In reading McIver's piece I've once again realized that there is a heck of a lot that I don't understand about art. The Situationists in my opinion certainly have a point about the 'closed' nature of the art world, specifically about galleries and their sterility. Though the white space of the galleries allows for a 'neutral' space/ground for the art to be presented, I've always felt that so many galleries are larger than they need to be, they(many galleries/not all) lack a sense of personality or feeling.
Though McIver separates two strains of work coming out of the 1970's, one being 'community' art and the other being 'happenings/events'. Both of these strains had their problems and have evolved over the years. But, specifically the 'community' art ran into problems with how one defines community, which community is the art addressing/not addressing. Since then it has become more site specific in relation to the entire area that surrounds the site rather than one specific community. I think that its more important for art to critique, to 'call into crisis' as one of the readings mention, forcing the viewer to question not only the work but the problem it address.
The creation of art in obscure derelict buildings intrigues me not only because its out of the norm, but because of its 'purity'. They are creating art they the artists realize is not going to be seen by many people not because its in a private collection or in a gallery(rather than outside/in public). They are creating art to specifically call into question the un-use of a site, what does abandonment lead to, how we can ignore the dereliction of buildings and areas. Has this ever been done to a 'ghost' town, a town that has been abandoned? Is the best way to alter peoples perceptions (through viewing the work) through promoting the work or through documenting it through video/pictures?
