An article on Dilworth's piece explains that the key element of her work is context. This is not a lasting work of art; it functions within a specific time frame. It cannot be experienced as it was originally intended in the future. This is interesting, because while it is art, it is only object in part. Understanding of the work once it is removed will not be gained by studying it as a part of “material culture”, but rather through its documentation, through the language and images that give an incomplete understanding of the work once it is no longer there. Still, Dilworth’s artwork responds to the idea of context, of creating art with cultural significance. She does not focus merely, however, on the work’s existence in real time. Its viewers are not only viewers; they become part of the work because they give it context. By creating a “river” out of a synthetic paint, Dilworth intends to cause her work of art’s “experiencers” to consider “Manhattan’s natural history as a pre–twentieth century site, specifically in relationship to how it feels now: wired, chaotic, almost illegible.” It is designed for public interaction within a particular space, specifically, the cultural mecca of New York City. What is more, while Dilworth didn’t even realize it at the time she created the piece, there were once three estuaries in the area she created her work, creating an even more powerful statement about the effects of landscape-modifying cultural changes throughout history. Dilworth’s intent was not only to transform space, but to ultimately affect the people who encountered that space – both noble and important tasks. Judging by the public’s interactions with the piece, as documented on her flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mollydilworth/ ), her creation allowed her to accomplish her goal, and quite successfully. She proved that art does affect people, that art can “revive” them through their encounters with it, and as Prown also suggests in his article, that cultures (historical and modern) and artwork are most powerful when experienced first-hand.
http://artforum.com/words/id=26315
Dilworth's river painting and her intended context have given you a lot to work with in context of our class and "material culture." It is always interesting to see how people will perceive something (based on documentation) long after it is gone.
ReplyDeleteThat is awesome. Its tight that Dilworth reconized that Broadway/New York had become "illegible" and "chaotic". Also that they attack the craziness and busyness by introducing art to give off calming vibes.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting work of art. I have never come in contact with this artist. I admire how the artist is trying to give the "new Manhattan" a taste of the "old manhattan." As previously stated: "By creating a “river” out of a synthetic paint, Dilworth intends to cause her work of art’s “experiencers” to consider “Manhattan’s natural history as a pre–twentieth century site, specifically in relationship to how it feels now: wired, chaotic, almost illegible." The the different shades of blue and the lines in the picture convey the wired and chaotic emotion.
ReplyDelete