i just read this really interesting article by art historian/visual culture/academic Irit Rogoff. here's the link:
http://www.kein.org/node/62
it is quite long but i reccommend persevering - it made me full of verve and vigour for TAC activities.
basically, Rogoff is writing as an advocate for what has now become known as 'Visual Culture', an academic discipline which has splintered away from Art History. well, she is kind of an advocate for it but recognises the term as mainly for convenience. Rogoff about the disintergration of distinctions between artist/theorists/critics/curators/audience - which is a way in which I often see TAC functioning - and for "a field of complex and growing entanglements that can never be transliated back to originary or constitutive components."
it's worth a read it you have time. i'd be interested to know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Irit Rogoff’s image of a complex entanglement of subjects seems like an apt description of my experience of working collaboratively with you, the members of TAC towards a singular output. I respond to the idea that in the process of suggesting ideas, responding and developing them together, disagreeing and changing direction, making progress and going backwards that we become participants, critiquers and authors. That these activities happen within our development process first, before they happen subsequently in the reception of the work with an audience is a complication of the usual process.
The CAMRU project epitomizes this complication of the traditional production reception dualism really clearly. The work
It also seems like our process is our output (at the moment), that conversations are still the main locus of our activities. The notion of “writing with” the artist’s work is one that has always appealed to me, and it reminds me of the Ian Wedde written accompaniment to the Bruce Barber crater work in the Post Object Art catalogue. I was interested in how Wedde’s writing attempts a direct experimentation with the subjectivity of his performance in the work as a writer. Through this he seems to draw attention to his inability to speak from ‘outside’ the work, being ‘in’ the work as a part of the performance as it is happening. His is a record where the experience of the work and an attempt at a reading of it is presented or represented to the audience. This fits with understanding art making as being contextual and a social process.
Rogoff’s notion seems to be at ease with what has previously been thought of as being a complication, confusion or conflict.
hope this helps :)
Post a Comment