Reading response for Wednesday Oct 16th
From Mojdeh, re: Robert Morris:
1- Artists often find the desires of financial sponsors to be
conflicting with their ethical system and values.
How can artist deal with this ristricting factor? How can they turn
this restrictions to an opportunity?
2- What do you define site specific peace of art (in another words what
are the characters of such an art knowing that every site is unique)?
In your definition, how do you see the work of Robert Morris?
3- Why buildings are not a site specific peaces of art and craft?
1. I think the smart artist already sees the necessity of financial sponsorship as an opportunity to strengthen the meaning of their art. The reading seamed to be saying that art isn’t really controlled by financial powers. That it is possible for a piece of art to have a voice independent of alternative motives.
2. Site specific art is the bridge between location / earth and culture / people. It would be hard to have a piece of site specific art that does not explore that relationship.
3. If you are going to suggest that buildings are not site specific and are not pieces of art and craft then I would argue along the lines of Trevor Paglen. That buildings are the active forming of cultural space by cultural activities.
1)As Morris noted, most art of the past and present has had dubious sponsorship that in no way diminishes the value of the art itself (pyramids, Gothic cathedrals, Zaha Hadid building for Azerbaijan etc.). I suppose every situation would be unique. The artist would look at the sponsor, look at the requested art piece, look at their own personal feelings on the matter, factor in how much they need the money, and make a decision.
2)I don’t think any art is site specific. The meaning of the piece installed in that particular site is specific (and possibly unique), but the piece itself is not. It could be moved elsewhere and the meaning and statement would change. Morris’s work is the same as any other in that regard.
3)Buildings are art, and like art their meaning can change with the site. The meaning is site-specific, not the building. A different building on the same site may arrive at the same meaning.
(1) Most professions deal with financial restrictions. This is just a part of the business. Artists could easily be personally affected by this because art is concerned with the ‘self’ and can be very personal. Although not favorable at times, these restrictions can be used to think ‘outside of the box’ (for lack of a better term) and challenge the original ideas of the work.
(2) Site specific art is a a selected grouping of ideas that is presented in a final piece of work. These groupings are unique to the specific space, the arrangement, understanding, ordering and overall compilation.
(3) Buildings are probably the best examples of site specific pieces of art in the way that they are affected by social, economic, physical, political, and environmental influences.
1- Artists often find the desires of financial sponsors to be
conflicting with their ethical system and values.
How can artist deal with this ristricting factor? How can they turn
this restrictions to an opportunity?
I’m not sure if I agree with that statement. Often times, the relation between artist and patron is mutually supportive and even better than without restrictions. Restrictions, to me, requires greater creativity to be subversive, or be clearer about intentions. I think the article argues for larger funding (government) that is more restrictive in some senses but also just a different lens of work that the artist needs to accommodate for.
2- What do you define site specific peace of art (in another words what
are the characters of such an art knowing that every site is unique)?
In your definition, how do you see the work of Robert Morris?
A site specific piece of art considers and responds to key elements that are particular to a piece of land, geography, history, time, or belief. Through its presence, the site is understood or even seen for the first time.
3- Why buildings are not a site specific peaces of art and craft?
Perhaps because art and craft suggest a conglomeration of pieces and buildings are usually thought of as a whole?
1. In this day and age, is there a reason that the artist cannot conceive the proposal first, and then seek out sponsorship? Doesn’t that happen every day through websites like Kickstarter?
2- Site specific art connects to the environment and the viewer. You are not observing the art piece through an observer/observed relationship. You are in the art. You are the art.
3- Who thinks buildings are not site specific pieces of art and craft? Aren’t they the most prolific site specific installations in the world?
1- Artists often find the desires of financial sponsors to be
>conflicting with their ethical system and values.
>How can artist deal with this ristricting factor? How can they turn
>this restrictions to an opportunity?
The specific issue of land restoration is certainly a complex situation – I think at the very least, we should look at it as an opportunity for the betterment of the land. The artist and the actual commisioner may be coming from different angles, but are they not, in the end, achieving the same end goal? Morris talks about conflict of interest in that as artists accept these commissions, they are in some way, giving their acceptance of the situation. I understand his viewpoint, but one could also look at is as opportunity to make a statement. I also have to wonder what the place is of an artist in a situation such as this. I am personally conflicted about this – what qualifies as land rehabilitation?
I think site specific art should take advantage of, but not compete with the surrounding environment. If inspiration is taken from a specific location, it should be shown in the piece, strengthening, but not overpowering the site.
I hope buildings are exactly this! I’ve always thought and hoped for architects that buildings should be artistic expressions of a built environment. And site- I would argue, is the most important piece, anchoring the building to the related landscape, culture, etc.
Morris says art is amoral and has no regard for it’s sponsors’ morals. So go ahead, use them like they use you. But the end of the article seemed sarcastic, insincere, cynical. I didn’t come away comfortably with the opinion he leaves you with, and I’m not sure if he wants you to. The last sentence suggests that even if art is celebrating the prevailing idiocy, do it. Even if it implicitly supports the immoral act via good PR, at least it marks a culmination.
What is site-specific? To me, site specific means that every question that had to be asked to make or do whatever it is was answered by some force on the site.
Buildings can be site specific and were more so in the past. It’s rare now because construction is difficult and/or not cost effective and/or not aesthetically acceptable.
1. Often it seems that an artist will work with the money of a benefactor, but doing the art they want. When constrained by the financier, the artist either executes what is wanted, or goes beyond what is asked for. The classic architect that designs the building they want, regardless of what the client asks for. But don’t be the Diego Rivera masterpiece that gets destroyed by the Moneyman because you had to put Lenin in there!
