Critical Review: Installation Art – Essence and existence – Nicholas Zurbrugg

In his 1991 catalogue article, Installation Art – Essence and Existence, Nicholas Zurbrugg examines the nature of installation art both historically and as it is presented by artists today. Zurbrugg argues that the language of installation can be exploited by artists to produce contemporary works that challenge and extend existing preconceptions of the parameters within which art operates. Zurbrugg asserts that the complexity of installation art’s spatial impact and its site specificity is primarily what separates it from other art mediums. Zurbrugg states that “existence determines essence”, that is, the existence of the work within a particular spatial situation is what determines the essence of a work.

Much of Zurbrugg’s essay examines the origins of contemporary installation as they arise from the historical avant-garde. Kurt Schwitters’ Merzbau (1924-1925) and Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain (1917) are examined as two works that set guidelines for what would become contemporary installation art. Zurbrugg argues that Merzbau, an evolving and interactive architectural installation that was created over several years within the artist’s home, set a precedent for installation art by implying that the accumulation of any pre-existing materials in any space may be argued to be installation if the artist considers them to function with an artistic value. Conversely, Zurbrugg states that Fountain suggested that any object, irrespective of artistic merit, may be legitimised in an art context if it is exhibited within a gallery space or signed by the artist.

Zurbrugg suggests that often it is movement, wether implied or enacted, which may distinguish more effective installation art from less effective static works that may “appear dangerously close to flower-arranging exercises and conjurers tricks”. The movement to which Zurbrugg refers may be kinetic action within the work itself, or as “installation-action” such as performative elements, or some physical or mental movement required of the viewer in experiencing the installation environment. Zurbrugg does not expand dramatically upon this point, rather, it appears almost as if a footnote to the essay. It is an interesting argument that unfortunately appears somewhat truncated in the context of the writing that preceded it.