This essay talks about how two of the main things that setting art outside of a traditional sterile gallery environment does is a. activate spectatorship and b. decentre the viewer by encouraging interaction and experience and not insisting upon an ideal point to view the art from, instead encouraging them to move around and experience multiple views. The essay concentrates on the practice of Allan Kaprow, who was an artist and curator who was a major mover in using non gallery locations in the mid 20th century. He was influenced heavily by the writings of philosopher John Dewey who proposed human development could only happen as a result of active inquiry and interaction with the environment, one way this could come about would be through art.
'This thinking also explained Kaprow's preference for siting his environments in non-gallery venues: the transformative potential of experience was simply not possible in a place where viewing was inhibited by ingrained responses. The pristine gallery was synonymous with the eternal and the canonical - in other words, the predictable. Hence Kaprow's insistence on flux, change and development: the space should be "dirty" and "rough", filling the viewer with "tense excitement" and a sense of "risk and fear" '
Although I'm not a follower of Dewey's philosophy I agree that by taking art out of the traditional four white walls of a gallery it can throw people slightly and that could be a desirable effect to destabilise the audience and enhance the experience of the art. Or has this practice been going on for so long that we are used to it and do not feel the same effect. Sorry for going on! What do people think?
'Off Limits: 40 Artangel Projects' 2002, in the library if anyone wants to read the essay.
Liz