- Dialogical Exchange being seen in the context of art.
The paper dove deeply into the fight to persuade the reader to view “dialogical exchange” as a form of art. Though at times the paper writer made points in their direction, specifically with the idea of challenging the role of art being there to, “...shock us out of this perceptual complacency, to force us to see the world anew” (Grant 12). While viewing “dialogical exchange” more in the light of it not wishing to have an immediate reaction by the viewer but seeing the, “... aesthetic experience as durational” (Grant 12). While the writer makes points towards the focus as seeing “dialogical exchange” as a form of art. It does pose the question that can any conversation be viewed as art? A family dinner, a political debate, or even a conversation with a stranger off the street. While It does feel that this is the case a point that was grossly undermined and glossed over in this text was the point of the pieces visual and sensory experiences that work with and enhance the conversations.
- The aesthetic and presentation of the conversations that were glossed over.
The key point that seems vital to viewing dialogical exchange as a form of art is how the creator decides to stage or present the conversation. For example with
WochenKlausur’s, Invitation to Aid Drug-Addicted Women, purposeful staging of the conversation on a boat. Taking the the politicians and community members out of a cold and stale “government” style setting and locating it on a peaceful ride on the water, away from media, and away from spaces that enforce people positions above one another, to a common ground that is calm and relaxing, eases the tension, assisting with creating an open environment for free flowing dialogue between opposites. While on the opposite side, The Roof is on Fire choosing to stage the conversation in a very harsh and industrial space to enhance and elevate the severity the conversation is speaking on, all while looking over the location that is the subject. Down playing the necessity of the sensorial and locational experience seems to be a vital aspect to the idea to see “dialogical exchange” as art.
- Creation of space for conversation, “Calling the conversation someone's work.”
Now the focus of their pieces is the conversation. While the location enhances the context or creates open space for people to freely speak without the fear of social and political scrutiny, at the heart of all of this is the issues at hand. While it does feel weird for at times an outside perspective to come in to a situation to act as almost the mediator, the idea of being a neutral party seems perfectly normal to a heavy conversation, the issue that can arise at times is when that person acts as the event or situation is their own, that it could not have happened without them. That's what the idea of calling one of these “dialogical exchange” events as someone's work can give the impression of. While the creation of space for those of possibly opposite beliefs or people from all walks of life to see eye to eye, look at each other as fellow humans and equals is vital to starting a conversation and the beginning steps to taking action towards the situations at hand. While Someone does need to be the one to instigate the creation of space for those who might not on their own instigate or take the time and effort to look at a situation from the opposite side and or talk with the opposing side. The creation of space is needed and vital to resolving the issues, but the only question that arises is when someone takes on this idol like role and acts as if the conversation and resolution of the situation could not have happened without them.
Questions
- Where is the line between appropriating a group's issues as your own work?
- Is the setting and creation of the sensorial and visual experience that deems it as a work of art?
- Is a conversation art?
Comments
Post a Comment