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