You are on page 1of 1

Jamin Doyle Prof.

Mikulay Art Hist Her-400 Monday, April 19, 2010

Site As Identity;
One Place After Another:

Although some may argue only a local artist can render an accurate concept for a site specic work of art, still there are those who will attest that the nomadic traveling artist is best. There are as many who believe an indigenous artist is ideal as there are those few who feel the traveling artist is better. However, each particular type of artist has their strengths and weaknesses. When a proposed project for a particular community is comissioned a local artist might be considered best, whereas with public art, a travelling artist may be better. Though at the same time, both artists, no matter how they are selected via the curator or the community for which they represent, each artist/ curator/ audience has potential for using the specic site for self-agrandizement. In all actuallity, despite the locale of the artist in situ and regardless of prestige each artist no matter what their background is responsible for their work and the audience not heedless self-promotion. Still others are of a mind that the artist should work at their own discretion with out consideration for handicapping their creative liscense by restricting it to their audiences taste. Some seem to feel public art should not be limited to public taste, In spite of the fact it is comissioned at others expense. Either way nding the right artist to do the work is not easy task, as we have seen it can take a great deal of time and effort to nd one that is a good match. Who decides depends solely on what type of work it is that is going to be done whether it be for state, city, local, society, community, culture, govenrment, public, and/or the community. The truth is that the way in which an artist is chosen for what is entirely subjective in that it depends on what the project is for and not necessarily who is paying for it. In the end identity begets art not the other way around art does not beget identity. Putting art into already existing context does not necessarily garuantee identity. The end result is a prefabricated environment contrived of illusions imposed upon the people who live there. Making art for some place is also not the same as bringing the art out of the woodwork. Although, the art may be inspired by the people for the people it, is not of the people. How do you negotiate a comprimise between these afor mentioned parties? Government, Institution, Artist, public, site which get the most attention? Is it whoever contributes the most? Or is it the originator of the genuine content? The role of the artist and how much inuence they have is not easily mediated. Not without much help from all members of the research comission. In reality it is almost as if it is a collaborative effort, although, members are considered responsible for different aspects of the production. In most cases it is the role of the artist to ideate, originate, or direct the art in close proximity to the subject for which it was requisitioned and the people or publics it was requested for. The artist must comprimise these borders between administrative, ofcial, and publics so as to reach an aesthetically pleasing conclusion. In reality the whole thing is a performance. The art of making art, the product, simply a result of the artists orchestrative efforts.