The work of art is so frightened of the world at large, it so needs isolation in order to exist, that any conceivable means of protection will suffice. It frames itself, withdraws under glass, barricades itself behind a bullet-proof surface, surrounds itself with a protective cordon, with instruments showing the room humidity, for even the slightest cold would be fatal. Ideally the work of art finds itself not just screened from the world, but shut up in a safe, permanently and totally sheltered from the eye. And yet isn't such an extremism, bordering on the absurd, already with us, everyday, everywhere, when the artwork exhibits itself in those safes called Galleries, Museums? Isn't it the very point of departure, the end, and the essential function of the work of art that it should be so exhibited?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Douglas Crimp (1981) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: