One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Locational Identity by Miwon Kwon
One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Locational Identity by Miwon Kwon
复制标题
一处又一处：Miwon Kwon 的特定场地艺术和位置特征
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Amy Scarfone
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Amy Scarfone
在一个又一个地方：《特定地点的艺术与洛伊托身份》一书带领读者踏上了一段六章的旅程，重新思考了传统的地点和身份概念。作为加州大学洛杉矶分校的艺术史副教授，权主要为艺术评论观众写作。然而，这项工作将从文化研究的角度吸引对身份政治和视觉修辞感兴趣的修辞学者。Kwon对“场所”的广义定义包括社会、经济和政治产生的话语性、非物质性的“场所”。一个又一个的地方也将感兴趣的公共记忆的学者谁感兴趣的公共艺术在社区定义和记忆的作用。Kwon的研究以特定地点艺术的谱系开始，从20世纪60年代开始，艺术家坚持严格的特定地点的例子，例如Richard Serra和Robert巴里的断言，要从他们明确设计的地点移除他们的作品，就必须彻底摧毁它们。然后，她追溯了该网站的“非物质化”，例如，女权主义艺术家Mierle Laderman Ukele 1973年的“维护艺术”。Ukele完成了一系列的家务活，比如擦洗博物馆的地板，这些家务活“达到了审美沉思的水平”，并揭示了博物馆自我展示的程度。. .在结构上依赖于日常维护和保养的隐藏和贬值劳动”（19）。这样的艺术品抵制艺术世界的经济结构，生产的不是商品，而是过程。Kwon认为，这一过程是生成性的，产生了非传统的、非“安置”的场所，如“被压抑的民族历史、政治事业或被剥夺公民权的社会群体”（30）。在她的第二章中，Kwon提出了特定场地艺术品的去语境化，指出与特定场地艺术相关的工艺图的重新利用是“新原创”（33）。艺术家从商品生产者到服务提供者的角色也在被过程化的改造。Kwon提供了一个画廊决定重新制作Carl Andre和Donald Judd的装置的故事，而不是从他们在意大利的家中收集原始艺术品。这一行为激怒了安德烈和贾德谁认为，即使修辞学会季刊，37：209-212，2007年版权#美国修辞学会ISSN：0277-3945打印=1930- 322 X在线DOI：10.1080/02773940701266106
In One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Locational Identity, Miwon Kwon takes the reader on a six-chapter journey that reconsiders traditional notions of site and identity. As an associate professor of art history at UCLA, Kwon writes principally for an art criticism audience. However, this work will engage scholars of rhetoric interested in identity politics and visual rhetoric from a cultural studies perspective. Kwon’s broad definition of ‘‘sites’’ includes discursive, non-material ‘‘places’’ that are produced socially, economically, and politically. One Place After Another will also be of interest to scholars of public memory who are interested in public art’s role in community definition and remembrance. Kwon’s study opens with a genealogy of site-specific art that begins in the 1960s with examples of artists’ insistence on rigid site-specificity, such as Richard Serra and Robert Barry’s assertions that to remove their artworks from the sites they were explicitly designed for requires their total destruction. She then traces the ‘‘dematerialization’’ of the site highlighting, for example, feminist artist Mierle Laderman Ukele’s 1973 ‘‘maintenance art.’’ Ukele performed a series of domestic tasks, such as scrubbing the museum floor, that brought menial labor ‘‘to the level of aesthetic contemplation, and revealed the extent to which the museum’s self-presentations [ . . . ] is structurally dependent on the hidden and devalued labor of daily maintenance and upkeep’’ (19). Such artworks resist the economic structures of the art world producing not a commodity but a process. That process, argues Kwon, is generative, producing nontraditional, non-‘‘placed’’ sites such as ‘‘repressed ethnic history, a political cause, [or] a disenfranchised social group’’ (30). In her second chapter, Kwon posits the decontextualization of sitespecific artworks, noting the repurposing of process drawings associated with site-specific art as ‘‘new originals’’ (33). The privileging of process also revises the artist’s role from producer of commodities to service provider. Kwon offers the story of one gallery’s decision to re-fabricate installations by Carl Andre and Donald Judd rather than shipping the original artworks from their home collection in Italy. This act infuriated Andre and Judd who argued that even though the Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 37:209–212, 2007 Copyright # The Rhetoric Society of America ISSN: 0277-3945 print=1930-322X online DOI: 10.1080/02773940701266106