Key Ideas in Art and Design - Globalization - Report Example

Key Ideas in Art and Design: Globalization This research paper joins reflections which examine the legacies of exhibition critique. It focuses on the transforming roles of the artists and consumers. A research paper emerging from desk-based research examines agents in the cultural field. It argues that the enactment of artwork critique contributed to the expansion of the roles of artist and the artwork itself. Examples of the practice are provided, ranging from the contemporary artworks of exhibitions and display methods (RUGG & SEDGWICK, 2007, pp. 7). By examining the forms it takes, it maps the reception and transformation of the practice itself in the context of the changing. Expanding from its original, largely external methods, contemporary artwork theory now internalizes artwork exhibition critique (HETLAND 2013, pp. 152). In this sense, artwork exhibition critique is internalized once again with the potential for use by visitor-agents. In doing so –and by holding artists accountable to their ideologies - it offers a valuable tool for the benefit of agents within the exhibition field. Introduction In its broadest sense, artwork exhibition is concerned with the theoretical approach to any individual or collective human activity related to the preservation, interpretation and communication of our cultural and natural heritage, and with the social context in which an object relationship takes place. Although the field of exhibition is much broader than the study of artwork itself, its main focus remains the functions, the activities and the role in society of artwork exhibition. The complexities of the artwork give rise to critical issues which serve as the object of study. These are history and development; relation exhibition, and to socio exclusion; the representation of cultures; property and ownership; the poetics of display; material culture and historical documentation; tradition, innovation, and self-reflexivity in artwork practice (GAROIAN 2013 PP 69). Artwork exhibition critique is a term often used to refer to certain forms of art characterized by use of the artists as the subject of investigation. This research paper looks at the practice of artwork critique in its use as both an artistic and exhibition-professional methodology. Firstly, the term exhibition requires the art of critique as an umbrella term to describe artistic responses to anything from the art market to local or national governments, academia, sponsors, exhibition, galleries and artistic practice itself. Whilst recognizing their inextricable symbiotic relationship to all of these entities, the artistic subjects referred to in this paper are specifically exhibitions unless otherwise stated. Not simply exhibition showcases for objects, exhibitions comprise a network of systems, agents, functions, events, histories, sites and values. It is these practices which are explored within both the field of exhibition and certain artwork critiques and which serve as the objects of this study. The term critique is likewise broad. Some of the artists proclaimed it as vague, its objectives as operating on a sliding scale, from more timid reflections and exposures on the one hand, to outright revolution on the other. Whilst earlier artists proposed overthrowing the exhibition in favor of some ideals, the works discussed here share an interest in the exhibition site as home to social and cultural structures worthy of revision (LAZZARI, 2010, pp. 29). In examining their use of this instrument, this research paper does not seek to reduce the many implications of these artistic works, but rather frame aspects of them in artistic terms. The critical intent of the critique Figure 1. Eugène Delacroix, Dante and Virgil in Hell, 1822. Source: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY. It has been the discourse said around that institutional“…critique within art has remained strangely insular, not contextualizing the critique within a larger cultural or even societal and political critique” (Lind, 2011, pp.32). Discussions of artistic institutional critique are firmly situated within the art canon, which privileges the artist and artwork but fails to examine its institutional legacies. The contextual positions Figure 2. Claude-Henri Watelet, La Font de Saint-Yenne, c. 1753. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France. This research paper’s artistic examination institutional critique joins a growing interest in the subject within museological discourse (BARRETT, 2012, pp. 13). An emerging number of mussel conferences and papers address its implications where for some time, it was overlooked. It still stands to expand its limitations by investigating outside the small number of canonized artists, the agents it considers and by conducting more thorough and applied studies of the practice. The spheres of art and museology can benefit from an interdisciplinary approach in order to develop understanding via new perspectives (VERGO, 1989, pp. 119). Much has been written about the use of institutions by artists as sites and systems which influence their work. Perhaps the discussion can turn to the next stage of the artist-institution dialogue –institutional responses to those works and the effects on the individuals and bodies involved. Greater still is the gap between museological discourse and practice; its potential uses in practice could also be discussed and implemented. The effectivity of the curatorial role in communicating its aims to an audience Figure 3. Justus Engelhardt Kühn, Portrait of Henry Darnall III (ca. 1710), oil on canvas, Maryland Historical Society. Reproduced with permission from the Maryland Historical Society. This research paper develops a qualitative analysis based on the critical evaluation of collected resource material, underpinned by theory. Principally comprised of secondary research, it included the sourcing of published and unpublished writings, academic and newspaper articles, presentations, websites and theses. Authors include academics and practitioners in the artwork field, journalists, master’s students and artists. In an attempt to draw multiple aspects to the discussion and avoid too abstract an argument, exhibitions, artworks, and exhibition strategies are used as examples, with data gathered from catalogues, interviews and newspaper articles (MANASSEH, 2009, pp. 169). Obtaining data from the original sources of these practices was vital to better understand exhibition critique in the institution and direct research to the needs of the research paper. Primary research was conducted via nine informal interviews with artists and professionals to contribute to the understanding of specific and localized practices. Critiques were asked open-ended questions about the nature, reasoning, intentions and effects of the critiques. The disadvantages of using this method were evident in the sometimes unsatisfactory answers and response rate, which was lacking from the exhibition side. This was expected, and as such the primary research was considered supplementary to the secondary. A hermeneutical methodology framed by Field theory formed the analysis of the material. Hermeneutics –the methodology of interpretation –focuses on written texts but can also be applied to works of art and within sociology, making it suitable in this context (SCHLEIERMACHER & BOWIE, 1998, pp. 4). So does this research paper operate on the basis that art can be texts that may be read. These themes or categories communicate findings that reflect knowledge of the phenomenon under study to be directed at the exhibition critique: reading key texts (in art, New Exhibitionism, exhibitions) in order to gain a general understanding of the whole. In this way I was able to pinpoint patterns of responses and attitudes to and about exhibition critique, and key concepts within the field. The methodology also advocates a historical, contextual comprehension which has been included in the research paper as a logical basis for understanding (SEEBOHM, 2004, pp. 2). From considering institutional critique and the visitor, the paper questions whether it has effected change on institutions who have received critiques. This paper considers the effects of artist activism and invited and uninvited critiques (GÉRIN & MCLEAN, 2009, pp. 16). One of the most notable critics of the art and wider museum world, The Guerrilla Girls’ in this area is focus well-known (SCHOR, 1996, pp. 69). In researching their work, I turned to their website, visual history and published texts, and an interview with a member to discuss their intent, methods and the wider effects of their work. First wave institutional critique emerged from proto-critique and Conceptual art. They held museums accountable for their practices, revealing information that they deemed to be ‘public Institutions interest’ which they were initially not ready to hear –much less publically exhibit such critiques. And the artists themselves maintained a certain distance from the institutions and attempted to emancipate themselves from them. Using a variety of methods and subjects of critique, the current practitioners of institutional critique share a commitment to collapsing the boundaries between the space of art production and consumption (RUGG & SEDGWICK 2007 PP 95). Andrea Fraser’s acknowledged the shift from fault-finding and distance-making, to involvement and co-operation. What the canon fails to do is examine the wider effects of such critiques on the parties involved. The proceeding discussion examines the changing positions of these artist-agents. How the exhibition influenced your thinking in how to display your own work in the context of the exhibition Figure 4. Do women have to be naked to get into the Met. Museum? Poster (2005). Copyright © Guerrilla Girls. From: www.guerrillagirls.com [Accessed 1st May, 2012]. Reproduced with permission from The Guerrilla Girls. This research paper amalgamates findings with analysis to reveal and review the qualitative information in support of the argument. I outline a small number of artists who have contributed substantially to the understanding of artistic productions of exhibition critique. This brief overview seeks to introduce the reader to what form exhibition critique takes in art practice. It reflects my interpretation of what has been established within the canon. A fairly homogeneous history, its discussions are limited to the art world itself and cover the period of exhibition critiques. A small core of inception artists is routinely listed in the canonized writings, the majority of whom are European. Moreover it explores artist-agent position changes into more collaborative, exhibitionised roles as practitioners of exhibition critique (RUSTON, 2013, pp. 102). It provides examples of their attempts to retain their autonomy, gain capital and participate in exhibition and art discourse. Turning the focus of discussion to visitor-agents, it also considers the role of Exhibition critique in developing visitor’s critical thinking. The cultural authority and truth-telling is a commonly-held perception and central to the traditional artwork in upholding its reputation. In aiding their critical thinking skills and drawing attention to the visitors can approach exhibition with an independent mind. It should be noted that the Historical Society did not respond to requests for information and a more conclusive idea of intent and effects had to be surmised from interview. For this reason, combined and with time related results and the nature of the research paper overall, it offers an overview and theory-based argument. It is hoped that this will provide a starting-point for a more sustained study into the formation