Week four response
In an earnest attempt to interact with the weeks reading, I walked away more confused than when I began to lay eye to text. In describing the gallery space the author at first seemed a lot like those endless pages of text one sees pasted on street poles, somehow desiring to become the object of the idea itself, an entity without time. I was disconcerted by the cutting off of anything that had to do with the ‘outside’ and its systems, how linear and traditional. The gallery space in the author’s analysis is a barren place, void of any context other than the bordered assumptions that can be ‘skied’ at a moments notice. The view annihilated into ‘spectator’.
In this place that is void of time, I find it humorous that an object like a wall has so much to say about its own content context. It seems to want to divorce every aspect of the human condition. I am forced to wonder if it is not the desire of art speak to be the space that people ejaculate all over upon entering a gallery. There is no stranger fiction than truth itself. This devaluation of presence becomes apparent when the author eludes to the one of the ideas of modernist academicism that, “ideas are more interesting
than art.”
Both in animate and inanimate life the constructs are bordered by birth and death, construction and destruction. What does the art community have this over-bearing need to reason everything out of existence?
Allan Hill
