Tuesday, February 16, 2016



in the case of Joseph Beuys, there is some debate as to whether or not the event with the Tartars ever actually occurred. What effect do you feel this has on his work? Are his claims illegitimated by his use of an imagined narrative? What role does the idea of plausibility play in the reading of Beuys’ work? (i.e. we can believe that it could have happened, which is enough for his metaphors to resonate)

“Channeling chaotic energy into order or form”
What role do you feel this plays in your work? What are some of the chaotic elements you are interested in? Can chaos and form exist simultaneously in any non-contrived way? What about Robert Wysocki and him using form to essentially create chaotic elements?

Is the museum or gallery an empty space for investigation? A place for new experience to emerge? Would a Joseph Beuys sculpture in an alley behind an Italian restaurant have the same impact it would inside of a gallery? What role do you feel the gallery/outside world plays in your work? If your work directly or indirectly references the outside world does it need to be in a gallery to properly resonate?

Beuys talks about the relationship between sculpture and life. “If things can change in art, why not in life?” (paraphrased). Do you feel that sculpture can act as a prompt for progress? Does this recognition of artificiality call to mind the artificiality in our own lives?

No comments:

Post a Comment