In "Genealogy of Site Specificity," Miwon Kwon discusses what makes up site specific art. Anything can be considered a site from a studio or gallery to a runway show. In "Unhinging of Site Specificity," Kwon talks about the ways in which authenticity plays a role in site specific art. It is not "site specific" anymore if it can be moved. It looses its meaning when replicated because it is not in the same environment that it was originally in, but Kwon argues that if the artist is present at the reproduction then it is still considered authentic. Replicating these stories also turns the site into a commodity which makes it loose some of its aesthetic experience. As much as the artist says they are a rebel to the institution, they are still influenced by the culture of the time, making things that they know that people will like. When the art becomes reproduced, it becomes a commodity. Reproducing art seems inauthentic to me because it is not the same site and the artist did not give his blessing, and even if the artist did give his blessing, the meaning the artist had for a painting is altered with the reproduction because no matter how hard one tries, it will always be a little different than the original. Kwon doesn't think that the meaning is lost when transported.
Can it really be site specific if the replication is never in the same or original spot?
Authenticity is very ambiguous. How does one define it? There are so many definitions and variations. Some consider the nomadic practice authentic while others see it as fraud.
No comments:
Post a Comment