Instruction Art
While in Manhattan at the Guggenheim last week we stumbled on the work of New York artist William Anastasi. A particular piece of his titled Issue got our gears spinning about the nature of art, architecture and society.
The piece is created by following a simple set of instructions, stated adjacent to the art on the title plaque:
“Score: Draw two vertical lines 4-1/2 inches apart from floor to ceiling on a plaster wall. With chisel and hammer chip the surface away within the lines to a one-quarter inch depth. Pile the debris at the base of the removal in a mound as wide as the strip extending onto the floor at a right angle from the removal.”
Because the instructions can be performed on ordinary drywall and plaster, the piece is easily employed in most galleries, museums, or your living room for that matter. The instructions can be mailed, emailed, faxed, or verbally communicated to nearly any destination on the planet. It can be twittered in 2.3 twits.
Much like architecture, it is the set of instructions that is directly crafted by the artist. Once the instructions are established, a wider range of individuals or groups can execute the final product. Naturally, the more complicated the final product the more supervision, coordination and administration is required from the artist/architect/author. But the Issue piece boils down this relationship to a pure model and invites the question of whether this is art, architecture, demolition, or none of the above.
[Photo courtesy William Anastasi]
We like the piece because it’s more about an idea than a sacred work of art behind glass. We like it because it’s inclusive; involving more people than just the artist. We like it because it’s transparent; all the instructions are right there and you’re free to write them down for yourself (open source art). We like it because it’s free and easily accomplished; if you really want one for yourself you don’t need to go through an art broker or auctioneer, hell you don’t even need to buy a poster. Whether you like this piece or hate it, Issue has a tremendous amount in common with the digital, interconnected, twitter-facebook paradigm of today’s culture. In fact, we’re going to put our necks out there and propose that this dumb strip of chipped drywall is an embodiment of the new idea-based, inclusive, transparent, accessible culture. There you have it. You know what to do with those rotten tomatoes…
11 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Richter, March 17, 2009 @ 8:55 am
The notion of “open-source” art is interesting to me. You could take these instructions and add to them, mix it up a bit…
By mike, March 17, 2009 @ 9:33 am
sol lewitt redux?
http://www.massmoca.org/event_details.php?id=27
By Build LLC, March 17, 2009 @ 9:43 am
Mike – nice! we’re big Sol Lewitt fans and that process vid is a hotty.
By Gus, March 17, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
I agree that this piece brings up interesting ideas but I’m not convinced that it’s a noteworthy piece of art. A work of art is just as much about the artist – whether the artist is admired for their mastery or despised for their ego. The possible anonymity detracts from the finished work.
By Knudsen, March 17, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
So if I create one of these in my living room – who get’s the credit?
By Brendan, March 17, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
This is everything that is wrong with modern art: pure intellectual exercise with nothing that speaks to the human soul. I guess it’s not art at all, it’s simply a social experiment or exercise, nothing more. One would critique it based on a different set of factors if it was labeled as such, but since it’s intended to be art, the critique should be more severe. Typical of much of modern art, it’s self-absorbed and glories in the fact that 99% of the human population would think it horrible and completely mystifying. It’s also devoid of any technical or artistic skill, allowing yet another “artist” to masquerade as such.
There is certainly good art being done in the world today, but this isn’t it. My criticisms here are not specific to modern art, they are specific to this type of modern art (which, unfortunately, there is far too much of). A disservice is being done to art in general when something like this is labeled as art.
By mike, March 17, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
brendan w/ the r. mutt redux.
i really need to stop using the word redux.
the lewitt vid is kinda crazy. my first real exposure to lewitt was a wall drawing a small gallery in london, shortly after starting arch school, and was amazed that there were all these pencil tracings that revealed the structure.
i’ve been really fascinated w/ the installation of art projects of late. i caught goldsworthy working on “roof” @ the nat’l gallery in ’04(05?) and later on got some sneak peaks at an install @ SAM.
By Mobius, March 18, 2009 @ 10:51 am
While interesting to read about, I’m in the “not art” camp. Art should entail a certain amount of mastery and craftsmanship which the Issue piece does not exhibit (to me).
By dsl, March 19, 2009 @ 8:32 am
Hey, good news for those of you not fascinated with art that pushes the envelope like this. MOMA will be exhibiting Monet’s Water Lilies collection from September 09 through March 2010. You and my niece’s 4th grade art class should check it out.
By Danyell, March 24, 2009 @ 9:24 am
“Art” is made of 2 things – the idea and the execution or technique (craftsmanship?). Architecture is a complicated strain of art, where multiple people get involved in conveying the idea and constructing/executing the idea. I think his piece both in that it is a simplistic statement about how an idea can be conveyed repeatedly with simple instructions, but the execution is the interpretation – in the difference in materials, the line that gets formed by the chisel and the pile of debris. Each installation would be unique, however using the same pattern.