Nüve Forum


Fotoğraf sanatçıları hakkinda vladimir archipov ile ilgili bilgiler


vladimir archipov Vladimir Arkhipov Functioning Forms Ireland Tulla, Co. Clare [research stage]; Burren College of Art Gallery, Ballyvaughan, Co. Clare [exhibition] Oct. 21st - Nov. 4th 2006 Vladimir Arkhipov spent

Like Tree1Likes

Cevapla

 

LinkBack Seçenekler Stil
  #1  
Alt 24.04.07, 17:28
nuvekolik
Ziyaretçi
 
İletiler: n/a
Standart vladimir archipov

vladimir archipov






Vladimir Arkhipov
Functioning Forms Ireland
Tulla, Co. Clare [research stage];
Burren College of Art Gallery, Ballyvaughan, Co. Clare [exhibition] Oct. 21st - Nov. 4th 2006
Vladimir Arkhipov spent 3 weeks in June of 2006 in Tulla, Co. Clare conducting research for this project.
Arkhipov has a single project that he carries out all over the world, under the umbrella title of ‘Museum of the Handmade Object’. He travels in communities, encountering people who make objects for their own use. These objects have been fashioned or constructed or assembled from other objects or fragments of other objects, to form 'strange but functional contraptions'. He interviews the makers of the objects, creates a publication based on photographs & interviews and borrows the objects for an agreed period to be exhibited in a white-cube gallery. Through his website, www.folkforms.ru he is assembling what he has called a Post-Folk Archive.
The success of the project in Tulla was in no small part due to the fact that Arkhipov had a local artist and farmer working as his assistant. Pat McInerney is someone who has the trust of the community; it seems likely that his presence facilitated the artist's access to people and their creations.

John Joe McNamara Turf Barrow
The exhibition stage of this project took place in a new gallery in the Burren College of Art in Ballyvaughan; the artist placed objects inside the gallery and outside in the courtyard of the college itself.



The project is not without its critics. A number of local, rural people have taken offence at the way in which the speech of the makers of the objects was transcribed word for word and printed in the catalogue. Interesting spectres have arisen about the representation of rural people by outsiders; although the artist's instructions were to transcribe the interviews without adjustment, it seems that this is not viewed as a neutral act by people who find themselves thus ‘represented’.
Catalogue Essay;
A Shifting Aesthetic - the work of Vladimir Arkhipov
Extracts from a conversation between Mark Haywood, artist and researcher, and Fiona Woods, artist and curator.

FW; Vladimir Arkhipov is assembling what he has called a Post-Folk Archive a collection of hand-made objects that have been fashioned or constructed or assembled from other objects or fragments of other objects, to form 'strange but functional contraptions'.1 The artist describes these items as 'unintentional folklore' belonging to a discourse which is not aligned with any official culture, but stands in opposition to "conservative conceptions of anthropology, history and art.”2


One of the things that interests me about Arkhipov's work is that it throws up questions about aesthetics and power relations. All of the 'makers' that Arkhipov identifies are individuals who are quietly subverting the usual passive relationship between people and consumer culture. Arkhipov adds a social dimension to the work through the process of interviewing and recording each 'creator' - these recordings are an integral part of the final exhibition. The objects themselves have been described elsewhere as having a strange poignancy; their individualism seems so frail in the face of rampant consumerism.
Through the act of placing these non-art objects in a gallery space, Arkhipov's work infers, I believe, not so much an anti-aesthetic as something between the aesthetic and the anti-aesthetic. In 'The Philistine Controversy', authors David Beech and John Roberts use the term philistine to describe a 'relational category that operates between art and anti-art, aesthetics and anti-aesthetics'. It refers to those things which art considers to be outside of itself, which are seen as having no value for art and culture.

I see the work of Arkhipov as highlighting something similar. How do you see it?

MH; Regarding the aesthetic aspect of the artifacts, I'd suggest that rather than lying between the aesthetic and the anti-aesthetic, they actually operate in two different aesthetic zones, firstly there is their zone of origination, where necessity is the mother of invention; here the primary aesthetic is design based, an aesthetic of functionality - how well do they perform the task for which they have been created?
Phil Brown; Goalposts from PVC pipes Bernie Whelan; Nail priser from metal

Subsequently there are a range of possible aesthetic responses from the spectator in the wholly scopic regime of the art gallery. I say 'range' of responses because some of the artefacts are almost autistic in the bizarre inventiveness of their problem solving –perhaps their appeal lies in the creativity of the designer-maker, whose solution is so left of field as to place it far beyond mere whimsicality. By contrast there are other objects in the Archive which we admire as ‘clever’ solutions, many in both these categories also have great visual charm, (and perhaps for some of us are nostalgic reminders of a world which is largely lost).

For this last reason I feel these objects are not subversive to consumer culture, but instead are threatened by it - they are an endangered species that is gradually disappearing from our world. A few strongholds remain in the West - gardens and allotments spring to mind - but everywhere this practice is under assault from the homogenising force of economic prosperity and an increasingly 'design' conscious public which is addicted to TV programmes about home and garden make-overs.
If necessity is the mother of invention, then as need fades, so must inventiveness (.... and creativity?)
I see the work of Arkhipov as playing with aesthetic boundaries to some extent. By placing them in the gallery, they become art objects, á la Duchamp, but then return to their former lives as functioning objects at the end of the exhibition. This shifting in and out of the aesthetic realm is interesting in my mind because of the way it draws our attention to the aesthetic ‘aura’.

Lavender Wright, Peg Bag, Upholster material

While Arkhipov’s selected objects certainly differ from Duchamp’s readymades in being intentionally returned to their previous existence after display, I'd argue that by being exhibited and reproduced photographically the objects have acquired a fresh provenance, which could probably be economically demonstrated by the ever voracious art market, despite the artist’s intentions to the contrary. At the very least, the aura generated by his act of curation lingers as long as knowledge or memory of that display endures.

I find it questionable as to whether the artifacts are actually 'art' at any point. Upon reflection I'd prefer to say that the 'art' lies in Arkhipov's act of curation and interpretation, whereas the individual artifacts he brings together, though elements in the construction of the artwork, are not actually art. To term them 'art' would also be to do them a disservice by dismissing their functionality, but this in no way denies the aesthetic appeal of many of these items, nor the creative invention inherent in their fabrication. 'Artifice' in its older sense seems a useful term in this context.

In a previous conversation you sketched out some interesting historical antecedents for this work. Could you outline some of these?

Much earlier antecedents than Duchamp could be those wonderful artifacts in C16th European curiosity cabinets and display chambers (which were the ancestors of the museum).However most items in the Wunderkammer were wonderous on account of their physical properties, whereas if we go back to the practice’s origins in mediaeval Catholic reliquaries, we encounter objects and artifacts which though often visually mundane, were imbued with what we now term 'auratic' properties - splinters from the True Cross are an obvious example, but the most amusing must surely be the dozen or so foreskins of Jesus which were displayed across mediaeval Europe!

Another obvious antecedent is Richard Wentworth's body of work, Making Do and Getting By, where he used photography and video to record the 'sculpture of the everyday' - all those lovely impromptu structures and solutions people spontaneously construct in order to solve various physical problems in everyday life. However with Wentworth the artwork is his record of these solutions, not the subject of the photo; the scenes he records would lose much of their charm and interest if removed from the outside world and re-created in an art gallery. By contrast the artifacts Arkhipov presents, in what we might call his act of curatorial performance, retain much of their original appeal when temporarily deprived of their functionality and displayed in a white box context.

This project functions or appears to function outside of the arena of economic transactions; the artifacts, to give them your title, are fashioned for the use of the maker, not for commercial reasons; the artist does not enter into any kind of economic transaction with the creator, and there are no sales nor any kind of ‘merchandising’ around the exhibition. Is it just a fantasy to think that art could exist independent of the art market?

The commercial art market is voracious, but there is a long history of artists’ strategies to thwart capitalist exploitation of their production; some more successful than others. However, for over a decade Baudrillard has been hypothesizing3 that, in general, art effectively died some time ago and has been replaced by an economic conspiracy, which is no different to that of any other economic activity, except in this case it consists wholly of an economic bubble inflated by a frenzied conspiracy that promotes consumption. Baudrillard argues that most art no longer has any social use, but continues to exist simply to make money for art world conspirators: he describes art's real value as 'null' However in a lecture at the 2003 Venice Biennale he said that if art can retain any purpose other than promoting its own economic inflation, it may lie in showing us ways of looking at the world. The implication is that life is more interesting than art - which of course it is! In a recent online debate Alistair Hudson of Grizedale Arts used the phrase ‘reality curation’ when speaking of his organisation’s public art policy; he hypothesized that the artist could be made redundant if curators concentrated on re-presenting reality by working directly with audiences. However Arkhipov's Archive seems an interesting alternative strategy for bridging the gap between art and life without many of the economic compromises and pitfalls of many other forms of art production.

