How is the status of art changed, when object or creator is removed?
My practise had a great interest in living forms, human and animal. Currently, my work has great similarities to the Louise bourgeois spiders, and often i take inspiration from Antony Gormley. However one great interest of mine, is that of the relationship between Artist, and Audience, and more specifically, what happens if you remove one of them.
One of the main texts I’ve looked at, has been ‘The journal of value inquiry’ by Christopher Perricone. This extract says “The work never presented before the eyes of others, The work destroys, or lost at sea, is no work of art at all. A work created but unappreciated, is art stillborn, in this sense it is the relationship between artist and audience that is both necessary and sufficient to bring the work of art into being;” (perriconne, 1990)
Another example would be the story written in the Guardian newspaper, “The art that no one sees – Tehran’s hidden masterpieces”. This article writes about a series of works, by Monet, Van Gogh, Pissarro, Renoir, Gauguin, Toulouse-Lautrec, Magritte, Miró, Braque, Jackson Pollock and Warhole, however every piece is kept in a secure vault, that only a rare few have the privilege to see. The works are held in a gallery in Tehran, iran, and although the owner, Mr Sadeghi, says “Just because we have kept them down here doesn't mean we don't want to show them. Westerners think we have imprisoned their works. No, we are waiting to get a bigger museum size so we can exhibit them all. Together with the government, we are looking at potential sites so we can build a museum 40 or 50 times the present size." (Mr Sadeghi, 2007) Many other opinions, such as Mr Alireza sami-azar, Sadeghi’s predecessor suggest there is a policy of boycotting western art and literature, and only showing Iranian artwork. Whatever the reasoning, the work is not for public viewing, however, nobody debates it being art. This bring me back to my...