Still cant comments so here is all.

First response:

Bourriard’s theory of relational aesthetics was theorizing about a new ways of behaving in a  perceptible reality. It is mainly about the ways the viewer perceives and assesses aesthetics, therefore such artists who work in the roam of social engagement, does not fall under the umbrella of relational aesthetics.

Fried on the other hand disliked the participation of the viewers in the gallery space, since once the viewer participates in the work, it moves away from the aspect of art through the theatrecal elements.

Smithson was challenging the idea of the non-sight, through cultural confinement. He was one of the artists who early one, challenged the gallery space, by where the arrangement of objects became the part of the working process. 

Carsten holler experience was a really interesting exhibition set up for me. I do appreciate craft over concept, so the well built structures were amusing, but i started to think more about the questioning of the gallery space, by bringing in carnival objects, where the viewer becomes one with the work through participation. I tend to agree more with Fried’s point of view where aesthetics are appreciated to the fullest without the viewer being own the picture.

In my work, I like to give an experience to the viewer, but still in the scenario of the traditional gallery space, where it is implied not to touch anything. I would have some wacky ideas how i could make my Looney tombs series interactive for sure.

Second Response:

 Group Material used The people’s choice to connect with the community in a way, where both artists and non-artists were brought in the frame as people who can be participatory in an art exhibition. This kind of tactic is successful in a way, that it brings people in who otherwise might be put off by the institutional aspect of an exhibition and brings people in to participate who otherwise wouldn't have. This show brought everyday objects in to the space where it started a dialogue from these objects with different histories. 

The downside of this tactic is that it goes and feeds the ‘everything is art’ narrative, which i really dislike. By promoting this and encouraging non-art people to bring everyday objects and making it an art exhibition doesn't help on the long run. If everything is art, nothing is art. Meritocracy will soon become an oppressor that needs to be abolished.

In my practice, I am working with different cultures, which brings people together to aesthetically enjoy the art, but todays ‘getting offended by everything’ climate takes away artistic liberties (which used to be granted to artists) if your art is dealing with a culture you don't belong to. 

I like to collaborate with experts in different fields that i don't know much about such as the ct scanning department or Egyptologists to evoke new ideas.

Third response

some of these artists work in this chapter has reminded me of the artists who made the Gian craft in the floor of the TATE. The disruption of the space and using its qualities are giving a new experience to the viewer. 

by changing the 100-day museum to 100-day event is taking away the observation on a quality/meritocracy level. 

I dont like these kind of word plays, where the art is being brought down on an equal level in the name of equality.  i don't think there is anything wrong with judging or transporting objects, which is what the name change is trying to eliminate.

A site-specific city wide exhibition has more of a carnival feel to it, and by moving out of the museum scene, people look at the work in a less distinguished manner. what i mean is, we project a sense of greatness to the white cube. In a way, it is a show, where the podium, Tv, or stage, is the gallery space. It has a sense of entitlement to take it seriously.

So, one thing i like about art being outside of the white cube, is that it stripes off the entitlement to take it seriously and you can judge a work on it own merit. People can argue, if it needs a frame and white walls for the work to look good, than it might not be good enough. But the judgement and the element of comparing is still there.

i really dislike the vision of Szeemann and Beuys, where the exhibition is transformed in to a space for conversion about social and political change. I absolutely despise the notion of making everything political. Politics divides people and if people are really aiming to get along and make more people engaged with art, maybe toning down politics could help.

Second Half of Responses:

Final essays 

The Epistemology article made me think of several other readings such as vibrant matter and the to have and to hold with the chapter about body preservation and antique sale.

The article talks in depth about the taxidermy bird and really creates a life to the bird in the mind of the reader. The vibrant matter reading from almost two years ago still haunts me and really gives a unique perspective to look at creatures that are lifeless. 

The tag made me think of the value attached to objects and how we perceive value in general. 

Charles Peale started the first American museum, combining a selection of his own interest from paintings to taxidermy. This has created a museum that had an objective of learning through experience, while playing with aesthetics of wonder. This was before the preconceived notion of the gallery space, so the museum was a wonderful place of exploration. Taxidermy started out as a educational tool, where anatomy was re-created to look at these animals close-up. That became something that was pushed forward by creating a surrounding to it, based on the original habitat of origin, therefore the spectator was given the opportunity to not just look at the animal, but help them imagine in their real environment. Peale’s concept was challenging the idea between the exploration of wonder and educational collection in my opinion.

