Reading Response Nine

1. What has changed in the gallery art world that allows Barney to describe his work as “sculpture”? In other words, how has the definition of sculpture changed since the 1960s, and why?

The definition of "sculpture" in the gallery art world has loosened since the 1960s and before, when it was generally relegated to describing statues and the like. As the art world evolved, so did the category of sculpture, including readymades and architecture, as well as media-related installations and performance pieces, which brings in the question of the "art object". Minimalist sculpture has drawn the emphasis of sculpture away from an art object to more performance/activity-based art practices.

2. Tricky but important question: Why was minimalist sculpture seen as a reaction against the “modernist hymns to the purity and specificity of aesthetic experience.” Hint: Do not confuse this with our discussion of structural / minimal film as modernist; they are essentially saying that minimalist sculpture is post-modernist.

Without having much background knowledge in postmodern gallery art, I'll try my best...Minimalist sculpture in the 60s made the viewer of this simplified art object see the arbitrariness of the "object" both physical and its intrinsic "meaning"; the viewing public interact with the art, and this process creates the meaning of the art as experience, not so much "object". Is this close enough? I read the passage carefully and think I understand, but it seems hard to tease out the meaning in simple terms.

3. Describe the role of the body in the works of Vito Acconci and Chris Burden.

Acconci and Burden both place the body in the centre of their performance art. Their works are visceral, foregrounding the physical body as object/sculpture as well as mediator of the performance. Their art is often endurance based, portraying their bodies as passive objects (as in Bed Piece, where Burden lay in a bed in the gallery for 22 days on end.)

4. What do the authors mean when they say that Cremaster’s “genealogy in endurance works has a dual articulation”? What are the two influences?

This 'dual articulation' is the endurance of physicality and the endurance of temporality; the body is pushed to its physical limits in the performance art of Acconci and Burden, who are one influence on Barney, and the other is the nature of enduring time in avant-garde film, such as Michael Snow and Warhol.

5. In the opinion of the authors, what are the key differences between performance art of the1960s/1970s and Barney’s Cremaster cycle?

Performance art of the 60s/70s was very aware of the presentation of the body as object, and its articulation in the performance as a temporal moment of experience, or "performance for its own sake". In contrast, the Cremaster cycle is highly stylised, glamourising the body in a pleasing way to the viewer.

1. What are the so-called two worlds of film art that Walley intends to describe in this article? What is the basic difference between the two?

The first world of filmic art is the usual avant-garde/experimental filmmaking which is what we have been studying for the most part in this class and other film studies classes. The other is the realm of "artist's film/video" designed specifically for gallery exhibition, not theatrical exhibition.

3. What are some of the key differences between the experimental and gallery art worlds in terms of production and distribution?

The experimental film mode of practice is generally referred to as 'artisanal', a personal craft of a single individual artist, as in the case of Brakhage/Anger/Deren/etc. Usually the distribution is done through rentals of prints, played in universities and independent art theatres. In the world of gallery film, the production is collaborative, but described in an auteurist way (ie the Cremaster films are Matthew Barney's, like in the art cinema world of Bergman, Antonioni, etc.). The money is generally backed from gallery sponsorship and the sale of art objects. Distribution is very different from avant-garde distribution, in which prints are sold in very limited editions, and one can only see the works in gallery exhibitions if one doesn't own a print.