ARCHIVE - Creating a Conceptual Framework for Images - Week 2

ARCHIVE - Erwin Wurm

taycan04 — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:43:38 -0700

I thought Wurm's photography was really interesting to look at. He used conventional objects in extremely unconventional situations. The most I took away from it was just really odd/interesting pictures like so many other photographers. But what I was most intrigued by was "The Fat House," an animation discussing "Am I a house? Am I a work of art? Who decides?" I thought it was extremely original and I watched it for like 45 minutes. It was really inspiring.

-Candice

ARCHIVE - Week Two Response

hilall08 — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:34:24 -0800

Week Two Response:

As with all things, it is the prime directive of all sentient life to make room for new versions of the form, representations if you may. As the text so eloquently states that the seventies and eighties were the decades of the ‘spectator’, the nineties was the decade of the ‘participant, so I assume that 2k is the decade of the ‘interactors. Having no problem with this concept, I can only hope that patience will continue to be a virtue one acquires after a study in tolerance. My meaning is that simply I also see the day when the museum becomes the producer of art, thus requiring the accreditation services similar to the work that the WGA (Writers Guild of America) provides to Hollywood filmmakers. A new dialog will be necessary in order to protect the artist’s interests.

ARCHIVE - week 2

sanshe07 — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:33:54 -0800

Week 2 sherda sanders

The artists in this section still used the gallery to display their works; they just choose to do it in a non-traditional way. But was is really necessary to use the gallery? What about the artists who used to hospital. I feel that the gallery is used to much as a crutch to legitimize ones work, I’m not saying its wrong to be in a gallery but its not really necessary, it some what not effective to get a message out at all if your in a galley because you are showing to the same old people. When it come to photographing installations that is all you really can do to document them, but you cannot critique or experience an installation based off of a photograph, installation are truly one of those things that you had to be there for. As for institutions having the rights to artist work because they help to fund them is bullshit, because the institution one is only going to fund someone they can make money off of in the first place, or who they can boast that they had first on their way to fame. With out the artist in the idea/work would not have been presented to make money off of to begin with unless someone working on the board is coming up with these great revelations. In order for the museum to own an artist work they either need to out right buy it from the artist or actually own the artist themselves and I believe that could be considered slavery and therefore illegal.

ARCHIVE - Wurm & Frye

dankam12 — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:36:23 -0800

Photography that shows everyday life through hmor, and irony to a point have always been a favorite of mine. Wurm's work with photography made me laugh, and I admired his blunt outlook on his life. "Smoking a Joint Before Breakfast" was one of my favorites, since I know many of people who do the same exact thing to start thier day. Its nice to see, reassuring almost that there are people who are either stuck in a rut like the rest of us. That the most bland of feeling can be seen as "beautiful."

The Fry was my favorite of all places to visit that day. I've lived in Seattle for 9 years, and I had never been there before. I was surprised that I could miss something like this. The Victorian art was interesting, but didn't affect me enough to want to stay and look at it closely. I felt as if it was something I had seen many times before. All in all, it was a nice experience. The "Searching For A Bomb" series was funny, and the photos like "Fuck The Third World Country" were fun to look at, and were cool, since they took time to actually figure out what they really meant.

ARCHIVE - Week 2 Responce

dankam12 — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:13:06 -0800

When you walk down the street, say after a nice rain. You notice all kinds of puddles right? You may be annoyed since your foot was just immersed in it, and your shoes are now soaked, but that's all. When somebody sees a puddle, decides to make an art piece out of it, and "installs it" somewhere else, is it art? Do you have a right to be offended?

The art pieces with the artists taking their room, and "opening them to the public" of sorts. It gets annoying because it doesn't say anything. It's not installation. Most of the time, they're just trying to hard it seems to be "avant-gard" and do things where you wonder if it's art, or if its just some strange idea they got lots of money thrown at them to do?

ARCHIVE - Response pp 78-131

donand10 — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 09:59:10 -0800

"The Swiss-born curator Hans Ulrich Obrist has suggested a shift in the culture of meseums, to transform them into laboratories. He states the idea of embracing contradictions is very important... The laboratory is about leaving the museum, it's against the museum." O.k I agree that some art can be poignant and beautiful and all that, outside of the meseum, but I think that this idealistic asshole is going way to far with it. To say that museums should be labratories is a scary thought and to me conjures up thoughts of a very steril and stale environment. This quote also makes me angry because it imposes that his idea is actually important and worst of all I think he believes that people will actually listen to him.

ARCHIVE - week 2

shahel25 — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 09:30:38 -0800

Many of the installations that were shown in this portion of the book rely not on visual experience, but on what they make the view think about. In truth, many seemed to have no aesthetic value what so ever. Installation is used merely as a tool to convey a point or explain about an idea or event that happened in the artist life. The installations are closer to exhibits then what I would be able to call art. “The artist has appropriated archival strategies while dealing literally with ‘rubbish’. He has turned collector, affording himself the privilege of the museum, to gather, cataloged and selectively display.” (p 132)

ARCHIVE - Erwin Wurm

hamtar16 — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 09:02:58 -0800

Erwin Wurm’s exhibit at the Frye Museum in Seattle was surprisingly fascinating. Before going to the museum I looked on the Frye Museum web site to get an idea of what I was going to be seeing and I was not too impressed by the two pictures they had on the site. But after arriving to the museum and seeing the entire show, which was quite extensive, I was very impressed.
Wurm’s work thought the years from 1997 to the present is a combination of sculpture and performance. There were many pieces in the exhibit, which I think made it far more enjoyable and really gave you a good feeling for his ideas. His piece titled “fat car” and “ fat house” were more serious and had a dark humor in contrast to the rest of his work that was showing. From the outside they looked funny but they had an underling meaning, which in the “fat car’s” case was drugs. His other work didn’t seem to have an underling meaning. The one-minute sculptures were very humorous along with most of his video performances.

ARCHIVE - Instalation art-

hamtar16 — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 09:01:10 -0800

Art that allows the viewer to interact seems to get more people interested in art because it attracts more than just artists and collectors. For example if you were a kid going to see Lili Fisher’s piece Meute im Museum and you got to put on a rat costume, that would be far more interesting than just going to see a painting. Even people who think that they don’t understand art or don’t want to could get more enjoyment out of a piece that they could interact with than they would one they couldn’t. Being able to draw a more diverse audience, as an artist seems to be something that any artist would want. It makes sense that art has moved in that direction even if some would not consider it art.

ARCHIVE - Response to pp 132-192

chijes12 — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 03:47:29 -0800

This reading brought new light to the concepts of presentation, and in turn interpretation, of installation art. Perception is created by experience and when you are presented with a completely new environment you have to use what you know to interpret it. The irony of this is that your perception is evolving at the same time. Through most of the installations in this book, I found myself in almost a fantasy and cartoon like state. These installations forced me really expand my thought process and to realize and respect the expressions of the artists. These new environments created by installations seem so fantastic because the artists are putting thought into every aspect of the piece. Everything that takes up space in an installation is subject to critique therefore making the original intent of the artist almost less profound than the final piece. Many of these pieces had an element of force to them regarding the audience. Often times I find myself quite reluctant to be forced to interact with anything but I feel installations have a way of hiding this "force". The force attacks our drive for stimulation and really puts interaction in the forfront of our priorities. I think installations should be constricted to a certain space so that we must question its placement as well as its content resulting in a level of interaction that will later be much more present.