But it may be that the avant-garde is, as WJT Mitchell has suggested, merely the research and development arm of the culture industry . . . in which case the ‘aesthetics’ of this work should begin to crop up in advertising images quite soon!

Culture is (a) fluid and artists, like all others who swim in it have virtually no control over the secondary ripples generated by their actions. However the interval between origination of an artwork and its appropriation or recycling by advertising is becoming ever shorter; this suggests our cultural fluid is becoming ever less viscous and ever more volatile. Will it eventually turn into gas? And what would be
consequences…?!

1 Diana Yeh, Visiting Arts; Ordinary Heroes and Handmade Tales; culturebase.net | The international artist database

2 Vladimir Arkhipov, ibid.

3 Baudrillard’s hypothesis appears to coalesce through a series of essays that span a decade or so and are collected together in The Conspiracy of Art (2005)








Born 1967, Ryazan, Russia.

The artist lives and works in Moscow.

</STRONG> find similar artists: Installation Site specific art

Konu nuvekolik tarafından (03.11.07 saat 16:48 ) değiştirilmiştir..
Alıntı ile Cevapla
  #2  
Alt 03.11.07, 14:24
nuvekolik
Ziyaretçi
 
İletiler: n/a
Standart Cevap: vladimir archipov

Home-Made by Vladimir Arkhipov


I've been meaning to get this book for awhile now. So I was thrilled to find it when I went to Curiosity Shoppe's opening last Thursday. Arkhipov's collection is wonderful especially if you love seeing the genius in mundane everyday items (especially at what people can produce at home using meager materials). Here are some of my favorite images from the book:





The Curiosity Shoppe opening was fun and crowded! I was a little star struck when I saw Todd Oldham there, too. Lauren and Derek, the shoppe owners, have assembled such a thoughtful, well-edited shop. And I instantly fell in love with their shelving system. You can see more images on their blog.





Konu nuvekolik tarafından (03.11.07 saat 16:57 ) değiştirilmiştir..
Alıntı ile Cevapla
  #3  
Alt 03.11.07, 16:36
nuvekolik
Ziyaretçi
 
İletiler: n/a
Standart Cevap: vladimir arkhipov




Alıntı ile Cevapla
  #4  
Alt 03.11.07, 16:36
nuvekolik
Ziyaretçi
 
İletiler: n/a
Standart Cevap: vladimir arkhipov



Alıntı ile Cevapla
  #5  
Alt 03.11.07, 16:37
nuvekolik
Ziyaretçi
 
İletiler: n/a
Standart Cevap: vladimir arkhipov





Alıntı ile Cevapla
  #6  
Alt 03.11.07, 16:37
nuvekolik
Ziyaretçi
 
İletiler: n/a
Standart Cevap: vladimir arkhipov





Alıntı ile Cevapla
  #7  
Alt 03.11.07, 16:37
nuvekolik
Ziyaretçi
 
İletiler: n/a
Standart Cevap: vladimir arkhipov





Alıntı ile Cevapla
  #8  
Alt 03.11.07, 16:37
nuvekolik
Ziyaretçi
 
İletiler: n/a
Standart Cevap: vladimir arkhipov




Alıntı ile Cevapla
  #9  
Alt 03.11.07, 16:38
nuvekolik
Ziyaretçi
 
İletiler: n/a
Standart Cevap: vladimir arkhipov



Alıntı ile Cevapla
  #10  
Alt 03.11.07, 16:38
nuvekolik
Ziyaretçi
 
İletiler: n/a
Standart Cevap: vladimir arkhipov



Alıntı ile Cevapla
Cevapla

Tags
archipov, vladimir

Seçenekler
Stil

Yetkileriniz
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is Açık
[IMG] Kodları Açık
HTML-KodlarıKapalı
Trackbacks are Açık
Pingbacks are Açık
Refbacks are Açık



Bütün zaman ayarları WEZ +2 olarak düzenlenmiştir. Şu anki saat: 10:56 .