Friday, March 23, 2007

In response to "But is it Installation Art?"

After our class discussion I felt slightly more confused on what installation art is, so reading this article helped to clarify that for me. Installation art can mean several things, and has been used to talk about many different types of works. One of the statements by Kabakov that seemed to address how I see installation art was the intention of installation art being for the viewer; that installation art is supposed to provide an intense reaction in the viewer. I think that this goes along with what we were discussing in class- that installation art involves the viewer using more than one sense. By using multiple senses the experience is more intense.

Another part of the article that particularly struck me was idea of interior design being installation art. I see how this could be seen as installation art- the surroundings come together to produce a response from the viewer. I know that I have entered a home and been struck by the design and really thought about the use of color or such things, but I had not thought of this as being a form of installation art. Perhaps it is because of the setting- it isn't in a gallery somewhere or a specific site for art. Anyway, although I understand how interior design can be portrayed as installation art, I don't think it can truly be considered installation art. Like the article says "When the experience of going into a museum increasingly rivals that of walking into restaurants, shops, or clubs, works of art may no longer need to take the form of immersive, interactive experiences. Rather, the best installation art is marked by a sense of antagonism towards its environment, a friction with its context that resists organisational pressure and instead exerts its own terms of engagement."

No comments: