http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2007/may/15/art1

Sited art discourse is murky territory in that it questions a particular artwork's connectedness to site, that is to say, it is often intangible and irrelevant. What are these spaces, then, if not art 'zones' or, critically, 'zoos' for art; the designated, government funded and sanctioned spaces set aside for creative output having neither connection to or empathy with their respective settings. Do we now view the legacy of land/public art as a rethinking of land/'scapes', temporary or permanent, or are they now looked on as mythological places that can neither be visited or experienced unless we embark on pilgrimages to such inaccessible and distant sites? Read Gormley's comments in the Independent and think on...
No comments:
Post a Comment