1.) Historically the practice of art has been relatively centralized around the concept that art is found within the piece itself however, as stated in the reading, challenging that idea is the growing significance of concept and context. From this stems the art form of conceptualism as well as minimalism which both gradually remove the boundaries between what is commonly considered "art and every-day life." However, given this gradual regression or progression, is there a point where the representational difference becomes too insignificant to arouse popular support? Is minimalism and conceptualism too representational of "non-art" to succeed as "art" in itself?
2.) Vostell and Paik "re-contextualized" the monitor and sparked the beginning of intellectual, conceptual, and aesthetic discussion concerning the new medium of TV. This discussion opened up routes for sub-categorical deliberation among narrative, dairy, and other critique facets of the "new" medium of choice. However, throughout the critique development of TV, artists distinguished themselves apart from the "commercialized television engineers" by defining their actions and thought processes as purely "interested in the mechanisms of video as they functioned artistically." Yet, in the intellectual, physical, and cognitive actions of such artists especially in displaying of art through the video/TV medium, aren't the endeavors of such artists, be it intellectual, conceptual, narrative, diary-like, etc. paralleling the endeavors of "commercialized television engineers?" or is the difference between endeavors "artistically" approached and approached as "art" substantial enough to warrant these artists truly different from commercialized TV engineers?
No comments:
Post a Comment