This week's readings on Institutional Critique and the work of Michael Asher have brought up a few questions for me: What do these ideas mean in relation to the work of the relational artists we have been discussing? Also, in a much broader vein, who is art meant/made for? I doubt very much I will crack the case on my second question any time soon, however all signs at present point to a dissapointing answer...
When looking at Asher's work and the work of many relational artists, it is easy to draw similarities between the processes employed. Both Asher and relational artists like Taravanija physically re-negotiate the gallery space, in effect occupying the entire exhibition process. However, where many relational artists authorise the viewer to make a decision, allowing their interaction with the work to define its structure, Asher's re-built spaces are imposed on the viewer, eliciting a more individuated response that is both tangible (whereby the gallery visitor is forced to take a certain route and/or negotiate physical obstacles) and affectual.
All the works we have sofar discussed embody a shift from "work to frame", where the attention is drawn towards the human subjects encountering the artwork. But I believe there is something more accessible about Asher's work. Unlike Taravanija and other relational artists, he doesn't treat the gallery space as merely a shell, but plays upon our expectations of the function of a gallery and in a broader sense, the art institution itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment