It is surprising that Dunchamp’s 1,200 bags of coal shown in 1938 was “the first time an artist subsumed an entire gallery in a single gesture” (69).  It seems that something like this should have already been done. I also found it insightful how O’doherty thought “to paint something is to recess it in illusion” (72).  

“The classic modernist gallery is the limbo between studio and living room, where the conventions of both meet on a carefully neutralized ground.” (76) What exactly does he mean by this?

It was nice to get more context on Christo and Jeannne Claude’s work, because in Installation Art in the New Millenium, I was fascinated by their Wrapped Reichstag (New, 91). I learned that before that work, which took years of planning, they wrapped the MOCA in Chicago in 1969. Their wrappings, according to the author, are “a kind of parody of the divine transformations of art” (103). The author admits to be a little shocked when “sophisticated” people show wit in their art, which is so silly to me.

Throughout the book, especially in the Afterword, I found myself thinking of our last speaker, James Harris, the gallery owner. O’doherty writes: “We know now that the maker has limited control over the content of his or her art.” (111) He even questions if artists really have careers (106). He talks about the business side of art: “For a gallery is, in the end, a place to sell things—which is O.K.” (76) This reminded me of when Harris recounted an instance when he took apart an artist’s installation and sold each piece separately because it was more marketable. Do you think this is right? It also seems unfair to me that only pieces that will sell get shown in galleries. Of course, this is not always the case, but it restricts the artist, especially if they are trying to make a living. They already have the pressure of needing to be original--“young artists have a fairly good nose for exhastion” (78).

How has art changed since O’Doherty’s forward written in 1986? What direction is it going?

xoxo

Lauren