올라퍼 엘리아슨(Olafur Eliasson)의 설치작품에 나타난 유사자연의 세계 (Artificial Nature/Pseudo-Nature Represented in Olafur Eliasson’s Installations)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 미술사연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 미술사연구 / 24호 / 193 ~ 216페이지
· 저자명 : 정연심

초록

This paper addresses several critical concepts in regard to such Olafur Eliasson’s installations of works of art as 360°Room for All Colors, Your Black Horizon of 2005,Seeing Yourself Seeing of 2001, The Mediated Motion of 2001, Double Sunset of 1999,Moss Wall of 1994, and Green River of 1998-2001; the interactive aspects of immersion,conceptually and effectively, are embodied in a number of indoor and outdoor pieces.
I should first like to turn my attention to the viewer’s perception of“immersion”as well as the“sublime”in Eliasson’s work, which is theatrical and artificial insofar as his use of materials as well as display. The Lego-park-like artificial nature or so-called pseudo-nature amplifies the intervention of the viewer by“putting the viewer first”to a greater extent than any other works of contemporary artists. By looking at the psychological and physical operation of“immersion, sublime, theatricality, and artificiality.”I intend to differentiate Eliasson’s rhetoric of visual operation and the involvement of viewers, bearing in mind James Turrell and Robert Erwin on one hand,and Gordon Matta-Clark and Marcel Broodthaers on the other. The former group used light and sensory objects to increase the subjectivity of viewers, whereas the latter criticized institutionalized space. Although Eliasson’s critical terms stem from these aforementioned artists, he has attempted to move beyond the two aspects in order to ascribe to the following stage of involvement and detachment of his works with viewers.
Once you are familiar with the very interactivity of Eliasson’s work, it is possible to experience his work phenomenologically, and realize the entire setting is actually artificial and mechanical. Your perception, a propos your senses, has been blocked and negotiated at the sight of the automatic technology of his installation: mechanically produced fog, machine-oriented movements of waterfalls, or lights, etc. My analysis brings to mind Bertolt Brecht’s“Verfremdung,”which distanced the immersion and Einfühlung (empathy), favored by Aristotle in his discussion of drama. By oscillating the theatrical absorption or immersion with the Brechtian“Verfremdung,”distancing or alienation, Eliasson’s works place the viewer in a completely different situation as a subliminal figure. His art also fluctuates between reality, and the modes of representation and simulacra. Eliasson’s Double Sunset project, which installed his artificial sunlight in juxtaposition with real sunlight in Utrecht, in the Netherlands, offers a striking example of the real and the simulacra, confusing the real with the facsimile.
Additionally, following Eliasson’s claim, I also explore his works as a production of“contexts”or“situations.”In this light, his works of art blur the traditional dichotomy of subject-object, inside-outside, user-used, and so on. Rather, they generate new aspects of real and hyper-real existence as well.
Finally, my paper discusses the act of sharing in his Utopian projects, which are exhibited at the Venice Biennale. This spirit is conceptually Utopian as the communal sharing itself is never possible in his pavilion projects. However, like other Utopian communal projects, Eliasson’s work recalls Jean-Luc Nancy’s Être singulier pluriel/Being Singular Plural, published in 1996. The community in his project remains singular and plural at the same time. Despite the limited success of his attempts for this communal sharing, his projects intersect at a juncture of complex idioms in architecture, fine art and design.

영어초록

This paper addresses several critical concepts in regard to such Olafur Eliasson’s installations of works of art as 360°Room for All Colors, Your Black Horizon of 2005,Seeing Yourself Seeing of 2001, The Mediated Motion of 2001, Double Sunset of 1999,Moss Wall of 1994, and Green River of 1998-2001; the interactive aspects of immersion,conceptually and effectively, are embodied in a number of indoor and outdoor pieces.
I should first like to turn my attention to the viewer’s perception of“immersion”as well as the“sublime”in Eliasson’s work, which is theatrical and artificial insofar as his use of materials as well as display. The Lego-park-like artificial nature or so-called pseudo-nature amplifies the intervention of the viewer by“putting the viewer first”to a greater extent than any other works of contemporary artists. By looking at the psychological and physical operation of“immersion, sublime, theatricality, and artificiality.”I intend to differentiate Eliasson’s rhetoric of visual operation and the involvement of viewers, bearing in mind James Turrell and Robert Erwin on one hand,and Gordon Matta-Clark and Marcel Broodthaers on the other. The former group used light and sensory objects to increase the subjectivity of viewers, whereas the latter criticized institutionalized space. Although Eliasson’s critical terms stem from these aforementioned artists, he has attempted to move beyond the two aspects in order to ascribe to the following stage of involvement and detachment of his works with viewers.
Once you are familiar with the very interactivity of Eliasson’s work, it is possible to experience his work phenomenologically, and realize the entire setting is actually artificial and mechanical. Your perception, a propos your senses, has been blocked and negotiated at the sight of the automatic technology of his installation: mechanically produced fog, machine-oriented movements of waterfalls, or lights, etc. My analysis brings to mind Bertolt Brecht’s“Verfremdung,”which distanced the immersion and Einfühlung (empathy), favored by Aristotle in his discussion of drama. By oscillating the theatrical absorption or immersion with the Brechtian“Verfremdung,”distancing or alienation, Eliasson’s works place the viewer in a completely different situation as a subliminal figure. His art also fluctuates between reality, and the modes of representation and simulacra. Eliasson’s Double Sunset project, which installed his artificial sunlight in juxtaposition with real sunlight in Utrecht, in the Netherlands, offers a striking example of the real and the simulacra, confusing the real with the facsimile.
Additionally, following Eliasson’s claim, I also explore his works as a production of“contexts”or“situations.”In this light, his works of art blur the traditional dichotomy of subject-object, inside-outside, user-used, and so on. Rather, they generate new aspects of real and hyper-real existence as well.
Finally, my paper discusses the act of sharing in his Utopian projects, which are exhibited at the Venice Biennale. This spirit is conceptually Utopian as the communal sharing itself is never possible in his pavilion projects. However, like other Utopian communal projects, Eliasson’s work recalls Jean-Luc Nancy’s Être singulier pluriel/Being Singular Plural, published in 1996. The community in his project remains singular and plural at the same time. Despite the limited success of his attempts for this communal sharing, his projects intersect at a juncture of complex idioms in architecture, fine art and design.

참고자료

· 없음