My Globe is up at Navy Pier...
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Installation vs. Object: Longevity?
I had a web dialogue with another artist about object based art verses space based art. Installations involve some arrangement of paintings/drawings/wall markings/projections and/or free standing or sculptural elements (or monitors) in a space, and presumably some idea of transitions between the two (plus, perhaps some extra conceptual trappings), and in some cases, a time or 4D element. Nowadays, some artists even hang a bunch of paintings and call it installation because installation has become a buzz word.
While I see installations as the natural result of integrating the various elements that make up perceptions of art work and effect its interpretation, I have my own current issues with a feeling of emptiness in a fair amount of installation art I see. That was not his concern, though. His focus was on which form would outlast us (the artist) in some way defining Art, arguing in favor of painted sculpture. His concern seemed to be that the installation art will lose it's integrity once the artist/space are gone and some other artist, curator, etc is interpreting whatever survives from the installation, whether that's an object or documentation. I can see something to the idea that the individual pieces comprising the installation do not necessarily stand alone -- it depends on the concept of the installation. Still, any object is appreciated differently depending on its context, and rare is the long-lasting object that is seen in its original context. To me, the form -- painting, sculpture, installation hardly seems to be the means for defining Art. Whatever lasts will be defined and redefined by others.
His group's website is www.sculpturepainted.com.
While I see installations as the natural result of integrating the various elements that make up perceptions of art work and effect its interpretation, I have my own current issues with a feeling of emptiness in a fair amount of installation art I see. That was not his concern, though. His focus was on which form would outlast us (the artist) in some way defining Art, arguing in favor of painted sculpture. His concern seemed to be that the installation art will lose it's integrity once the artist/space are gone and some other artist, curator, etc is interpreting whatever survives from the installation, whether that's an object or documentation. I can see something to the idea that the individual pieces comprising the installation do not necessarily stand alone -- it depends on the concept of the installation. Still, any object is appreciated differently depending on its context, and rare is the long-lasting object that is seen in its original context. To me, the form -- painting, sculpture, installation hardly seems to be the means for defining Art. Whatever lasts will be defined and redefined by others.
His group's website is www.sculpturepainted.com.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The Viewer in Art II
Speaking of the invoking viewer participation, Gilbert & George have released a digital print (you have to assemble the parts) which viewers can download and assemble, but only during a very limited time window, which is already running out as I type : http://arts.guardian.co.uk/gilbertandgeorge/page/0,,2075007,00.html
Gimmick or Art?
Gimmick or Art?
The Viewer In Art
I came across a website, fkartproject in which the artist is leaving small painted canvases behind in places and seeing who finds them where and takes the step of letting him know they found the canvas. It's charming. People who find the canvases get a kick out of their found treasure, and the artist gets his a kick out of his work connecting with someone.
It's not a new idea; others, for example, have done a similar thing with postcards. And a good deal of contemorary art invokes viewer interaction as a concept behind the work. In some measure, it's historical footnote to say art = Art because the artist says so. I find myself that I can't separate viewers from the work: connecting with viewers, to me, is essential for art to resonate. But the connection that happens is different from contriving connection. It's in vogue, but does viewer participation make art = Art or has it become another easy tagline?
It's not a new idea; others, for example, have done a similar thing with postcards. And a good deal of contemorary art invokes viewer interaction as a concept behind the work. In some measure, it's historical footnote to say art = Art because the artist says so. I find myself that I can't separate viewers from the work: connecting with viewers, to me, is essential for art to resonate. But the connection that happens is different from contriving connection. It's in vogue, but does viewer participation make art = Art or has it become another easy tagline?
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Saatchi Gallery Show Down
I submitted Ponder into the next Saatchi Gallery Show Down, which starts May 14 and ends May 21. Please visit and vote.
www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/showdown/index.php
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/showdown/index.php
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)