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.
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.
ok good.
ReplyDelete