In Joseph Beuys' Manifesto on the foundation of a
"Free International School for Creativity and
Interdisciplinary Research" of 1973
(from the book Energy Plan for a Western Man) he shares his
perspectives on the academic institution's role in art.
Here are some excerpts:
"Creativity is not limited to he people practicing one of the
traditional forms of art, and even in the case of artists
creativity is not confined to the exercise of their art. Each one
of us has a creative potential which is hidden by
competitiveness and success-agression. To recognize, explore
and develop this potential is the task of the school."
"Creation- whether it be painting, sculpture, symphony, or
novel- involves not merely talent, intuition, powers of the
imagination and application, but also the ability to shape the
material that could be expanded to other socially relevant
spheres."
"'Non-artists' could initially be encouraged to discover or
explore their creativity by artists attempting to communicate
and to explain- in an undidactic manner- the elements and
the coordination of their creativity. At the same time we
would seek to find out why laws and disciplines in the arts
invariably stand in creative opposition.
It is not the aim of the school to develop political and cultural
directions, or to form styles, or to provide industrial and
commercial prototypes. Its chief gaol is the encouragement,
discovery and futherance of democratic potential, and the
expression of this. In a world increasingly manipulated by
publicity, political propaganda, the culture business and the
press, it is not the named- but the nameless- that it will offer
a forum."
2 comments:
You would have liked the Social Sculpture lecture I went to the other night at the BMoca. They covered a lot of stuff we went over in Richard's Community and Site Class. Something I have been thinking about the past few days deals with the "titles" of these genres. The specific titles I am referencing are "community arts" "relational aesthetics" "social sculpture" and "new genre of public arts". I know there are differences between them all but those are somewhat unclear. For instance how is Community Art different from Social Sculpture? ( Maybe this is something we can talk about in our discussion next week). I feel some of these terms need to be redefined.
When talking about Relational Aesthetics I can see clearer differences. Relational Aesthetics is clearly focusing on the Relationship not a product or a change in the community, whereas social sculpture and community arts do have some sort of product (such as a tree planting). I can see how Harrell Fletcher may be grouped in with Relational Aesthetics(RA) but I don't consider him a RA artist. I see him more as a social sculpture or an "culture agent". There are times with his work relationships are formed but I don't know if thats his only intention.
Perhaps I feel this way because some of the artist that French Guy (Nicolas) describes at RA artist seem somewhat cold and their work seems somewhat cold and distant. I almost feel at times the RA artist are messing with the viewers (in particular Vanessa Beecrofts work). When I think of Fletcher I think picture more of a warm glow rather that a cold distilled feeling.
Hopefully next weeks discussion will clear some of this up for me. I have read RA before, its not that I don't understand what the idea is, I think its hard for me to believe these 'relationships' are happening.
I think that those are excellent points. Bourriaud believes that RA is different than what has preceded it, yet there are striking overlaps among all of these categories as well as with the sorts of things explored by the Situationists from the 60s. Claire Bishop, who we'll look at next, also takes issue with Bourriaud's "warm and fuzzy" approach to RA.
Post a Comment