One concept that intrigues me is the idea behind “The Institutional Theory” that is; the gallery is no longer a place that houses art, but rather a place that allows objects to become art. In the discussion, “The Institutional Theory of art” two well known examples are mentioned; Duchamp’s “Fountain” and Warhol’s “Brillo Boxes”. Questions are raised in the discussion such as; would Duchamp’s toilet still be an artwork if it were not shown in a gallery? I argue that it would not be, as taking it from the gallery means that it would lose its irony, and therefore its purpose as an artwork.
Keeping this in mind we also have artwork that is designed for either the gallery, or for a particular space. Above we have the work “I See What You Mean” by Lawrence Argent (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ethomsen/148894381/). To take this work from the Colorado Convention Centre and place it against the wall of another building or in a park, the meaning of the work would be changed entirely. It could be moved; however it would need to be moved to a space that emulates the glass walls of the Colorado Convention Centre, which allows the audience to view the bear from inside of the building. It is the surroundings which ultimately bring the meaning to the artwork and make it effective. From examples such as this we can see that the space in which the work is placed in is almost as important as the artwork itself.
Could it be that readymades that have been placed in a gallery only become art when they are chosen to be there? I believe what separates readymade art from everyday objects is that the readymade has been selected by an artist for a reason and sits in a gallery for the purpose of being art. A non art object does not have this higher function.
No comments:
Post a Comment