CRITICAL REVIEW

‘Installation art- essence and existance’ written by Nicholas Zurbrugg does have some compelling ideas and insights. His exploration into the beginnings of installation art and its connections to the artist and spatial dimentions… ‘installation art usually comes into existence as the artist’s attempt to redefine a particular exhibition space. In this respect, every instillation artist is their own curator, and every exhibition space is subject to the requirements of the installaton interfacing with its dimentions.’ This gives the reader the impression and expectation of a review that’s delves into something more concise and perhaps informative. Although the introduction does give space to the remainder of the essay, I personally found it to be somewhat simplistic and uninspirational … ‘perhaps the single- most common feature of all installations is their use of three dimensional space.’

The structure of Zurbrugg’s essay seems to loose much of its direction and flow which makes it difficult to follow and interpret through the sudden variation in lauguage… ‘considered in existentialist jargon, the aesthetic essence and the aesthetic impact of conventional art and sculpture might be said to precede their existence within exhibition space.’ On top of this, the introduction of the essay gives the reader no clear idea of the direction of the piece which once again disrupts the structure of Zurbrugg’s essay.

Having said this, Zurbrugg’s essay is not that at all, but rather, as is stated in the title, an extract from the ‘Australian Perspecta 1991 exhibition catalogue’ from the art gallery of New South Wales, which suggests a more subjective point of view. Therefore the broad statements which seem to have some semblance of substance such as…

…despite the widespread assumption that modernist and postmodernist culture are characterized by oppositional dynamics, it seems evident that postmodern instillation art derives from modernist experimentation in terms of evolutionary dynamics, elaborating, extending and making explicit the implicit potential of these arstists’ differing aspirations towards an art of installation…

become somewhat suspect. The lack of any form of annotated referencing gives the impression that there has been no reputable research to support any of the theories put forward in Zurbrugg’s study. There is no doubt that Zurbrugg’s ‘essay’ is well written, although the language is vague and abstract , which in essence creates a sence of confusion mixed with intrigue, an essential part of marketing. That is the only real substance which, i personally see, can be taken from a piece such as this.


p.s. and yes, i do realise that i haven't referenced any of my subjective opinion, although i've flayed Zurbrugg for doing just that.... !