While I found the algebra-like format of Institutional Theory of Art by Robert J. Yanal off-putting to say the least, there were some interesting points which helped me to piece together the link between relational art and institutional critique. The first thing I think of when contemplating institutional critique is Duchamp’s readymades. By placing a material object in an institutional context the object could be freed from its original meaning and become an art object. The example used in the article was Duchamp’s Fountain, explaining that while the fixture was materially identical to other urinals sold in stores, it had the status of art due to its institutional context. Yanal continues to say that “institutional status is not a material but a relational property. Accordingly, is art, upon analysis, is revealed to be not a one-place predicate but a multi-place relation”.
Michael Asher’s work has further enabled me to see how interactions within the gallery space can engage with ideas of the institution and it’s affect on art objects and audience. I was particularly interested in an artwork mentioned in a 2008 article from Frieze Magazine titled Thinking Space http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/thinking_space/ . For the self titled exhibition at the Santa Monica Museum of Art Asher recreated every ephemeral wall constructed for display purposes within the museum since 1998. Also part of the work was a room in a nearby gallery which held historical documentation of for the constructed layouts of the 40 exhibitions shown at the SMMoA. The exhibition, described as a “skeleton map of exhibition design” allowed viewers to actively recognize the repeated reinvention of the space. Revealing this aspect of the museums function questions the logic of the organization and allows the audience to consider the way they have been positioned by the institution in order to receive art in a particular way.
No comments:
Post a Comment