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).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment