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?
No comments:
Post a Comment