On Jan 23, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Jon Ippolito wrote:
> Eleanor asks
> "whether there are those who would place value on the physical object as an
> 'original', or whether the majority feel that the value of the artwork would
> be solely in the concept." Are those the only two options?
>
> Paik was trained as a composer, and the 1963 exhibition in which both
> versions of Random Access first appeared was entitled "Exposition of Music."
> So when Kurt Masur conducts the Eroica symphony for the London Philharmonic,
> does that mean Masur thinks Beethoven is "conceptual" because he's chosen to
> focus on the sound instead of displaying period instruments in a vitrine?
Well, yes, there are more than two options, but I don't know that an invocation of Beethoven, perhaps the canonical figure of western fine art composition, will take us there. Performance of (published, mind you) scores is the institutional basis of Classical music, and has been a modus in several art forms for centuries. Stefan Morawski posited the notion of "design and realization" to express its generality, which is shared by the field of architecture and ballet to name two others.
To me, Paik is bound up in the 1960s urge for ephemerality and the desire to avoid commodity status in the art object. This is something you see even in an artist like Claes Oldenburg, whose choice of subject matter always sought the edge of obsolescence as a way to heighten the mystery of his work.
Paik did create scores for certain works, and obviously chose not to create them for others. Simply, he represents a conservation challenge not unlike Jackson Pollock or Dan Flavin. Paik had to confront the fragility of his work while he was at the height of his creative powers and popularity, and in his actions, we can read his own judgements on conservation.
As these decaying artifacts find themselves on exhibition today, in a museum context which imposes a certain valuation of materiality, the way that Classical composition imposes a certain valuation of performance, I think it is important to be clear about what the viewer is actually seeing (and interacting with). To do otherwise sets us on the lazy path of "conceptualism," and misses raising issues that re-capture the spirit and context of the 1960s for today.
Best wishes,
Charles
|