Krauss and Price -march 26

Rosalind Krauss , "Sculpture in the Expanded Field" "october' Vol.8 (Spring 1979) pp/30-44
Seth Price, "Dispersion" (2001-2002)


I'm not really one for sculpture, personally, and the readings were both new to me so it really was the first time I had read into sculpture writings.
For me, Krauss bought up some interesting points that I have thought about in relation to sculpture before - how far can we take the medium? When does art stop being art and start being a cardboard box in an empty room? And this article, written in 1979 hadn’t even seen the extent of the art boundary.
I guess the reading was slightly outdated and was quite "formal" eg. Diagrams, which confused me more.

I definitely found the Seth Price reading much more relevant and interesting. His argument about the validity of art (can something be considered art unless it is being distributed and viewed?) struck me, especially in consideration of my own work. Being an art student means we are practicing art (ists), but are we artists in ‘the real world’?? Can something be considered art without people knowing about it physically or conceptually? Everybody wants their fifteen minutes of fame in displaying their work and making it available for people to critique and discuss.
The digitalization of art is also something interesting to me – I guess, ideally, it reaches a far larger audience that a lot of galleries, but it leaves the personal side of viewing art in the dust. Even if understanding the work comes after discussing and research outside the gallery, sometimes just seeing the piece can change your perspective or your understanding of others views.

The last sentence of the Price article made me laugh, but also kind of made sense.. “Production... is the excretory phase in...Appropriation”. How funny that the form of production determines the way in which the work is recognized and related to other art, yet Price argues that art without distribution and production may not be art at all.