Assignment 3 (With outtake in assignment 1): A deeper understanding of the impact of interactive art
My previous review of Marina Abramovic exhibition; “The Cleaner” at Louisiana, focused on engaging art, and how it affected me, while visiting the exhibition.
In this post, I want to create a deeper discussion about the popular element in museums worldwide.
I described my personal experiences with some chosen interactive art pieces from; “The Cleaner”. In an objective and strict narrow. I will in the following two sections of this post, try to discuss with my allegations, and use a more critical approach, and not only involve my own experiences.
I concluded in my previous post, that interactive art, which relies on the participation of a spector kept a concentration and expanded the visitor view – looking back that assumption is kind of superficial. Interactions is much more, than just an; optimized focus for the visitor in museums.
Interactive art emerged in the late 1950s in parallel with artists’ desires to find less alienating and exclusive environments in which to show art. As the street, the warehouse or the shop front became their choice of venue, the art also became more participatory and inclusive. And this interactive concept is so much wider than I first believed at and described in my previous post.
Artists has designed sculptures that could be touched and played with for a long time. Niki de Saint Phalle built the monumental walk-in sculpture Golem in Rabinovich Park, Jerusalem, which has a children’s slide. In 1971 Gordon Matta-Clark cooked a pig under Brooklyn Bridge and served 500 pork sandwiches as part of the performance.
An element of the genre or art experience that I did not came around in my former review of; “The Cleaner” Is the fact Interactive art is also computer based, with the participant responding to the technology set up by the artist like the public artworks of Rafael Lozano-Hemmer. Interactive art is also associated with relational aesthetics. And that is an important fact.
I can explain in it like this; the audience want to create their own experience. I believe that need and interest for interaction comes from a lack of it in of it in other entertainment businesses - the audience sit quiet and were suddenly protagonists.
Modern dynamic shows that many people want to help, (or get the feeling of helping others) contribute and could the opportunity to put their own stamp, in their spare time.
We all want to be on stage, we all want to be the centre of attention. At Louisiana in Marina Abramovics exhibition; “The Cleaner” the audience becomes that, for an hour or two.
If you look at the historically museum development, there has been a movement away, from the Assembly-oriented museum. From being about something, we talk about the Museum as being for an institution for someone or even with someone today.
We would like to show people what art offers us, in the form of critical reflection and in new thoughts. It becomes clearer when we involve the audience.
I see participation as characteristic of our culture and the way in which we live. We are watching TV on demand, while cloves, we share and Tweet on social media. We are so used to be able to express our opinion and be participants, that we take it for granted. Only against this background, it is natural that the participation and involvement of the course, has spread to our culture and in the way in which they are organized.
The Viewer, listener, the reader has been an active participant as a co-creator. I believe that interaction is the future. This post compared to my former review, focused on my observations and thoughts on interaction in an art spectre.