In the last chapter of Inside The White Cube, the section facing towards "the dematerialization of art" held an example of this act that drew me into thought. In one installation, subjects were brought into a gallery space, in which then they assumed the position of art. Secondly, they were hermetically closed in with all the optional exits barred except for a few windows. Here, the subjects inside the gallery became art objects. Thirdly, the subjects trapped inside the installation broke out of the windows approximately an hour later, in which they refused their place as art.

This played role of anger as done by the audience is somehow reflective to the organization and planning of the art piece itself. The artist used his authoritarianism to flip the hierarchical abilities of the audience in comparison to the art in post-modernism. Post-modernism only allows so much of itself to stand for its entirety; so much less than if the audience is involved. The subjects inside the closed building were audience to only each other, and probably in a bothersome state, did not think to consider themselves as a piece of art.

What part of this installation was the imperative to completing this concept? Was this idea solely based on the historical anger in the artist/audience? In post-modernism, and in most art, the actual art itself is not allowed to have feelings. Usually the installation is not humans, nor humans that are openly let to release their emotions (especially anger) in a non-controlled environment. This installation gave emotion to the actual art inside the gallery, and let the art, at its own will, escape its gallery. Or was this piece rather to capture the inability and transformation of the audience in a situation they could not control? The audience had unwillingly become art and then reached a state of inability as the art stuck inside without exit.

Is this how we can make people feel more like a painting or sculpture? Do paintings, sculptures, and installations secretly feel the animosity of being stuck inside a white cube? If we were even to get closer to understanding how it feels to be stuck inside a gallery, would we understand what it would feel like to be a gallery piece? Perhaps this artist (I apologize for indirect referencing, I don't own the book) wanted to suggest for the voiceless art that art wants to be taken out of the gallery. Maybe it's as bitter as ever, and we never got the message back in this installation. 

How long do you think you could be a gallery piece for? Would you rather be a piece of art in a gallery or a manipulated audience member? How can we (realistically, or fictionally) inquire the feelings of art?

Colin Self