Week Two Readings
I'm torn with some of the art show in the week two reading. I am constantly asking myself, "is this art?" as opposed to being drawn in or captivated by the pieces. Isn't that what they should be doing? Then again, I guess it is important that the pieces provoke questions, and make you contemplate more deeply what the piece signifies. I have found it interesting and also challenging that installation art is such a broad concept. I cannot pinpoint any such thing that it is, or any specifics of the form. Some pieces such as Hew Locke's Cardboard Palace are so intricate and elaborate, and studding, while others are merely strange science experiments. (John Newling'a Weight) Some of the art is a process, some is object based, some is conceptual, some emotional, some obvious, others completely abstract and obscure. Simon Moretti's A Space for Conversation was an experiment of sorts... a sort of psychological test. Is psychology art? is a simple exercise art? Asking people to read a book and respond and then talk about there reactions.. could seminar be installation art? As long as we analyze it and come up with complex interpretations of the meaning of seminar i suppose it could be. This book has forced me to really analyze what each piece is. I cannot simply read a history, or read why a painting is considered brilliant. I suppose this is why installation art is the art form of the future because it has no limits or boundaries.
