call me an atheist

As Lucazoid pointed out Sartwell's theory- that by making a cross-cultural analysis of ordinary activities validates it as art, i am starting to make better sense of where TENDING is coming from. There is also the point about good art and bad art but I like to look at art as believable to an individual or not (not an elite institution). For example in this blog and in Renee's you said this kind of art had been written about a lot and is now highly regarded and accepted as art therefore you yourself have accepted rather than questioned it as art too. Or more likely you have indeed questioned it but have come to a different conclusion to me. I'm not saying it is wrong to call this art, but in this analogy.... i can be brought up in a Christian household, go to church and read the bible, a very accepted and cherished book by all around me and millions around the world, but ultimately I still have the choice whether I want to accept and believe in it for myself. In the classes and readings I have done so far I can't say I'm a believer of this kind of art. It is an individual choice that everyone has the right to have an opinion about. Art is so subjective so to say I'm right, or for you to say I'm not right is not the way of this discussion but rather it's become an insight to how different people interpret controversial works with or without the influence of 'elite critique'.

Art?

In the mind map under the heading ‘Art?’ the question mark resonates the most with me. A lot of art is controversial whether it is in fact art or not, however the artists intention is often a main contributing factor in deeming it so. So, if the artist in this case isn’t even sure whether it is art or not, the work, to me, holds less artistic merit. The subheadings to ‘Art?’ are:

-gardening as sculpture

-blogging as art

-social interaction as art

The ‘gardening as sculpture’ seems an interesting idea but with such little mediation to the gardening process, seems difficult to distinguish a difference between this ‘work’ as art and regular gardening.

The latter two are about peoples interactions with each other and the ‘work’. This again is an interesting concept in its correlation to relational aesthetics. It annoys me though that blogging has to be seen as art, and social interaction as art, are these activities not able to be seen by them selves as what they are? Does making them into ‘art’ make them any my valid as an idea? What does it achieve and what is the point? Blogging is blogging, not art.

not so humoresque now....or is it?

In ‘Interrogation Machine’ it introduces the idea of Schumann’s piano piece ‘Humoresque’ as an accompaniment with an unwritten, but silent rather than absent, vocal line. I can see the links with this idea with Freud’s theories of the sub conscious thoughts and ‘ideals’ of individuals and groups as shown with military example of treatment and beliefs towards homosexuality as well as torture. The article is cynical of this American psyche and traditions, starting from the ‘school campus’ of un-written but well-known , accepted and followed ‘laws’. It is ironic to read that Humoresque music, a genre of romantic music characterised by pieces with fanciful humor, exists upon the same notion.

What makes public art public?

Kwon argues there are three ways public art has been approached – as art in public places, art as public spaces, and art in the public interest.

Henry Moore’s work is from the former category as his works don’t draw influence from, or reflect the surroundings in which they are placed but rather can stand as sculptures on their own in any environment. He states ‘To display sculpture ­­to its best advantage outdoors, it must be set so that it relates to the sky rather than to trees, a house, people or other aspects of its surroundings’

To me public art should be all about relating to the surroundings and the people ‘the public’. Kwon says these types of works are forms of public art as they are in public areas but due to the evolution of this type of art I feel these works are less relevant to the community today. Successful public art I believe is a combination of site specificy relating to formal architectural components of the work and the environment, and a complementing link with the social make up of the area.

From Wikipedia I read:

The Situationist International (SI) was a restricted group of international revolutionaries founded in 1957, and which had its peak in its influence on the unprecedented general wildcat strikes of May 1968 in France.

With their ideas rooted in Marxism and the 20th century European artistic avant-gardes, they advocated experiences of life being alternative to those admitted by the capitalist order, for the fulfilment of human primitive desires and the pursuing of a superior passional quality. For this purpose they suggested and experimented with the construction of situations, namely the setting up of environments favorable for the fulfillment of such desires.

The idea highlighted reminded me of a segment from The Chaser called 'If Life Were A Musical'.

­Asher’s Installations at Pomona College were based on the artist’s directing the viewer’s attention away from the ‘internal’ relations and toward the ‘external’ viewing space.In this way the viewing of the work becomes as, if not more, important then the work itself. Or perhaps the work actually is ‘the viewing’ and the aesthetical conventions of the work a mere trigger for the intent for the success of the work.

arty party

In Hal Foster's Arty Party article he raises the idea that some.......

"works which fall somewhere between a public installation, and obscure performance and a private archive, can also be found outside art galleries, rendering them even more difficult to decipher in aesthetic terms"

Many relational aesthetic works deal with this ambiguity amongst viewers of what constitutes art. The idea presents questions like if i cooked for my family to provide them food and a chance to interact with each other at the dinner table would that be art if i called it so? Or is the significance of the action being institutionalised all these kind of works need?

relational aesthetics

When thinking about social relations in an art context, I first think of the dada movement and in particular Duchamp. Duchamp's works, such as his readymades, incorporated quotidian objects which in turn broke down the hierarchal divide in society and broadened art appreciation to the masses.

In a similar way Pop Art focused heavily on mundane everyday objects, in this case again to include a broad social spectrum, and also to reflect the rapidly increasing phenomenon of consumerism. Andy Warhol's Campbells soup cans are reflective of how art imitates life and how society can easily relate to such an object.

In contemporary artists' work, like Rirkrit Tiravanija, a familiar objective to the Pop Art ideals is achieved. Now however instead of just being able to view a relatable image, one is immersed in the work and interacting.