If there’s any aspect of art that is forgotten, it is the opinion of art from people. Even in a time where the concept and definition of art has changed and become so variable that anything could be perceived as art, there remains a lack of discourse by the general public.
Whenever art is critiqued, it is generally done so by a critic – someone who is knowledgeable regarding art, and compares pieces to others, the artist to similar artists, the style to other movements. However, this reveals two problems. Firstly, the number of art critics pales in comparison to the abundance of art these days, and secondly that critics are only required to art done by professionals: those that have a reputation over years of crafting their art.
These issues have rarely been brought attention to, as the influx of budding artists grows daily. As art – and the notion of art – has changed, there remains a void of something critical: opinion. For one to improve or evolve ones work, there must be creative feedback and ideally, it be unbiased.
This leads to the conclusion that, if you’re not a well known artist, you won’t receive the feedback to further along your style. The solution to these issues, then, must consider what’s required to fulfil those criteria.
Using the 2006 art space CITYtalking by Astra Howard as the initial influence, the idea was brought into focus. Thanks in part to the subtle nudges by Selin, and the continuous questioning in regards to relating the issue by Simon, the concept was able to bear fruition. Although the majority of the idea was formed by my erratic thinking, without the contributions of my fellow group the art space could possibly have been revolved around a failed attempt to use blindness as the art space, born partly due to the recent release of Netflix’s Daredevil. Thankfully, this was not the case
With the idea now agreed upon, the process then shifted to refinement: how could we achieve what we’re intending to do? With society having a relatively sound knowledge of art, how can one give raw feedback? This question was resolved through a minimalistic sense: remove any prior knowledge of the art and the artist. Having the only information being the knowledge of there being pieces of art to witness, there is a level of intrigue.
However this is only half of the problem. With the audience now unaware of what exactly will be shown, the next step is to introduce them to voice their opinion. This introduction adds a new layer towards the space – recorded feedback – that can be beneficial in multiple ways. With the recorded feedback, the artist is given an opportunity to be critiqued, and in turn use that knowledge to adapt and refine their style.
Using the current project headed by the John Cage Trust, ‘Reality Radio’ , the prospect of streaming the recently formed opinions from those observing the artwork and broadcasting them to the entrance expanded the idea and asked a new question: does hearing an opinion about something, intrigue you to want to know the origin of said opinion? Now, the concept has built up to a point of near self-sustainability through intrigue.
Concerning the area and resources required of the space itself, there is room for interpretation and expansion. With the contents of the space being minimal due to the need of clear recording, the initial proposal would involve a carpeted floor, microphones to be near the pieces, and a small amount of people inside the space at any time. Furthermore, the location of the space itself would be primarily situated in a urban area with a focus aimed towards busy laneways and streets. This would maximise the potential of observers, and increase the recorded feedback and also improve the awareness of the space itself.
With the costs and resources, the creators of the space would majorly fund the start up of the space, and the pieces used would be acquired from artists willing to showcase their work anonymously at first. This idea was ideal based on the submissions for the United Kingdom’s annual Summer Exhibition, where both professional and amateur artists submit their pieces, and the successful pieces are hung alongside one another, symbolising the shift of elitism once prevalent in previous decades.
With the meaning of the space revolving around mystery, the rotation of art pieces would be weekly, whereupon the connectivity of a made website and social networking, the artists would be revealed and the option to purchase their artwork would become available. The use of technology is detrimental, as 2 people would be required to edit, loop, and broadcast the feedback to the entrance of the art space.
The hours of the space itself would be accessible for two sessions, such as 10am-1pm and 2pm-5pm, and be open from Tuesday-Friday. The reason for this would be for the editors to assess the data recorded and clear up any audio problems, and Monday designated as to reset the art space for the new week.
The beauty of this space is the concept itself is organic. By overlooking what is currently happening with art and how it is reviewed and spoken about, this idea has the potential to expand across countries around the world, involving artists of different styles and movements. To make the audience wonder what art they will observe, and to instinctively verbalise their reaction, it creates a distinction between what is expected, what is witnessed, and what is said. This concerns not just the audience, but the artist as well.
So, what do you think?
Bordens, K. (2010). Contextual Information, Artistic Style and the Perception of Art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, [online] 28(1), pp.111-130. Available at: http://art.sagepub.com/content/28/1/111.full.pdf+html [Accessed 17 Apr. 2015].
Creative Spaces, (2015). CITYtalking | Case Studies | Creative Spaces. [online] Available at: http://www.creativespaces.net.au/case-studies/citytalking [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015].
Goldbard, A. (2002). When (Art) Worlds Collide: Institutionalizing the Alternatives. In: J. Ault, ed.,Alternative Art New York 1965-1985: A Cultural Politics Book for the Social Text Collective, 1st ed. [online] Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp.183-199. Available at: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=2ZzxqQqQk94C&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=Alternative+Art+New+York+1965-1985&source=bl&ots=CUEff_Cx4h&sig=1K2hm7a6Emglb5USlpXV8lcOlpM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xBMzVan6L4a4mwXMtoGgDQ&ved=0CFMQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 18 Apr. 2015].
Hooper, M. (2008). The pleasure of art without context. [online] The Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/artblog/2008/jun/09/thepleasureofartwithoutco [Accessed 17 Apr. 2015].
Howard, J. (2015). Interactive Media Art · Meanjin · Literacy in Australia · Melbourne University Publishing · Classic English Literature Books · Australian Literary Journals & Magazines. [online] Meanjin.com.au. Available at: http://meanjin.com.au/articles/post/interactive-media-art/ [Accessed 14 Apr. 2015].
Jacobs, T. (2010). Context May Diminish Art Appreciation. [online] Psmag.com. Available at: http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/for-contemporary-art-context-is-counterproductive-9220 [Accessed 17 Apr. 2015].
Johncage.org, (2015). John Cage :: Official Website. [online] Available at: http://johncage.org/ [Accessed 17 Apr. 2015].