http://antiquesandthearts.com/Archives/Images%5C2007-04-10__09-56-25Image3.GIF
Allegorical Landscape- Robert smithson describes it as though he can't even make out what is in it, but it's supposedly the ideal
http://www.licnyc.com/amolRoot/drownout/france/300602/palaisroyal.jpg
Buren's Play on the idea of a 'pedestal' and the higher classes' love of mimicing ancient greece and rome. He takes Institutional critique out of the museum and into a public plaza, the type of space Smithson described as a void.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Smithson
The museum is constantly being reverberated as a place of clashing purposes. Within this context a soci-economic matter evolves, creating the question of whether it would be best to represent art as a form of public works or just leave it in the museums for a select group of people to witness? Art has adopted this sense of worth based upon monetary value, but this then can describe the art as adopting utility. Smithson states that art should NOT have utility, as that would defeat the purpose of the art in the first place. My question revolves around the fact that if the art adopts utility and prestige, then is it really art? For only a select few can admire its worth.
Museums have also been criticized at attempting to combine life and death. The museum itself would be the morbid environment while the art itself would be the more lively aspect. Combining these two is as Kaprow states "are a canned life" or "like making love in the cemetery". I personally disagree with this statement as the museums provide a contrast between two very opposite subjects, the museum and the art and makes that idea art itself. Art is intended to be odd and disturbing (as Smithson stated), thus if this is the case shouldn't a completely odd relationship between the art and the museum itself be a figure of artwork?
Museums have also been criticized at attempting to combine life and death. The museum itself would be the morbid environment while the art itself would be the more lively aspect. Combining these two is as Kaprow states "are a canned life" or "like making love in the cemetery". I personally disagree with this statement as the museums provide a contrast between two very opposite subjects, the museum and the art and makes that idea art itself. Art is intended to be odd and disturbing (as Smithson stated), thus if this is the case shouldn't a completely odd relationship between the art and the museum itself be a figure of artwork?
Smithson
1. In “Entropy and the New Monuments”, Robert Smithson talked about there are many architectural concepts found in science-fiction, which most of them have nothing to do with science or fiction, suggest a new kind of monumentality that is more similar with what today's artists are doing. I was confused about what are the scientific characteristics he is referring to? It seems like he didn't really explain that part well enough, or did I just overlook some important points?
2. Smithson talked about the relationship between time and the art work. He claimed that both the past and future are placed into an objective present, however, the past is important while the future is insignificant. Smithson argues that people are influenced to forget about the future than to remember the past, which was his definition of a monument. My question is that if the past has the power over time, which is the reason why past is more influential than the future, how can the artworks has what Flavin called the "inactive history" (10)?
2. Smithson talked about the relationship between time and the art work. He claimed that both the past and future are placed into an objective present, however, the past is important while the future is insignificant. Smithson argues that people are influenced to forget about the future than to remember the past, which was his definition of a monument. My question is that if the past has the power over time, which is the reason why past is more influential than the future, how can the artworks has what Flavin called the "inactive history" (10)?
Smithson
1) In What is a Museum?, Smithson tells Kaprow that there is a tendency toward purity as the acceptable context for art, yet he believes that art should not conclude some sort of point which purity does, but rather art should be "the pursuit of the useless, and the more vain things are the better [he likes] it, because [he's] not burdened by purity" (47). Useless by definition would mean that art should have no ability or skill in a specified activity or area. Doesn't this mean the viewer should not be able to interact with art in a meaningful or purposeful way? This seems to contradict his entire notion of The Spiral Jetty, which is a site-specific piece of artwork. Isn't site specific art often useful in that it forces and often allows viewers and bystanders to engage in activity with and/or around its presence?
2) Smithson's take on Some Void Thoughts on Museum reveal his condescending attitude towards museums. He says that "the museum undermines one's confidence in sense-data and erodes the impression of textures upon which our sensations exist" (41). Is this becuase we aren't experiencing the artwork in nature or their natural element when in a museum? Here, it seems that Smithson only supports what would be his interest in site-specific art in nature, which is created out of the elements in the environment such as his Spiral Jetty. Here, he disapproves of museum art calling it void. However, he then goes onto say that "the categorizing of art into painting, architecture, and sculpture seems to be one of the most unfortunate things that took place. Now all these categories are splintering into more and more categories" (48). But isn't site-specific art such as his own style and interest another splinter of a category that has been created and labeled as its own style of art? His views only seem to contradict each other as if he assumes everyone considers his art to be above this kind of critique.
2) Smithson's take on Some Void Thoughts on Museum reveal his condescending attitude towards museums. He says that "the museum undermines one's confidence in sense-data and erodes the impression of textures upon which our sensations exist" (41). Is this becuase we aren't experiencing the artwork in nature or their natural element when in a museum? Here, it seems that Smithson only supports what would be his interest in site-specific art in nature, which is created out of the elements in the environment such as his Spiral Jetty. Here, he disapproves of museum art calling it void. However, he then goes onto say that "the categorizing of art into painting, architecture, and sculpture seems to be one of the most unfortunate things that took place. Now all these categories are splintering into more and more categories" (48). But isn't site-specific art such as his own style and interest another splinter of a category that has been created and labeled as its own style of art? His views only seem to contradict each other as if he assumes everyone considers his art to be above this kind of critique.
Robert Smithson
From these different articles, it seems that Smithson seems to really dislike the idea of art being displayed in museums (Cultural Confinement) and apparently spends a lot of time outdoors exploring nature for different sites, so it's no wonder he decided to create the Spiral Jetty eathwork. I enjoyed reading the background behind the Spiral Jetty from his perspective, with his very detailed descriptions. It sounds like he has an affinity for nature and its history and a disdain for man made things, but isn't this a bit hypocritical, considering the fact that he used a helicopter, "two dump trucks, a tractor, and a large front loader" (146) during its construction? Smithson sounds like he really enjoys criticizing others, but what is the extent to which he actually follows his own ideologies?
Also, in the entropy article, I got very confused when Smithson started describing laughter as "entropic 'verbalization'" and even more lost when he started comparing different types of laughs to different shapes (21). He applies the "ha-ha-crystal " concept to Alice in Wonderland (22), and I can vaguely understand the "grin without a cat" indicating "anti-matter," but I don't understand what Smithson means by "laugh-matter." What is the reason for associating laughter with different geometric shapes? What is it supposed to mean, and what are the differences between the types of laughs/ what they represent?
Also, in the entropy article, I got very confused when Smithson started describing laughter as "entropic 'verbalization'" and even more lost when he started comparing different types of laughs to different shapes (21). He applies the "ha-ha-crystal " concept to Alice in Wonderland (22), and I can vaguely understand the "grin without a cat" indicating "anti-matter," but I don't understand what Smithson means by "laugh-matter." What is the reason for associating laughter with different geometric shapes? What is it supposed to mean, and what are the differences between the types of laughs/ what they represent?
Smithson
Question 1: In the article “Entropy and the New Monuments”, Smithson talked about Laughter as the fourth dimension to art. He described it to be “a kind of entropic verbilization”. What exactly does he mean by this? Is laughter a symbol here? Or is laughter suggested to be a hidden key to the fourth dimension like the example used of “The Annotated Alice”? Why is the crystal system used to represent laughter and how does it become “a device for unlimited speculation”?
Question 2: In the dialogue about museum with Allan Kaprow, Smithson commented on how he disliked the categorization of art. He said that “Now all these categories are splintering into more and more categories. You have about forty different kinds of formalism and about a hundred different kinds of expressionism.” (48) This reminds us of Krauss’s discussion of the sculpture in the expanded field and how Krauss found a need for categories such as axiomatic structures, “both landscape and non-landscape” and such. It seems as is Smithson is answering to Krauss’s complicated diagram. What I’m confused about is what point Smithson is trying to make by saying “I never saw an exciting space. I don’t know what a space is.”(49)
Question 2: In the dialogue about museum with Allan Kaprow, Smithson commented on how he disliked the categorization of art. He said that “Now all these categories are splintering into more and more categories. You have about forty different kinds of formalism and about a hundred different kinds of expressionism.” (48) This reminds us of Krauss’s discussion of the sculpture in the expanded field and how Krauss found a need for categories such as axiomatic structures, “both landscape and non-landscape” and such. It seems as is Smithson is answering to Krauss’s complicated diagram. What I’m confused about is what point Smithson is trying to make by saying “I never saw an exciting space. I don’t know what a space is.”(49)
Monday, February 23, 2009
Smithson
Q1: Smithson discusses in this article the construction of Spiral Jetty and the relation to crystals this artwork has. Additionally, Smithson articulates his ideas regarding the interaction between size and scale. He believes " size determines an object, but scale determines art" (147). He indicates that scale is a personal experience with the artwork. If scale is subjective and artwork can be viewed and perceived from various scales, then are scales a site? Should artists leave scale to be determined by the audience an how does that impact the artwork itself?
Q2: The application of entropy to art reveals the incorporation of time and space into the realm of the artwork. Time begins to "lose energy" (11), while energy is more easily lost than obtained. This stresses the importance of the past and the insignificance of the future. Smithson believes the future will bring mass assimilation, and therefore the audience is influenced to forget the future rather than remember the past, as a normal monument would (11). Yet, I have difficulty understanding the concept that time is broken down in "many times" (11) if all time is being viewed from an objective standpoint in the "objective present" (11). If the past has an omnipotent power over time, then how can the discussed artworks contain "inactive history" (10). ?
Q2: The application of entropy to art reveals the incorporation of time and space into the realm of the artwork. Time begins to "lose energy" (11), while energy is more easily lost than obtained. This stresses the importance of the past and the insignificance of the future. Smithson believes the future will bring mass assimilation, and therefore the audience is influenced to forget the future rather than remember the past, as a normal monument would (11). Yet, I have difficulty understanding the concept that time is broken down in "many times" (11) if all time is being viewed from an objective standpoint in the "objective present" (11). If the past has an omnipotent power over time, then how can the discussed artworks contain "inactive history" (10). ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)