should i be here or there?

This has been a tiring week and i feel a bit jaded as i roll up to the library around 2 p.m. I had a few hours so it seemed like the ideal opportunity to read journal article or two. After 30 mins though i am literally falling asleep. At one point i even rest my head on my hand only to awake with a start as my head plunges towards the desk. A change of tack was needed.

So the heavy stuff goes down and i pick up a mighty tome that promises to offer a comprehensive survey of 'Land and Environmental Art'. The move appears to work as i remain awake and seem able to concentrate on what i am doing.

Negative Board 1968

What i end up focusing on is Negative Board by Dennis Oppenheim. This was one of Oppenheim's early works and consists of a line cut in snow with saw dust placed in the resulting trench. All this makes for quite an intriguing image. But what really interested my was how the work was exhibited. When shown in the gallery we have the image but also a map of where the work was executed. Why have a map? Unless you were fleet of foot the work would have changed or disappeared completely by the time you got there. So it is not a practical object that directs us to the art. Instead it has a symbolic function. The map, and the image too, are referencing an external site. The gallery is not the focus of attention but the outside world. No longer is the gallery the centre of the art world and neither should the artists be confined to its white walls.

The issue that i was really trying to get my head around was how does this differ from the way Orozco uses the photograph. It came to me that the fundamental difference is the artists view of the gallery space. For Oppenheim this is a negative place and is mainly used to refer to somewhere else. The possibilities of the gallery itself are not explored. But with Orozco the gallery space is seen more positively. This is a space that can be used to converse directly with the viewer. While the action may have taken place elsewhere Orozco recognises where we encounter the work and privileges that interaction. As such we are not left caught between two places as we are with Oppenheim.

This isn't to say that one is right and one is wrong. It is unfortunately not that simple and the issue  still seems a little confused in my head. But the basic dynamics are becoming clearer to me and it feels like this difference in approach could form the central debate of my work. A heart warming thought indeed.