and effects of visitor critical thinking. From considering exhibition critique and the visitor, the paper questions whether it has effected change on exhibitions which have received critiques (RUSTON, 2013, pp. 126). This chapter considers the effects of artist activism and invited and uninvited critiques. One of the most notable critics of the art and wider art world, the focus is well-known. In researching their work, interviews were conducted with members to discuss their intent, methods and the wider effects of their work. Even when invited, these critiques were met with resistance from the exhibitions. The information about the reception of art work received they denied requests for information from exhibitions which led to a shortfall in information, which then had to be concluded from that which was available. It brings together ideas introduced in previously, considering art, artists, audiences, exhibitions and exhibition agents in contemporary critical exhibition practice. It argues that Exhibition critique is highly valuable when accepted, integrated and practiced by the exhibition itself. When the artist image removed and presented to the gallery relented, allowing the logos to be shown after enquiring with sponsors. When the project went online I would receive frequent emails asking if I would allow them to participate in this uncompromising stance. This was supported and worked according to their habits and professional and institutional responsibilities. These were dominated by the willingness to work with one another and negotiate the terms of the work as artistic institutional critique fostered greater dialogues with museums, so that the exhibition role of the artist expanded in another sense becomes active agents in the spheres of both art and exhibition. As Gerin and Mclean (2009, pp.31) argued, discourse is power as their work is often, but not always bound to the institution in terms of display, interpretation, dissemination and value, they have a vested interest in maintaining those institutions. Using institutional critique empowers artist-agents to become discourse participants, enabling them to manipulate the data to their own ends. As the role of the institutionally-integrated artist became more functionalized, a new set of considerations arose. GÉRIN, A., & MCLEAN, J. S. (2009 np) addressed the issue of site-specific critical projects as a form of service. They observed that, in their changing roles, artists perform a number of functions traditionally occupied by museum and gallery staff in addition to curatorial work. Using the power of juxtaposition, Manasseh (2009, pp.43) reminded the audience of the true cost of some of the fine objects on display. He displayed fine silverware alongside slave shackles and a model slave ship in a section titled: prompting viewers to reflect on those that produced it. Similarly poignant was a Ku Klux Klan hood displayed in a baby carriage, displayed adjacent to photographs depicting black nannies with their wards. Another method Manasseh used was absence as an illuminator. He displayed empty pedestals, indicating with labels the names of prominent African-Americans from Maryland who were unrepresented in the exhibition. He emphasized the narratives of a marginalized group that did far more than bring the exhibition required. This artist noted is evident in its recognition, particularly in the art world. Winning the Best artwork Exhibition Award from the American Association of Art world, and twenty years on, it is still considered a groundbreaking exhibition. These effects will be discussed in the following section. First wave institutional critique emerged from proto-critique and Conceptual art. They held artists accountable for their practices, revealing information that they deemed to be public Institutions interest were initially not ready to hear –much less publically exhibit –such critiques (GLOUBERMAN, 1986, pp. 331). And the artists themselves maintained a certain distance from the institutions and attempted to emancipate themselves from them. Using a variety of methods and subjects of critique, the current practitioners of institutional critique share a commitment to collapsing the boundaries between the space of art production and consumption. Glouberman (1986) acknowledged the shift from fault-finding and distance-making, to involvement and Co-operation. What the canon fails to do is to examine the wider effects of such critiques on the parties involved. The following part examines the changing positions of artist-agents. Outside the art sphere, and around the same time, museology was similarly reconsidering its very foundations in a line of self-reflexive questioning attributed to New Museology (BARRETT 2012 pp 30). The tendency to self-examine paralleled New Institutionalism, and the rising popularity of the analytical artworks described in the previous chapters. Furthermore, the recognition of inherent bias and participation in politics mirrored New Institutionalism. Importantly, in its strong audience focus it advocated a reorientation of agent capital, with power relations that were not burdensome. Projects and critical interventions offered a model to work from, as BARRETT (2012) had hoped. They proved their longevity and provided a testing-ground for institutional practices. In New Institutionalism we find that often its thinkers are also its practitioners. For all its ideals, however, the leading spaces associated with New Institutionalism went through a period of change and many ended up closing. This has since been attributed to their inability to attract visitors outside the small groups already committed to their practices. The sense of exclusivity was alienating for many (FEIGENBAUM, 2013, pp. 186). The inability to truly understand its wider audience is –for all its democratic ideals –something shared with facets of Conceptual art. The