What changed about your understanding of community-based arts after reviewing this genealogy?
I didn’t know that there were that many theories surrounding community-based arts. I thought that the community-based arts was a big circle where people just wanted to support the public and the communities that were surrounding them. Some things that changed for me were the differences between the public art. I assumed that they would not all fall under the same category, but I did not assume that there they would be that many categories that tied together the genealogy of arts and community engagement. As time went on, it seems as if artists became more self aware of the things they were doing and the effect it can have on the area and the people who reside in that community. I believe that they wanted to do more than create art and to have a place in the community.
What questions emerged for you?
Before John Dewey came up with his theory, did people not value the process of making art or did they just not value it as much.
Peter Schumann that art should be as basic as bread is to life. Food is necessary in human lives but is art necessary to live?
Is it okay to create art that has no relationship to the site it inhabits?
Richard Serra said that, “To move the work is to destroy the work”. If an artwork is moved between museums does that mean that the artwork is “destroyed”?
What new connections became clear?
The idea of constructivism became more clear to me. It became clear to me that constructivism was a rejection of the idea of making art just so that you can make art.
Another connection that became clear to me was that some of the theories that came up had to do with what was going on in that time period. It became more clear to me that the environment of things and the events that were happening had an impact on not only regular citizens, but artists as well.
Comments
Post a Comment