Andy Warhols Installation of Shoes - Essay Example

Personal Collection vs. Andy Warhols "Installation of Shoes" It would not be a mistake to suggest that art plays an important role in the development of the development of the human civilization. However, the understanding of what art is varies according to times. This paper will provide a comparison of Andy Warhol’s Installation of Shoes and my own personal installation. To begin with, it may be logical to pay attention to the artist and his identity. Thus, Andy Warhol is known for his remarkable installation that was presented in 1970. It was a part of a bigger project that was called Raid the Icebox. I choose this work because it redefined what exhibition is for people back in 1970s. The artist in question used this collection to tell people that not only the finest examples of art should be presented, but ordinary things as well. I find this particularly interesting and inspiring since it opens a completely new perspective on what is art: from then on every object that is found in reality could be presented as a work of art. I think that the goals which were originally set by Warhol correspond to my own goal, namely allowing people to develop a different, more accurate understanding of what art is. Speaking of what makes the collection that I present personal, I might suggest that I often use squishy toys to deal with some stress that I am exposed to. That is why these toys and this collection means to me a lot: it is almost a silent witness of all stress that I have endured in my life. One might suggest that because of this the memories that are attached to work are negative; however, the situation is quite the opposite: thought I experienced stress every time it touched a squishy toy, I felt a relief from it when I put it away. That is why the memories are quite good. As it has already been mentioned the major influence on my work is Andy Warhol’s Installation of shoes. The process of making my art work was simple: I make boxed out of color paper and attached them together by the sided. Afterwards, I placed a squishy toy inside of each box. It is important for me that all the toys are displayed at once and that a person can freely choose any of them by simply stretching one’s arm. Thought each of the toys is different, they are placed on almost equal distance from each other, making sure that a person is able to see the pattern in them or understand variety that exists. This approach is similar to the Cabinet of Curiosities which featured rare things that were arranged in a manner that would astonish the viewer (Dilworth, 2003, p. 46). Of course, there is nothing amazing in squishy toys, but such a big collection is already something surprising. Furthermore, the approach that I used has been popular among the artists who tried to redefine what art is in the contemporary times. As it has already been noted, Installation of Shoes broke many rules at the time. Indeed, it did not only present objects that are ordinary, but it features repetition of them (Benstock, 2001, p. 48). In addition to that, my collection has a peculiar connection to the Cabinet of Curiosities: unlike the latter, the former features objects that can be easily classified (Bartosiewicz, 2013, p. 36). In other words, the concept of the Cabinet did have influence on my collection, but the result of it was somewhat opposite: I included toys that can be found anywhere. Keeping in mind that all the toys are three dimensional, one might suggest that this concept is particularly important for perception of this work of art since it allows a person to perceive an object from different perspectives. Now, it may be logical to turn to some aspects of the two works of art. Just like Warhol’s installation, mine is VOLUMINOUS since it includes three dimensional objects. Some might argue that they both are MOBILE because it is every easy to move the collection from one place to another; however, when it is presented, the objects are static and are not moving. Neither work puts emphasis on SILHOUETTES of the things that it includes: there are just so many of them that it is virtually impossible to single out one of them. It is difficult to say that the objects presented are MANIPULATED: on the one hand, neither shoes nor squishy toys are found in closets or boxes naturally, so they must have been placed there; on the other hand, this placement does not have impact on their nature. Considering SUBSTITUTION that might take place in each case, one may note that for some shoes and squishy toys substitute real objects that are worth being exhibited. Another aspect that should be mentioned is SHAPE of the objects: keeping in mind that all of them are relatively similar, it would not be an exaggeration to state that shapes are duplicated. The question whether these installations can be considered to be SCULPTURES of not is an open one: on the one hand, since they are three dimensional they surely fit the definition of a sculpture, but on the other hand, they are too complex to be called one. That is why a better term that can be applied to each of these works of art is INSTALLATION. Considering the MASS of them, one would make no mistake pointing out that the work by Warhol is much more massive than mine: this can be easily explained by the weight of individual objects. Finally, VOID plays as important role in present each of the objects: while being put in a closet or a box, there is some empty space around them which means that they are exhibited together with it. Having examined all the points which were mentioned in the paragraphs above, one might suggest that the installation by Warhol and my personal collection share some aspects and goal, but are also different to a certain extent. References Bartosiewicz, L. (2013). Shuffling nags, lame ducks: The archaeology of animal disease. New York, NY: Oxbow Books. Benstock, S. (2001). Footnotes: On shoes. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Dilworth, L. (2003). Acts of possession: Collecting in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Read More