On Rotating Positions in Archaeology, Art, and Architecture
'Grindbakken'
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/jca.32413Keywords:
expanded fields, professional mobility, architecture exhibitionsAbstract
This article questions the usefulness of new container labels like ‘creative archaeology’ to denominate practices beyond more traditional understandings of art or archaeology. Such new labels risk to smooth out the differences between practices that take different positions in one of the many possible interfaces between art and archaeology. Terminology that does not provoke resistance because it masks disciplinary differences is less interesting than a variegated discourse that allows to reflect critically on the different epistemic and aesthetic stakes and merits among ‘creative practices’ in art/archaeology and that can help to make these practices reflexive. A case is made for acknowledging the professional mobility of disciplinary attitudes while retaining the critical frameworks of distinct disciplinary fields. Such mobility is explored in the case of the in situ Grindbakken exhibition by Belgian architecture collective Rotor.
References
Cochrane, A. and I. Russell. 2014. Art and Archaeology: Collaborations, Conversations, Criticisms. New York: Springer-Kluwer.
Danto, A. C. 1964. “The Artworld.” Journal of Philosophy 61 (19): 571–584. https://doi.org/10.2307/2022937
Devlieger, L., M. Gielen and L. Cahn. 2014. Behind the Green Door: A Critical Look at Sustainable Architecture through 600 Objects by Rotor. Oslo: Oslo Architecture Triennale.
Dickie, G. 1997. The Art Circle: A Theory of Art. Evanston, IL: Chicago Spectrum Press.
Krauss, R. 1979. “Sculpture in the Expanded Field.” October 8: 30–44.
Harrison, R. 2011. “Surface Assemblages: Towards an Archaeology in and of the Present.” Archaeological Dialogues 18 (2): 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203811000195
____. 2015. “Beyond ‘Natural’ and ‘Cultural’ Heritage: Toward an Ontological Politics of Heritage in the Age of Anthropocene.” Heritage & Society 8 (1): 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1179/2159032X15Z.00000000036
Latour, B. 2005. “From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things Public.” In Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, edited by B. Latour and P. Weibel, 14–41. Karlsruhe: ZKM.
Leach, A. 2006. “Libido Operandi or Conflict: Tafuri on Historic Preservation and Historiography.” Future Anterior 3 (2): xiv–9.
Liefooghe. 2016. “Exhibits that Matter: Material Gestures with Theoretical Stakes.” In This Thing Called Theory, edited by T. Stoppani, G. Ponzo and G. Themistokleous, 157–167. London and New York: Routledge.
Otero-Pailos, J. 2016. “Experimental Preservation: The Potential of Not-Me Creations.” in Experimental Preservation, edited by J. Otero-Pailos, E. Langdalen and T. Arrhenius, 11–39. Zurich: Lars Müller.
Papapetros, S. (ed.) 2014. Retracing the Expanded Field: Encounters between Art and Architecture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Roelstraete, D. and S. Kramer. 2013. The Way of the Shovel : On the Archaeological Imaginary in Art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shanks, M. 2012. The Archaeological Imagination. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Tafuri, M. 1980 [1968]. Theories and History of Architecture, translated by G. Verrecchia. London: Granada.
