Site specificity is the essential alliance between an art object and the specific site in which it is placed or performed. To borrow Meyer’s term, literal site encompasses an artwork that by its nature is dependent upon the site in which it is situated. An archetypal example of a literal site-specific work is Richard Serra Tilted Arc, located in Federation Square, New York. Serra explains, “the specificity of site-oriented works mean they are conceived for, dependent upon, and inseparable from their location”[1]. In comparison functional site-specific works are not dependent on a physical place to inform their meaning. A functional site is an ephemeral, transitional space it is not fixed but transient.
In his essay Theatre Country, Geoff Park recalls the progressive objectification of landscape culminating in its recognition as an autonomous painting genre. Through the invention of the Claude Glass and later the camera, the surveyor of landscape was empowered to minimize and contain a personalized image of nature. Pre-eminent literary scholars such as the poet Thomas Gray championed the re-contextualization of nature into image. Gray once wrote of the view witnessed through his Claude Glass, “I saw in my glass, a picture that if I could transmit it to you, and fix it in all the softness of its living colours, would fairly sell for one thousand pounds,”[2] thus the commodification of landscape as genre began.
The Claude Glass simultaneously reduced the uncontainable image of immense landscape into a quantifiable, consummerable whole. Government, politics and tourism all contributed to the commercialization of land as a vista to be owned. Images of a place encountered proved the presence of the spectator, which in turn attested to the actual experience of a particular scene. In its broadest sense the genre of landscape painting relates most directly to the precepts of site-specificity. Landscape painting could theoretically be linked to literal site-specificity given its specific relationship to the site depicted. Conversely landscape painting is not contingent on its placement within a particular environment to be understood. In this sense it is more closely aligned with the categorization of functional site-specificity.
Notions of site-specificity in relation to landscape are particularly prevalent in New Zealand art. The population to land ratio in New Zealand, combined with the particularly exotic landscape, presupposes a strong affiliation between New Zealanders and their surrounding environment. The relationship between people and place is expressed by artists in various guises, often references made to land and culture are shamelessly explicit and thus deemed National.
Issues surrounding National identity within New Zealand art are often highly contentious. Creative New Zealand, the governmental funding agency for the Arts in Aotearoa New Zealand, has strict guidelines underpinning it Strategic Priorities to aid in ascertaining National identity within various artistic genres [3]. However, in an increasingly globalized world, the nature of a ‘National identity’ is becoming more ambiguous. Subsequently the categorization of (often ephemeral) art practices as ‘National’ becomes exceedingly problematic. A highly controversial example of the inherent dilemma of National identity in art provoked national outrage when The Fundamental Practice, an installation by Et Al was presented at the Venice Biennale in 2005 [4].
Arguably Et Al’s installation was not accessible, nor understood by the majority public of New Zealand. Ironically the project was largely funded by taxpayer money enabling New Zealand presence at a highly esteemed international art event. Much of the furor generated by Et Al provoked issues pertaining to the definition of National identity. How was a multi-media installation indicative of native New Zealand?
Does an artwork have to incorporate a recognizable component of place or culture to be considered National? Take Andy Warhol and Damien Hirst for example, both have attained superstar status within the art world, yet even the supposedly art illiterate public could place Warhol as American and Hirst as British. Likewise excellence in sporting achievements often positions a sporting hero within a national context. The identity of a nation is contingent on the quality of its representation. A poorly rendered image of a Tui in a Pohutakawa tree is no more national than the exquisite surface treatment of a Stephen Bambury icon. Surely national identity should be assessed according to the superiority of the work produced rather than the country it reflects.
1 - James Meyer, “The Functional Site; or, The Transformation of Site-Specificity,” in Space, Site, Intervention: Situating Installation Art, ed. Erika Suderberg, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000, 23-37. P 24.
2 - Geoff Park “Theatre Country”, in Theatre Country: Essays on Landscape and Whenua, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2006, pp. 113-127. P 116.
3 - Refer to Creative New Zealand Strategic Plan: http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/WhatWeDo/StrategicPlan/tabid/4771/language/en-NZ/Default.aspx. 6/05/09
4 - Refer to Et Al Venice Biennale: http://www.e-flux.com/shows/view/1673. 6/05/09
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You raise a good point about the perception that art should reflect our 'National Identity'. I've notice this trend in both New Zealand filmmaking and writing as well: 'Kiwiana' short stories tend to win the Katherine Mansfield prose award, and most New Zealand films (including shorts funded by the Film Commission) seem to make references to Maori culture or aspects of the classic 'Kiwi' lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteI personally suspect that it's a side-effect of our country's small presence on the international art stage: since we don't have a history of producing many great films, books and artworks, we're still stuck in the 'look how nice our country is' mode. It's almost like we're part of a nation with low self-esteem, and need to verify our uniqueness in absolutely every artwork that we produce.
I recall a quote by Margaret Atwood in which she complained about 'Grey Owl syndrome' in Canadian writing and filmmaking. I think that Australia is beginning to produce art that doesn't necessarily affirm National Identity (e.g. the film 'Candy', which came out a few years ago), which perhaps shows that they now have a big enough ego as a nation that their art no longer needs to be tied up with tourism.
Speaking of art being tied up with tourism - I believe they were selling "contemporary carvings" and assorted Kiwiana in a make-shift shop at La Maddalena - Judy Millar's venue at the Venice Biennale. And I could be wrong but they may have sold meats a few years back.. or was it diary products? Perhaps that was just a bad dream about a country with a small mind.
ReplyDeleteI realise my comment above is not particularly productive so I would like to add another.
ReplyDeleteI have differculty with the idea of 'National Identity'. I don't understand what that is. When I see that term I think of worn out cliches and irrelevancies - a grand narrative established for box ticking.