Please join this Blog. I really enjoyed the socially engaged business the other day but felt that the Q and A session left a lot unsaid. So in the spirit of third space encounters and relational aesthetics I thought we could try a two week Blog. I felt really angry with the session on lots of levels but really pleased it had got me thinking. I've worked in the public realm across this shared terain and think the session was a little up it's own arse and very artist focussed. Most of this work is commisioned for a specific purpose and with money ringfenced within a remit - I like the fact that artists challenge this remit and push the boundries but we are brought in to perform a social function within a context. The place for the artists ego and broader discourses around the social function of the arts can be a distraction. The examination of relevance, audience and context would be more productive in moving this work forward. If context is only 50% of meaning whats the other 50% I hope it's not encoded in an outdated irrelevant philosophy of Art Faculty Aesthetics. Hope this is contentious enough to encourage others to Blog
STEVE
2 comments:
For me the real value in this kind of socially engaged parctice comes out of the process the artist generates and the quality of experience for those involved. So while I can see the need for critique, review and evalaution of the practice I worry that a discourse around aesthetics of the work, if it only remains within an art framework and not encompassing the social framework, will be alienating and disenfranchising.
Could the other 50% of meaning be found in the social realm?
I think that 98% of meaning is context and to suggest overwise is silly. But thats just me and I know most people don't think this but I can't see where the rest of the meaning comes from.
Post a Comment