欢迎来到51Due,请先 | 注册
关注我们: 51due论文代写二维码 51due论文代写平台微博



Social Study Assignment:人际关系与现代艺术的研究--英国论文代写范文精选

2015-12-27 | 来源:51Due教员组 | 类别:更多范文

51due英国论文代写网精选paper代写范文:"Social Study Assignment:人际关系与现代艺术的研究"。社会学艺术是一门探索型的艺术,好的作品需要特定的社会环。讨论如何在社会人际关系框架下建立一个社交性的地方。而建立一个社交性的地方,这样就可以帮助重建人际关系的脆弱。

Social Studies Art is art that explores the state of encounter. Rirkrit Tiravanija is an artist that produces works that fuel on the concept of human interaction in a particular social context. Artworks that are informed by this concept are the works entitled Untitled (Free) 1992, Untitled (Tomorrow is another day) 1996 and Untitled (He promised) 2007. These are examples of Tiravanija’s works that I have chosen to explore and use to discuss how architecture, social frameworks and human relationships build a place of sociability.
For each ism there is an art critic supporting it, for instance Lucy Lippard pushed conceptualism, Andre Breton made up Surrealism and Guillaume Apollinaire backed cubism, Today we have relational art, art as a state of encounter.. Art critic Nicolas Bourriaud’s (1998) book of essays “Relational Aesthetics” talks in-depth about relational art, the participation of the audience, relational form and social interstice, just to name a few. The question ‘What is Relational art?’ is best expressed by Bourriaud, he states,“The possibility of a relational art (an art taking as its theoretical horizon the realm of human interactions and its social context, rather than the assertion of an independent and private symbolic space), points to the upheaval of the aesthetic, cultural and political goals introduced by modern art.” .
Rirkrit Tiravanija’s practice fits this definition of relational art. In Untitled (Free) 1992, the social act of sharing food creates interconnections between people. In Untitled (Tomorrow is another day) 1996, the gallery role is questioned when it becomes a home stay and with Untitled (He promised) 2007 Tiravanija looks at space as an ideology.
Bourriaud’s document is not the only one of it’s kind that elaborate on relational art and social participation within an artwork, think back to the period of the fluxus, the performance art of the 1970’s, Roland Barthes’s Death of an author (1968) and Joseph Beuys statement that ‘everyone is an artist’.
Human Relationship
Ranciere once stated in Problems and transformations in critical art (2004) “Art no longer wants to respond to the excess of commodities and signs but a lack of connections… by offering small services, the artist repairs the weakness of social bonds”.
In one way, Rirkrit Tiravanija repairs these social bonds by constructing a social context within the gallery. In his 1992 work of art Untitled (free). He takes the role of the performer in which he cooks Thai curry for the gallery-goers. He also moves everything in the gallery and the store room into the main exhibition space, including the manager and his associate who continue their work in public among the smell of Thai cooking. In the empty store room he set up what art critic Jerry Saltz called a “makeshift refugee kitchen,” with a gas burner, plastic utensils, stools, a table and paper plates. . Then on, whenever Tiravanija was not present the empty food packets, equipment, dirty plates, and plastic utensils became the art exhibit, much like Marcel Duchamp’s idea of the readymade, a selected and modified object. The audiences participation is crucial to Tiravanija‘s work they make the artwork: the food is but a catalyst to starting a pleasant relationship among the audience and the artist.
This work creates a perfect place for social networking among what art critic Nicolas Bourriaud calls a “micro-topia”,  a group of like minded people, in this case art lovers, who gather to chat and socialize amongst themselves. This, however, raises problems for those who don’t fit into this microtopian society. An example of this microtopia is evident in art critics Jerry Saltz (follower of Tiravanija’s art) review in Art in America, which says:
“At 303 gallery I regularly sat with or was joined by a stranger, and it was nice. The gallery became a place for sharing, jocularity and frank talk. I had an amazing run of meals with art dealers. Once I ate with Paula Cooper who recounted a long, complicated bit of professional gossip. Another day, Lisa Spellman related in hilarious detail a story of intrigue about a fellow dealer trying, unsuccessfully, to woo one of her artists. About a week later I ate with David Zwirner. I bumped into him on the street, and he said, “nothing’s going right today, let’s go to Rirkrit’s.” We did, and he talked about the a lack of excitement in the New York art world. Another time I ate with Gavin Brown, the artist and dealer…who talked about the collapse of SoHo-only he welcomed it, felt it was about time, that the galleries had been showing too much mediocre art. Later in the show’s run, I was joined by an unidentified woman and a curious flirtation filled the air. Another time I chatted with a young artist who lived in Brooklyn who had real insights about the shows he’d just seen.”
Saltz only points out that Tiravanija’s installation/performance piece is successful because it creates good social networking among people with love for art, but fails to address the actual purpose of Untitled ; creating networking among the public . Furthermore, The problem with this microtopian society is that it excludes the outsiders. All people share some sort of common interest in any art form, “…theoretically anyone can come in [to an art gallery]. How come they don’t? Somehow the art world seems to secrete an invisible enzyme that repels outsiders.”
