tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post7599369853660976612..comments2024-03-04T04:12:57.650-05:00Comments on THEORY NOW: Transcendence of SiteMark Cameron Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-23823443693900163742007-05-09T14:22:00.000-04:002007-05-09T14:22:00.000-04:00It is perhaps impossible to limit the conversation...It is perhaps impossible to limit the conversation of a specific artwork. There are no universal signifiers to symbolize anything truly specific outside of its current context. If one takes curatorial pracitce into consideration, all works are in a way site specific, as they are forever compared and contrasted to their surroundings. The image's continuity or lack thereof with its surroundings allows for a much broader discussion than any artist living, or dead could hope for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-4004864552522721382007-05-02T21:02:00.000-04:002007-05-02T21:02:00.000-04:00Serra's sculpture may live on in memory and the di...Serra's sculpture may live on in memory and the discussion of it generated by its removal. In this sense it could considered site specific to its discursive context.patrickjdonovanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444197047924162531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-85468284754832296312007-04-30T19:39:00.000-04:002007-04-30T19:39:00.000-04:00Exactly. Furthermore, "conversation" is but a sin...Exactly. Furthermore, "conversation" is but a single facet of this "discursive site," as print media, including the Internet, magazines and books, plus seminars, institutional forums and coursework populate and fuel <I>discursivity.</I> Artists need not create work "specific only to the conversation," as artwork that significantly extends upon the ideas and art theories of historicity and "carries it forward" especially inhabits the discursive site.Mark Cameron Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-85388216422303862782007-04-30T16:26:00.000-04:002007-04-30T16:26:00.000-04:00An interesting idea brought up here is the notion ...An interesting idea brought up here is the notion of a work functioning through the site of the debate surrounding it. A work that is specific only to the conversation, an "orphaned" work that no longer functions as an object but as an abstracted discussion and idea of what it once was. Would it be possible to name conversation as a possible site for work to operate in? Imagine making something, destroying it then documenting the memory of it then getting someone to summerize the documentation and then discussing the final product.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-4916205581640212062007-04-30T09:39:00.000-04:002007-04-30T09:39:00.000-04:00Antea:To begin a critical discussion of Juli Carso...Antea:<BR/><BR/>To begin a critical discussion of Juli Carson’s essay, let us re-approach your selected quotation in its true context. Two sentences before, Carson states that with the publication of <I>The Destruction of “Tilted Arc,”</I> the sculpture’s <I>presence</I> had become <I>“inextricably bound up with the rhetoric from which it was conceived (late modernist, phenomenological notions of site-specificity) and to which it contributed (postmodernist notions of the discursive site).”</I> She then continues with: <I>“For the ‘object’ destroyed was the very one borne within the modernist dialectic over a work’s <B>physical</B> site-specificity, bound up, as it were, in the logic of transcendence - a dialectic between a work seen to transcend any physical <B>union</B> with its site and a work seen to transcend any physical <B>contradiction</B> with its site.”</I><BR/><BR/>This is Carson’s rather elegant consideration of <I>Tilted Arc</I>, both as a <I>physical</I>, now mythological, “object” hatched from those “late modernist” ideas of works that <I>transcend</I> their location, and now (ironically, again) as a “placeless” object, freed of its earth-bound <I>presence</I> as imbued within a postmodern <I>discursivity.</I><BR/><BR/>Further still, I find Carson’s <I>archaeological</I> analysis of Serra as <I>origin</I> (the <I>Father</I>) of <I>Tilted Arc</I> (the <I>Son</I>) to be quite poetic rather than “trite,” especially if we now consider that in its demise the sculpture has <I>transcended</I> the physicality of Federal Plaza and sustains new life within a <I>discursive site.</I><BR/><BR/>It may also prove enlightening for us to return to Rosalyn Deutsche’s distinctions between an <I>assimilative</I> work that integrates within the environment, and an <I>interruptive</I> work that <I>“functions as a critical <B>intervention</B> into the existing order of a site.”</I> (pg 50)Mark Cameron Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.com