Image

OUR COLUMNIST AVILA REFLECTS ON INSTALLATIONS AS ‘ART’ (?):

‘Excelent post… Of course, I would like to take it one step further…

“That is why, during the history of art, the viewer encountered the ‘art work’ with a baggage of previous knowledge (symbolic, textual, artistic, visual, referential) that allowed him or her to ‘unpack’ the image. In that ‘synthesis’ lied the genius of the artist and his or her artistry and, of course, the (required) skill of the viewer.”

If we look at history in general (and you’re the expert) we could see that chances are that the closest we get to our times, the more gaps we encounter between what a vanguardist work of art expresses, and what the viewer comprehends at a first glance… And I think that the reason is the realization of the artist’s necessity for showing the changing circumstances around him (surrealism, etc. etc.) which it requires some sort of catch up on knowledge by the viewer, or some sort of explanation by the artist or someone alse… (I hope that that is my case…)… or wait a long time until the knowledge of that work of art is understood by other means (I hope that that is not my case.)

Now… what we see in installations is that in those cases where after the viewer is “enlightened” with the transfer of knowledge, the significance of the artwork is minimal or non existent… In another words, they are con installations to show practically nothing, if we compare it with what a person should receive from other works of art… I mean that the society has lowered the expectations of vanguardist installations by accepting a very low “amount” of significance from the artist, and no matter what you read about it, or what somebody tells you, or what you can absorb from an explanative video, the result is a very low transfer of knowledge… Just a thought.’