![]() These typically consist of a big red button connected to a monstrous machine which flails wildly and makes a terrifying din. A good illustration of this passive kind of interactivity is provided by Tinguely’s mechanical objects. It was a form of interactivity that required a patience on the part of the viewer, who often seemed more like a victim of the artist’s imaginative whims than a participant with something of his own to contribute. Twentieth century avant-gardes, particularly those of the twenties and of the sixties and seventies, sought to achieve direct contact with the spectator as a way of overcoming the existing boundaries of art. Without his presence or participation, there would seem to be no point in the work’s existence. The significance of the work is placed more than ever within the spectator’s sphere of responsibility. The work of art is no longer permitted simply to exist and be viewed or experienced it demands a reaction and reacts in its own right. What these forms of expression have in common is the intention to elicit an active interchange between the work of art or the artist on the one hand, and the spectator, target group or general public on the other. A much-favoured medium is currently the website, embodying as it does the ideal of endless and unbridled interactivity. They range from robots that raise their roguish caps on command like pathetic circus chimps, to substantial projects that elicit public participation in various forms and at multiple levels. Visual art that explicitly seeks interaction exists in many kinds and on many scales. Art is now supposed to serve a purpose, to achieve an effect, to ‘do something’, much more than in the past.Ī salient illustration of the new tendency is the demand for interactive art. This idea of mandatory inutility is an outworn idea. ![]() ![]() Autonomous art is out of favour, and with it the widely held view that art, if quite important, is on the whole a dispensable frill. The reduced autonomy of the artist in the field of publicly commissioned art results in problematizing the autonomy of art in general. But this goes along with new obligations and duties, and these tend to be projected almost blindly onto the whole field of the visual arts. Many avant-garde ideals are fulfilled in the progressive integration of art with society. This erosion of boundaries between art, architecture and design seems like the accomplishment of a longstanding dream. There are plenty of commissions for work in the public domain and for the enhancement of new buildings, and artists regularly play a part in landscape and urban redevelopment projects. That alone will allow art to wrest itself free of processes where the law of the strongest holds sway, and so become truly effective.Īt first sight, art seems to be doing quite well for itself, particularly outside its traditional spheres of action. He argues the case for a radicalization of the autonomy of art. The artist’s autonomous position is seriously undermined by this requirement – which, in Jeroen Boomgaard’s view, is a bad thing. ![]() Now that art is being deployed more and more in public/private development processes, people expect it to have a clearly described effect. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |