficient nature also gives them a positive sense of being, that these sculptures are not just defined by what they are not, by this negative space.
Expanded Field
Q1: This article discusses how artists find themselves occupying different forms of the expanded field. The eclectic way in which artists formulate their work and career is bought into question. Krauss says for postmoderism " practice is not defined in relation to a given medium- sculpture- but rather in relation to the logical operations on a set of cultural terms, for which any medium... might be used" (288). Yet, this prompts me to wonder,if abstraction is acceptable, is it necessary for a piece of artwork to be logical. If so, what purpose does the logic serve in categorizing the artwork and interpreting it?
Q2:The expanded field provides an expanded, yet limited environment for a particular medium. It is defined by "the universe of terms that are felt to be in opposition within a cultual situation" (289). What exactly does this concept of opposition mean? Is it not possible for artwork of the expanded field to not oppose something? If artwork in the expanded field is attempting to blend into the landscape, in what way is opposition a factor?
Q2:The expanded field provides an expanded, yet limited environment for a particular medium. It is defined by "the universe of terms that are felt to be in opposition within a cultual situation" (289). What exactly does this concept of opposition mean? Is it not possible for artwork of the expanded field to not oppose something? If artwork in the expanded field is attempting to blend into the landscape, in what way is opposition a factor?
sculpture in the expanded field
Q1. What is the point of labeling sculpture in terms of marked or site constructed? It seems to me that all of it is just site-specific art, but because some people don't understand the sculpture, they need a label to tell them what the purpose of the sculpture is and does labeling the sculpture (ie marked etc) will people appreciate the art more because of that label?
Q2. For the most part I understand the Klein group diagram. I understand that certain components make up different types of art, but the aspect of the diagram that confuses me is the complex and the neuter. I am really not sure what it means to have a complex or a neuter. they don't really seem to have a purpose, so my question is what does the complex and neuter mean to the art? Does it add or take away anything from the artwork in question? What does it mean to have a complex or neuter?
Sculpture and the Expanded Field (of Confusion)
Question 1 - Why in the world would artists/sculptors or those who view art need a diagram to identify a sculpture or a type of sculpture? I have a problem with this not because of the diagram, but because of this "scientific and logical" approach to identifying sculpture. I believe it is enough to say that "sculpture" has evolved and that what appeared as sculpture in the past might not be what appears as sculpture now.
Question 2 - What was the traditional medium for sculpture? At some point in history sculpture was made from sand, cement, marble, wood, and metal - are these then the traditional mediums? Do traditional mediums have to necessarily be elements of the earth or can they also be synthetic materials?
Question 2 - What was the traditional medium for sculpture? At some point in history sculpture was made from sand, cement, marble, wood, and metal - are these then the traditional mediums? Do traditional mediums have to necessarily be elements of the earth or can they also be synthetic materials?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
getting the public to understand what that metal thingy in front of the post office really means
Abstract, large sculptures in public spaces became seen as doing nothing "for" the public and thus seen as simply a status symbol for the upper class and large corporations, as Kwon put it, these artworks became seen as "architectural jewelery." The way to remedy this was to make the artwork melt into or at least harmonize with the atmosphere created by the architecture and provide for a physical need of the public, via seating/shade. It's lack of these features and strong opposition to it is the reason Serra's Tilted Arc was so strongly opposed. What is interesting to consider is that Serra's art really was doing a service for the people, by pointing out the strong boundary between the classes and the government and it's people. The only problem is that the public, seeing this embodiment of the borders and boundaries, feared and resented the representation, not the actual and institutionalized borders that were restricting them. My question is, why couldn't a compromise be reached, something like partially burying the sculpture to provide those grassy hills and shade, while still revealing the boundaries that used to be? If Serra's art really was a critique and not just aesthetically determined, then shouldn't a compromise be appropriate since it would represent a change in attitude of the upper class?
A similar case is in Meyer's article from Space, Site, Intervention. Fred Wilson's "mining the Museum" was a critique on the racist history of the city. He used only things that had actually been in the Museum, however people said he didn't know what he was doing. I'm guessing this is partly because they want to deny their city's negative past and act as though he wasn't getting the whole picture. The public's hostility is turned towards the artist instead of the social political issue he himself was trying to point attention to. I am wondering if there have been successful attempts to criticize without causing a controversy based around the artist. What methods have been employed to make the art accepted and understood by the public, without detracting from it's political critiquing power? Do signs with a written explanation help? Words incorporated into the art? A different kind of art perhaps, more readily understood? Anonymity of the artist?
A similar case is in Meyer's article from Space, Site, Intervention. Fred Wilson's "mining the Museum" was a critique on the racist history of the city. He used only things that had actually been in the Museum, however people said he didn't know what he was doing. I'm guessing this is partly because they want to deny their city's negative past and act as though he wasn't getting the whole picture. The public's hostility is turned towards the artist instead of the social political issue he himself was trying to point attention to. I am wondering if there have been successful attempts to criticize without causing a controversy based around the artist. What methods have been employed to make the art accepted and understood by the public, without detracting from it's political critiquing power? Do signs with a written explanation help? Words incorporated into the art? A different kind of art perhaps, more readily understood? Anonymity of the artist?
Sitings of Public Art
Question 1: In the case of Ahearn and Serra, why is the “community” so quick to object these site-specific arts? In both cases it seems that the structures were removed only a few weeks after installation. Those art structures were an art work display for the public, people should be able to sit there and ponder about it or ignore it. Why do people make it such a big deal, as far as to wanting it removed? I didn’t feel, by looking at the pictures, that the art work was too provoking.
Question 2: It seemed that Ahearn’s sculptures were too realist for the city to handle. I think the complaints about the sculptures just show us how insecure people are about where they live. I think Ahearn’s arts would have been a nice way for people to step away for their insecurities and start embracing the reality of the city in which they live. I wonder if the sculptures were replaced today, would people still respond to it the same way, considering many has change over the past 10-15 years, in fact one of the biggest changes, finally a non-Caucasian president.
Question 2: It seemed that Ahearn’s sculptures were too realist for the city to handle. I think the complaints about the sculptures just show us how insecure people are about where they live. I think Ahearn’s arts would have been a nice way for people to step away for their insecurities and start embracing the reality of the city in which they live. I wonder if the sculptures were replaced today, would people still respond to it the same way, considering many has change over the past 10-15 years, in fact one of the biggest changes, finally a non-Caucasian president.
Creative Architecture or Public Art?
Kwon argues that “public art work s[are] meant to play a supplementary but crucial role in the amelioration of what were perceived to be the ill effects of the repetitive, monotonous, and functionalist style of modernist architecture” (64). Therefore, to what extent is a marble fountain in the courtyard of a townhome complex, a form of public art? How about if we place it inside a prison quad? Would adding a gaudy color and elaborate centerpiece sculpture add to the public art ‘points’ of this fountain? Who decides how generic or elaborate a public art creation can be?
The aesthetic value of public art is determined by its use value in the functionalist wave which unfolded in the 1980’s. However, where do we draw the line between artistic innovation and architectural commercialization of more aesthetically-pleasing elements? Do these two fields overlap when public art is in question? With regards to Serra’s argument of site-specific art as “constituting a precise discomposure between the art work and its site…bring[ing] into relief the repressed social contradictions that underlie public places” (75), would the photograph mural in front of Dwinelle Hall, then, be considered a site-specific form of public art?
The aesthetic value of public art is determined by its use value in the functionalist wave which unfolded in the 1980’s. However, where do we draw the line between artistic innovation and architectural commercialization of more aesthetically-pleasing elements? Do these two fields overlap when public art is in question? With regards to Serra’s argument of site-specific art as “constituting a precise discomposure between the art work and its site…bring[ing] into relief the repressed social contradictions that underlie public places” (75), would the photograph mural in front of Dwinelle Hall, then, be considered a site-specific form of public art?
Sitings of Public Art
Q1. Are there any exact rules for a site specific art work to be a public art work? I don't really understand this part because it seems to be very subjective. In the article, there are critics argued that “autonomous signature-style art works sited in public places functioned more like extensions of the museum, advertising individual artists and their accomplishments (65).” So does that mean that if the art works were signed for recognition, they are more qualified to be the public art works?
Q2. Kwon argued in the article that the “public art was a pleasant visual contrast to the rationalized regularity of its surroundings, providing a nice decorative effect (65).” However, in today's situation, the art works that were being displayed were in a form of abstract art, and they usually had a deeper meanings in them. In this case, how can the public appreciate such genre since such type of art, the modern arts back then, was misunderstood? What do they expect the public to feel or think when viewing these art works? Are they really just for decoration purpose?
Q2. Kwon argued in the article that the “public art was a pleasant visual contrast to the rationalized regularity of its surroundings, providing a nice decorative effect (65).” However, in today's situation, the art works that were being displayed were in a form of abstract art, and they usually had a deeper meanings in them. In this case, how can the public appreciate such genre since such type of art, the modern arts back then, was misunderstood? What do they expect the public to feel or think when viewing these art works? Are they really just for decoration purpose?
