Three pieces of text that I particularly found interest include…
- The presentation of three different artistic projects, WochenKlauser boat talks, The Roof is on Fire, and the Routes project, and the comparison of how each project had their own stylistic method of presenting their message and how it impacted the audience. I think it was interesting that the article makes a connection between the three separate projects. This is the idea of conversation, and although the “idea” of art is to create conversation, it explains that the three projects create an unintentional way to create a conversation and thought about thinking beyond the limits of how people are treated with limitations.
- The concept in which the artist makes the audience interact with the art (referring to the works of James Turrell and Robert Irwin) and experience the aestheticism of the work that the artist presents through a duration of time rather than an instant and short viewing.
- The concept of the “new genre” of public art that is pretty much the hybrid of named littoral art and relational aesthetics
Three questions I have are…
- For clarification, is littoral art just another name for dialogical based public art or is littoral art a small faction of of dialogical based public art?
- If a community had the desire to create art to transfer a certain critical message that they wanted to be known to the public but didn’t have the resources, what possible strategies could they have?
- The article talks about the art produced by an individual compared to the art produced by a community. Is it wrong or inappropriate for the individual to produce art about and/or representing a community?
Comments
Post a Comment