Whatever this invisible enzyme is we must remember that this is normal in society, the art world is not the only micro-topian society out there. Today we are faced with constant technological change therefore art and the art world too undergoes the same change, they are in search of the new. For example if you look to the art of the 1960’s, more specifically pop art, you will see that the common ground then was the sphere of consumption today it has completely shifted to the sphere of human relations;  more specifically interhuman communication. Technology plays an integral part to why society has become indolent. We are surrounded by bytes and megabytes, cell phones and the internet these influences cause us to break away from formal communication and use other forms; telecommunications. Therefore, Tiravanija sees this problem and therefore creates a setting which brings people together in a communal context to restore some of these social bonds which society so much lack.
Bringing people together is the primary focus of architecture it is fundamentally the first place where any sort of social structure is formed. Architects Vincente Guallart and Maria Diaz talk about their project ‘Sharing tower’ a building (apartments) in which they seek new spaces for social interaction, they state that"we have to define shared spaces that have a direct relation with people’s private spaces. In this way, certain uses - such as cooking, eating, relaxing - can be shared, while other uses - sleeping, dressing, bathing, etc. - remain strictly private and individual.”.
Both architects write on the fact that shared and private symbolic spaces must remain separate, which is what Nicolas Bourriaud talks about and that the private space must remain just that; private. However, Rirkrit Tirvanija obliterates this “private space” with his 1996 installation/performance piece Untitled (Tomorrow is another day). He reconstructs his New York apartment within the gallery context and with the permission of the gallery owner leaves it
pen twenty-four hours a day for the public to use his facilities. For instance his bed, toilet, bathroom, kitchen and utensils, to name a few. People then slept bathed and used the kitchen together, one critic even stated that there was group sex.
On one hand this is deemed a successful sociability intervention because Tirvanija creates both a place for human interaction/socializing (microtopia) and a space for living. However, on the other hand Tiravanija questions the role of the gallery much like Marcel Duchamp’s ‘Urinal’; (where both artists work with the idea of the readymade except Tiravanija takes it a step further by ‘pissing into it’). and leaves it vulnerable to vandalism. By allowing the audience to stay live for free in the gallery, (yes it creates a communal ground for excellent sociability) the gallery then loses its institutional function and turns it into a free social space. Which brings me to question, how Tiravanija’s work would function without the gallery. Art critic Claire Bishop states that,
Despite Tiravanija’s rhetoric of open-endedness and viewer emancipation, the structure of his work circumscribes the outcome in advance, and relies on the presence within the gallery to differentiate it from entertainment.
Tiravanija’s micro-topia obliterates the belief of public alteration and decreases the possibilities to just like minded people, in this case art lovers.
Social frameworks
Bourriaud suggests that when confronted by a relational art work we should ask the questions: “Does this work permit me to enter into dialogue? Could I exist, and how, in the space it defines? . Rirkrit Tiravanija’s practice revolves around this question, take his work Untitled (He promised) for instance, similar to Untitled (tomorrow is another day) and the idea of living in the art, his installation is another full scaled construction, within the gallery which investigates how architectural space controls social activity. This construction is a representation of architect Rudolph Schindler’s home. Schindler, according to Tiravanija “…was a very inspirational figure for a lot of architects and artists due to his quiet but studied ideas concerning the philosophical conditions of living and architecture”. .Nicolas Bourriaud suggests that art is more than just to look at, it is to be encountered. So in response to this Tiravanija constructed a replica of only a part of Rudolph’s home; his studio. By doing this Tiravanija draws the audiences focus to the space in which they inhabited and its ideology; ’an ideal space’. .
The installations sleek chrome looks is symbolic of Minimalism, its incorporation of everyday material is conceptual but the new element which Tiravanija lists as ‘lots of people’ is raw life itself. The outcome of this raw life could either be a good or a bad medium, its unpredictability is exciting. For example looking back at Jerry Saltz review he writes,
What would happen if the next time Tiravanija set up a kitchen in an art gallery, a bunch of homeless people turned up daily for lunch? What would the Walker Art Centre do if a certain homeless man scraped up the price of admission to the museum, and chose to sleep on Tiravanija’s cot all day, every day? … but why don’t they?” .
But to what extent could you take this raw life before it became inappropriate and irrelevant to the artwork? I think Tiravanija see this problem and therefore uses this idea of the architectural function; controlling social behaviour by creating a space for living, an entertainment construct with videos playing, and retro furniture that is spread out through the space which invites the public to come in and enjoy the homey feel of the gallery.
To conclude, relational art has open-ended possibilities. Rirkrit Tiravanija is an example of this he, in one’s opinion, is perhaps the most relational of artists. Even with the issue of microtopia his practice still engages with the realm of human interaction. He constructs or sets up little scenarios which build a place of sociability and by doing so he helps rebuild the frailty of human relations.-H
更多英国论文代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.net 当然有论文代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流 -H


  • 05年成立,已帮助上万人
  • 24小时专业客服
  • 团队成员都毕业于全球著名高校
  • 保证原创,支持检测