Wow - there's so much to think about in response to your latest post; I love it! I'm going to try and focus on one of the first points of concern you raised: that contemporary development of art strategies may negate classical art practice:
.JPG)
I think a lot of what is being implied in this question relates to the expectation of 'what art is', and for this reason, the immediate danger here is to consider a notion of the stereotypical or cliche within History of Art. The contemporary practices of Installation or Performance - categories under which you suggested placing Bring the Happy - are often not recognised as relating to 'traditional' works; indeed, the suggestion that this kind of art 'moves away from arts traditional ties' owing to its function (participatory/conceptual rather than purely decorative) in itself is problematic.
There is clearly much to discuss around notions of categorisation, tradition verses the traditional, authenticity in the arts, and definitions of the classical and the contemporary (I have no doubt that D I S C O U R S E will investigate some of these terms in the future). However, your initial idea about Conservation with regards to the contemporary art is really interesting.
The curation, collection and then conservation of todays Interactive/Participatory/Techy/'New Media' pieces of art are complicated areas of arts practice - especially if the 'aesthetic traditions' you mentioned include the exhibiting of historical, maintained works (Greek Sculptures) in museums. The concern you express for the future exhibition of today's complicated (digital) artworks is shared, and I think its an area that we'd both benefit from researching. Shall we focus our consecutive posts on this topic and our findings?
No comments:
Post a Comment