Entry #2

In class, digital artist Colin Ives presented and discussed his work. Ives's work was extremely eco aware; presenting problems like the clearing of forests and the lives of different species living in modern society in a very modern and artistic way. At one point Ives brought up the idea that all he can hope for is that his art work might make an impact on the viewer and create an awareness of certain problems. Most of Ives works are interactive video installations. By bringing the viewer into the art, it hopefully forces the viewer to think about the art in a completely different way than if they were just standing there looking at the piece with zero involvement.
In todays art wold, is forcing the viewer to interact with the art essential to allowing the viewer to really think about the concept behind the art? I believe that at times it is. In Ives's case, interacting is crucial. When i think of interactive art my mind immediately jumps to Carsten Holler's Test Site, a 2006 installation in the Tate Modern. This piece allowed the public to slid down tubular slides inside the museum. The tallest slide reached an astonishing five stories. Was Holler commenting on the need of new more eco friendly forms of transportation? Does Holler imagine a London where people  use slides instead of machines like elevators and escalators? Or does he just want to great playful sculptors that everyone can enjoy and be brought back to there childhood? Only Holler truly knows the complete reasons for why he created these slides but the participator, not the viewer, is forced to create there own opinions, while having fun. Maybe its about time people started having more fun at art museums.
www.theartwolf.com/imagenestAW/carsten_holler_test_site.jpg
In this weeks reading we read Doin' Dirt Time, an interview with Rachel Dutton and her husband. The interview goes over how this artist couple living in South Central Los Angeles go from making art in the city to leaving everything behind and moving to the the middle of nowhere and than to giving up art and there fridge completely. What is it that drove these two to so suddenly drop everything for a new simpler life? The answer is the apocalypse, yes the apocalypse. In Los Angeles they were surrounded by death, violence, poverty and homelessness and the two artist new that there most be more to life than the destructive nature of the city. Dutton now believes that to truly live they must be completely connected to the earth and respect the earth as living and not just a place for humans to build our concrete jungles.
For me, Dutton brings up the question of is it ethical to create art in a society thats grown so self destructive. I believe that art plays a key role in society. It may not cause immediate drastic change but it causes individuals to think and possible create small changes. Even though going to live a lonely life in the dessert drastically changed the way Dutton lives, it does not spark social change. I believe that art, when used probably, has the potential to spark small social changes but on a much more massive scale than Dutton.