What do we value? The questions of Rachel Whiteread’s House

Elesa Huibregtse
{"title":"What do we value? The questions of Rachel Whiteread’s House","authors":"Elesa Huibregtse","doi":"10.1386/vi_00019_1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 25 October 1993, British artist Rachel Whiteread revealed her most ambitious sculptural work to date ‐ House. The solidified space of this Victorian-era, terraced home physically existed for a mere 80 days; yet, during this time it became the subject of an intense media\n interest and heated public debate which reached the United Kingdom’s Houses of Parliament. While House has been discussed in depth within art historical scholarship for almost 30 years, trends in this academic body of work tend to focus on absence and memory in a highly contested\n public space, as well as thoughts on loss, death, architecture, the art market, politics and gentrification in London’s East End during the latter part of the twentieth century. What is lacking, however, is an examination of House within the larger context of visual culture and\n what it may, or may not, mean for contemporary viewers. Analysing the historical context of the work’s location through a Marxist lens, reveals the dehumanization which occurred within the East End’s class constructs throughout the nineteenth century, and its effect on housing\n policies well into the twentieth century. Reading the sculptural work itself, using the methodologies of semiotics, unveils mythologies regarding what is and is not expendable in our western spaces; particularly, the working class, houses and works of art in post-industrial capitalist societies.\n The ideologies embedded within these mythologies continue to appear in our mass media images to this day, leaving unanswered questions regarding what is truly valued in our societies. Thus, Whiteread’s unique work is an artistic intervention into an image-saturated environment, asking\n the viewers and readers of cultural texts to consider at what point in time we will seek to change how we treat that which has been arguably undervalued.","PeriodicalId":41039,"journal":{"name":"Visual Inquiry-Learning & Teaching Art","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Visual Inquiry-Learning & Teaching Art","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1386/vi_00019_1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

On 25 October 1993, British artist Rachel Whiteread revealed her most ambitious sculptural work to date ‐ House. The solidified space of this Victorian-era, terraced home physically existed for a mere 80 days; yet, during this time it became the subject of an intense media interest and heated public debate which reached the United Kingdom’s Houses of Parliament. While House has been discussed in depth within art historical scholarship for almost 30 years, trends in this academic body of work tend to focus on absence and memory in a highly contested public space, as well as thoughts on loss, death, architecture, the art market, politics and gentrification in London’s East End during the latter part of the twentieth century. What is lacking, however, is an examination of House within the larger context of visual culture and what it may, or may not, mean for contemporary viewers. Analysing the historical context of the work’s location through a Marxist lens, reveals the dehumanization which occurred within the East End’s class constructs throughout the nineteenth century, and its effect on housing policies well into the twentieth century. Reading the sculptural work itself, using the methodologies of semiotics, unveils mythologies regarding what is and is not expendable in our western spaces; particularly, the working class, houses and works of art in post-industrial capitalist societies. The ideologies embedded within these mythologies continue to appear in our mass media images to this day, leaving unanswered questions regarding what is truly valued in our societies. Thus, Whiteread’s unique work is an artistic intervention into an image-saturated environment, asking the viewers and readers of cultural texts to consider at what point in time we will seek to change how we treat that which has been arguably undervalued.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们看重什么?瑞秋·怀特瑞德家的问题
1993年10月25日,英国艺术家Rachel Whiteread展示了她迄今为止最雄心勃勃的雕塑作品——House。这座维多利亚时代的连栋住宅的固化空间实际上只存在了80天;然而,在这段时间里,它却引起了媒体的强烈兴趣和激烈的公众辩论,并传到了英国议会。虽然《House》已经在艺术史学术领域进行了近30年的深入讨论,但这一学术研究的趋势往往集中在一个高度争议的公共空间中的缺席和记忆,以及对20世纪后半叶伦敦东区失落、死亡、建筑、艺术市场、政治和士绅化的思考。然而,本书缺乏的是在更大的视觉文化背景下对《豪斯》的审视,以及它对当代观众可能意味着什么,也可能不意味着什么。通过马克思主义的视角分析作品所在地的历史背景,揭示了整个19世纪发生在伦敦东区阶级结构中的非人性化,以及它对20世纪住房政策的影响。使用符号学的方法来阅读雕塑作品本身,揭示了在我们的西方空间中什么是可消耗的,什么是不可消耗的神话;特别是后工业资本主义社会的工人阶级、房屋和艺术品。这些神话中的意识形态直到今天仍然出现在我们的大众媒体形象中,留下了关于我们社会中真正有价值的东西的悬而未决的问题。因此,怀特里德的独特作品是对一个图像饱和的环境的艺术干预,要求文化文本的观众和读者考虑在什么时候我们将寻求改变我们对待那些被低估的东西的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Los Angeles 1984 Olympics: Using a logic model as a tool to understand soft power Becoming strategic spectators of organizational images: Olympic posters as antenarratives Time, space and art: The Olympic poster and the chronotope The 1972 Olympic Games: Utilizing posters for positive propaganda You be the judge: Teaching image-based advertising through a persuasive analysis of Olympic posters
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1