small spaces had less visibility and failed to attract the diverse audience they needed to stay afloat. These failings illustrate a gap between an art and curatorial-heavy theory versus the practical needs and desires of visitors. One of the leaders in New Institutionalism, FEIGENBAUM (2013, pp.73), suggests that its earlier manifestations may still be effective as a prototype. Indeed the original practitioners now operate as directors and curators in thriving arts spaces, suggesting that those ideologies have been adapted and improved for practical success. The hospitable role they strived for originally is now taking shape. Limitations The results of this research paper are chiefly due to time restrictions, the scope of the research paper itself and the difficulty in obtaining unpublished, primary source information particularly from exhibitions. The examples provided are often found within the canon, and include exhibitions where more detailed information was available in catalogues and the press. But attempts have been made to examine previously under-discussed events. Where it reflects the canon, it endeavors to bring new aspects to the discussion. The inability to gain a first-hand experience of many of the exhibitions, exhibitions and critiques is unavoidable but a disadvantage, although the availability of associated texts and images has been valuable. The examples provide the basis for the argument presented, which is necessarily theory-oriented. As previously suggested, the next step would be to undertake a more conclusive, practice-based study into the development and effects of public exhibition critique (GIDAL, 2001, pp. 135). It is for this reason that this research paper should be viewed as a hypo research paper with the potential for application in an empirically-based, phenomenological case study. Conclusion Exhibition output was generated by research, and their public role of enlightenment, civility and didactic education, relying on the strength of objects and the class to generate cultural and symbolic capital and maintain distinct agent hierarchies. The artwork began to accept the impossibility of its neutrality and truths and became more interdisciplinary, rethinking the use of its spaces. Early artistic institutional critique distinguished itself through its binary relationships. Artists situated themselves on the outside and exhibitions regarded them with suspicion. From being deemed a substance caught up with their ideologies and allowed critique to be enacted within the artwork. Artists were invited to make critical statements and were able to question the, institution’s changing their neutrality. The questioning of the purpose artworks served in society steered them into instability. It is conceivable that self-critiquing was the critics’ strategy to demonstrate that they were responsive, socially relevant and that they held themselves accountable to their own ideologies. They simply practiced behind reflecting on the scenes but publically, via exhibitions and programming. When taken up in this way, critique serves to strengthen and gives legitimacy and ultimately becomes constructive. In fact, critique is vital to artwork practice. Without it, there would be very little diversity represented, narratives and displays would be outmoded and irrelevant, and objects would take precedence over publics. In short, critique is necessary to progress. Its commitment to transparency has left legacies which include the way we think about artwork, and therefore include this paper work itself. The historical positions occupied by these agents have changed and is diversified in their institutionalization. The curator enacted his own criticality. The visitor was courted as a producer as well as consumer of information, encouraged to flex their critical skills in the institution. The institution sustained itself and found new ways of staying relevant. Nonetheless, this story cannot be neatly packaged with the agent roles resolved and the balance of power harmonized. Successful institutional critique, in the context of this paper, must retain its autonomy from the institution but in retaining its autonomy, it can hold institutions accountable to their aims and ultimately help sustain them. However institutions change their role as caretakers of culture remains important in the field. REFERENCES BARRETT. (2012). Australian artists and the museum. Aldershot, Hamps, Ashgate Publishing. FEIGENBAUM, G. (2013). Provenance: an alternate history of art. Los Angeles, Getty Research Institute. GAROIAN, C. R. (2013). The prosthetic pedagogy of art embodied research and practice. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press. GÉRIN, A., & MCLEAN, J. S. (2009). Public art in Canada: critical perspectives. Toronto, University of Toronto Press GIDAL, E. (2001). Poetic exhibitions: romantic aesthetics and the pleasures of the British Museum. Lewisburg, [Pa.], Bucknell University Press. GLOUBERMAN, M. (1986). Descartes: the probable and the certain. Würzburg, Königshausen & Neumann. HETLAND, L. (2013). Studio thinking 2: the real benefits of visual arts education LAZZARI, M. R. (2010). The practical handbook for the emerging artist MANASSEH, C. (2009). The problematic of video art in the museum, 1968-1990. Amherst, N.Y., Cambria Press RUGG, J., & SEDGWICK, M. (2007). Issues in curating contemporary art and performance. Bristol, UK, Intellect.2 RUSTON, A. (2013). The artists guide to selling work.London,Bloomsburry SCHLEIERMACHER, F., & BOWIE, A. (1998). Schleiermacher: "Hermeneutics and Criticism". Cambridge, Cambridge University Press SCHOR, M. (1996). Wet: on painting, feminism, and art culture. Durham, NC, Duke University Press. SEEBOHM, T. M. (2004). Hermeneutics method and methodology. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers. VERGO, P. (1989). The New museology. London, Reaktion Books. Read More