Inside versus Outside
Thinking back to our panel discussion (which turned out to be more of an informal conversation), a good deal of time was spent wondering about how the video façade is experienced. Does it attract a “non-art” or an “in-the-know” crowd? How many people outside actually pass by it? Is it viewed as a billboard or is it obviously a display of fine art? It was also described as a membrane, emphasizing the potential for art institutions that are not so hermetically sealed against the outside world. But there seemed to be a sticking point as to whether “For Public Consumption” actually does what the title suggests.
Whether or how much the show engages new audiences is difficult to measure, but I don’t think we should assume it does not, or that the effort is wasted. If you project images out into a public space where anyone is free to pass by, who sees it? What do they make of it? I actually enjoy the not knowing. In part I guess because some of my own most interesting experiences, (art or otherwise) have happened at random. One minute walking down the street thinking about laundry, and the next being caught up in something completely unexpected. In my own past, these experiences have often been solitary, or briefly shared with a complete stranger without being otherwise registered, counted, tabulated, etc.
Of course it’s possible to go in the direction of market research to try to figure out who is usually in a certain neighborhood at such and such a time, what is their likely educational background, etc. to define an audience. But I think I am most interested in the kinds of experiences which happen outside of these statistical averages. In terms of an ideal audience I am generally much more into connecting with individuals rather than an art or not art public. I also want to avoid the bunker mentality of an art crowd inside plotting to connect with an otherwise public outside. If I measured my work by the number of people I could reach at one time, I wouldn’t be in the visual arts at all, let alone performance art.
-Deva Eveland
Comments [2]
May.17.2007
By Richard Fox
Hey, Deva,
It's true, there does seem to be a (Western? American?) preoccupation to qualify & quantify many things. Maybe measuring is a universal, human trait? But specifically, I think it is such a big part of our culture. In a lot of ways, I suppose American culture is a competitive one, really. Maybe measurement is a substitute for real knowledge; it takes on the appearance of "knowing" without doing any real thinking? It is looked upon as evidence, & as such, emperical. That said (& in a convoluted way!) I say "Hooray for randomness!"
BTW, I am probably documenting the show (digital video) sometime next week. If you'd like to meet me there...
Be well,
Richard
May.19.2007
By Deva
Richard,
To measure or not to measure? It's funny because the last piece I did which also reached beyond the walls of the art institution in some way was the toll free phone number. Because the system was developed for sales, it's possible to generate reports about everyone who called, grouped by time, or area called from, or what options they selected when they called. You could also make "robo calls" back to them. It was cool, but potentially pretty creepy.
Definately interested to join you in documenting.
-Deva