Question 1 – There has been a general trend in class that sometimes art just doesn’t appear to be art, i.e. Malevich’s Black Square. There has also been a tendency for artists seeking to redefine their role and participation with their artwork – Shoot I believe is an example of where Burden really redefines his role as artist in producing his artwork. My question is what do we call an individual like Burden? Do we still consider him to be an artist? Or do we agree with Frazer in calling Burden other names aside from recognizing him as artist, i.e. “victim-by-request”?
Question 2 – Reassessing the context in which Shoot came about, how popular would Burden’s work of art be in today’s society? Would Shoot still be considered a Minimalism example while also an example of the “spectacle of war”? Would 21st Century Americans widely approve of Burden’s work of art or instead protest against such visible violence in the form of art?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1) Frazer Ward did NOT call Burden a "victim-by-request." In fact, Ward said that these were stereotypes, a false labelling; I don't see how you could have possibly concluded this if you had read more than two pages. That's probably half the motivation behind the article, the fact that such overarching and inconclusive conclusions FAIL to determine the uniqueness and significance of Burden's performance.
ReplyDelete2) Shoot cannot be repeated (refer to article). Shoot isn't solely Minimalist, as Ward's alarmingly italicized title might mislead you to hastily retrieve. In fact, Shoot's irrepeatability actually contributes to the fact that it cannot be called an "example" of minimalism. As for your remark about the "spectacle of war," I will give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you realized that this is a public response to (i.e. false labelling of) Burden's intentions, which is hard to believe considering you didn't get that far in the first question.