Conceptual and post-studio art are terms that can fit a wide range of art types after the 1960's, including land art, performance or more classic mediums such as painting and sculpture. However, it is contested what is meant by the 'post-studio', as the notions of what a studio actually is have come into question. In his influential writing on the studio, Buren posits that the studio is the place where the work is created, and once it leaves this place it loses its aura and context. Buren creates the majority of his art on site so that this aura is not lost, and the work is made to belong where it is situated. But does a studio necessarily mean a room or building in which things are hand-crafted? The traditional notions of the studio are where the solitary artists creates masterpieces in private, and photographs and paintings of the studio have confirmed this mythical identity. The idea of a studio is changing now - if we look at a photograph of Duchamp's 'studio', we see a collection of readymades assorted in an orderly exhibition style manner. What kind of studio produces a readymade? These objects have already existed before entering the 'studio' - we are faced with a non-traditional portrayal of the studio that challenges our preconceived ideas about creation. Maybe the studio has now evolved to a point where instead of a physical place, a mental place can be seen as the origin of the art work. In conceptual art, it is usually the idea that drives the work as opposed to the object itself, and in this changing notion of what constitutes the 'art', what constitutes the 'studio' is also questions.
'The idea becomes the machine that makes the art' - Sol Le Witt summarises that ideas in conceptual art become the important factor that define what makes a certain object or image 'art'. In his writings on contemporary art, Le Witt states that often the object in incidental to the idea, but it is not the agenda of the artist to explain in any depth the idea behind the work. Here, we are left with a confusing made of viewing, where the object is not the work but the idea is not clear. This is the basis for much conceptual work of the time. On Kuwara's Date Paintings seem relatively mundane and repetitive from the outside, with their monochrome backgrounds and their block lettering, and this is partially down to their display as well as the artists anonymity. When these paintings are displayed it is usually hung on a wall without their sub-titles that Kuwara has assigned them, or the newspaper page that they come boxed with, which aligns itself with Buren's theory that paintings lose their aura when in a gallery, as a gallery space does not personalise itself to a work. When the sub-titles and the newspaper are displayed alongside the work, we see a whole different angle - the titles are morbid and consciously aware of the war and death that happens in the world, especially the aggressive happenings in Asia and Vietnam during the 1960's. What is intended from these titles is little known, as the artists own privacy leaves little writings about the topic. Whether it is a comment on the numbing nature of the media on violence, or the process of time and forgetting is unknown.
Whilst Kuwara had a studio, many of his works were done when he was away, and therefore created outside of the studio, fuelled by the idea as Le Witt states. For some artists, including Buren, work outside of the studio is the most valid, as it is created for the space that it lives in. Artists like Robert Smithson and his Sprial Jetty or Mel Bochner and his 1 Language is not transparent create work that lives in the place it is made, and can be recreated if it needs to moved, which is particularly true of Bochner. With his piece, there is a no set 'orginal' piece, which further subverts our notions of what art is meant to be, and reduces that value that the market can put on it.
Images to use:
No comments:
Post a Comment