The Functional Site/Sitings of Public Art
1)James Meyer distinguishes between two notions of site specific art: Literal and functional. He describes the functional as one that "may or may not incorporate a physical place...Instead it is a process, an operating ocurring between sites. It is an informational site...It is a temporary thing, a movement, a chain of meanings and imbrecated histories: a place marked and swiftly abandoned" (25). Although we did not read the entire article, I don't see how this can be a widely accepted definition of site specifc art. What he refers to in that same paragraph in examples are photographs and video recordings, text and physical places...these are all completely different things. What does he see as common ground in these "types of site specific art?" Aren't these all things that can be replicated because they are recorded on some medium of film or paper? I do not see the relevance to site specificity, and the immense differences they pose to the "literal site" make me skeptical that he is describing an entirely different category of art.
2) In Kwon's first article, he argued that the changes in site specific art have taken away the beauty of what this style was originally meant to do. In this article, he seems to follow Richard Serra's description of site specific art, which at first glance supports the groundwork or platform that was laid by the first definition: site-specific art is conceived and determined by the environment and locational aspects where the work is to be made; to change or to move the art would be to destroy it. Here we see a common ground between Kwon and Serra about the roots of site specific art. However, Kwon argues in the first article that the artwork was meant to be subject originally, but that once it was integrated into the social, political, and economical realm that the meaning behind it turned into a process which defeated the purpose of the site specific art as a noun in its environment. The confusion lies in a quote from Serra where he states that "the preliminary analysis of a given site takes into consideration not only formal but also social and political characteristics of the site" (74). He fights in court against "the people" standing behind the original definition of what site specificity is and how it is motivated and cannot be removed, but he then contradicts the whole idea that was established in the first place by attaching a concern with the social. How can he stand behind an argument that does not neccessarily make sense? Is it plausible that any artists could pick and choose from any definition and mix and match to the standards that apply to their own ideas or arguments?
2) In Kwon's first article, he argued that the changes in site specific art have taken away the beauty of what this style was originally meant to do. In this article, he seems to follow Richard Serra's description of site specific art, which at first glance supports the groundwork or platform that was laid by the first definition: site-specific art is conceived and determined by the environment and locational aspects where the work is to be made; to change or to move the art would be to destroy it. Here we see a common ground between Kwon and Serra about the roots of site specific art. However, Kwon argues in the first article that the artwork was meant to be subject originally, but that once it was integrated into the social, political, and economical realm that the meaning behind it turned into a process which defeated the purpose of the site specific art as a noun in its environment. The confusion lies in a quote from Serra where he states that "the preliminary analysis of a given site takes into consideration not only formal but also social and political characteristics of the site" (74). He fights in court against "the people" standing behind the original definition of what site specificity is and how it is motivated and cannot be removed, but he then contradicts the whole idea that was established in the first place by attaching a concern with the social. How can he stand behind an argument that does not neccessarily make sense? Is it plausible that any artists could pick and choose from any definition and mix and match to the standards that apply to their own ideas or arguments?
Public Art
Q1) On page 63, Kwon quoted Moore saying that he “don’t like doing commissions in the sense that [he] go and look at a site and then think of something.” His idea of the “modernist public sculptures were conceived as autonomous works of art whose relationship to the site was at best incidental.” He argued further on that “to display the sculpture to its best advantage outdoors, it must be set so that it relates to the sky…only the sky miles away, allows us to contrast infinity with reality…” What I get from his argument is that the site is irrelevant to the artwork and that you can place it anywhere under the sky. As long as there is contrast with the sky, any surrounding elements don’t matter. However, doesn’t this totally deny the theories of site-specificity? If relationships of the sculptures and the surroundings are “incidental”, then wouldn’t the site be of utterly no significance?
Q2) Kwon talked about how Serra’s Tilted Arc “rejected the then widespread tendency of public sculpture to accommodate architectural design” on page 72. He claimed that sculptures must be “non-utilitarian, non-functional”, following “an interruptive and interventionist model…opposed to an integrationist or assimilative one”. Here, is Serra implicitly accusing architecture of being “tokens” of “governmental, corporate, educational, and religious institutions”? His argument is that in order to be critical of the surrounding institutions on the site, an artist must distance away from positive interactions with architecture. Is the two truly contradictory? Can you not follow an “integrationist or assimilative [model]” while “manifest[ing] a judgment about the larger social and political context of which they are a part” (74) ?
Q2) Kwon talked about how Serra’s Tilted Arc “rejected the then widespread tendency of public sculpture to accommodate architectural design” on page 72. He claimed that sculptures must be “non-utilitarian, non-functional”, following “an interruptive and interventionist model…opposed to an integrationist or assimilative one”. Here, is Serra implicitly accusing architecture of being “tokens” of “governmental, corporate, educational, and religious institutions”? His argument is that in order to be critical of the surrounding institutions on the site, an artist must distance away from positive interactions with architecture. Is the two truly contradictory? Can you not follow an “integrationist or assimilative [model]” while “manifest[ing] a judgment about the larger social and political context of which they are a part” (74) ?
Sitings of Public Art: Integration Versus Intervention
Question 1: In the article, Miwon Kwon talks about how Serra's sculpture and how he does not try to integrate the relationship of sculpture and architecture like other contemporary artists. Kwon uses Hal Foster's definition of sculpture and its "internal necessity" to explain Serra's artwork. He says ' to deconstruct sculpture is to serve its 'internal necessity' to extend sculpture in realtion to process, embodiment, and site is to remain within it.' I still don't understand what he's talking about even though later he says it's basically about distiguishing between a 'medium differential' and "meduim-specific" investigation.
Question 2: Miwon Kwon's article has just proven that contemporary art has too many limitations. Art should not have guidelines or rules. Art should just be (if that makes any sense). The fact that there is a timeline of all the years when NEA changed their policies for they viewed art in open space and simultaneously the changed thoughts of many artists that came to agree with their policies shows the uncreativeness of these kinds of art. It takes how the beauty of art. I agree with Serra when he criticizes both art-in-public-spaces and art-as-public-spaces as trying to work with architecture when in reality these art and architecture should not be made to complement each other. Art has become so controlled that is art even art anymore? Is it even created from someone's want or desire or the government's request?
Question 2: Miwon Kwon's article has just proven that contemporary art has too many limitations. Art should not have guidelines or rules. Art should just be (if that makes any sense). The fact that there is a timeline of all the years when NEA changed their policies for they viewed art in open space and simultaneously the changed thoughts of many artists that came to agree with their policies shows the uncreativeness of these kinds of art. It takes how the beauty of art. I agree with Serra when he criticizes both art-in-public-spaces and art-as-public-spaces as trying to work with architecture when in reality these art and architecture should not be made to complement each other. Art has become so controlled that is art even art anymore? Is it even created from someone's want or desire or the government's request?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
SItings of Public Art
Question 1:
On page 67, Kwon says it was understood that there was "a casual relationship between the aesthetic quality of the built environment and the quality of social conditions it supported". This translates to me as: the commissioners, and the money they provide for their public works of art are directly correlated to the socioeconomic status and culture of the area. However, isn't public art supposed to be more about the people, the heart of the city? These are works are supposed to be more "accessible and socially responsible, that is, more public". Yet, these public works of art (and the ones I am used to seeing) are all located in wealthy and scholarly areas - i.e. universities, city's financial districts, etc. and seem like merely an extension of the museum, the white cube, and the power relationships it plays to.
Question 2:
What exactly is "plop art"? Is this art that is incongruent and a relative eye sore amongst the architecture and gardens of the surrounding grounds? The author discusses how some artists try to create a uselessness in their art sculpture (i.e. Tilted Arc). Is the purpose of this uselessness actually to be harsh and contrasting with its surroundings and shake up the landscape of a public space? Kwon also talks about discomposure between the art work and site and its important is breaking up the "repressed social contradictions" that run through public spaces by being site-specific. Is "plop art" site-specific?
On page 67, Kwon says it was understood that there was "a casual relationship between the aesthetic quality of the built environment and the quality of social conditions it supported". This translates to me as: the commissioners, and the money they provide for their public works of art are directly correlated to the socioeconomic status and culture of the area. However, isn't public art supposed to be more about the people, the heart of the city? These are works are supposed to be more "accessible and socially responsible, that is, more public". Yet, these public works of art (and the ones I am used to seeing) are all located in wealthy and scholarly areas - i.e. universities, city's financial districts, etc. and seem like merely an extension of the museum, the white cube, and the power relationships it plays to.
Question 2:
What exactly is "plop art"? Is this art that is incongruent and a relative eye sore amongst the architecture and gardens of the surrounding grounds? The author discusses how some artists try to create a uselessness in their art sculpture (i.e. Tilted Arc). Is the purpose of this uselessness actually to be harsh and contrasting with its surroundings and shake up the landscape of a public space? Kwon also talks about discomposure between the art work and site and its important is breaking up the "repressed social contradictions" that run through public spaces by being site-specific. Is "plop art" site-specific?
Whose art is it anyway?
Q1) Re: Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc. During and after the proceedings to remove his sculpture, Tilted Arc, Serra has been very clear about his attitudes towards what public sculpture should and should not be. While I agree with him that “works which are built within the contextual frame of governmental, corporate, educational, and religious institutions run the risk of being read as tokens of those institutions” (314), I would like to take issue with the fact that he is “not interested in art as affirmation” (314). His stance is critical. As Kwon notes, “’Serra envisions not a relationship of smooth continuity between the art work and its site but an antagonistic one in which the art work performs a proactive interrogation – ‘manifest[s] a judgment’ (presumably negative) – about the site’s sociopolitical conditions” (314). Not only was his sculpture specifically meant to be interruptive, we can imagine that Janet Kardon had Tilted Arc in mind when she wrote of the “negative reception that has become a kind of certificate of merit among modern artists” (310). The question, then, is why must art be negative and critical in order for it to be valid? This critical stance is familiar from the modernists, situationists, postmodernists, etc., and is accepted as an appropriate mode for art…but doesn’t it – at least in the case of public art – make the sculptor herself into a perpetrator against the “public?”
