burden on society

Even though Burden's performance took place within the controlled, "ideal" space of a museum/gallery, the audience could not control itself; instead, they stood, unable to react rationally and possibly stop such a vile act. This, however, actually redefines the museum space, now as a space of contemplation and discovery, a place where one goes to be isolated from exterior thought and learn about oneself (particularly, in this case, about one's own indecisiveness). In other words, his performance shifts the previous aim of the museum from a place where the public discovers society's so called cultural values into a place where one would question the actual value of these institutional ideals.

The minimalist aspect of this piece is then defined in a different way than Ward states in his article. A minimalist art piece is meant to be viewed such that the viewer is the subject, and not the object itself. Hence, the artist of a minimalist art piece would have intended for the viewer to be the subject, and in this sense it is not the viewer who determines this, but the artist who is now underhandedly provoking the viewer to think and examine. Burden's performance, however, doesn't merely provoke the viewer to think about themselves, but to think of their cultural identity, a culture which is formed seperate of the indivudual. Then Burden's method of provocation entails further analysis of existence, a much deeper analysis that places the individual, as an individual capable of making individual decisions, as part of a greater scheme, part of the greater world of people.

So then, my question to you is, could such deep provocation have taken place, had Burden not intentionally utilized the very method which his artwork criticizes?

Ward states in the article that his performance is partially a criticism on the "bloodlessness of minimalism." It is this criticism that takes the piece into a grander scheme; thus his piece is not entirely minimalist, as its focus is not so much on the viewer anymore, since it is partially contained within such a context of art's historical moment. As aforementioned, however, this criticism is what led to the greater pondering of one's own position with relation to the world. Allow me to rephrase my previous question: So is this not minimalism, if it indeed is inclined to place the emphasis on the viewer, even if it uses notions separate of the individual to do so? Furthermore, does the common practice of minimalist's viewer subject not create merely an artificial pondering of one's self, since the pondering is actually provoked by someone other than the individual?