Chloe stole two of my questions, so here goes and let's hear what you think!
1) On p.23, Derrida (via Groys' interpretation) claims that "the present is originally corrupted by past and future." In our art classes, we are told time and time again not to "create art in a vacuum" and to look at outside sources. Does this essentially mean we are corrupting our art? Explain.
2) Groys explains how modernism moves forward using less and less "baggage," resulting in a stream-lined, highly reduced present (p. 24). Can this trend continue? Is it possible to keep shedding old ideals and create art that is even more reduced? Does this trend apply to your own artworks?
3) Do you agree with Groys' analyzes of museums on p.27, where he explains one anticipates everything in a museum to be art, that museums are no longer homes for permanent collections, etc? Can you think of any specific examples that come to mind, and is this a "good thing" (as in, should museums be a revolving door of artwork)?
4) Explain the duality of the negative and positive points of time-based art, presented by Groys on p.39 (last paragraph). Is time-based art really its own "comrade in time?"
1.) In the definition presented by Groys, yes we are corrupting our work. However, we learn that all art looks back and “nods” to the past and past works while continually looking to the future. I think contemporary art takes these past influences and current artists works to “capture and express the presence of the present.” Even in politics we look to the past to avoid repeating mistakes and understanding ere we came from; likewise, with art we need to look at outside sources to prevent ourselves from repeating art already made or overdone.
ReplyDelete3.) I agree that when you go into a museum you assume everything there is art. This is culminated with Duchamp, when he placed The Fountain in a museum. Before reading this I never thought of temporary exhibits as a negative thing. It was a way for different works to be viewed and in the same building at different times. I never saw it as removing the stable future for an artwork because I don’t see them as really having a future. Today it is so easy to document work that having it on a rotation in a museum doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me. I think museums should have permanent collections but they have so much art that is hardly ever displayed it is important to have it rotating through to get it seen. Otherwise why have the art in the first place?
3. I find it interesting that Groys compares the museum and the rotation of art work to that of the resurrection... After going to some museums, I think it would be interesting if they could constantly rotate the works. "The notion of a permanent art collection says it all: archive, library, and museum promised secular permanency..." (Groys, 27). I think it is good to have a permanent collection for people to view the "classics" (for lack of a better term). Granted, museums are starting to have temporary collections, most still have their permanent collection.
ReplyDeleteWhen one thinks about all of the amazing art that is sitting in archives, it would be interesting to have a specific museum or site to have that art constantly revolving.
1) I think that in most cases, whether you are looking at outside sources or not, there will be others whose work is similar to your own. I think that our work is influenced in some part by everything we have seen thus far in life. For this reason, shouldn't we see as much as possible? This can allow us to take numerous influences, in addition to our own ideas, and create something new and interesting. I think it is best to start out with our own ideas, especially concepts, themes, etc., and then look to outside resources for inspiration and to get ideas on how to express the messages we wish to convey.
ReplyDeleteI also think having themes in advanced studio helps to protect ourselves from corrupting our own work. While we can get ideas from outside artists on how to illustrate our ideas in a particular way, we cannot as easily steal someone else's "theme."
2. Groys explains how we are obsessed with the now and that museums and galleries have lost their lasting impression by continuing showing new exhibits rather than having permanent collections. Because of this impermanence, we are constantly eliminating the past. Is this bad? While I agree that we in our "contemporary" society are obsessed with the now, with the "trendy" for lack of a better word, I feel that the rotation of artwork is integral to development and in the communication of new ideas. We are a society that is so heavily based in having knowledge at our finger tips that galleries and museums function as yet another form of transport of information. Yet at the same time, I feel that maintaining ideals and ideas from the past, help ground us as human beings and as thinking, philosophizing and developing creatures. By showcasing works of art that truly epitomize certain attitudes, concepts, and important knowledge of history helps in artistic and creative development as people.
ReplyDelete1. According to this definition presented by Groys, isn't all work corrupted then? Because everyone is influenced by their own past at least, and definitely by things done by others. Even if you see a piece of art and you say you want your own piece to have no reference or semblance of similarity to it, you are still being influenced by it because you don't want to have your work resemble it. It is impossible not to be influenced by the past. ANd if it happens no matter what, to everyone ever (even ancient greeks or cave men) then can it be a corruption? Or would it instead be a part of art from the beginning? I don not think that looking at influences corrupts any work.
ReplyDelete3. Recently I visited the Hirshorn Museum in DC. I go there every so often and I always am excited when I see new artwork displayed. They have a permanent collection, but they also rotate exhibits. I think this is for the most part good. On the one hand, there needs to be some type of permanence in museums, because people need to see the past and learn from it. However, the problem becomes...how do they narrow it down from all the art ever made of what to put on permanent exhibit? What makes the ones they chose so special?
However, I feel as if art also needs to have this notion of a temporary exhibit. One because there is so much art in the world, and even though it can all be accessed online for the most part, it is a whole different feeling to see it in a museum, like Groys mentions, it is a silent, mainly individual experience when you go to a museum, versus seeing it on the internet or in a movie theater. The temporary exhibit is a way for museums to show different art, or to just be able to show art that could not fit anywhere. Ideally all museums would have both types of exhibits where all artwork would eventually be shown.