An example of relational art is Gonzalez-Torres’ piece involving a display of candy. While some viewers took handfuls of candy, others waiting until another took a piece before taking some themselves. The piece brought out certain behaviors in the participants and illustrated their relationship with authority.

Holzer continues, describing her work regarding political issues: the forum she created during the previous presidential election.  In her work “Truisms,” Holzer hoped that readers would picture someone as representative of each sentence and come to a better understanding of the statements together.  She also hoped that the reader would be able to see the absurd juxtaposition between each two conflicting statements.  In an attempt to better reach the public through her art, Holzer began to incorporate electronic signs.  Because signs are “flashy” and have large memories, Holzer could put a substantial number of her statements and reach a huge number of viewers.  Knowing that a person’s attention can only be kept for so long, Holzer keeps her compositions varied in terms of subject matter and all of the special effects the sign offers.  Like Haacke with respect to his exhibition space, Holzer believes that the sign she uses guides her and shapes her work.

Haacke apparently caused a stir in 1970 when the Guggenheim Museum refused to show his work which “documented Manhattan real estate holdings on the Lower East Side and in Harlem.”  The Guggenheim claimed that publishing this information was illegal, but Haacke explains that he got all of the information from the city’s public records. Overall, the stir and controversy that happened was caused by the Guggenheim’s censorship of Haacke’s work.  As a result, Haacke learned about the forces at work within the art industry.

Haacke talks about how he thinks about the exhibition site during the creation of his work.  This results in pieces that seem entirely different.  Haacke talks further about his work US Isolation Box and how he was outraged when he read the article describing them.  In the 70s, Haacke did a lot of work involving texts, but explains that text only reaches an audience that has the patience or time to read it.  On the other hand, visual cues can be interpreted several ways.  On the isolation box he created, Haacke provided one sentence to explain what it was, without the text, people might think he created a bad minimalist sculpture.  Originally, the isolation box was displayed in a dark corner of a mall, rotating so the inscription was difficult to read.  Only after he and others complained was the piece restored to its agreed upon position.

I think it’s interesting how an artist’s view or direction can change over their career. Haacke was so immersed in system theory years before, but now is only concerned with the message or ideological criticism his piece provides.

Haacke defines a system as a “grouping of elements subject to a common plan and purpose,” with these elements interacting to arrive at a common goal.  Separating the elements destroys the system.  You can either create or demonstrate a system. Haacke talks about one of his works where water trickled out of the holes in a hose. The water pooled and then was pumped back into the hose; here, Haacke created a system. Another time, Haacke invited people to his rooftop to view the weather: a “demonstration of the meteorological system.”

Haacke talks about how his reflective works broke away from the object.  Because their surfaces were reflective, it was difficult to determine the shape of the piece, especially because it takes on aspects of the environment. Haacke talks about some of his later pieces and how some believe they resemble Minimal sculptures.  Haacke counters this, saying that he aims to create a piece for its function; as a result, he does not choose to use something for its stylistic attributes but for its functionality. Haacke also explains how he is interested in change; none of his pieces are without some aspect of change.  Haacke talks more about his pieces that embrace change, like his work with water and the  Ice Stick. While many believed that the Ice Stick had erotic connotations, Haacke says that was not intended. Haacke’s work is very open; everything is right there in front of you.

Haacke explains how the transition to biological systems in his work was a natural step.  While growth is a type of change illustrated in his work, Haacke also used interference as a form of change.  In physical or biological systems, a viewer does not need to be present.  Those systems can exist and function on their own.  However in a social system, the process takes place in a person’s mind.  Haacke goes on to explain the energy of information; presented at the right time, information can be very powerful.  Haacke also explains that most social systems are more or less political.  He describes a work where he first asked where people attending one of his exhibits lived, and then traveled there and took a picture. He printed out over 700 pictures and displayed them.  While this doesn’t sound like it would be related to politics, the exhibit reflected the socioeconomic standing of the gallery goers.

I found the whole notion of a system as a piece of art or sculpture to be very interesting; I also thought that Haacke’s incorporation of change into all of his pieces to be quite intriguing.  Because nothing he created was ever static, I feel like its hard to categorize his work as simply a sculpture.

Angered by the complete disregard of his instruction, Takis and several other artists wrote and presented a list of thirteen demands to the director of the Museum.  The first demand was to hold a public hearing.  Carl Andre explained that a hearing would allow previously isolated artists a chance to get together and exchange opinions on the matter.  Also, having the Museum present would allow them to present their views.  The director of the Museum did not want a public hearing, and instead suggested the creation of a committee within the Museum for artists.  Andre explained that this would be a fine way for the Museum to express its views, but not a good way to examine the Museum’s policies.  The director also said that the Museum would be choosing members of the committee.  Despite all of this, the artists still planned to hold a public hearing the following April.  In the meantime, the artists planned to hold a demonstration in March to further spread the word of their problems with the Museum, and also to gauge the interest of others in their cause.  Andre pointed out that the Museum has a direct influence on the careers of artists, and therefore artists should have some influence on the policies of the Museum.

Another demand on the list, was that “the Museum should be open on two evenings until midnight and admission should be free at all times.”  Artist, Farman, explained that between 1963 and 1967 admissions increased by almost $200,000, while contributions from the Trustees and friends have gone down by about $114,277.  Farman felt that the Museum catered to the rich, and was abusing the public by charging them admission.  Andre believed that admission fees should be voluntary; the poor cannot go to the Museum.  While the Museum may not be able to fathom a person who doe not have $1.50 to spend, Andre expressed his concern for the many people who would not be able to attend.  Andre explained how he is not responsible for the morals of the rich; he’s “much more worried about the deprivation of the poor.”

I think Farman made a very good point when he spoke about admissions and contributions.  I’m not entirely familiar with the events that go on at museums, but from what Farman describes (in terms of the high level of gala openings and luxury galas) it sounds like the museum spends a lot of money on lavish parties for the upper class.  While the Museum has every right to spend their profits any way they’d like, I think that the majority of the money spent on these galas should be from the people attending them, not from the admission money of the public.  If these galas were open to the public, then I would have to take back some of the things I’ve said.  I’m also very surprised that a museum would act against the direct wishes of an artist.  I’m assuming that things were very different in 1969 from the relationship between artists and museums today.  From what I understood, Takis did not sign some sort of release form that allowed the Museum to display his piece whenever they wanted, which I think would be the only way for the Museum to disregard his wishes.

Kaprow then begins to explain his view of improvisation in Happenings; it is not really about improvisation as much as it is about control.  He explains that he defines “a parameter of activities,” which include images or instructions on a theme.  This allows the participant to arrive at the control in many different ways.  The artist is able to decide how open or how limited he will leave the circumstances.  Kaprow goes on to describe the three types of Happenings: theater, idea, and participation.  The first type, a theater Happening, is very similar to regular theater in terms of locale, but rather different with regard to materials and content.  The second type, an idea Happening, is not necessarily performed, but to attend, you have to read about or hear about it.  Idea Happenings are often simply just thought about.  The third type, a participation Happening, can be something where you lead people through many different locations over varying amounts of time.  This implies that you could experience a lifelong Happening.  While these three types exist, Kaprow explains that there are many variants of Happenings. Segal then asks if the motive behind certain Happenings is to change or transform the nature of the person whom is a participant.  In response, Kaprow dives into a description of a work by Bob Morris that involves a battleship grey door and similarly colored shrinking tunnel.  While he was delighted with the constriction the small tunnel provided, a friend responded very negatively to the work.

Segal explains his use of sound in his work.  He tries to avoid it, but it does come up in his work, namely the piece in which a girl was listening to music.  He is very concerned with the quality of sound.  Kaprow then explains his use of sound, describing a piece which involved the pounding of drums and a rock and roll band. He tries to use the sounds that are produced through the activity.  He says how he would want the racket from the turning of oil drums to be heard; also he wanted the bands to each perform their own sets simultaneously, playing over each other at times.  They then both talk about the use of collage and juxtaposition: how they create relationships between aspects in the work or between the viewers and the piece as a whole.

I found Kaprow’s description and example of an idea Happening to be very interesting.  The example he gives is George Brecht’s three aqueous events.  Brecht distributed small printed cards with the title of the work, and then three bullet points under it naming the states of matter of water: Water, Ice, and Steam.  From what I understand, this was the entirety of Brecht’s work.  People who received these cards were left to think on their own.  Kaprow explains that you could think about glaciers, or drinking tea, or pouring water from the tap.  Your thoughts could even prompt you to take action, such as buying ice, visiting a glacier, or getting a drink.  I think Kaprow is correct in saying that the extent of possibilities in idea Happenings is indeed enormous.

2.  I understood detournement to be art in which artists use existing elements to create a work that conveys a new or different message.  In this case, the following segment from the Alexa Chung Show could be considered detournement.  In the video, Alexa Chung uses clips from a speech President Obama gave about health care to create a song, parodying what was said in the speech.

Link: Obama & MTV’s Alexa Chung Debate Health Care

2.  Eco says that how a piece of art or literature is made or interpreted depends on the way in which society perceives reality.  Art by Medieval artists was closed, which mirrored their belief in a fixed hierarchy. On the other hand, art in the Baroque era was open and dynamic, which reflected the arrival of “a new scientific awareness.”

3.  Eco describes how scientific discoveries and advancements determine artists’ perception of reality, and in turn influence an artist to create ‘open’ work.

4.  There are many examples of ‘open’ work made by contemporary artists: for example, The Confidence Man performed by the Woodshed Collective.  This theatrical production, which took place on a boat, was composed of a series of interwoven and simultaneously performed vignettes throughout the ship.  The audience had the ability experience different elements of the production by choosing which characters and storyline to follow.  Comprised of thirty actors and fifteen story lines, the production offered many interpretations.  Eco states that the author does not control the exact way a work is interpreted, but offers the performers and audience a number of interpretations.  The author is unable to determine the exact way in which his work will be interpreted, but the completed piece will still be his own.

2.  According to Bishop, Benjamin believed that when examining the politics within a work, we should consider its position relative to that of other works in the same period, not its position as described by the artist.  He also believed that viewers should be involved in the process of production/creation of a work of art.  In Artaud’s Theatre of Cruelty, Artaud puts forward a similar argument: that  the viewer should become emotionally involved, allowing for an examination within themselves.

3.  There are three main concerns in participatory art: activation, authorship, and community.  Activation is the “desire to create an active subject.”  Artists hope that viewers will be able to discern their own political and social reality.  Authorship is the idea that by allowing the viewer to participate in the process of creation/production, the work becomes more democratic than individual art, allowing for the “aesthetic benefits of greater risk and unpredictability.”  The concern of community involves the questioning of collective responsibility.  Derived from Marxism, this concern incorporates the restoration of social bonds through collective meaning.

4.  I have not personally encountered a form of participatory art.