Final Reading Response

The degree of audience participation seems to be the key distinction between ‘participatory’ and ‘interactive’ art.  Many of the readings for this course, including this one, have included historical timelines of developments in art.  I find these accounts dry and difficult to engage with when reading them.  However I’ve noted the influence of Duchamp again and added the art form of “Happenings” (as a staged situation, bound to a fixed performance time) to my vocabulary.

“The Porcupine and the Car” had an interesting title that didn’t seem to have much to do with content of the article (except the anecdote at the end)…or did I miss something?  I agree with the author that (modern) artists are not necessarily people who draw well, but people who think well – perhaps I don’t think well enough that I found the title a distraction and just a device to prick a potential reader’s initial interest to start reading.  Despite some of my comments through the course this month, the main thing I took from this article and agree with, is that as technology becomes more accessible, the potential for individual creative expression also becomes greater.  So while I have many reservations about potential negative impacts of ‘technology’, I do see this as a positive amongst it all.

Thanks for the course Derek and I hope everyone has a nice summer 🙂 (see even I have been infiltrated by emoticons)