This article was interesting, in that most of it the author spent ranting and degrading artists that create site-specific local art. She had some very pointed views on artists who make art for money, stating "...a profoundly local public art has not caught on in the mainstream because in order to attract sufficient buyers in the current system of distribution, art must be relatively generalized, detachable from politics and pain (not to mention ugliness)." Lippard believes that place specific art should be created by local artists not out-of-town artists that are paid to come in and create a place specific piece. I think in general she is annoyed with place specific art that does not take into account the people who live in this place and the history from their point of view. Which to a point is understandable, but there should avenues of exception. Suzanne Lacy describes a spectrum of artist's roles from private to public as experiencer, reporter, analyst, and activist. But to make an effective art of place, an artist must be all of these things (Lippard pg. 278).
-images of Suzanny Lacy's 'underground' and 'doing time'
I found this writing to be interesting, especially since Lippard obviously feels so passionately about this topic. It is a nice change from the relatively objective writing from before.
No comments:
Post a Comment