Even though the introduction for Mark Dion was boring, his presentation was very lively. I had discovered how he's a globalized artist, and his art is his travel log. His first project that he spoke of was when he was in Venice, Italy. He spoke of the lovely atmosphere it had as well as how people traveled there (by boats). But the mud in the canals is so old and reeks of god-knows-what. Yet in the mud there lies a treasure full of history.
I was really intrigued more with his adventure than his project. When I saw his project, I was really indifferent about it. The actual project was a row of boxes opened with stuff inside that (I'm sorry to say) I kind of zoned out of. They were normal everyday objects inside boxes from what I remember (and I cannot find a picture of it anyway, so I apologize for that too). But his meaning behind it made me skeptical at first. He wants to put things together in a child-like way, not as an archaeologist would. His artwork does create more questions than answers, such as his plate shards that had numbers adjacent to them (as you would find in a museum) but there would be nowhere to reference to.
He transitions from his trip from Venice to London as he goes on another adventure to scavenge for man-made objects on the shore. He visited two sites: Bankside and Millbank. Each shore had their own personality as Millbank was a site of a prison, and Bankside was a place for entertainment. He and his team gathered the man-made objects and divided them in boxes, sorting them out.
At first, my reaction was "he just put stuff in shelves," but he explained how he continued to switch up the arrangement. By this, I mean he continued to change the organization pattern: by name, by material, by color, by size, etc. This continues to give mixed signals to the viewer, leaving them, well, befuddled. I suppose this is the point where I started to be intrigued by his work because of the concept behind it. And as this was the starting point for his piece, he showed the audience more and more.
His installation that was near the border of US and Mexico, which actually is a place to watch birds.
The "Gull Appreciation" vehicle (which as it turns out, people in this area didn't mind gulls except for the small percentage who happens to be loud).
And he also had a project where he made this big hangout as a response to the Fisherman's club from this huge oxygen tank (that I cannot currently find the project of). But you can drink there (as long as it's bird-related drinks), you can smoke there (smoke some larks), and enjoy nice conversations (about birds). That's right, this project was an ornithologist club.
I have no idea why he's obsessed with birds, but I don't mind it either. He prefers the idea of nature over the actual nature aspect. But he also made:
This cool greenhouse for this tree. It always changes because the vegetation on the tree continued to grow. This tree was 160 years old when it was chopped down, but the life that grows on it is completely different. This tree came from an area where there would be layers and layers of wildlife stacked on each other. So, this was an interactive way to connect with the tree. There are no barriers between the viewer and the tree. And it would have facts about the habitat it lived in.
He also made this Buffalo Bayou "Invasive Plant Eradication Unit" which is supposed to resemble a SWAT car.
I'm not sure how I feel about his art, but I can appreciate his thought/physical process. It certainly does bring the question of "what is art" to mind when I see pieces like this. These are interactive pieces, but what divides the line between it being simply a car and art? What divides the meaning between what museum does and his pieces of work? I feel that the answer is up to the audience themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment