Abstract
English resume:
In my article I explore the relationship between space and work in two very different contemporary site-specific artworks. The work Passage, by Danish artist Malene Landgreen, is a huge mural done in an atrium, part of the new north wing of Rigshospitalet, The National Hospital in Copenhagen, finished in 2020. The other work is by Danish artist Lea Porsager and is a multi-part installation in the new School of Architecture in Århus titled Repulsive Enchantment, from 2021.
As my outset I use the 1968 book Billedet, væggen og rummet (The Image, The Wall, and The Room) by Danish author and art historian Poul Vad. In his book Vad systematically goes through a large number of site-specific works done in Denmark between 1930 and 1968. The book is interesting because of this, and because it can be used as a way to see differences and similarities between what we want of art in public space then and today.
As a modernist Vad argues for the artworks’ autonomy and sees this autonomy threaten by both concrete art, as well as a wish for art and architecture to be untied in a common statement, not unlike earlier periods in history, where art and architecture would articulate a common language of power. Today the concrete art is no longer seen as movement alive, but the aesthetics of the movement has merged with a wish for art to induce its surroundings with something beyond what architecture can do.
Landgreen’s work is in a number of articles in the daily press understood as exactly contributing with something more or less undefinable to it’s space, a healing or unifying sense. On the opposite, Porsager’s work does none of this, it can rather be seen as working against the building its placed in. When the two works are seen through Vad’s text, the way Landgreen’s work is understood, is a loss of autonomy in Vad’s opinion. Here it is crucial to understand that this is a modernistic reading of the work, whereas a postmodern understanding will not necessarily see it as a loss that the artwork integrates itself with the building. Nonetheless, I find it important that the request for healing site-specific art, is not the only wish expressed, and why I find it important that both works like Landgreen’s and Porsager’s are realized.
In my article I explore the relationship between space and work in two very different contemporary site-specific artworks. The work Passage, by Danish artist Malene Landgreen, is a huge mural done in an atrium, part of the new north wing of Rigshospitalet, The National Hospital in Copenhagen, finished in 2020. The other work is by Danish artist Lea Porsager and is a multi-part installation in the new School of Architecture in Århus titled Repulsive Enchantment, from 2021.
As my outset I use the 1968 book Billedet, væggen og rummet (The Image, The Wall, and The Room) by Danish author and art historian Poul Vad. In his book Vad systematically goes through a large number of site-specific works done in Denmark between 1930 and 1968. The book is interesting because of this, and because it can be used as a way to see differences and similarities between what we want of art in public space then and today.
As a modernist Vad argues for the artworks’ autonomy and sees this autonomy threaten by both concrete art, as well as a wish for art and architecture to be untied in a common statement, not unlike earlier periods in history, where art and architecture would articulate a common language of power. Today the concrete art is no longer seen as movement alive, but the aesthetics of the movement has merged with a wish for art to induce its surroundings with something beyond what architecture can do.
Landgreen’s work is in a number of articles in the daily press understood as exactly contributing with something more or less undefinable to it’s space, a healing or unifying sense. On the opposite, Porsager’s work does none of this, it can rather be seen as working against the building its placed in. When the two works are seen through Vad’s text, the way Landgreen’s work is understood, is a loss of autonomy in Vad’s opinion. Here it is crucial to understand that this is a modernistic reading of the work, whereas a postmodern understanding will not necessarily see it as a loss that the artwork integrates itself with the building. Nonetheless, I find it important that the request for healing site-specific art, is not the only wish expressed, and why I find it important that both works like Landgreen’s and Porsager’s are realized.
| Originalsprog | Dansk |
|---|---|
| Tidsskrift | Magasin for Bygningskunst og Kultur |
| Vol/bind | 6 |
| ISSN | 2597-3126 |
| Status | Udgivet - 2023 |
Emneord
- Lea Porsager
- Malene Landgren
- Offentlig kunst