I found this reading incredibly provoking. The definition of an artist and the role of art in present day society has become so complex.
For example, art is no longer confined to objects that can be displayed in museums and galleries. More recently, artists have begun creating works which cross boundaries between other disciplines, such as architecture, design, social activism, environmental conservation, urban planning and numerous other practices. In many cases, art becomes an experience rather than a single tangible object. One example is the 7,000 Oaks project that Joseph Beuys planned. His idea was to reforest an urban area with the help of community members, symbolically allowing nature to reclaim the space. This kind of work is so different from traditional definitions of art that it brings up questions about what distinguishes an artist from, in this case, perhaps a landscape designer? Is it even necessary to make a distinction? Is a landscape designer or environmental conservationist an artist? Why or why not?
Here is a quote from the reading that I found especially moving:
"To deal with new forms of human expression and action, critics and curators are continually trying to stuff them into institutional boxes where they don't fit. Old categories need to collapse before we can begin to create a different dialogue on aesthetics in sustainable culture. "
No comments:
Post a Comment