「現代美術」の人類学的研究に関する一考察 : インスタレーション・アートの現場から

DOI Web Site

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • An Anthropological Study of Contemporary Art : The Case of Making Installation Art
  • 「 ゲンダイ ビジュツ 」 ノ ジンルイガクテキ ケンキュウ ニ カンスル イチ コウサツ : インスタレーション ・ アート ノ ゲンバ カラ

この論文をさがす

抄録

This paper considers the method of studying contemporary art from an anthropological viewpoint, focusing on the case of making installation art. In contrast to previous institutional studies, which focus on the modern Western system of art as the "art world" and the "art-culture system," it considers the making of art ethnographically following the interaction between human and non-human actors. In the field of contemporary art, such as galleries and art centers, an ordinary object hardly ever transforms suddenly into an object to be admired as a work of art. Becoming art is regarded, rather, as a gradual process. To study art in the making enables us to see the works of contemporary art not only as the result of a status elevation within the system of art, but also as a bundle of relationships formed through the process of the mutual transformation of human and non-human actors. Both Acord [2010] and Yaneva [2003] study the making of installation art and the installation of art referring to the Actor Network Theory. Their studies make it clear that artworks and exhibitions are generated through the continual interaction between human and non-human actors, including curators, artists, and the various materials found in museum settings. As Yaneva suggests, it is important to see artists not as sole creative actors but as the vehicles of other participants' agency [Yaneva 2003b: 178]. However, in the making of installation art, the discourses and practices of creativity are often more complex than Yaneva and Acord describe. The art historian, Claire Bishop, points out the "fine line" between installation art and the installation of art. On one hand, she says that installation art is made up of "the ensemble of elements within it" and regarded as a "singular totality," while the installation of art is "secondary in importance to the individual works it contains" [Bishop 2005:6]. Bishop indicates that the line has been ambiguously drawn by the actors dealing with contemporary art. That relates to discussions about the "creativity" of curators, who are often recognized as the authors of exhibitions, and even occupy the status of quasi-artists in the field of contemporary art. Although neither Acord nor Yaneva decipher a particular difference between them, that very ambiguity results from the nature of contemporary art, which should be carefully examined. By comparing those ethnographic studies, this paper uncovers the need to reconsider the lines drawn between artists and curators, as well as installation art and the installation of art, which blur the field of contemporary art by following actors to see how they separate and obscure the source of "creativity."

収録刊行物

  • 文化人類学

    文化人類学 76 (2), 171-181, 2011

    日本文化人類学会

関連プロジェクト

もっと見る

キーワード

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