灰姑娘和大怪物:邮政艺术和博物馆

IF 0.2 2区 艺术学 0 ART
P. Meijden
{"title":"灰姑娘和大怪物:邮政艺术和博物馆","authors":"P. Meijden","doi":"10.1080/00233609.2016.1231712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"SummaryTaking the difficulties involved in presenting Mail Art in a museum context as its point of departure, this article explores the conditions that Mail Art imposes on its own display. After a short introduction to the art form as a genre, two theoretical positions vis-a-vis Mail Art are analysed and shown to leave the matter of its communication with a secondary audience undiscussed. In order to arrive at a preliminary idea of the considerations involved, the discourse surrounding the new “relational” art of the 1990s (Nicolas Bourriaud, Claire Bishop, Jacques Ranciere) is drawn upon to explore the question of whether a Mail Art display can be seen as an illustration of a specific form of communication, as a suggestion to a secondary audience to communicate differently or as a model of communication. Each step is accompanied by an analysis of one or more works: Ken Friedman’s Omaha Flow Systems (1973), Niels Lomholt and Tom Elling’s Mr. Klein-project (1978–1981), Rod Summers’ VEC Secret Exchange and ...","PeriodicalId":41575,"journal":{"name":"KONSTHISTORISK TIDSKRIFT","volume":"10 1","pages":"75-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cinderella and the Big Monster: Mail Art and the Museum\",\"authors\":\"P. Meijden\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00233609.2016.1231712\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"SummaryTaking the difficulties involved in presenting Mail Art in a museum context as its point of departure, this article explores the conditions that Mail Art imposes on its own display. After a short introduction to the art form as a genre, two theoretical positions vis-a-vis Mail Art are analysed and shown to leave the matter of its communication with a secondary audience undiscussed. In order to arrive at a preliminary idea of the considerations involved, the discourse surrounding the new “relational” art of the 1990s (Nicolas Bourriaud, Claire Bishop, Jacques Ranciere) is drawn upon to explore the question of whether a Mail Art display can be seen as an illustration of a specific form of communication, as a suggestion to a secondary audience to communicate differently or as a model of communication. Each step is accompanied by an analysis of one or more works: Ken Friedman’s Omaha Flow Systems (1973), Niels Lomholt and Tom Elling’s Mr. Klein-project (1978–1981), Rod Summers’ VEC Secret Exchange and ...\",\"PeriodicalId\":41575,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"KONSTHISTORISK TIDSKRIFT\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"75-96\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"KONSTHISTORISK TIDSKRIFT\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00233609.2016.1231712\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ART\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KONSTHISTORISK TIDSKRIFT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00233609.2016.1231712","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以“邮件艺术”在博物馆语境中呈现的困难为出发点,探讨了“邮件艺术”在自身展示中所处的条件。在对作为一种流派的艺术形式进行简短的介绍之后,分析并展示了两种相对于邮件艺术的理论立场,从而使其与次要受众的交流问题不被讨论。为了对所涉及的考虑有一个初步的想法,围绕20世纪90年代的新“关系”艺术(Nicolas Bourriaud, Claire Bishop, Jacques Ranciere)的话语被吸引来探讨邮件艺术展示是否可以被视为一种特定形式的交流的说明,作为对次要观众的建议,以不同的方式进行交流,或者作为一种交流模式。每一步都伴随着对一部或多部作品的分析:肯·弗里德曼的《奥马哈流系统》(1973),尼尔斯·隆霍尔特和汤姆·埃林的《克莱因计划》(1978-1981),罗德·萨默斯的《VEC秘密交换》和……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cinderella and the Big Monster: Mail Art and the Museum
SummaryTaking the difficulties involved in presenting Mail Art in a museum context as its point of departure, this article explores the conditions that Mail Art imposes on its own display. After a short introduction to the art form as a genre, two theoretical positions vis-a-vis Mail Art are analysed and shown to leave the matter of its communication with a secondary audience undiscussed. In order to arrive at a preliminary idea of the considerations involved, the discourse surrounding the new “relational” art of the 1990s (Nicolas Bourriaud, Claire Bishop, Jacques Ranciere) is drawn upon to explore the question of whether a Mail Art display can be seen as an illustration of a specific form of communication, as a suggestion to a secondary audience to communicate differently or as a model of communication. Each step is accompanied by an analysis of one or more works: Ken Friedman’s Omaha Flow Systems (1973), Niels Lomholt and Tom Elling’s Mr. Klein-project (1978–1981), Rod Summers’ VEC Secret Exchange and ...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Konsthistorisk tidskrift/Journal of Art History includes investigations on art, architecture, and visual culture. We welcome articles on works, creators, and specific themes, as well as on theory and historiography. Accepted articles can be thorough explorations of a topic in accordance with a standard academic genre. We also welcome texts in a shorter, less finished format, functioning as openings to discussions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信