Surely she has a point in so far as it should not be evaluated only in terms on means vs ends.
For me I only find these questions problematic if you feel the need to define something as "art". I think a work can only be judged on its own merits and within its own terms.
THe big question, as alluded to, is why have these projects been absorbed by the art field? Or more specifically, why do we now only have aestheticised politics and no Politics as such?
And also, if you strip it back, her underlying conclusion seems to be, artists engaging with 'social practice' should make things as well to give some more things for historians to talk about and collectors to buy. I tend to agree with her assessment that the works would be more efficacious politically if they were more antagonistic and stirred things up rather than just acknowledging social relations through participation in the work.
Surely she has a point in so far as it should not be evaluated only in terms on means vs ends.
ReplyDeleteFor me I only find these questions problematic if you feel the need to define something as "art". I think a work can only be judged on its own merits and within its own terms.
THe big question, as alluded to, is why have these projects been absorbed by the art field? Or more specifically, why do we now only have aestheticised politics and no Politics as such?
And also, if you strip it back, her underlying conclusion seems to be, artists engaging with 'social practice' should make things as well to give some more things for historians to talk about and collectors to buy. I tend to agree with her assessment that the works would be more efficacious politically if they were more antagonistic and stirred things up rather than just acknowledging social relations through participation in the work.
ReplyDelete