Obscured Meanings: Squirming Into Truth's Cracks: Eve Andree Laramee by Linda Weintraub

This reading made me think a lot about Beltracchi the master forger.

There was a quote “viewers don’t expect art to be a factual depiction, but they do expect the creator of the fiction to be true.” Which was perfectly describes an interesting idea between painting a landscape and forging the painting of the landscape.

Beltracchi was painting in the style of the chosen artists and he copied his styles while selling them as new originals from dead artists, while fooling all the experts. The reading also talks about the curator as a entity.

205-233

The social engagement projects as a form of exhibition can be a little tricky because of how it breaks away from the pre conceived notion of the gallery space. 

It can be difficult to engage people, who has this older, capitalist mentality about the gallery and the objects present. The preconceived notion of a gallery with a huge amount of people is, go look at the work, see it, and eventually someone will buy it. There is a certain acceptable behavior in the space, while the engagement only applies aesthetically. 

I think Claire Doherty asking the question to make readers think about what separates/define art and object, while also wonders about the idea of the gallery space.

175-205

As much as I enjoy art as knowledge in Vidokle’s version of Manifesta 6, and expose people and engage them with the behind the scenes of the ‘concept generator’, I am not too much of a fan of trying to engage with the public that way. For me, I like the wondrous elements of art making, the wonder of how it was done. It is an experience, which I do not want to be reviewed. 

I am more of a fan of the art as objects rather than research. Research is something that is before the art making/art fully takes shape.

Discussion Prompt (Pages 70-105)

On page 82 Voorhies discusses how Szeemann's initial proposal for Documenta 5 was to augment the event-like quality of the exhibition by evacuating altogether the interiors of the Museum Fridericianum and Neue Galerie and turning the entire city of Kassel into a backdrop of mis-en-scene, for the exhibition. 

Szeemann declared in his goals for Documenta 5: "The slogan of the last two documentas, "100-Day Museum" is to be replaced with "The 100-Day Event." The term "museum" and "art" imply the idea of viewing objects and material property, then confirming, transporting, and insuring the goods. In contrast for documenta 5 we can expect that all the events will be prepared and staged at Kassel, and that the organization will focus on projecting events rather than judging or transporting objects. documents 5 is not, in the first instance, a place for a static accumulation of objects, but a process of events that refer to one another. This concept is essentially didactic."

How does the implication of the city as a context for art compare to the museum(s) as the context in the instance of Documenta? More broadly how does a site-specific citywide exhibition vs. a museum white cube exhibition differently impact the viewer(?), the city(?), and artist(?). How do these two approaches impact exhibition planning, creative decisions, the community/audience, and exhibition outcomes/impacts. 

On page 92, paragraph 2, Voorhies questions and compares the roles of the artist, curator, and institution in framing or producing the critical insights or critical voices for exhibitions. What are your thoughts on the hierarchies and/or distribution of work between these three agents in the production of exhibitions? Do you agree with Szeemann(?), Smithson(?), or maybe Bourriaud's ideas(?)... or other curators or artists approaches in the text? State your philosophy.

Discuss these ideas in at least 3 paragraphs.

Blog Response 2: Tori Bell

1.)   Advocating collaborative exhibitions instead of individual artist shows, community engagement over exclusivity, and alternative spaces in lieu of the customary white cube gallery, Group Material asked "everyone to question the entire culture we have taken for granted.” Group Material’s exhibitions adopted activist stances towards sensitive issues, which was exemplified in their AIDS Timeline project, which sought to illustrate the complex political and cultural reception of the disease. Group Material’s output consciously resembled the forms of the political vanguard. This comprised renting billboards and ad space on subway cars, paying for inserts in the New York Times, and taking exhibitions to the street — “all refusals of established frameworks for the organization of art,”

However, being collaborative meant they were subject to infighting and different ideas of how to achieve their goals. Because the group registered as a non-profit they functioned as one of the beauracracies they were often criticizing. And unfortunately for art historians, Group Materials alternative strategies often meant there was no physical material or minimal documentation.  

Artists like Sharon Hayes, LaToya Ruby Frazier and Rick Lowe are all descendents of the community engagement mindset that Group Materials championed. They make their work in response to the community, and Frazier and Lowe make sure the community is involved.

2.) My work always takes the feminist stance. But feminism is not a white woman’s issue. It needs the voice of black and Hispanic women. However, I cannot just make work about a group in which I don’t have a voice. But I want my work to include this important aspect of feminism.

That is why I am looking into collaborating with female artists of color, or asking a black women’s association if they would help me form the narrative of my illustration and give me feedback. They would also be credited.

Discussion Prompt (Pages 35-70)

1. On pages 62-63 Voorhies lists Group Material's various exhibition techniques and platforms for creating art relevant to the community where they worked/exhibited. In three paragraphs describe and critically examine the strengths and weaknesses in their approaches while mentioning other artists/projects (not listed in the text) that you feel successfully produced projects/exhibitions connected to communities where they work/live and explain why you deem them successful. 

2. In two paragraphs describe measures you could take (or have taken) in your studio production to include a certain community as collaborators or at least to encourage a community to become a more involved part of your audience. 

WILLIAM POPE.L Documenta: Whispering Campaign outside the Fridericianum

Listen to a whisper at Documenta click here

Pope.L: Whispering Campaign

documenta 14, Athens, Greece and Kassel, Germany

Athens: April 8, 2017 – July 16, 2017

Kassel: June 10, 2017 – September 17, 2017

click here for more info

Production | Exhibition Grant

William Pope.L, a Chicago-based performance artist known for his interventions in cityscapes, has produced a new work to address the liminal status of refugees and immigrants, specifically for documenta 14. For the first time, documenta, which has taken place every five years in Kassel, Germany since 1955, was also held in a secondary location, Athens, Greece. Pope.L’s VIA-supported project, entitled Whispering Campaign, is a sound installation of whispers emitted through speaker systems, installed both in public spaces and on mobile maintenance trucks, disseminating their content throughout the streets and in restaurants, bars, shopping centers, public transit, and more.

Whispering Campaign first premiered in Athens (April 6) and remained there through July 16, 2017. Simultaneously, the work launched in Kassel on June 10 and remained on display for the respective 100-day duration of documenta 14. Having interviewed migrants in both cities, Pope.L interweaves their stories with local mythology, poetry, and rhythmic, non-narrative elements in his “whispers.” These pre-recorded elements were supplemented by scheduled live performances throughout each 100-day period.

For more information, see Pope.L and documenta 14.

In at least two paragraphs (using your own words) define the positions of Fried, Smithson, and Bourriaud as outlined by Voorhies. 

According to Bourriaud's theory of "relational aesthetics" within which Voorhies categorizes Holler's work "Experience”, art should prioritize the engagement and participation of the spectators as process to experience a work of art and if achieved, that is when you conceive the aesthetics of the work. In Bourriaud's view, it is a way to counter the modernists' ideologies in terms of their attitude of particularizing medium and being totally unsociable.

Michael Fried on the other hand is against theatricality, as it has the spectator's role in art, which he argues that such situation takes the art from its innocence. Although, Smithson and Fried are modernist, Fried is absolutely rebarbative. The concepts of Bourriaud and Smithson criticize Fried's rigidity. Smithson has his view on non-site as it shows the processes of his work that is not seen and he presents that in the gallery to still "take the viewer's mind outside of the gallery space.



In an additional paragraph or two state your own opinions/philosophy responding to the four positions (Voorhies included) as you understand them thus far. Feel free to invoke other artists or precedents in exhibitions to outline or defend your position..

I think that humanness as symbol in art gained its position by the revolutionary works of the minimalist artists, in conceptual approach. The "literal" notion of them like Frank Stella, still had to do with the satisfaction of the spectator. Today artists are making art more enjoyable by spectators than you could ever imagine. Food is shared in an exhibition space as art, the work of Captain at KNUST, even Antonio Miralda' food installations. 

Human values and cultures are taking the shape of art in contemporary context. Artists are bringing into the museums, the things spectators find it worthful to their life, for instance the work of Group Material.