This field guide serves as an introduction to contemporary art installation in a rural context. It features a brief history of installation as well as a general analysis of installation art. The field guide also discusses how the medium of installation may lend itself well to the rural aesthetic, as well as how rural context is able to accommodate installation art. There is a comparison of four types of installation, based on how the artwork interacts with its environment, and well as six examples that have been paired with an installation type.
The history of installation art is a long one. Many of us might think that the medium of installation in the art world is a new phenomenon, but it is one of the oldest art methods that exist, dating all the way back to the Stone Age. The Lascaux cave paintings were one of the first art installations. The paintings were site specific and used the elements of the space, or the surface of the wall, to create the artwork. The undulating surface of the wall actually contributed to the form of the painted animals, hence the place became an essential part of the actual work. (Farrell, 1997)
The idea of site-specific “installation art,” even though it may not have been referred to as such during this time, was prevalent all the way until the 17th century. All around the world art was still deeply connected to place, to the location in which it was portrayed, so much so that the artwork would most often be specifically designed and executed for its location. Artwork was commissioned in tandem with architecture, often in large-scale systematic decorative productions. These were often large-scale works that carried on throughout a space and may not have been confined to a frame. These installed artworks collaborated closely with architectural elements in order to create a specific experience for visitors to the space. Viewers would have the sense that the artwork was all around them, encompassing the same area as the architecture and in a way, becoming part of the architecture. The two were inseparable and there was much less distinction between art and architecture than there is today. (Farrell 1997)
Thinking about these early works can really provide a perspective on where installation art came from and how it journeyed to where it is today. It also provides a clue as to why installation art may find a home in the rural, as it is deeply connected to place.
After the 17th century, installation art gave way to the manifestation of art that is probably the most widely-recognized today: art as the portable commodity. With this new direction, the artist became more independent, with greater freedom of expression. He also had the ability to transport work and therefore market his “product” to a wider audience. Artists then began making works for purchase which kept the art market controlled specifically to the needs of the art consumer or collector. It also established a base of consumer expectation. (Farrell, 1997) This movement to commodity art reinforced urban areas as the main hubs of art activity. Artists worked where they could sell and they could only sell where populations resided. Art had moved from the isolated caves of the stone age, purposed to tell a story, to the churches of small hill towns, still renowned for their incredible works of art in the European countryside, and later on to urbanized cities such as New York, which became art meccas and places where artists might be able to “make a living.” Art had become urban.
In the first half of the 20th century there was a slight increase in the interest of art making more ambitious than the standard gallery-size canvas, but this interest was not consistent. It was not until mid-century that the scale and site-specificity of installation work began entering back into the realms of art. The abstract expressionist artists, such as Jackson Polluck, began working on a much larger scale than their recent predecessors. Some say this may be influenced by Picasso’s expansive Guernica or the emphasis on mural making by the WPA (Works Progress Administration). The artists of the 1960s and 1970s challenged the ideal domesticated picture and reintroduced architectural scale into mainstream art. The boundaries of what art could be and what purpose it might serve were liberated from the confines of the traditional “picture” frame with Frank Stella’s shaped canvases and the influence of Pop Artists and Minimalists who dove into the world of conceptual art where the object became secondary and in some cases almost irrelevant. (Farrell, 1997)
ART WORK – A short catalog introduction by Robert Barry about de-materialized or anti-material art:
IT IS ALWAYS CHANGING.
IT HAS ORDER.
IT DOESN’T HAVE A SPECIFIC PLACE.
ITS BOUNDARIES ARE NOT FIXED.
IT AFFECTS OTHER THINGS.
IT MAY BE ACCESSIBLE BUT GO UNNOTICED.
PART OF IT MAY ALSO BE PART OF SOMETHING ELSE.
SOME OF IT IS FAMILIAR.
SOME OF IT IS STRANGE.
KNOWING OF IT CHANGES IT.
Art has come a long way but seems to be circling back to its Stone Age roots. Site-based installation art has become an important part of contemporary expression and has expanded back into rural areas to serve a broader, more social or public purpose than its transportable cousin. These rural art installations channel the extensive, fantastical art systems present in the historical architecture that is dispersed across the European countryside. Art-goers in Italy may stumble across unimaginable masterpieces that cover floor to ceiling but may be tucked away atop a tiny hill town or within the crevices of a rural village. Many of the historical installed art pieces were created outside of urban areas and were often commissioned for a religious purpose or for the good of the public. Some of the most fascinating works were commissioned in locations not accessible by the masses.
Recent decades have introduced a revived interest in installation art and even more recently an interest in rural installation art. Contemporary art installation has most often in recent decades been seen as a purely urban art form but this is slowly changing, especially with a renewed art reliance on architecture and functionality in rural areas. Artists like Maya Lin are utilizing site-specific art and design to actually have an environmental impact, and many projects, including several of those coordinated by the M12 Collective, are pairing contemporary art installation with the social sciences to serve a greater purpose. Art installations, specifically rural art installations, have become more prevalent through the increase in public funds but there is still a great difficulty in funding these types of projects because the art economy still favors artists of the portable sculpture and painting. As was stated in Hugh Davies essay in Blurring the Boundaries, “capitalism still favors competent painters of modestly sized realist pictures, while brilliant environmental sculptors will make history but need a day job.” (Farrell, 1997) Installation art is not easily accommodated or commoditized and therefore must serve another purpose. This “un-reliance” on purchase makes the medium appropriate for a rural areas where there may be very little interest in art collecting but where there is great possibility for cultural development and cultivation of big ideas. Artists working in contemporary installation function as the aesthetic explorers of our generation—which is why installation art is a viable art form to re-define the rural in the 21st century.
Resources
Farrell, Anne. Blurring the boundaries, Installation art 1969-1996. Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego. 1997. pp. 23-77.
Lin, M. (2014, Dec. 2) Maya Lin Studio [website]. Retrieved from http://www.mayalin.com/
M12. (2014, Dec. 2) M12 [website]. Retrieved from http://m12studio.org/
Re-installing Rural 