After reading the Genealogy review, I feel an excitement in me that I haven’t felt in weeks. It's quite inspiring to see so much art in one place that paved the way for us artists today. Community-based art is something that I consider myself pretty familiar with just because I’ve been interested in pieces like that since I got to CalArts. I really enjoyed the breakdown on how art can interact in a public place. The difference between art in a public place versus art becoming the public place isn’t something I’ve really actively thought about. I guess I used to think of art only existing in the public place and not being the public place. In regards to Art with the public, I felt very connected to that kind of work. It reminds me of the immersive theater I've witnessed and been a part of while in LA. Bringing the viewer into the art and making them the art is a whole world of it’s own. The statements that all these kinds of work can make all stand in the same arena but ask something different of the viewer. I appreciate learning about the effects from the viewer perspective instead of the artist perspective. My questions mainly stem from the parts where they talk about removing art from public places after it gets a negative response from the viewers interacting with it. In the slide show, when it talks about the “Tilted Arc” I’m saddened that it was removed probably for the main reason that it was placed there. What was the artist trying to do? I’m sure it's deeper than anything those people walking around it thought. If it could’ve been placed somewhere else it would’ve right? I wonder how much thought goes into the reality of the work versus the statement of the work?
Comments
Post a Comment