Q1: Higgins discusses Kaprow's work. He says that Kaprow wanted to relate the spectator and the work so he put mirrors in his sculptures so that the spectator could literally see themselves in his work. He then added "environments" which were enveloping collages around the mirrors to make the work even more physical. Higgins then says that Kaprow put live humans in his work. Is the art still the same piece if the people walk away or if a different person joins? Did this matter to Kaprow? Or was the idea to have something changing and moving?
Q2: Higgins says that the "best work being produced today seems to fall between media," that the most facinating work is not one media but a mixture of a couple. I understand that this work is facinating because it is not something we see very often, but why is one media work made so inferior to it? Can't artwork of one media be just as interesting and meaningful? Why doesn't Higgins think so?
No comments:
Post a Comment