Converstation Pieces

I found the introduction of ‘Conversation Pieces’ by Grant H.Kester really interesting and raised some really powerful ideas about the future of art. It makes some very important points in relation to collaborative and collective artworks.

*It starts off by establishing the basis of work of this kind that being, the turmoil circulating around difference of culture, religion and nationality. From this, “Traditional art materials of marble, canvas, or pigment were replaced by “sociopolitical relationships.” Ultimately, artists and artist collaborative’s turned their performance based practice into a ‘facilitation of dialogue among diverse communities moving away from the traditional object art.’ This performative work is exploring the exchange between viewers about issues relating to race, gender, stereotypes and culture. Therefore, these artists are more concerned with context rather than content that is, the context these works are taking place in are crucial to the exchange of dialogue. The ‘Roof is on Fire’ work for example looked at the dialogue aesthetic of the conversations of high school students. These conversations were about the problems faced by young people of stereotypes and issues of race.

*However different each work that is exploring this medium they all share an underlying concern of exchange and dialogue with viewers. This engagement with the work is an integral component to the intention of the work.

*An important question is raised that should be considered in relation to these works that‘ What does this mean for the artist to surrender the security of self expression for the risk of inter-subjective engagement?’

*Predominately from these works I feel these artists are searching for a deeper aesthetic experience that object based art is lacking. It draws on the fundamental relationship between art and the social and political world and pushing this relationship to its limit. However, works of this kind come with concerns as discussed within the introduction. Dialogue work is criticized for its lack of visual and sensory aesthetic by critics and continuing on to question “the very status of this work as ‘art’ in the first place, arguing that it is both practically and theoretically indistinguishable from political and social activism”. I also question this within the article as to whether these were merely acts of social and cultural consciousness however, the intention of these works outweighs this criticism as these works are merely pushing the boundaries as many other art has before. ‘Art’s role is shock us out of this perceptual complacency, to force us to see the world anew.” Work of this kind is different and exciting and is forcing its viewers to really comprehend the work they are exchanging in about issues facing society.

*An important notion to think about is accessibility of work of this kind (as we have been discussing institutional critique) this work can function outside of the institution within the community, as it is organized around a collaborative community rather than the singular artist. Does this change its audience? Does it make art more accessible to different people and will ultimately have a more significant effect and outcome?

On the other hand Kester states “Any work of art that makes itself too accessible. That attempts to solicit the viewer’s interaction too overtly, runs the risk of being assimilated by the malevolent forces of consumer society.” This means this art could loss its impact and become just another commodity of society losing its shock value.