Stick the artist to wall
I'm curious about it. Can the social phenomenon professed as one's own and the discourse published as it inspire people's participation?
With the recent trend, discourse formers of the present age often create and talk about discourse with their own works. This is clearly a series of unusual events different from the past. More reliably, we know them as 'artists' before we are discourse formers. To maintain one's discourse, the act of showing the perspective of immateriality to others as matter is, in other words, one's own opinion. It is to profess that 'I am its creator'.
What can we make and share in this era when intellectual production activities have become individual ownership? It is a discourse that is unilaterally injected. Works lead to one thought and one path. People will see the work and have different impressions, but the text attached to the work soon abandons the appreciation, and the journey of intellectual inquiry soon returns to failure. There is only one way we can realize: to follow the path led by the work made by the artist to induce (to) his discourse.
Then let's think about the utility of white cube exhibitions. It was around the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century that paintings began to be hung on white walls with nothing. The color of the wall, which had changed spontaneously, was an aesthetically outstanding color, because the wall of other colors was outstanding. Humans who are accustomed to the wall have come to recognize that the color of the wall was the same as before. White is not green. Red brown is not white. Nonetheless, we are comfortable with the wall. The comfort soon disappears from view. What remains of our vision is not the wall, but the picture itself.
How about the white cube exhibition that excludes the explanation of the work? The wall that disappeared in front of our eyes has reappeared and is decorating the space. Humans are afraid of its status. Before a painting is hung on the wall, the wall blocks and expands our view from the painting. To have such a wall revived means that humans have gained confidence in being able to control the wall or have given up their self-control and determination.
<my entire drawing. B.C 524>
Unlike the existing media order, the projected wall works transparently in an extended field of view. The picture on the wall becomes an image reflected in the process of action. The works of discourse formers also take on this context. Since the implications of the work are inconsistent with the artist's subjective point of view, the work can be considered esoteric from the perspective of the viewer of the work. However, when the discourse former is the author of the work, the act of discussion directly penetrates the image, excluding the existence of the wall.
It is my view that the bond that exists between discourse formers and their works prevents visitors from participating. Is it really right to make the work perform the function of participating as part of the world because their views do not exist in the outside world? The discourses inside the world are the agreed language behavior-order of members of society. If there is a story to twist the order, it should be a new order that will threaten the existing society.
However, existing discourse formers and writers have not produced such results. Political participatory arts have already included their views in the world order. They are not only expressing their views as members of society, but are also proclaiming that they are their creations as works once again.
I'm curious about it. Can the social phenomenon professed as one's own and the discourse published as it inspire people's participation? The act of forcing visitors to read the discourse that is designated as their own and sympathize with it is like telling them to look at the white wall on which the painting was hung and appreciate the painting. Either way, it is clear to be an embarrassing act.