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
4 comments:
Fundamentally I feel that Kaprow was not looking for where art should be situated [gallery vs non-gallery], but what art was. With the destruction of painting through Pollock's 'performances' of painting on the floor.
There was no place for traditional forms of art production and the therefore the gallery is/was obsolete?
[Although he also states that defining art was an issue in itself and that the boundary between 'art' and general existence should be 'Fluid'.]
Maybe Kaprow is stating that there is no place for the gallery within the 'avant-garde' of the 60's and 70's. [is he happy for the art from the previous centuries to be held, sold and collected in galleries and museums?]
Where do you see the 'avant garde' now?
Was he wrong?
He was obviously at direct odds with Greenberg...was he right?
(were they both right?)
(I should state here that the only writings regarding Kaprow that I've read are to do with happening's and performance...that they should never be repeated and there should be no such thing as an art object(so although both involving the spectator as a witness and both time based, slightly different to artangel projects))
>a. activate spectatorship
I'd agree that they're active as a witness, in most cases, but I am not willing to accept that with in a gallery context that the spectator is passive. (eg.cildo miereles )
As a viewer maybe, but within the external environment this could also be true.
> b. decentre the viewer by encouraging interaction and experience and not insisting upon an ideal point to view the art from.
Within the gallery especially where sculpture is concerned the viewer naturally views the object from many different angles. Although this might be set on the floor or viewed from underneath or from inside (eg the bourgeoise exhibitions in turbine hall)the same could be said for 'art works' outside the gallery.
i think we've come across Kaprow in different contexts. This article described him as a pioneer of using non gallery spaces, such as swimming pools, car parks. It seems logical that as he had a fluid view of what art may be he would have a fluid view of what an exhibition space may be and how it may be negotiated.
i think in a lot of cases being a visitor to a gallery can be a "passive" experience. there is often a definite barrier between the viewer and the viewed. Sure, Cildo Meireiles is an exception but boy, what an exception! he's really out there when you compare him to what usually gets exhibited at the big institutions and traditional galleries. ok, you can walk AROUND sculptures but how liberating is it to walk ON sculptures and be allowed to contribute to breaking them?!
Maybe I would agree that it's true that it's not totally impossible to have this active experience inside a gallery but maybe that very much depends on the power and format of the art, whereas a non traditional venue -especially one that is as Kaprow described
'the space should be "dirty" and "rough", filling the viewer with "tense excitement" and a sense of "risk and fear" '
- by imediately unsettling them it gives the viewer a good push towards the desired effect, takes them out of the torpor.
The Kaprow text (extract) I referenced can be found in 'ART in THEORY 1900-2000', Harrisson & Wood pages 717-725(?).
The Bougeois show that I mentioned was more to do with the first unilever series back in 2000 rather than the recent one (2007-2008).[where one walked around, climbed in and sat on]
unilever 2000: http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/bourgeois/photos.shtm
2007-2008:
http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/louisebourgeois/default.shtm
>the space should be "dirty" and "rough", filling the viewer with "tense excitement" and a sense of "risk and fear" '
In unnerving the viewer (and displacing there experience of the everyday) surely elements of the uncanny would be felt, instilling a form of group experience? (See 'The Uncanny' Sigmund Freud c.1920(?)...also mentioned by Matt Roberts with regards to one of their touring shows)
(With regards to the everyday, (especially when/if considering working with systems outside of the gallery) a book to read is Joe Morans 'Reading the Everyday' 2005, Routledge...it deals with the 'quotidian' of things as simple as bus queues or as complex as road planning and the housing market...a must read for everyone!)
Kaprow though also suggests that the viewer/spectator shouldn't exist within the context of a 'happening': all those involved should be [or are in fact] active participants.
I have also read about Kaprow in relation to ‘The Happenings’ in late 1950s New York. Kaprow regarded a ‘Happening,’ as ‘A game, an adventure, a number of activities engaged in by participants for the sake of playing’ (Bishop, 2006). Actions were extracted from the environment and replaced the traditional art object with performative gesture.
Similarly to Kieran, I view that Kaprow was challenging the nature of art. He aimed for viewers to lose identity as an ‘audience’ and actively participate. Rather than performing to ‘static’ viewers, the audience were eliminated entirely and became part of the work.
Two examples of ‘Happenings’ that I found interesting:
- Sweet Wall (1970)
In an empty lot in West Berlin, Germany, Kaprow and participants enacted Sweet Wall. The group constructed a wall out of cinderblocks, with bread and jam as the mortar. Once complete, they knocked the wall over.
- Fluids (1967)
Originally occurring in Los Angeles and Pasadena, Fluids reflects the transitory nature of urban space by calling for the construction of large rectangular enclosures made from ice blocks, which are then left to melt throughout the city.
Both highlight the participatory and transient nature of the Kaprow’s performances.
Reading:
- Participation, edited by Claire Bishop, Whitechapel Ventures Ltd, 2006.
- http://www.moca.org/kaprow
Post a Comment