There seems to be a heavy focus on site-specific installations during the 60s and 70s, specifically ones that deal in the simplicities of the environment in which they are placed. This stands out to me because as we are now focusing on our site-specific installations, I should be focusing on how I can transform the environment around me. Due to the limitations of the Ai, the essay seems to focus mainly on the earlier installation works and how they were connected to the Fluxus movement. But this omits decades leading into how installation art is born, or how there is evidence of installation art predating contemporary art. It does not reference how the Mérode Altarpiece could be considered an installation, just by the way the triptych uses the frames to create dimensions within the piece. Not addressing the history of installation and just referencing the contemporary works does installation work a disservice. The Ai references Robert Rauschenberg’s “Combine” series (1954-1964) as one of the first examples of installation, but I would contest this. Personally I would argue, in terms of site specific installation you can find works as old as 64,000 years in Maltravieso cave, Cáceres, Spain. There are even works that have been found to be older in indonesia. These cave paintings and drawings transform the spaces they are contained in, with a dim hand held light it seems as though the animals drawn on the walls are jumping out at you. From that point, you can find examples of installed work all throughout history predating Rauschenberg's Combine.
No comments:
Post a Comment