Wk 3 Institutional Theory of Art

The Institutional Theory of Art
ROBERT J. YANAL

“To see something as art requires something the eye cannot descry—an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld.”

An individual’s perspective of an artwork is always going to be different to that of the artist. An educated individual’s opinion will also be different to that of an uneducated mind. Though I must say it doesn’t always stop people from having intellectual views upon the art they are viewing. The place in which an artwork or project is placed will also affect reaction, thought and controversy around those who view it. Yes you need an Artworld, though do all need a artistic history to see or create a piece of work?

Once again the topic of Institutional art has been around, mentioned, and discussed throughout Art history. It may have been provoked by controversy due to particular artworks in the past and may be because people are more willing to bring things out into the open arena. It may or may not be discussed due to the documentation and art theory behind it.

Art within the gallery walls has aroused question surrounding particular objects, whether it is art, or just an ordinary everyday subject. Just like Andy Warhol’s Brillo boxes. Today ‘Street Art’ may be reflecting on this by placing concreted objects like phones and televisions in the out- door environment especially within art welcoming societies such as Newtown. Now is this art? Walking along thinking there is an object you could take and pick up, when no you can’t, its stuck! It also creates its own little game, This fun work may be all about games, though have these artists been educated?

“ Utility, Untold ” That is currently being held in the main gallery here at SCA brings many objects from Ceramics, Glass and the Jewellery department. Although the placement or rather displacement of some of the objects affect the aesthetics of the art works them selves. The piece that actually won the glass award, In my opinion looks as though the presentation detracts from the aesthetical elements that are strongly positioned in the work. The flowing piece of glass seems as though it is meant to provoke soft flowing aesthetics though the chunky square, thick wood holding it up and becoming part of the works opposes this thought. The base in which it is placed on the wall with, has become part of the artwork displacing the idea that has been originally thought out by the artist.

The Ceramic dress which is next to the glass piece, By the artists conversation before hand is also out of place. The making of the artwork within the studio expressed many other views that have been taken out with the placement within the gallery walls. Would this piece look better and be better understood in an environment such as Newtown? In a dark and dirty little corner?
The artist would much prefer to place it in a darker non institutional position to convey her ideas more aesthetically to the educated and uneducated eye. With words from those within the art world the artist was asked to add something to connect one piece of the work to the other. By adding a piece of material to join the two objects that the work consisted of, in doing so also changing the dynamics. Was this really necessary? Would it have worked better in a different environment without having to add another piece?

Over all the exhibition is all very white!
White walls. White shelves, white everything. Is this going too far?
Or have I just had enough of the gallery? Is this what we perceive the art-world to be? Personally my work is so white! and after attending this exhibition a few times, I’ve definitely seen enough of it. And can’t wait to start developing, what I think are better ways of presenting art within the institution, as well as documenting placement outside of the institution.