Heri Dono
Subodh Gupta
Pascale Marthine Tayou
Navin Rawanchaikul
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Radicant- p141-175
On page 152, Bourriaud touches on the specificity of labor/abilities and how this has created a panic in us, as we approach incompetence.
Together we may be "achieving" but alone, are we becoming powerless? The point I found interesting from this paragraph was the fact that he acknowledged personal and psychological detriment caused by the inability to make, or to complete a task. The lack of control can be unnerving, and is cited in many mental illnesses, like eating disorders.
Throughout this text, and many, many others, Duchamp is cited as an influence to many artists and and art movements. I was aware of his pieces before this class, and of their intention, but I did not know that his ideas were viewed as being so pivotal that his name cannot not be mentioned. It made me wonder if any artist will be able to have this big of an impact on the definition of art again, or are we accustomed now to question all conventions to a point where nothing is truly revolutionary?
On page 158, Bourriaud states, "Artists who are working today with an intuitive idea of culture as toolbox know that art has neither an origin nor a metaphysical destination, and that the work they exhibit is never a creation but an instance of postproduction."
Now, I understand the point that he is trying to make, but it seems a bit extreme to me. The way he puts it, it seems like he is unwilling to give the artist credit for any original thought. He is specifically referring to artists who work with culture as their source, but it still seems overly simplistic to me.
On page 160, Bourriaud discusses an emerging principle/method is recent artists: the capacity to navigate information is in the process of becoming the dominant faculty for the intellectual of the artist. I found this point very interesting- the difference between comprehension of the vast information we have access to and the ability to organize and assimilate it. This is a new type of knowledge.
I was not sure what Bourriaud's stance was on the object at the end of this book. Throughout the book he champions the temporal, and in the last section he talks about the defetishization of art. But he also says that, "The intentionally transitory character of the artwork is not asserted by its form, which may be durable and solid, and forty years after Conceptual art is is no longer a matter of asserting the immateriality of the work or art." Does this mean that a work can be a physical object, as long as that is not the focus?
Together we may be "achieving" but alone, are we becoming powerless? The point I found interesting from this paragraph was the fact that he acknowledged personal and psychological detriment caused by the inability to make, or to complete a task. The lack of control can be unnerving, and is cited in many mental illnesses, like eating disorders.
Throughout this text, and many, many others, Duchamp is cited as an influence to many artists and and art movements. I was aware of his pieces before this class, and of their intention, but I did not know that his ideas were viewed as being so pivotal that his name cannot not be mentioned. It made me wonder if any artist will be able to have this big of an impact on the definition of art again, or are we accustomed now to question all conventions to a point where nothing is truly revolutionary?
On page 158, Bourriaud states, "Artists who are working today with an intuitive idea of culture as toolbox know that art has neither an origin nor a metaphysical destination, and that the work they exhibit is never a creation but an instance of postproduction."
Now, I understand the point that he is trying to make, but it seems a bit extreme to me. The way he puts it, it seems like he is unwilling to give the artist credit for any original thought. He is specifically referring to artists who work with culture as their source, but it still seems overly simplistic to me.
On page 160, Bourriaud discusses an emerging principle/method is recent artists: the capacity to navigate information is in the process of becoming the dominant faculty for the intellectual of the artist. I found this point very interesting- the difference between comprehension of the vast information we have access to and the ability to organize and assimilate it. This is a new type of knowledge.
I was not sure what Bourriaud's stance was on the object at the end of this book. Throughout the book he champions the temporal, and in the last section he talks about the defetishization of art. But he also says that, "The intentionally transitory character of the artwork is not asserted by its form, which may be durable and solid, and forty years after Conceptual art is is no longer a matter of asserting the immateriality of the work or art." Does this mean that a work can be a physical object, as long as that is not the focus?
Monday, March 1, 2010
The Radicant- p79-140
On page 83, Bourraiud quotes the writer Hannah Arendt, "Culture is being threatened when all worldly objects and things, produced by the present or the past, are treated as mere functions for the life process of society, as though they are there only to fulfill some need." He then states, "...art must absolutely resist the process of consumption: 'An object is cultural to the extent that it can endure; its durability is the very opposite of functionality.'"
While I believe I understand the point that is trying to be made here, the craftsperson inside of me is yelling- hey! you forgot about us! somethings can be functional, durable, and, yes, art!
On page 120, Bourriaud drops is 126th new vocabulary word, geocustomizing. At this point I began to wonder if it is necessary for him to create all of these terms. Can he really not express himself in the language that exists? Are his discoveries so profound that they deserve to be added to Webster's? Or is this little habit of his simply there to inform us that he has a bit of an ego?
On page 130, Bourraiud states, "This formal mode reflects our civilization of overproduction, in which the degree of spatial (and imaginary) clutter is such that the slightest gap in its chain produces a visual effect..." I thought that this was a very interesting point. While we are inundated with audio and visual stimuli, sometimes the strangest, most noticeable thing is silence. It is not a unique idea- someone going to the country and being astonished by the uninhabited sky. I had not, however, thought of it as a method to use in creating visual art.
On page 131, Bourraiud is discussing the guerrilla warfare tactics induced by translation that he thinks is necessary for successful art, and states, " In the cultural field, such warfare is defined by the passage of signs through heterogeneous territories, and by the refusal to allow artistic practice to be assigned to a specific, identifiable, and definitive field." I wonder if the identification is the problem, or that he deems easily identifiable work as unworthy of art status. Is it actually less effective, or does appealing to a larger audience make it less effective?
On page 138, Bourriaud basically says that perhaps a good way to judge art is by how impossible it is to judge, "And what if true art were defined precisely by its capacity to evade the implicit determinisms of the medium it employs? In other words, today one must struggle, not- as Greenberg did- for the preservation of an avant-garde that is self-sufficient and focused on the specificities of its means, but rather for the indeterminacy of art's source code, its dispersion and dissemination, so that it remains impossible to pin down..." I am starting to get the feeling that despite Bourriaud's talk of equality through translation, he is really interested in creating an art movement that is secretly founded on elitist principles. I think he is trying to say that the more confusing/curious something is, the more effective it is as art. Is this the only way that we can engage viewers- confusion?
While I believe I understand the point that is trying to be made here, the craftsperson inside of me is yelling- hey! you forgot about us! somethings can be functional, durable, and, yes, art!
On page 120, Bourriaud drops is 126th new vocabulary word, geocustomizing. At this point I began to wonder if it is necessary for him to create all of these terms. Can he really not express himself in the language that exists? Are his discoveries so profound that they deserve to be added to Webster's? Or is this little habit of his simply there to inform us that he has a bit of an ego?
On page 130, Bourraiud states, "This formal mode reflects our civilization of overproduction, in which the degree of spatial (and imaginary) clutter is such that the slightest gap in its chain produces a visual effect..." I thought that this was a very interesting point. While we are inundated with audio and visual stimuli, sometimes the strangest, most noticeable thing is silence. It is not a unique idea- someone going to the country and being astonished by the uninhabited sky. I had not, however, thought of it as a method to use in creating visual art.
On page 131, Bourraiud is discussing the guerrilla warfare tactics induced by translation that he thinks is necessary for successful art, and states, " In the cultural field, such warfare is defined by the passage of signs through heterogeneous territories, and by the refusal to allow artistic practice to be assigned to a specific, identifiable, and definitive field." I wonder if the identification is the problem, or that he deems easily identifiable work as unworthy of art status. Is it actually less effective, or does appealing to a larger audience make it less effective?
On page 138, Bourriaud basically says that perhaps a good way to judge art is by how impossible it is to judge, "And what if true art were defined precisely by its capacity to evade the implicit determinisms of the medium it employs? In other words, today one must struggle, not- as Greenberg did- for the preservation of an avant-garde that is self-sufficient and focused on the specificities of its means, but rather for the indeterminacy of art's source code, its dispersion and dissemination, so that it remains impossible to pin down..." I am starting to get the feeling that despite Bourriaud's talk of equality through translation, he is really interested in creating an art movement that is secretly founded on elitist principles. I think he is trying to say that the more confusing/curious something is, the more effective it is as art. Is this the only way that we can engage viewers- confusion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)