# Taking art out of the exhibition (thesis discussion)



## Dan (Feb 9, 2011)

Ahoy hoy gentlemen!

I don't often post in the arts section but I felt this was relevant to the area. I&#8217;m currently writing a thesis on art and sculptures role within the gallery space, and whether the public need art to be exposed as art to be fully appreciated for its conceptual, visual and ethical reasons for creation. 

So far I&#8217;ve split the thing up into a few select sections which I will explore further:



_Art against the gallery in a historical context._
 


_How the land arts movement of the 1960&#8217;s became an influential means to take the limitations of artistic expression and experimentation past the traditional painting on canvas. _
 


_Does today&#8217;s society necessarily need current art to be in a gallery for it to engage them in the same way that an old painting would? _
 


_What compels and influences a graffiti artists motives for creating their art in an urban environment. _
 


_Do current ethics and politics reflect how a piece of art should be showcased?_
 


_Does public and private sector funded art hold a valid reason for creation other than tax evasion 
_
 
I come to ask you now if there is anything you think I should contribute to this work? I know its en extremely broad question to ask you but I want to hear opinions on any of the topics above and any relevant ideas, quotes and work I should look at to aid my research and conclusion!

All help would be much appreciated, and if I can get a discussion going on this it would be awesome


----------



## synrgy (Feb 9, 2011)

Plug said:


> _Does public and private sector public art holds a valid reason for creation or is it just for financial gain. _



My only contribution here is that the Grammar Police will have a field day with that sentence.


----------



## Dan (Feb 9, 2011)

synrgy said:


> My only contribution here is that the Grammar Police will have a field day with that sentence.



^ ohh christ yeah  I was typing quickly. time for an edit


----------



## Explorer (Feb 9, 2011)

Your last point should probably merit some investigation into public art and water features (not just fountains) in public spaces/landscape architecture, and the effect on large public spaces on crime or crime mitigation. 

Or, to ask a smaller question... does having a space where members of the public want to be, does that make such places too exposed for criminals to be able to use them without being noticed?


----------



## Dan (Feb 9, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Your last point should probably merit some investigation into public art and water features (not just fountains) in public spaces/landscape architecture, and the effect on large public spaces on crime or crime mitigation.
> 
> Or, to ask a smaller question... does having a space where members of the public want to be, does that make such places too exposed for criminals to be able to use them without being noticed?



I dont think the last question is aimed more at the prevention or encourangement of crime. More should corporations be more selective with what work they wish to contribute to society?


----------



## Explorer (Feb 9, 2011)

Oh, I misunderstood. Your question was originally:

"Does public and private sector funded art hold a valid reason for creation other than tax evasion?"

I immediately thought of some of the principles of landscape architecture, and of why one would use such art for other reasons than for tax purposes. There are many examples available which demonstrate other reasons than tax evasion.

However...

"More should corporations be more selective with what work they wish to contribute to society?"

...your restatement sounds like you want to focus purely on corporations, throwing out publicly funded art, and it's clear that you have some criteria by which you would assume the corporations could be "more selective," and that those criteria have some sort of value assignment/judgement attached. It is definitely a more narrow question than your first one, and it sounds like you definitely already have some conclusions. 

I'll not give further examples of corporate-funded art in open spaces where the public can congregate, as the examples I'm familiar with wouldn't fit with what you're more specifically aiming for, and will just muddy the waters of whatever conclusions you already have drawn. 

Sorry, and cheers!


----------



## Dan (Feb 9, 2011)

^ no sir that&#8217;s fine! All input is great. You will have to excuse my vague questioning as I am still in the process of planning and my questions will be refined over periods of discussion like this etc. 

I wasn&#8217;t entirely throwing out publicly funded art, I&#8217;m just very familiar with the fact that public and charity funded art is thought out a lot more thoroughly than business commissions. I've worked on some projects where the client has literally told me to 'make something that looks good'  I mentioned tax evasion as unfortunately a lot of corporations do it and claim it back as a tax deductable expense 


I&#8217;m currently in the middle of researching the dada movement and &#8216;anti art&#8217; in the case of historical research. If you have any other suggestions regarding any of the other points I&#8217;d be more than willing to hear!


----------

