Ward

Q1: Freid's attack on minimalism is discussed at length. He argues that the authenticity of "rested on its own to 'defeat or suspend its own objecthood'" (33) by means of the medium of the artwork. Fried also criticizes the public dimension to art and how that effects the perceived meaning of the work as well as the intended meaning of the work. However, I do not understand what is meant when it is stated that if an object cannot "suspend its own objecthood" then it would fall into theatre and posess no value as an experience or artwork. It would just be an object. What exactly is meant by this and why would theatre categorize an object lacking objecthood/ value?

Q2:The constant discussion of public vs. private in this article has prompted me to further consider Shoot. The work of art itself is a collection of all the pieces that went into making it- the spectators, the gun, bullet, shooter, the space, documentation, and the artist. The viewers were invited and therefore were mentally prepared for the results of this performance. It is argued that in some ways these people contributed to the artwork, even though no one interferred. Perhaps the people were chosen based on their likelihood to attempt to halt the work etc. Yet, it prompts me to wonder how the work of art would be altered had no audience members been invited, and instead a video feed (I realize that didn't exist then) was posted on the internet or recorded. Do people have to experience the art in order to give it the minimalistic idea that the art can be experienced in multiple ways? Or is just the possibiliy/ ability for the work to be physically viewed in many ways enough to categorize the art in this was?