2. Site specific art exists in the nature of the relationship between object and viewer. Of course an installation that is rooted in its surroundings is site specific, but it rests idle until a participant arrives to connect the piece, the landscape and the moment in time. Likewise, a painting in a museum can become site specific if the viewer, in that space and time, connects it with the place, and forever will remember it as being experienced… there.
3. Many buildings are not site specific, but actually envoke another place or time. They could live in Anywhere, USA, like the student housing going up lately, or they could be seemingly from another time and continent, or the future. it takes a multidimensional understanding of the specific landscape (past and future), to place a building there in the present and have it be specifically for there. If it interacts with the environment optimally, this too can specify its place as right.
1- Artists often find the desires of financial sponsors to be
conflicting with their ethical system and values.
How can artist deal with this ristricting factor? How can they turn
this restrictions to an opportunity?
In a situation in which an artist has to choose between his or her own moral standards and obtaining work, the compulsion to choose one or the other lends itself to the necessity of a gray area. Most artists are not commercially successful due, in part, to a lack of ability to communicate the importance or relevance of their work to a financial backer. However, those that are commercially successful typically have a heightened sense of entrepreneurship and do the necessary work to translate the meaning and intent of their work into financially desireable qualities, bending the inclinations of their finacial backers towards their own. Too often, this mentality and desire to be financially viable as an artist is looked at as “selling-out”. The recognition that this financial backing can be an instrument of good, whether with respect to disseminating an artistic interpretation or an interdisciplinary way of rethinking the aesthetization of surface minded mountain tops, provides a necessary stop gap solution that allows artists (designers as well) to simultaneously finance their work as well as their moral inclinations while using their art to transform the mentalities of their backers.
2- What do you define site specific peace of art (in another words what
are the characters of such an art knowing that every site is unique)?
In your definition, how do you see the work of Robert Morris?
Site specific art adheres to the second English translation of the Hippocratic oath. As spoken in the voice of the site specific art, it would say “If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practise my art, respected by all humanity and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my life.” Site specific art should leave the place better than it was before the art was installed into or onto or around the site. In that sense, Morris’s Johnson Pit #30 is successful since it has been embraced by parkgoers and has restored some of the natural habitat that was formerly a gravel pit.
3- Why buildings are not a site specific peaces of art and craft?
They are but I don’t think that everyone thinks of them that way. It seems that they have become a commodity (housing stock) rather than an individually owned thing (home).
1. To obtain funding for an art installation is probably not always an easy challenge, especially when the art is unconventional. I am not sure an artist can or should deny their initial values. But remaining flexible in their visions is probably helpful. As an architect therefore it may ease an artist’s challenge be offering flexible spaces that leave room for innovation.
2. Every site is unique in one way or another. It is an artists choice to take advantage of these unique features, or not. Site specific art, for me, would somehow communicate or interact with its surrounds. This could occur in endless number of ways, some as simple as emphasizing a feature, or obstructing a view. Robert Morris’ work is primarily sculptural. The land art at the Observatorium is especially striking to me. The circular shape dug into the ground is representative of that fact that it has been molded by humans, and yet two squares frame the setting sun simply and eloquently, as what one could find in a mountain range.
3. I believe buildings are site specific. The designers take environmental conditions into account as they orient the building. A site analysis directs an architects’ decisions on how to approach the building design. But I do agree that buildings should be designed more appropriately for each region. It would be more culturally, ecologically, and economically stimulating to depend on local resources and skills for the construction of buildings.
1.)I agree with Alyssa P. in her statement that often artists and patrons work together in a mutually supportive way. This is certainly evident in some of the work by James Turrel. MOMA of Ny sponsored his site specific piece Alten Reign. They provide a basic framework, both financially and physically (the Guggenheim space itself), for the production of the piece that had significant meaning. The funding allowed him to produce something that fit within his vision and with the goals of MOMA. It could be said that this relationship is obviously supportive because MOMA sponsors art for the sake of it thought. It is their mission to do such things, but it shows how the financial relationship can be successful.
2.)Site specific art allows the consumer or even producer of the art bring out something more meaningful and powerful from a place. If it increases our awareness of a site or uncovers something not specifically available without the work, then it is site specific. There has to be that connection with site specificity and truth of a place in my opinion to be a site specific work. If this doesn’t happen, then the work could go anywhere and not make a difference.
3.)I want buildings to be site specific works of art. I think this is a goal that we have as architects obviously. The problems is though that that average person may or may not see this or sense this. Is this a result of lack of formal training or the building not being as site specific as we intended? I don’t know. People can rarely articulate why a place is special, but they will certainly sense it even if unconsciously. Architecture is often thought of as a commodity, as a consumer good to get a job done with little regard to site, meaning, art, etc. for a lot of people. Hopefully we can change this idea and allow people to understand how places can be meaningful and how they can be art.
1. I think the writing states and I would agree historically this has been an issue for awhile and artist continue to produce the works. This made me think of Geoff Mcfetridge, he is a graphic artist who later in his life started to work with large corporations for their commercials and ad campaigns. I think the artist can still stay true to their beliefs while producing work for companies or governments in which they do not completely agree.
2. Site specific art should respond to its environment. I somewhat agree with Eli, but I don’t think that all land art can be located anywhere and still have the same meaning
3. I think there are good examples of site specific buildings that can be seen as a work of art as well. Maybe these buildings could of been built somewhere else with the same feeling, but I don’t know I think of many of Zumthors projects, and these buildings would be they way they are if he weren’t responding to the environment around him. I think that is big part of his projects, as well as emotion and aesthetics.