Q2) Re: John Ahearn’s South Bronx Sculpture Park. John Ahearn’s sculpture park seems, on the surface, to be the perfect antidote to the problem Serra encountered with his sculpture. But his three figures were abhorred by members of the “community” and he voluntarily removed these figures. There are a lot of questions that can be asked here, but the most interesting one, I think, is: should public art be democratized? Serra clearly didn’t care that his sculpture had a lot of detractors; he stood by his work. Ahearn, on the other hand, submitted to the hostile neighbors. And this was after he was selected to do the sculpture by a group which included the community and which was supposed to involve the community. But if Serra is an example of an elitist who cares little for the people who encounter his sculpture in the course of their daily lives, Ahearn is guilty of the opposite; of giving his audience too much say over his work. 2 examples. 1. In Philadelphia, a developer wrangled with a hostile neighborhood group for 5 years over the proposed construction of a new Whole Foods market. Despite its many detractors, the store was ultimately built and is now, 10 years later, an uncontested bright spot in the neighborhood, popular with everyone, including its original detractors. The neighbors were, in this case, “wrong.’ 2. San Francisco, this week. A Valencia Street community organization, led by local Burning Man man Chicken John, successfully blocked the addition of an American Apparel store. The group, aiming to prevent Valencia Street from commercialization, has in effect shot itself, and the community, in foot. Instead of having a socially responsible store, many positions to be filled (and who doesn’t need a job these days?), and fair wages and benefits, the 900 block of Valencia is now left with just another run down vacant storefront, succumbing to urban decay. Hooray, chicken.
Q2) Re: John Ahearn’s South Bronx Sculpture Park. John Ahearn’s sculpture park seems, on the surface, to be the perfect antidote to the problem Serra encountered with his sculpture. But his three figures were abhorred by members of the “community” and he voluntarily removed these figures. There are a lot of questions that can be asked here, but the most interesting one, I think, is: should public art be democratized? Serra clearly didn’t care that his sculpture had a lot of detractors; he stood by his work. Ahearn, on the other hand, submitted to the hostile neighbors. And this was after he was selected to do the sculpture by a group which included the community and which was supposed to involve the community. But if Serra is an example of an elitist who cares little for the people who encounter his sculpture in the course of their daily lives, Ahearn is guilty of the opposite; of giving his audience too much say over his work. 2 examples. 1. In Philadelphia, a developer wrangled with a hostile neighborhood group for 5 years over the proposed construction of a new Whole Foods market. Despite its many detractors, the store was ultimately built and is now, 10 years later, an uncontested bright spot in the neighborhood, popular with everyone, including its original detractors. The neighbors were, in this case, “wrong.’ 2. San Francisco, this week. A Valencia Street community organization, led by local Burning Man man Chicken John, successfully blocked the addition of an American Apparel store. The group, aiming to prevent Valencia Street from commercialization, has in effect shot itself, and the community, in foot. Instead of having a socially responsible store, many positions to be filled (and who doesn’t need a job these days?), and fair wages and benefits, the 900 block of Valencia is now left with just another run down vacant storefront, succumbing to urban decay. Hooray, chicken.
Sitings Of Public Art
Q1: On page 307, Kwon speaks about the position that artist Henry Moore, as well as many other artists, have on the site of public art. He quotes Moore saying that when asked to contribute his art to a specific location, he does not observe the site and then create a sculpture. He observes the site and then choses a sculpture from the art that he has already created. Moore says that the relationship between the art and the site was "at best incidental" (p.308). My question is, if the art is supposed to be "site specific" and is supposed to relate art to the site then why would artists not want there art to be a product if their observations?
Q2: On page 309, Kwon discusses how art "seemed to be an unwanted imposition" to the public, and at most provided a "nice decorative effect." What exactly were they expecting the public's reaction to be? The art that was being displayed most often was highly abstract and had a deeper meaning to it. Were they expecting the public to appreciate it as so or simply misunderstand it as 1960's modern art was misunderstood?
Q2: On page 309, Kwon discusses how art "seemed to be an unwanted imposition" to the public, and at most provided a "nice decorative effect." What exactly were they expecting the public's reaction to be? The art that was being displayed most often was highly abstract and had a deeper meaning to it. Were they expecting the public to appreciate it as so or simply misunderstand it as 1960's modern art was misunderstood?
Sitings of Public Art
Question #1: Why do we have to measure art? There is a quote on page 308: "Again in Moore's words: 'To display sculpture to its best advantage outdoors, it must be set so that it relates to the sky rather than to trees, a house, people or other aspects of its surroundings. Only the sky, miles away allows us to contrast infinity with reality, and so we are able to discover the sculptor's inner scale without comparison.'" The way it is described here, we use a scale to really appreciate the art, but why can't we appreciate it to the fullest without measuring it?
Question #2: For the "identificatory unity that propels today's form of community-based site specificity," is identificatory unity really the right way? The article discussed a believe that "the art work should affirm rather than disturb the viewer's sense of self." If this is true, then there is no point in art; art would just be reiterating what we see and know from every day. Art if not meant to just reaffirm self-knowledge, is it? There should be more coming from a piece than that. (Quotes from 325).
Question #2: For the "identificatory unity that propels today's form of community-based site specificity," is identificatory unity really the right way? The article discussed a believe that "the art work should affirm rather than disturb the viewer's sense of self." If this is true, then there is no point in art; art would just be reiterating what we see and know from every day. Art if not meant to just reaffirm self-knowledge, is it? There should be more coming from a piece than that. (Quotes from 325).
Public Art
Question 1:
On page 65, Kwon discusses how public art is often difficult for the public to relate to because the abstract movement. He says, " despite the physical accessibility, public art remained resolutely inaccessible insofar as the prevalent style of modernist abstraction remained indecipherable, uninteresting, and meaningless to a general audience." Yet, even if art is produced in a non abstract form, are the people of the community really able to relate or understand the art? Is it possible for public art to ever be appreciated by the entire community in which it resides? If not, then what is the concern in attempting to appease all parties?
Question 2:
Public art is more widely accepted the less distinctive it is. Kwon states, " the more an art work abandoned its distinctive look of "Art" to seamlessly assimilate to the site, as defined by the conventions of architecture and urban design, the more it was hailed as a progressive art gesture" (72). In this sense, art is imitating life and attempting to blend into the existing world. How exactly is art defined? At what point does something just become a bench in the park or a set of walkways if the intent of the artist is to impact the surrounding area the least?
On page 65, Kwon discusses how public art is often difficult for the public to relate to because the abstract movement. He says, " despite the physical accessibility, public art remained resolutely inaccessible insofar as the prevalent style of modernist abstraction remained indecipherable, uninteresting, and meaningless to a general audience." Yet, even if art is produced in a non abstract form, are the people of the community really able to relate or understand the art? Is it possible for public art to ever be appreciated by the entire community in which it resides? If not, then what is the concern in attempting to appease all parties?
Question 2:
Public art is more widely accepted the less distinctive it is. Kwon states, " the more an art work abandoned its distinctive look of "Art" to seamlessly assimilate to the site, as defined by the conventions of architecture and urban design, the more it was hailed as a progressive art gesture" (72). In this sense, art is imitating life and attempting to blend into the existing world. How exactly is art defined? At what point does something just become a bench in the park or a set of walkways if the intent of the artist is to impact the surrounding area the least?
¿Art with Guidelines? (Sitings of Public Art)
Question 1: I have somewhat of a difficulty understanding how art can all of a sudden have guidelines. I have always thought of art as a form of individual expression, not as a form of encouraging some sort of relationship with the community, not because I don’t agree with communal interaction, but because some art is just supposed to be. I guess my question is why would the goals of the NEA of all sudden encourage public art to be “appropriate to the immediate site” as opposed to “support(ing) individual artists of exceptional talent and demonstrated ability and to provide the public with opportunities to experience the best of American contemporary art” (309)? What rationale would encourage this sudden change in artistic expectations?
Question 2: To define art as a measure of utility seems ridiculous to me. Art is supposed to provoke emotions, reactions, discourse, interest, etc. Is that not enough utility? Why would art all of a sudden be associated with the potential to generate some sort of social value? Do we as a society not value art for what it is but for what it can provide? If so, what is the standard value of art? Is it even measurable? Who measures it?
Question 2: To define art as a measure of utility seems ridiculous to me. Art is supposed to provoke emotions, reactions, discourse, interest, etc. Is that not enough utility? Why would art all of a sudden be associated with the potential to generate some sort of social value? Do we as a society not value art for what it is but for what it can provide? If so, what is the standard value of art? Is it even measurable? Who measures it?
Sitings of Public Art: Integration Versus Intervention
Q1: The NEA changed its guidelines to stipulate that public artwork needed to be more "integrated" and "appropriate to the immediate site," in response to the increasing amount of ornamental "plop art" (65), a term used by opponents of Tilted Arc. While it can be argued that Serra's work is not explicitly as applicable to the community as Ahearn's sculptures, who's to say that Tilted Arc does not have a positive impact on the citizens of New York? I can imagine people stopping to look at it and contemplate some deeper meaning about life while passing by on their way to work. Why is it that there are so many opponents of this? The security expert talking about how it impedes surveillance just seems ridiculous to me. I have a feeling that politics have something to do with it.
Q2: The NEA's "panel of three" to select the artist, and then another group of three from the GSA to approve the design sounds like a terrible idea. How are artists supposed to "integrate" their art with the community if the community isn't even part of the decision process? Instead it's a top-down, exclusive process that leaves the artist guessing and hoping that he/she can get approval from both the bureaucrats and everyday people. This system seems very flawed to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if this happened to artists other than Serra and Ahearn.
Q2: The NEA's "panel of three" to select the artist, and then another group of three from the GSA to approve the design sounds like a terrible idea. How are artists supposed to "integrate" their art with the community if the community isn't even part of the decision process? Instead it's a top-down, exclusive process that leaves the artist guessing and hoping that he/she can get approval from both the bureaucrats and everyday people. This system seems very flawed to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if this happened to artists other than Serra and Ahearn.
public art and the tilted arc
Q1: One of the stipulations of site specific art is that there is usually seating, it provides shade, or other physical accommodations, but if this is what characterizes site specific art, then why is Walter DeMaria's Lightening Fields considered site specific art? It lacks the same things that the Tilted Arc lacks - seating, shading, etc - yet it is looked at and appreciated as site specific art. how is that possible?
Q2: One of the main controversies with the Tilted Arc is that the local community had no involvement in the decision making process. This accusation seems inadequate because why should an artist, who makes sculptures and other artworks for a living, need the approval of a community? It just seems to me that GSA and the NEA did not appreciate Serra's work, and convinced the community that they were unhappy with it as well. Any other ideas?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Public Art
Q1: According to the article art-in-public-spaces is art that does not necessarily need site specificity but rather could be placed anywhere. For example, the article discusses Calder's peice in Michigan as an artwork that is merely used to be decorative. What makes me curious is that looking at the picture of Calder's peice it seems to flow a certain way for a particular reason, and it seems to embody a sense of movement. First of all, did Calder design this peice for this area or is it a blown up version of one of his works? Would Calder be offended if his art would be called simply a decoration?
Q2: Serra's site specific public art was not accepted by the public due particularly to its location, size, shape, coloring, and practical purpose. The art work was meant to question power relations as well as what art is. However, if an artwork is specific to its site but does not question social or political institutions concerning that site, is it still site specific? in other words, can that art thus be moved to a different location and still have the same meaning, whether it seems to fit in that place or not?
Q2: Serra's site specific public art was not accepted by the public due particularly to its location, size, shape, coloring, and practical purpose. The art work was meant to question power relations as well as what art is. However, if an artwork is specific to its site but does not question social or political institutions concerning that site, is it still site specific? in other words, can that art thus be moved to a different location and still have the same meaning, whether it seems to fit in that place or not?
Paper #2 Assignment
On the Issue of Site:
For this assignment, please write a three-page paper that makes a specific, interesting claim about the (potentially oppositional or competing) notion(s) of site advanced by one of the following pairs of site-specific artworks. Remember that Kwon breaks up site-specific works into three categories: phenomenological, social/institutional, and discursive. Each site-specific work may exhibit qualities of one or more of these categories, so don’t worry if you think you are seeing characteristics of, e.g., both discursive and phenomenological site-specificity in a single example. You will of course have to figure out what each of these categories means in order to discern the complexities of the notion of sitedness. If you are stuck on this, please feel free to ask for clarification in class or in office hours.
For help in writing a comparative essay, you may consult Chapter 5 of A Short Guide to Writing About Art.
Options:
1. Andy Goldsworthy (any of his “Egg” stone sculptures) v. Constantin Brancusi. Beginning of the World. 1920. (This is a quintessential work of modernist sculpture, and thus adamantly not site specific. If you attack this topic you will have to consider how site-specificity revises the condition of modern sculpture. See Kwon for more details).
2. Guy Debord. The Naked City. (Yup!) v. Christian Philipp Müller. Green Border.
3. Walter DeMaria. Lightning Fields. v. Mark Dion. On Tropical Nature.
4. Mierle Laderman Ukeles. Maintenance v. Andrea Fraser. Museum Highlights: A Gallery Talk
NB: If, after perusing these comparisons and the readings, you discover a different comparison you’d rather do, please OK it with me after class Thursday or via email.
NB #2: Please remember to follow proper manuscript format as outlined in Chapter 13 of A Short Guide to Writing About Art.
NB#3: Please bring 2 extra copies of your paper to class on Tuesday in addition to the one you’re turning in to me.
For this assignment, please write a three-page paper that makes a specific, interesting claim about the (potentially oppositional or competing) notion(s) of site advanced by one of the following pairs of site-specific artworks. Remember that Kwon breaks up site-specific works into three categories: phenomenological, social/institutional, and discursive. Each site-specific work may exhibit qualities of one or more of these categories, so don’t worry if you think you are seeing characteristics of, e.g., both discursive and phenomenological site-specificity in a single example. You will of course have to figure out what each of these categories means in order to discern the complexities of the notion of sitedness. If you are stuck on this, please feel free to ask for clarification in class or in office hours.
For help in writing a comparative essay, you may consult Chapter 5 of A Short Guide to Writing About Art.
Options:
1. Andy Goldsworthy (any of his “Egg” stone sculptures) v. Constantin Brancusi. Beginning of the World. 1920. (This is a quintessential work of modernist sculpture, and thus adamantly not site specific. If you attack this topic you will have to consider how site-specificity revises the condition of modern sculpture. See Kwon for more details).
2. Guy Debord. The Naked City. (Yup!) v. Christian Philipp Müller. Green Border.
3. Walter DeMaria. Lightning Fields. v. Mark Dion. On Tropical Nature.
4. Mierle Laderman Ukeles. Maintenance v. Andrea Fraser. Museum Highlights: A Gallery Talk
NB: If, after perusing these comparisons and the readings, you discover a different comparison you’d rather do, please OK it with me after class Thursday or via email.
NB #2: Please remember to follow proper manuscript format as outlined in Chapter 13 of A Short Guide to Writing About Art.
NB#3: Please bring 2 extra copies of your paper to class on Tuesday in addition to the one you’re turning in to me.
counter-hinging Spec Siteificity
Interesting to note, why would anyone write about the genealogy of a topic that they did not feel compelled was important enough to write about? This motive is evident in the interesting choice of title in the following chapter, "Unhinging of Site Specificity." Though the initial chapter bears seemingly no evidence of criticism or bias, it is through various subtle wordings and forms of content that this bias is made explicit (though I claim this to be nothing more than obvious, filler space to ensue).
First page, first chapter, Kwon states an odd paradox, "site specific works used to be obstinate about 'presence,' even if they were materially ephemeral, and adamant about immobility, even in the face of dissappearance or destruction," bringing together two (non-respective) opposing viewpoints on site-specificity: 1) a criticism and 2) a support. The latent criticism comes about in pointing out inconsistencies with the art form -- that the artwork's meaning be tied to the location even after it has lost its presence, for example moving from exhibit to exhibit. The support, on the other hand, comes in the nature of (as the author notes later on) suggesting that even when a site-specific work is removed from its original location, that it still maintains its original meaning because it is still attached to it (because of the controversy, the artist sees, in the removal or transfer of the piece; it is the tension in the move itself that Kwon claims gives rise to the piece's clear connection to its original location, or spacial frame as I call it).
Unfortunately (for me?), it seems that perhaps neither may be the case, as Kwon seems to be arguing that site-specific works were better the way they 'used to be,' and Kwon points out this detail (the paradox) as a used-to form of site-specificity. Therefore, it would remain that either Kwon somehow subtly is opposing the origin of site-specificity, perhaps in a sense encouraging this new commodification of the artist; or quite possibly she is just arbitrarily announcing that there is a paradox apparent in the realization of the art piece.
First page, first chapter, Kwon states an odd paradox, "site specific works used to be obstinate about 'presence,' even if they were materially ephemeral, and adamant about immobility, even in the face of dissappearance or destruction," bringing together two (non-respective) opposing viewpoints on site-specificity: 1) a criticism and 2) a support. The latent criticism comes about in pointing out inconsistencies with the art form -- that the artwork's meaning be tied to the location even after it has lost its presence, for example moving from exhibit to exhibit. The support, on the other hand, comes in the nature of (as the author notes later on) suggesting that even when a site-specific work is removed from its original location, that it still maintains its original meaning because it is still attached to it (because of the controversy, the artist sees, in the removal or transfer of the piece; it is the tension in the move itself that Kwon claims gives rise to the piece's clear connection to its original location, or spacial frame as I call it).
Unfortunately (for me?), it seems that perhaps neither may be the case, as Kwon seems to be arguing that site-specific works were better the way they 'used to be,' and Kwon points out this detail (the paradox) as a used-to form of site-specificity. Therefore, it would remain that either Kwon somehow subtly is opposing the origin of site-specificity, perhaps in a sense encouraging this new commodification of the artist; or quite possibly she is just arbitrarily announcing that there is a paradox apparent in the realization of the art piece.
Site Specificity
Sorry for the rambling blog. I've been sick, and I'm not sure if I'll make it to class to today.
Miwon Kwon in “Genealogy of Site Specificity” and “Unhinging of Site Specificity” explains patterns of art throughout the 20th century and how it is dependent on time, place and context of the origination. Before reading these articles, I would not have considered anything but location to contribute to or make artwork "site specific." There is ultimately no escape from meaning of the setting. Kwon says that specific art should not only be aesthetically enjoyed by it should also be an experience of the here and now. Kwon also says that artwork loses its meaning when its reproduced in more then one exhibit in two different places, producing two widely polarized results. For the most part, I agree with Kwon on this. I think that by producing two pieces of art, they cannot be called the same thing. The artwork loses its uniqueness, which to me is the main idea behind art. Also, I like the point Kwon makes about how relocating art is destroying it on page 268. This shows that site is just as important as the artwork itself, which to me, is very interesting. However, Kwon explains that as time goes on more and more art is considered “site specific” and now almost anything can be considered so. Because of this, Kwon doesn't believe there is such a thing anymore.
1. Is museum space considered public or private space?
2. How have the guidelines to make something “site specific” changed over time?
Miwon Kwon in “Genealogy of Site Specificity” and “Unhinging of Site Specificity” explains patterns of art throughout the 20th century and how it is dependent on time, place and context of the origination. Before reading these articles, I would not have considered anything but location to contribute to or make artwork "site specific." There is ultimately no escape from meaning of the setting. Kwon says that specific art should not only be aesthetically enjoyed by it should also be an experience of the here and now. Kwon also says that artwork loses its meaning when its reproduced in more then one exhibit in two different places, producing two widely polarized results. For the most part, I agree with Kwon on this. I think that by producing two pieces of art, they cannot be called the same thing. The artwork loses its uniqueness, which to me is the main idea behind art. Also, I like the point Kwon makes about how relocating art is destroying it on page 268. This shows that site is just as important as the artwork itself, which to me, is very interesting. However, Kwon explains that as time goes on more and more art is considered “site specific” and now almost anything can be considered so. Because of this, Kwon doesn't believe there is such a thing anymore.
1. Is museum space considered public or private space?
2. How have the guidelines to make something “site specific” changed over time?
Site-specificity by Kwon
In this article, Kwon described site-specific art as the type of “indivisible relationship between the work and its site” (12) He quoted some artists and their argument that their artwork would be meaningless were it moved to a different venue. He then went on to talk about how artists used site-specific art to express a critique of “culture confinement” (24) and later expanding into “anthropology, sociology, literary criticism…etc” (26). I found Buren’s Within and Beyond the Frame really interesting. I liked how it challenges the idea that a piece of artwork must be limited by the size of venue that contains it; else it must be totally outdoors. The breakdown of boundaries symbolized by the crossing of the window would not be observable if we were to shift this artwork somewhere else. Another interesting example that Kwon used was Ukeles’s “maintenance art” involving washing the museum floor inside and outside. What I do not understand is why is such works of art considered site-specific? If Ukeles was scrubbing the floor of a museum other than Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford, will what she was expressing carry a different meaning? If the site can be any venue alike where the original artwork is, how is it “site-specific”?
Kwon also described how people started to move site-specific work “under the right circumstances” (38) He talked about how relocation and refabrication of site-specific artworks brought up the dispute of forgery. I don’t feel sympathetic towards Andre and Judd’s cries of forgery though because I think that the idea of the composition of the artwork matters more than the actual physical creation. The refabrications are still works of their ideas and the lack of their participation in the manufacturing process in no way diminished their ownership of the ideas.
Kwon also described how people started to move site-specific work “under the right circumstances” (38) He talked about how relocation and refabrication of site-specific artworks brought up the dispute of forgery. I don’t feel sympathetic towards Andre and Judd’s cries of forgery though because I think that the idea of the composition of the artwork matters more than the actual physical creation. The refabrications are still works of their ideas and the lack of their participation in the manufacturing process in no way diminished their ownership of the ideas.
Site Specificity and the Pyramids
Miwon's Chapter 'Genealogy of Site Specificity' was a very good orientation to the concept of 'site specific' art. I couldn't help but think how helpful the 'Genealogy of Situationism' would have been. Anyway, there are three basic types of site specificity, the first has to do with the physical "site" and this is the origin of the genre of art. The second is institutional critique of museum spaces, and the last is where the site is more abstract, often intangeable.
The second chapter dealt with the issues of originality and debated the authenticity of reproduced works of site specific art. I started thinking about art I've seen outside the museum and how these ideas apply to it. One thing I thought of (though i'm not so sure how well this applies) were the pyramids of Ancient Egypt. The first pyramid I would consider site specific, because the Ancient Egyptians were very much concerned with aesethics in their art and planned their burials decades in advance, so it makes sense to assume they would have made the monument to harmonize with it's environment. The ancient egyptian kings and nobles liked to on up each other and stay in fashion when it came to their burial, and so the later kings made bigger, better pyramids, yet all the same basis as the first. As far as I know they never (purposely) made a flat-topped or 3 sided pyramid. So would all the other pyramids be considered authentic? They were planned out for their location and individualy crafted, but they are still just imitations of the first. Perhaps the improvement is active enough that Kwon would use this as the basis of their originiality... It's also kind of funny that even though the pyramidss were all copies of the first they retained their importance and even grew in importance (as evidenced by the Great Pyramid's size), until, of course the country was not stable enough to handle such ridiculous projects and the kings opted for security over showyness and scrapped the pyramid for a cave....
Q! Would commissioned art, like for a hotel lobby, be comsidered site specific? It would be specially designed for a particular environment, but the motive behind it is common and interahangeable.
Q! What exactly is modernism, as refered to by Kwon? Kwon talks of modernist art as being self contained and not relying on it's location for meaning. However, isn't this what site specific art is, when the site is an idea communicated by the piece?
The second chapter dealt with the issues of originality and debated the authenticity of reproduced works of site specific art. I started thinking about art I've seen outside the museum and how these ideas apply to it. One thing I thought of (though i'm not so sure how well this applies) were the pyramids of Ancient Egypt. The first pyramid I would consider site specific, because the Ancient Egyptians were very much concerned with aesethics in their art and planned their burials decades in advance, so it makes sense to assume they would have made the monument to harmonize with it's environment. The ancient egyptian kings and nobles liked to on up each other and stay in fashion when it came to their burial, and so the later kings made bigger, better pyramids, yet all the same basis as the first. As far as I know they never (purposely) made a flat-topped or 3 sided pyramid. So would all the other pyramids be considered authentic? They were planned out for their location and individualy crafted, but they are still just imitations of the first. Perhaps the improvement is active enough that Kwon would use this as the basis of their originiality... It's also kind of funny that even though the pyramidss were all copies of the first they retained their importance and even grew in importance (as evidenced by the Great Pyramid's size), until, of course the country was not stable enough to handle such ridiculous projects and the kings opted for security over showyness and scrapped the pyramid for a cave....
Q! Would commissioned art, like for a hotel lobby, be comsidered site specific? It would be specially designed for a particular environment, but the motive behind it is common and interahangeable.
Q! What exactly is modernism, as refered to by Kwon? Kwon talks of modernist art as being self contained and not relying on it's location for meaning. However, isn't this what site specific art is, when the site is an idea communicated by the piece?
Site-Specific Art
In these two chapters, Miwon Kwon describes and defines site-specific art and its evolution (or devolution?). Site-specific art can occur just about anywhere, but its meaning always corresponds to its surroundings or setting. Unlike the conventional aesthetically appealing painting or sculpture that we find ourselves admiring, site-specific art instead aims to send a message in a way that is hard to forget. Often, these messages are of social or political importance and challenge the viewer to think or participate in some way. A great example of this that Kwon mentions in "Geneology of Site Specificity" is Mierle Laderman Ukeles' Hartford Wash: Washing Tracks, Maintenance Inside in 1973, where Ukeles scrubbed the floor of the entry plaza, steps, and exhibition galleries of a museum on her hands and knees for a total of 8 hours (19). This site-specific "maintenence art" forced viewers to think about the "hidden and devalued labor," often associated with women, that is behind the spotless white spaces of a museum.
There is a continued controversy, however, on the unrepeatability and authenticity of site-specific art that Kwon discusses in "Unhinging of Site Specificity." The growing popularity of this art form has led to a greater demand for it, but it may not always be possible or easy for an installation to travel. As a result, there has been an increasing amount of these artists who are ignoring the once-popular notion that "to remove the work is to destroy the work" (38) and are trying to make site-specific art "nomadic" (43). According to these artists, as long as they approve of a reproduction of their artwork, it should be considered authentic. Others, however, argue that the art loses its site-specific meaning and uniqueness with duplication, even if the artist is a part of the process. This "nomadic" shift has led to the success of many artists, who then become freelancers who are invited by an institution to product a work specifically for that institution, travelling from place to place, often working on more than one work at a time. While I can see the benefits of such an arrangement, I can't help but think that it undermines the element of creativity and personal expression that makes an artist unique in his/her own way. Many site-specific artists seem keen on this "nomadic" move because it leads to greater financial success and perhaps fame, but doesn't it make those who are criticizing social hierarchies and exploitative commodification a bit hypocritical? It's a shame to me that even site-specific art has fallen into this trap.
There is a continued controversy, however, on the unrepeatability and authenticity of site-specific art that Kwon discusses in "Unhinging of Site Specificity." The growing popularity of this art form has led to a greater demand for it, but it may not always be possible or easy for an installation to travel. As a result, there has been an increasing amount of these artists who are ignoring the once-popular notion that "to remove the work is to destroy the work" (38) and are trying to make site-specific art "nomadic" (43). According to these artists, as long as they approve of a reproduction of their artwork, it should be considered authentic. Others, however, argue that the art loses its site-specific meaning and uniqueness with duplication, even if the artist is a part of the process. This "nomadic" shift has led to the success of many artists, who then become freelancers who are invited by an institution to product a work specifically for that institution, travelling from place to place, often working on more than one work at a time. While I can see the benefits of such an arrangement, I can't help but think that it undermines the element of creativity and personal expression that makes an artist unique in his/her own way. Many site-specific artists seem keen on this "nomadic" move because it leads to greater financial success and perhaps fame, but doesn't it make those who are criticizing social hierarchies and exploitative commodification a bit hypocritical? It's a shame to me that even site-specific art has fallen into this trap.
Site Specificity
Miwon Kwon's "Genealogy of Site Specificity" discusses art in relationship to it's space and the viewer. Space could be something concrete or an idea or subject in a piece (which seems to be a very creative way to use it). Anything can be categorized into a genre of art because of site specificity. The context of whence the art came from also contributes to this. Technology has also changed site specificity.
Kwon's second article, "Unhinging of Site Specificity," is about the importance of authenticity and originality ofsite specific art. It's argued that the reproduction of art makes it unauthentic because it has lost the artist's "touch" (made it "common") and uniqueness. For site specific art, if the work is moved, it is no longer site specific and "destroy[s] the work." Replication makes the piece lose its meaning since it is now not the only piece out there.It also loses its meaning because it is "made" by someone other than the original artist. Artwork always carried a meaning behind it; we can see this when we look at the context from where a peice came from (can better derive the message or emotion that the piece is trying to convey by looking at the context). But when a piece is replicated, the aesthetic value of a work is lessened.
Talking a bit more about "Site Specificity" will help me, and also going over the three different forms of a site specific art (I thought this was something significant).
Kwon's second article, "Unhinging of Site Specificity," is about the importance of authenticity and originality ofsite specific art. It's argued that the reproduction of art makes it unauthentic because it has lost the artist's "touch" (made it "common") and uniqueness. For site specific art, if the work is moved, it is no longer site specific and "destroy[s] the work." Replication makes the piece lose its meaning since it is now not the only piece out there.It also loses its meaning because it is "made" by someone other than the original artist. Artwork always carried a meaning behind it; we can see this when we look at the context from where a peice came from (can better derive the message or emotion that the piece is trying to convey by looking at the context). But when a piece is replicated, the aesthetic value of a work is lessened.
Talking a bit more about "Site Specificity" will help me, and also going over the three different forms of a site specific art (I thought this was something significant).
Refabrication and Unhinging of Sites
Miwon Kwon provides a concise description of site-specificity within mediums of art across the board. He argues that the development of a site is transmitted not only through the aesthetics presented in an art work, but also through the context in which the artist created the piece. While understanding of site is fluid and particular to the individual observer, it is nonetheless an essential component for the thorough perception of a site-specific work. Kwon devotes his first chapter to deconstructing the term “site” and providing examples of how its manifestations. What struck me the most was his connotation of “site” as not being limited to the artist’s objective, but also “demanding the physical presence of the viewer for the work’s completion” (12), a mechanism which I had never observed as a component of the particular art work.
His second chapter analyses the implications behind the re-fabrication and relocation specific works, and the extensive debate behind such initiatives. Since the 1960’s, museum culture has induced artists to recreate certain paintings and models in order to exhibit them in more locations for the general public. However, critics argue that this practice removes the authenticity of the piece and that all “recreations are inauthentic not because of the missing site of their original installation but because of the absence of the artists in the process of their (re) production” (39). Kwon argues that there is an original and earnest intent behind each original works of art have no guarantee of public acceptance or solid objectives other than to convey the artist’s analytical claim. Therefore, remakes of popular paintings, installations, and sculptures lose their uniqueness. Then again, re-fabrications allow for greater access and visibility to the piece by the public, and permit the artist to extend his sphere of influence; which Kwon claims will “lead to a hermetic implosion of (auto)biographical and subjective indulgences” (51) by providing an incentive for generating art that didn’t exist before.
Kwon argues that alterations to site-specific art work, whether physical or spatial, refute its originality. However, given that settings for (and in) which pieces were created, have changed drastically over the years, is the siting of art, then, meant to be modified in order to appropriate its original intent to new social sites?
According to his claims regarding authenticity of art and how it’s defied through re-fabrication, would Kwon argue that Andy Warhol’s silkscreened works lack site-specificity?
His second chapter analyses the implications behind the re-fabrication and relocation specific works, and the extensive debate behind such initiatives. Since the 1960’s, museum culture has induced artists to recreate certain paintings and models in order to exhibit them in more locations for the general public. However, critics argue that this practice removes the authenticity of the piece and that all “recreations are inauthentic not because of the missing site of their original installation but because of the absence of the artists in the process of their (re) production” (39). Kwon argues that there is an original and earnest intent behind each original works of art have no guarantee of public acceptance or solid objectives other than to convey the artist’s analytical claim. Therefore, remakes of popular paintings, installations, and sculptures lose their uniqueness. Then again, re-fabrications allow for greater access and visibility to the piece by the public, and permit the artist to extend his sphere of influence; which Kwon claims will “lead to a hermetic implosion of (auto)biographical and subjective indulgences” (51) by providing an incentive for generating art that didn’t exist before.
Kwon argues that alterations to site-specific art work, whether physical or spatial, refute its originality. However, given that settings for (and in) which pieces were created, have changed drastically over the years, is the siting of art, then, meant to be modified in order to appropriate its original intent to new social sites?
According to his claims regarding authenticity of art and how it’s defied through re-fabrication, would Kwon argue that Andy Warhol’s silkscreened works lack site-specificity?
Site Specificity or lack there of
In the reading, Miwon Kwon attempts to follow site specific art and its patterns throughout the 20th century. As he progresses in his analysis, Kwon develops his own opinion of the slowly changing definition of what site specific art is. He reveals the origins of this style, where the piece of art was initially “made to suit the place in which it was installed. To remove the work is to destroy the work” (12). The exhibition space was the primary point in the artwork itself, and the spaces were modeled around the art piece to act as framing devices. For example, Kwon talks about how walls had cut outs taken from them, or even artwork exceeding the boundaries of the site or gallery such as a piece literally going out the window. Another example he brought up was Ukeles’s Maintenance Art, which consisted of the artist herself, washing the floor of a plaza, literally on her hands and knees. Kwon depicts this as another branch of site specific art that conveys the same continuing definition of the “physical condition of a specific location receding as the primary element in the conception of a site” (19).
Unfortunately for Kwon, the aesthetic of site specific art starts to disappear later in the century. It no longer seeks to be a noun, but it becomes a process. Specifically, it is now “concerned with integrating art more directly into the realm of the social” (24). It’s now in tune with a broader range of areas and is more sharply attuned to popular topics of the time period including fashion, music, television, etc. Unlike before, the site, which was the primary focus of the art is not defined as a precondition anymore. The artwork can now be made for any variety of places, and the site is not necessarily specific. Kwon uses Mark Dion’s On Tropical Nature as an example. Here, there were multiple sites that were used to create the final version for the project. Instead of creating the artwork at the site, however, Dion collected specimens from the desired site, and shipped them to an alternative site in order to arrange and frame the objects in his own desired way. This goes against the originality of site specific work, as well as the definition that Kwon agrees with.
As the reading progresses, Kwon reveals how site specific art is constantly being fragmenting from the aspects that once made it unique and individualized in the first place. Now, almost anything can be considered site-specific, and these pieces of artwork can even be mobile replications. By changing the definitions and continually making exceptions, Kwon believes that there isn’t really a category of site specific art anymore. Fabrications of site specific works are becoming more common and artists don’t put enough time into one specific project at a time. Art is not difficult to collect and impossible to produce anymore like it once used to be. There is no authenticity, and artists now want it to be a nomadic practice so that the process of producing such art can go by much faster. I agree with Kwon in that what was once an important aspect behind a unique form of art, is now a watered down set of guidelines that don’t even need to be followed to be considered site specific art. It should still consider the original principles of authenticity, and the important relationship to the surroundings and environment that frame and shape the artwork in that unique way that cannot be replicated.
On page 42, Kwon talks about site specificity as long as the artist is present and can direct or supervise (re)production. Is this a definition that he agrees with? Or is it one of the many changing definitions that he disagrees with?
What are the present set of rules or boundaries that categorize site specific art? Has it changed since the late 1990s? Have they gotten more lenient still?
Unfortunately for Kwon, the aesthetic of site specific art starts to disappear later in the century. It no longer seeks to be a noun, but it becomes a process. Specifically, it is now “concerned with integrating art more directly into the realm of the social” (24). It’s now in tune with a broader range of areas and is more sharply attuned to popular topics of the time period including fashion, music, television, etc. Unlike before, the site, which was the primary focus of the art is not defined as a precondition anymore. The artwork can now be made for any variety of places, and the site is not necessarily specific. Kwon uses Mark Dion’s On Tropical Nature as an example. Here, there were multiple sites that were used to create the final version for the project. Instead of creating the artwork at the site, however, Dion collected specimens from the desired site, and shipped them to an alternative site in order to arrange and frame the objects in his own desired way. This goes against the originality of site specific work, as well as the definition that Kwon agrees with.
As the reading progresses, Kwon reveals how site specific art is constantly being fragmenting from the aspects that once made it unique and individualized in the first place. Now, almost anything can be considered site-specific, and these pieces of artwork can even be mobile replications. By changing the definitions and continually making exceptions, Kwon believes that there isn’t really a category of site specific art anymore. Fabrications of site specific works are becoming more common and artists don’t put enough time into one specific project at a time. Art is not difficult to collect and impossible to produce anymore like it once used to be. There is no authenticity, and artists now want it to be a nomadic practice so that the process of producing such art can go by much faster. I agree with Kwon in that what was once an important aspect behind a unique form of art, is now a watered down set of guidelines that don’t even need to be followed to be considered site specific art. It should still consider the original principles of authenticity, and the important relationship to the surroundings and environment that frame and shape the artwork in that unique way that cannot be replicated.
On page 42, Kwon talks about site specificity as long as the artist is present and can direct or supervise (re)production. Is this a definition that he agrees with? Or is it one of the many changing definitions that he disagrees with?
What are the present set of rules or boundaries that categorize site specific art? Has it changed since the late 1990s? Have they gotten more lenient still?
Genealogy of the Site Specific:
In the chapter “Genealogy of Site Specificity”, Miwon Kwon discusses about the evolution or development of site-specific art. The rise of site specific art came with the rise of the minimalist. The movement with minimalist were centered around how art works focused on the relationship between the art work and the site, and “demanded the physical presence of the viewer for the work’s completion.” The site or location of such art works were greatly stressed by several artists as Kwon mentioned in her chapter. She quotes “A site specific work and as such not to be relocated, to remove the works is to destroy the work.” The reasons Kwon suggest for the rise of site-specific work were the result of the minimalist trying to “challenge” the museum space. Kwon makes a great point about how the museum space is now seen by the artists as an artificial and controlled, and the point of the site-specific art is to break out of this normative and conventional space.
Kwon further explains in the chapter how site-specific art were being involved in more political and social complications, moving toward deaestheticization. She writes that “the work no longer seeks to be a noun/object but a verb process, provoking the viewers.” An example she uses was Mierle Ukeles exaggerated cleaning of the museum to show the hidden and devalued labor of daily maintenance the museum requires. I personally thought this was a great example; it is true that barely anyone ever thinks about things such as the labor required before hand of things we have, we simply take things for granted. Ukeles’ exaggeration is provoking because it makes people feel uncomfortable about themselves for not realizing or for being ignorant about the situation put forth.
Another up rising of site specific art was to escape the commomdification of art. However, Kwon seems to suggest how this was not an accomplished goal. The site specific art became more common and was taken up by the mainstream art world. There was an increasing trend of relocating and reproducing the ‘once unique’ site bond works. I like how Kwon mentions in the chapter about reasons some artists has for considering the relocation/reproduction of their site specific art. For example, she mentioned about the social pressures Faith Wilding had when considering whether or not to replication her piece, the Womb Room.
Question: A lot of stresses were placed on the specificity of site-specific art, so how come people started to relocated and reproducing site specific arts? I think it is really interesting how Kwon mentioned site specificity, with cities, and advertising. But I wonder if she is referring to advertising about the city or to the city? Because advertising to the city would definitely show how site specific work has a big influence, especially advertising to different social classes.
Kwon further explains in the chapter how site-specific art were being involved in more political and social complications, moving toward deaestheticization. She writes that “the work no longer seeks to be a noun/object but a verb process, provoking the viewers.” An example she uses was Mierle Ukeles exaggerated cleaning of the museum to show the hidden and devalued labor of daily maintenance the museum requires. I personally thought this was a great example; it is true that barely anyone ever thinks about things such as the labor required before hand of things we have, we simply take things for granted. Ukeles’ exaggeration is provoking because it makes people feel uncomfortable about themselves for not realizing or for being ignorant about the situation put forth.
Another up rising of site specific art was to escape the commomdification of art. However, Kwon seems to suggest how this was not an accomplished goal. The site specific art became more common and was taken up by the mainstream art world. There was an increasing trend of relocating and reproducing the ‘once unique’ site bond works. I like how Kwon mentions in the chapter about reasons some artists has for considering the relocation/reproduction of their site specific art. For example, she mentioned about the social pressures Faith Wilding had when considering whether or not to replication her piece, the Womb Room.
Question: A lot of stresses were placed on the specificity of site-specific art, so how come people started to relocated and reproducing site specific arts? I think it is really interesting how Kwon mentioned site specificity, with cities, and advertising. But I wonder if she is referring to advertising about the city or to the city? Because advertising to the city would definitely show how site specific work has a big influence, especially advertising to different social classes.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Site Specificity
Miwon Kwon's Genealogy of Site Specificity was pretty clear and concise although the ideas surrounding site specificity are numerous and complex. This article was really interesting because I've never thought about the art in relationship to it's space and the viewer. At first, place is introduced as a concrete space like the environment but then towards the end of the article site becomes more of a subject such as the use of homosexuality or racism to be the basis of an artwork. I find it interesting and very creative how artists express their retaliation against the instituionalized frame of museums subjecting the art to become an "illusion". The art's beauty then becomes stressed by the blank walls and preassumptions viewers have when they enter these institutions. Some examples of this retaliation included Daniel Buten's Within and Beyond the Frame where his artwork actually went out the window to exemplify the constraints of museums and Michael Asher's exhibition of culturally specific situations to impose certain thoughts on viewers that reflected the ways of institutionalized framing. Kwon later explained how site specificity has also changed because of technology and the internet. He called this the functional site and that art has become nomadic and is more "structured textually rather than spatially". To conclude his article he was able to come up with three paradigms for site specificity: phenomenological, social/institutional, and discursive.
In Kwon's second article Unhinging of Site Specificity, he talks about the the importance of originality of the work and commodification. He explains that any art that is reproduced without the artist's "touch" is inauthentic. The site is very important in completing the art piece. Even now the artist may be asked to create a personal art piece for a specific site like a museum. Rather than the artist creating an artwork that that the environments adapts too, it is the environment that creates the art. This sort of art making is something I didn't know people did this and how much work and time was put into something like this. Kwon also mentions that commodification also takes away the "traditional standards of aesthetic distinction based" on the skills of the artist. This reminded me of postmodern art and Andy Warhol's silk screen artworks because that was a problem between modernists and postmodernists.
Questions:
What does unfixed impermanence mean when he says we should focus on that rather that the physical permanence of an artpiece?
In Kwon's second article Unhinging of Site Specificity, he talks about the the importance of originality of the work and commodification. He explains that any art that is reproduced without the artist's "touch" is inauthentic. The site is very important in completing the art piece. Even now the artist may be asked to create a personal art piece for a specific site like a museum. Rather than the artist creating an artwork that that the environments adapts too, it is the environment that creates the art. This sort of art making is something I didn't know people did this and how much work and time was put into something like this. Kwon also mentions that commodification also takes away the "traditional standards of aesthetic distinction based" on the skills of the artist. This reminded me of postmodern art and Andy Warhol's silk screen artworks because that was a problem between modernists and postmodernists.
Questions:
What does unfixed impermanence mean when he says we should focus on that rather that the physical permanence of an artpiece?
Site Specificity
For this section, we have to read two articles from Miwon Kwon about site specific art. The first one is “Genealogy of Site Specificity,” where Miwon mainly discusses what is site specific art. In it, Miwon argues that anything can be categorized into this particular genre ranging from a studio, gallery, landscape, to even runaway show. The second article “Unhinging of Site Specificity,” Kwon goes on and focuses on the authenticity of site specific art; it cannot be site specific anymore if the art piece was moved. “To remove the work is to destroy the work. (12)” It loses its originality and meaning when replicate since it would not be in the same environment and it would be set up by someone else rather than the artist him/herself. However, Kwon mentions several ways to solve such problem, such as having the certification for the replication from the artist, or if the artist was present during the reproduction, then it is still considered to be authentic. Reproducing these art works also takes away their aesthetic values. When an art is reproduced, it becomes more common, which Miwon call commodity. Reproducing art seems inauthentic to me because all the original conditions were gone. I believe in craftsman's work a lot. However, Kwon doesn't think consider that the meanings behind the art works are lost through the process of transported. There are two things I'm a little bit confused about, is minimalism the same with site specificity? Also, since reproducing an art work looses its aesthetic value because its not original, how about Andy Warhol's work?
Site-specificity
Site-specific art, at least the way Miwon Kwon presents it, is much more tangible, and in some ways, more logical than Situationism. It's also more forceful because it is broad and encompasses many types of art, yet it forces meaning and purpose to all these various forms of art and expression. Artwork is no longer passive beauty to be admired -it carries a message, and in order to fully comprehend and embrace this message, the viewer needs to understand the context (both physical and theoretical) that it is presented in. It is completely centered and focused on relationships - with the environment, the viewer, the current social and political backdrop, etc. Similar to Situationism though, it is ironic and interesting how although Site-specific art is a critique on the institutional of the museum and its subsequently implied social and economic implications, it can't fully break away from the culture of the museum and art life as a secular religion. It indirectly relies on the institution of the museum -and the socioeconomic standing of those that visit it to construct and promote its idea, just like Andy Warhol's artwork did. It seems as if a lot of contemporary and critical art loops back like this -so is it just the idea that counts?
Kwon also discusses the authenticity and validity in reproduction of site-specific art and its creator. I don't think all work lose its meaning and originality when relocated, maybe only the art that was intended to be site-specific (is all art site specific in some ways?) Although perhaps not to its original degree, art can definitely still be appreciated outside of its original context - with explanations, study, and understanding. How else will artwork and unique ideas spread and educate people to incite the change or pondering it intends to? A lot of art is impossible to appreciate and value in it's original context, which is why we rely on the photographs, along with related writings, discussions, and disclaimers. How important really, are each of the relationships the piece of work has with its original environment, artist, intended audience etc?
Kwon also discusses the authenticity and validity in reproduction of site-specific art and its creator. I don't think all work lose its meaning and originality when relocated, maybe only the art that was intended to be site-specific (is all art site specific in some ways?) Although perhaps not to its original degree, art can definitely still be appreciated outside of its original context - with explanations, study, and understanding. How else will artwork and unique ideas spread and educate people to incite the change or pondering it intends to? A lot of art is impossible to appreciate and value in it's original context, which is why we rely on the photographs, along with related writings, discussions, and disclaimers. How important really, are each of the relationships the piece of work has with its original environment, artist, intended audience etc?
Site Specificity – A Permeable Art
Miwon Kwon in “Genealogy of Site Specificity” and “Unhinging of Site Specificity” provides a thorough understanding of how art is adaptive to both time and place and the context in which a specific art is erected. I especially enjoyed how site specific art was grounded to the site, location, city, space being occupied and how ultimately there is no escape from whatever meaning is provided by the setting. Of further interest is Kwon’s description in how site specific art should not only be aesthetically enjoyed, but it should also be a sensory experience of the “here and now” (267).
I have to agree with most of the post and say I enjoyed the idea behind this type of art for more than one reason. First, I like how site specific art is not meant to be relocated and the theory that to “remove the work is to destroy the work” (268) because it further privileges this idea of site being equally as important as what is being portrayed. Second, I also enjoyed the role that artist now play in site specific art – a role that goes beyond the originator of an artwork to now include an actor, element, participant role in the artwork itself like demonstrated by Ukeles when washing the entry plaza and steps of a museum. Third, I liked the arguments made by site specific art – arguments that ranged from gender bias and social conditions of a city to cultural debate and political appeals.
Another area of interest is that of site specific art taking three different forms that define each other in such a way where they don’t contradict each other – “the three paradigms of site specificity I have schematized here – phenomenological, social/institutional, and discursive – although presented somewhat chronologically, art not stages in a neat linear trajectory of historical development” (277).
Lastly, I would’ve liked more clarification with the following points; first, why didn’t site specific artist just call this “movement” something more around the lines of “functional site” since that is what in essence is being conveyed by this art like suggested by James Meyer? Second, why would there be a return to authenticity and authorship when recreating an artwork somewhere else aside from the “original site” if the new site calls for a new way to interpret the artwork even if it resembles or recreates a past artwork? Doesn’t this defeat the purpose of “site specific art” if a new site is being used?
I have to agree with most of the post and say I enjoyed the idea behind this type of art for more than one reason. First, I like how site specific art is not meant to be relocated and the theory that to “remove the work is to destroy the work” (268) because it further privileges this idea of site being equally as important as what is being portrayed. Second, I also enjoyed the role that artist now play in site specific art – a role that goes beyond the originator of an artwork to now include an actor, element, participant role in the artwork itself like demonstrated by Ukeles when washing the entry plaza and steps of a museum. Third, I liked the arguments made by site specific art – arguments that ranged from gender bias and social conditions of a city to cultural debate and political appeals.
Another area of interest is that of site specific art taking three different forms that define each other in such a way where they don’t contradict each other – “the three paradigms of site specificity I have schematized here – phenomenological, social/institutional, and discursive – although presented somewhat chronologically, art not stages in a neat linear trajectory of historical development” (277).
Lastly, I would’ve liked more clarification with the following points; first, why didn’t site specific artist just call this “movement” something more around the lines of “functional site” since that is what in essence is being conveyed by this art like suggested by James Meyer? Second, why would there be a return to authenticity and authorship when recreating an artwork somewhere else aside from the “original site” if the new site calls for a new way to interpret the artwork even if it resembles or recreates a past artwork? Doesn’t this defeat the purpose of “site specific art” if a new site is being used?
Scouring the floor for specificity
Site specificity is, thankfully, a more clearly defined and sensible development in art than situationism. Art exists, and it exists in a structure. Galleries, museums, exhibitions, viewers, buyers, taste-makers, money, the elite. And where previous forms of art had called little or no attention to these conditions, site specific art foregrounds them. Not only is there a structure within which art historically exists, there is an implied political content, and site specific art aims to be its antithesis. Daniel Buren wrote that “although it is too early….to blow [the formal and cultural limits] up, the time has come to unveil them” (269). Emphasis is now placed on the location, weather, scale, texture, etc. Art “works” become less and less commodifiable. Aesthetics are largely abandoned in favor of content, making the content itself the ‘site’ of the art.
If Buren’s quote is “militant” as Miwon Kwon claims, it is because site specific art is a self conscious institutional critique. I was most interested to read that as part of their critique of the insularity and politically “suspect” nature of art, the site specific artists brought their works outside of traditional venues, making them more open to non-artists and the non-art world in general.
A parallel between site specific art and situationism seems clear. Both are cultural critiques and critiques of art. Both are antithetical. Both are based among an intellectual community. But where situationism seems to undermine itself with its own solipsism and condemn itself to failure, site specific art seems to have the possibility of success within it. I can’t say if it was “successful” historically, but the stretching or breaking of traditional artistic placement and the inclusion of a wider audience seem a much better approach.
If Buren’s quote is “militant” as Miwon Kwon claims, it is because site specific art is a self conscious institutional critique. I was most interested to read that as part of their critique of the insularity and politically “suspect” nature of art, the site specific artists brought their works outside of traditional venues, making them more open to non-artists and the non-art world in general.
A parallel between site specific art and situationism seems clear. Both are cultural critiques and critiques of art. Both are antithetical. Both are based among an intellectual community. But where situationism seems to undermine itself with its own solipsism and condemn itself to failure, site specific art seems to have the possibility of success within it. I can’t say if it was “successful” historically, but the stretching or breaking of traditional artistic placement and the inclusion of a wider audience seem a much better approach.
Site Specific Art
I found Miwon Kwan's articles to be interesting, easy to understand, and insightful. In the first chapter, he discusses how a variety of influences can effect artwork, operating as a "site." Before reading this article, I would not have considered anything but location to contribute to or make artwork "site specific." Yet, I was interested to read Kwon's thoughts on what is classified as site specific. The discussion of Mary Haacke's performance art was especially interesting and unique for me as well as the commentary on the environment museums create and must maintain. I was able to realize the extent to which culture, politics, and others factors are constantly influencing and providing contexts for artwork.Although, I do not understand the discussion of museum space as public versus private on pae 19. Are museums considered private or public space and what exactly is Haacke commenting on in terms of this issue with her labor based performance art?
In the second chapter, Kwon describes how the concept of "Site specific" art evolved over the years: "Site specific (art) has come to mean 'movable under the right circumstances" (38). The discussion that ensues caught my attention, because it raised the question of authorship. If a work of art can be recreated and commodified by another person identically, then what is the importance of the original artist if their work is not unique and difficult to create. Should only credit be given for the idea rather than the creation?
Reproduction encompassed a large portion of the second chapter. Does a work of art lose meaning, uniqueness, and interest if it can be reproduced? Kwon argues it does, giving examples of the commission of artists like Fred Wilson who recreate the same exhibit in two different places, producing two widely polarized results. I feel reproduction allows more observers to enjoy the art, yet I do see how reproduction reduces the interest, rarity and hype surrounding artwork. I would be interested in reading someone's perspective regarding their experience with observing and viewing a commissioned artists identical exhibit in multiple locations and the affects the change in scenery perceiveably have on the artwork. Do the surrounding people also contribute to one's interpretation and interaction with the artwork?
In the second chapter, Kwon describes how the concept of "Site specific" art evolved over the years: "Site specific (art) has come to mean 'movable under the right circumstances" (38). The discussion that ensues caught my attention, because it raised the question of authorship. If a work of art can be recreated and commodified by another person identically, then what is the importance of the original artist if their work is not unique and difficult to create. Should only credit be given for the idea rather than the creation?
Reproduction encompassed a large portion of the second chapter. Does a work of art lose meaning, uniqueness, and interest if it can be reproduced? Kwon argues it does, giving examples of the commission of artists like Fred Wilson who recreate the same exhibit in two different places, producing two widely polarized results. I feel reproduction allows more observers to enjoy the art, yet I do see how reproduction reduces the interest, rarity and hype surrounding artwork. I would be interested in reading someone's perspective regarding their experience with observing and viewing a commissioned artists identical exhibit in multiple locations and the affects the change in scenery perceiveably have on the artwork. Do the surrounding people also contribute to one's interpretation and interaction with the artwork?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)