1. Frazer Ward suggests that Burden's Shoot is minimalism, therefore, it requires audiences. However, in order to understand his attempt of showing the concept of violent that is informed by mass media, the public needs to somewhat get “involved” into the scene. I'm confused about how this particular wok is being categorized into minimalism art work.
2. Burden claims that his art pieces are private, including Shoot, but in order to make his art works work, he must show them to the public. When viewing his performances, there are only a couple of people allowed in the audience, which is the so called the “private work”. Accroding to Ward, his works are kind of public and yet they still create a send of privacy by having a primary and a secondary audiences. I don't really understand the concept of primary and secondary audience. How do you decide who is going to be the primary audience and who is to be the secondary?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Vinegar shot me for Art
1: Because of legal reasons, Burden had to make up a story for the police report about a jar of vinegar falling on the gun. This changed the official public account of what happened, which Burden seems to consider a part of the art. The "secondary audience' might have been likely to read newspapers and magazines that include the anecdotal description but also the official report. Does this change the meaning of the piece? Burden set out to find out what it was like to be shot, then he doesn't really explain what it was like emotionally, and he doesn't even tell the authorities what really happened. Should this be taken into consideration very seriously or not really, since it was just a way to keep the marksman and the audience from getting into legal trouble? Does the unwillingness to be completely candid reveal something? If I had to turn this into a single question, what is the difference if a jar of vinegar shot Burden, or if it was his friend?
2: What exactly are Minimalism and Modernism, as defined by Ward? I thought a characteristic of modernist art, is that it is transportable and that it can have the same meaning in many spaces. However, I'm seeing phrases like "modernist diving of authentic presence via medium" and "Minimalists' phenomenological spaces" (125). These seem to have a phenomenological site specificity attached to them, the idea that the experience is a part of the work. Does this means that the location is not part of the experience? Ward also sets Burden's Shoot as being different from modernism, but I have a hard time picking up the differences, or at least it's hard to keep everything straight. What is a word that can be used to categorize Shoot?
2: What exactly are Minimalism and Modernism, as defined by Ward? I thought a characteristic of modernist art, is that it is transportable and that it can have the same meaning in many spaces. However, I'm seeing phrases like "modernist diving of authentic presence via medium" and "Minimalists' phenomenological spaces" (125). These seem to have a phenomenological site specificity attached to them, the idea that the experience is a part of the work. Does this means that the location is not part of the experience? Ward also sets Burden's Shoot as being different from modernism, but I have a hard time picking up the differences, or at least it's hard to keep everything straight. What is a word that can be used to categorize Shoot?
Burden's burden
In his article, Ward provides an analysis of artistic implications and social relationships to the fomenting and execution of Shoot as an artistic performance. More appropriately defined as a spectacle, Shoot relied on the collaboration and “acquiescence” of the audience, the marksman, and Burden himself. However, towards the conclusion of his article, Ward identifies the requirement of a “public-in-miniature” for this reenactment of an individual shot. But if Ward had identified the audience as an essential component in showing fascination to the intrepid act, why then does he characterize them as a “public-in-miniature”? In this term, is he referring to the quantitative size of Shoot’s audience or their general passivity to the hazardous performance? Had Shoot been carried out in front of 20,000 spectators at AT&T Park, would the audience still be considered a “public-in-miniature”? Whether Baroque paintings or empirical minimalist performances, an artwork is never experienced or interpreted by an entire society. So, is the role of an audience itself minimalist? Would it not be essential?
Ward allocates extensive discourse to distinguishing between public and private audience and how its representations influence the perception of Shoot as a performance. He claims that Burden executed a private act which required of a public audience “in the sense of an interested, participant group” (123). However, in terms of Shoot as a performance, is the sense of obligation by the artist (in this case, Burden) to provide an act of significant interest intensified with larger audiences? Had a hundred individuals witnessed Shoot, would the act’s empirical nature is lessened?
Ward allocates extensive discourse to distinguishing between public and private audience and how its representations influence the perception of Shoot as a performance. He claims that Burden executed a private act which required of a public audience “in the sense of an interested, participant group” (123). However, in terms of Shoot as a performance, is the sense of obligation by the artist (in this case, Burden) to provide an act of significant interest intensified with larger audiences? Had a hundred individuals witnessed Shoot, would the act’s empirical nature is lessened?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Watching Shoot
Question 1: Frazer makes a short mention towards the end of the article about how Buren's wound, and the bullet used, sort connects the interior and exterior -making the environment and his body continuous. I feel like this analysis is sort of a stretch, reflecting some of the other fragmented analyses and experiences reported and discussed. Is this example analogous to the interdependence and relationship between public and private in this "performance"? Does the bullet do the same sort of damage and blurring of lines that Shoot does for America's cultural and public identity?
Question 2: The author goes into a lot of detail about the public/private delineation in Buren's "work", how in this case, the viewers, the audience becomes equal to the general public through their passivity and generality (that no one in the audience, or even Buren's friend, is named). I understand that there is a primary and secondary audience, and that the issues of responsibility and ethics fall primarily on the immediate crowd. However I still am confused as to what this means for the general public, then and now (without the Vietnam war background)? I think it's also interesting, although kind of dismal, when Frazer describes Shoot as a public in miniature of the real world - our subservient nature to being governed and passively agreeing to it all. Obviously the scene has changed since then - mass media is even more prominent than ever and the backdrop of the Vietnam War is no longer there (although replaced with new backdrops..) Is this how the American public still is? Can Shoot still be called a "public in miniature" of our country?
Question 2: The author goes into a lot of detail about the public/private delineation in Buren's "work", how in this case, the viewers, the audience becomes equal to the general public through their passivity and generality (that no one in the audience, or even Buren's friend, is named). I understand that there is a primary and secondary audience, and that the issues of responsibility and ethics fall primarily on the immediate crowd. However I still am confused as to what this means for the general public, then and now (without the Vietnam war background)? I think it's also interesting, although kind of dismal, when Frazer describes Shoot as a public in miniature of the real world - our subservient nature to being governed and passively agreeing to it all. Obviously the scene has changed since then - mass media is even more prominent than ever and the backdrop of the Vietnam War is no longer there (although replaced with new backdrops..) Is this how the American public still is? Can Shoot still be called a "public in miniature" of our country?
Shoot
Q1: Ward brought up a couple of reasons why Burden may have done Shoot. One was to protest the brutality of war with his self-victimization, another reason was to put people in a position of "what do I do in this situation?" The third reason that Ward discussed was because Burden wanted to know what it felt to be shot and believed that everyone, even if subconsciously, wondered what it was like. Considering all of these reasons, what impact did Burden want to have on his audience and others who learned about his art? Did he want people to protest the war? Did he want people to take a stand in the future instead of letting the bystander effect affect them? Or did he just want to show people the experience of being shot?
Q2: The bystander effect increases as the number of people increase. If Burden wanted to make an impact, why didn't he have a larger audience?
Q2: The bystander effect increases as the number of people increase. If Burden wanted to make an impact, why didn't he have a larger audience?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)