5th December- Lecture- Audience, participation and reception
5th December- Lecture
Audience, participation and reception
Today's lecture was prominent to all practices; even work that does not draw a classical audience is subject to some type of participation from the viewer. The viewer within the situation is the deciding factor of what influence the work has upon society. Although not all art aims to hold prominence within societal change, there should still be a impact upon the viewer. This may often lead to a change in behaviour later down the line or a more engaging act with something else. I read Relational aesthetics last year and was able to take from it the prominence of the viewer in the art lead situation. However, something that I was always curious regarding was how we then knew what impact had taken place. It is difficult to ask someone to vocalise the impact art has upon them, or does not have upon them. Many emotions and thought processes are at work within the human form and many are unrealised.This lecture therefore began to remind me of the butterfly effect. The small happening in one place or person that then relates to a much more prominent happening in the future. I feel this is something at play within galleries and therefore the viewer. The small encounter with work that leads the viewer into other decisions, thought and actions. This is what shapes culture then surely, not art specifically but the small encounters that have a knock on effect. These encounters, if manipulated by the artist may lead to a different effect. Galleries are often open spaces inviting people to think and engage with the cultural decisions of the curator. This concept in itself is problematic as the curator then exerts some form of opinion and bias into the work. The decision of what is and is not culturally important is made by few and often rides on governments money. This money has a great weight upon it to create a culture and for that culture to be of economical use. This therefore does not allow the relational aesthetics to be uncensored and it has a vast amount of vested interest. Art that challenges this governing body then becomes ironic as the same rebellion is not bread in a gallery suave than in the streets. However there may be a beginning ideology from that work that then leads to changed behaviour within the streets. The mobility of the world today means that encounters are swift and often felt to be unimportant. However, what if these encounters because a type of audience for ideas. The modern audience if present around us constantly and it is the way we choose to induct ourselves that seems to be the show. Our individual behaviour is a type of performance that lays out our ethics and therefore overall output to others. It alters how we appear to the world and what part we would like to play in society. Art possibly goes towards reminding people to be aware of this position. However, this then leaves a massive section of society untouched by this, the art that does not reach people is gladly guarded by those who are fully aware of who they want to see the work and why. Alternatively, the art is tailored to only go so far in questioning social Norma's and ideologies as not to create to much tension or rebellion but to allow people to believe the public culture is not under capital control. These ideas of relational aesthetics are very modern and go beyond the audience as participant . Which is undeniable however that can't be considered without thinking what cultural context it will be placed within it tries to create. This was present throughout colonial power and is something many would think is not still around today. However the power of culture and therefore audience power is undeniable. This is something, that if harnessed, could offer endless solution and progression. The common language however has been tailored already and breaking that barrier is a key difficulty.
I think a possible way to overcome this is audience response and finding a way to in some way measure this. Without removing the ability for the work to resonate, some way of having relationships to art would be useful to investigate its modern position.
Audience, participation and reception
Today's lecture was prominent to all practices; even work that does not draw a classical audience is subject to some type of participation from the viewer. The viewer within the situation is the deciding factor of what influence the work has upon society. Although not all art aims to hold prominence within societal change, there should still be a impact upon the viewer. This may often lead to a change in behaviour later down the line or a more engaging act with something else. I read Relational aesthetics last year and was able to take from it the prominence of the viewer in the art lead situation. However, something that I was always curious regarding was how we then knew what impact had taken place. It is difficult to ask someone to vocalise the impact art has upon them, or does not have upon them. Many emotions and thought processes are at work within the human form and many are unrealised.This lecture therefore began to remind me of the butterfly effect. The small happening in one place or person that then relates to a much more prominent happening in the future. I feel this is something at play within galleries and therefore the viewer. The small encounter with work that leads the viewer into other decisions, thought and actions. This is what shapes culture then surely, not art specifically but the small encounters that have a knock on effect. These encounters, if manipulated by the artist may lead to a different effect. Galleries are often open spaces inviting people to think and engage with the cultural decisions of the curator. This concept in itself is problematic as the curator then exerts some form of opinion and bias into the work. The decision of what is and is not culturally important is made by few and often rides on governments money. This money has a great weight upon it to create a culture and for that culture to be of economical use. This therefore does not allow the relational aesthetics to be uncensored and it has a vast amount of vested interest. Art that challenges this governing body then becomes ironic as the same rebellion is not bread in a gallery suave than in the streets. However there may be a beginning ideology from that work that then leads to changed behaviour within the streets. The mobility of the world today means that encounters are swift and often felt to be unimportant. However, what if these encounters because a type of audience for ideas. The modern audience if present around us constantly and it is the way we choose to induct ourselves that seems to be the show. Our individual behaviour is a type of performance that lays out our ethics and therefore overall output to others. It alters how we appear to the world and what part we would like to play in society. Art possibly goes towards reminding people to be aware of this position. However, this then leaves a massive section of society untouched by this, the art that does not reach people is gladly guarded by those who are fully aware of who they want to see the work and why. Alternatively, the art is tailored to only go so far in questioning social Norma's and ideologies as not to create to much tension or rebellion but to allow people to believe the public culture is not under capital control. These ideas of relational aesthetics are very modern and go beyond the audience as participant . Which is undeniable however that can't be considered without thinking what cultural context it will be placed within it tries to create. This was present throughout colonial power and is something many would think is not still around today. However the power of culture and therefore audience power is undeniable. This is something, that if harnessed, could offer endless solution and progression. The common language however has been tailored already and breaking that barrier is a key difficulty.
I think a possible way to overcome this is audience response and finding a way to in some way measure this. Without removing the ability for the work to resonate, some way of having relationships to art would be useful to investigate its modern position.
Comments
Post a Comment