In Rosenthal’s chapter Site-specific
Installation: Interventions we are introduced to the many investigations of
which installation can explore (these being physicality, functionality,
intellectual, and institutional character).
Rosenthal informs us of the use of the listed frameworks and how with
their use within the practice of installation served as a stepping stone for
the practice to serve as a literal questioning of the surrounding space. The
work Within and Beyond the Frame (1973)
of Daniel Burren is utilized as an example of the questioning of the then
spiritual modalities of modernism. Burren did this by extending the work
,literally curtains flowing into the street, in order to question the identity
of the gallery.[1]
This progression of fusing the governed and
the public spheres is analyzed via various modernist practitioners. We are of
course presented with Duchamp as an academic explanation mark before the point
is made. One line however serves as to
give sway to this often too seen reference this being ‘he played behavioral
games with the viewers physical movements’. We are after all talking of the
negotiation of space and the artists power to influence this beyond the
architects original intentions.[2]
But to carry on from this sore spot and a perceived
laissez-faire use of intellect, we can follow Rosenthal’s trail in search of
sit specify into the sixties. Before this occurs how ever we are given a quick
insight into the work of Frank Stella who altered the very shapes of his
canvas’. This altering of the very canvas (also coincidently not unlike a floor
plan of a white cube) is suggested to have helped move the works from the wall
and across the space themselves. This trend (or use of material and space) was
quickly picked up by movements such as minimalism, conceptual art and land art.
It is with this new mode of practice that a mode of practice could now serve as
to interject itself on the space and the viewer themselves.[3]
Via the works of Richard Serra and Bruce
Nauwman a statement is made as to the very impact that a site filling and site
specific could have. I would like to here to refer to a grouping of words that
actually caused me to stop reading and served as a point of contention, this
being ‘one that could be easily removed’. This sentence when used after the
site specify point is one that serves as to go against the very intention of
such a term. It in mind falls here to a matter of creating a mode of practice
when presented in a gallery is one of attention seeking. I do believe in the
concept of site specify but unfortunately its place lives in land art and the usually
boil-esque public sculpture.
[1] This is an interesting take as one could see the open curtain and
window as a semi voyeuristic invitation to peer through. An intrusion when
viewed via the feminist notions at the time would serve to directly impede and
cause questioning of identity. This is
further extended in the discussion of the decentralizing of the ‘space’ be this
museum or designated gallery space.
[2] This screams for a reference to the Matrix, and god damn it, I am a
sucker for that movie. How ever and I know I mentioned it, I believe it to be
more along the lines of the MTV music awards Will Farrell re-enactment of the
architect. mentioning Duchamp. .
[3] I think it important to here actually point put that by ‘space’
what I believe Rosenthal to be referring to is the institution itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment