I caught this image in Boulder.
I've been working on my research proposal for my Contemporary Art class. My subject you ask? Margaret Kilgallen. Her aesthetic was one of hand-crafted/painted imagery drawing upon old typography, signmaking techniques, indian folk art and hobo art. Much of her work is painted on cardboard, brick walls, or gallery walls for installation pieces, usually with house paint. Cardboard and house paint are the antithesis of archival. I've recently been interested in the question of whether art should be "built to last" or whether ephemera represents the true state of art. I feel like the latter is where I'm heading as far as intentions lie. And my question is: If all art, in the past, were physically ephemeral, lasting only a day to 50 years at most, how would that affect future generations from that point and how they created or understood art? Would it even be art? Or would it be more so? I don't know if there is an objective way to look at this question. But, I ask it because a lot of dogmatism comes from the idea that art should be made to last. Usually these claims are referenced with works from the Renaissance that are still intact and then followed by facts and numbers about the high budget that the MOMA has for maintaining or restoring the works inhabiting the space. But that falls under the assumption that archival is best. I think there is something to say about pieces that will only last for a moment or perhaps a bit longer, carrying this bittersweet and honest sense that all things are mortal.
But, then there are so many things that I enjoy and I am able to enjoy them because people in the past have bothered to make it that way for me. Many books, or storytelling for that matter, have survived several generations and printmaking processes to make their way to the bookshelf at Borders or the local library for me to consume. And while the quality of those books won't lend them to last for hundreds of years, the constant reproduction and adaptation to new technologies will allow the content to last indefinitely. So I guess this is a two-fold question/challenge then: Do we need the physical to be archival for the content to last? Or does the content always last, but constantly being revisited with new vehicles?
I can't decide.
3 comments:
we were actually talking about this in my conservation and collections class. we were specifically comparing how artists in the past centuries created art meant to last for hundred of years while now contemporary artists just create art with the purpose of lasting for a little while. one of the girls in the class mentioned how there was an installation piece of art put up at the MOMA in the 80's that had a video camera or something. when the curator asked the artist what to do when the camera would stop working he replied: "who cares, ill be dead by then." anyway, wether art should be made to last forever or not, that decision is for the artist to make. and i personally respect whatever decision they make. because in many occasions the deteriorating aspect is part of the intent the artist had when creating the work
OK, so where the heck is my name on the "family with benefits" sidebar?? Miss you tons and wish you could live here, or at least in Richmond...We need a hefty dose of crazy around here:)
Post a Comment