In his essay, Carlson makes the statement in reference to art pieces (in particular, paintings) stating that “its colors are aesthetically important, but where it hangs is not,” (page 538). This statement implies that no matter where an art piece is presented, it will always be considered art. I disagree with this idea because I believe that for some, but not all, works of art the location of its presentation is necessary for its consideration as art. When a painting is presented in a well known art museum which has good standing, it is less likely that a viewer would look at the work and think “I do not know whether or not I would consider this to be art”. Works hung in art museums are less likely to be debated about as falling under the category of “art” because it has seemingly already been decided as so granted that it is hung in a location that centers itself around art. The most prevalent example of this occurring is with many works of modern art. Take a modern art work which consists of just a splash of color as if flicked off from an artist’s paintbrush. Here the artist intended to flick his brush off and let the color splash onto a canvas and then the work was framed and put into a highly recognized art museum. The same artist could do the same thing but to a different location, and have it debatable as to whether or not it should be considered as art. For example, the artist could flick the paintbrush so that some paint landed in a trash can instead of on a nicely presented canvas. Here the artist’s intent was the same, but from an on lookers perspective, the paint flicked onto the canvas which was hung in the art museum would be more likely to be accepted as art than the paint flicked into the trashcan even though intent was the same. Although the argument still exists as to the paint flicked into the trash can as being art, it could be assumed that the paint in the trash can is more debatable as art than the same work being hung in a well known art museum. What is your opinion on this subject matter? Is location important to some art pieces?
You highlight an interesting aspect of the artworld. It does seems that the location of a piece does impact how the piece is received. If I saw some of the artwork at MoMA anywhere else, it may take longer (if it happens at all) for me to realize that it is art (if it is art).
ReplyDeleteDo you think that this is the way it ought to be though, or is it just a regrettable byproduct of good intention?