I really liked seeing Cornelia Parker’s work at the Leeds Met Gallery. I could spend hours looking at it. The bricks looked suspended in time, like in her work with bits of earth and wood. The pieces look like they’re floating because your eyes focus on the objects and not on the wires. I liked how most of the bricks were so still and yet just a few were spinning round ever so slightly.
It was cool to see some of Rachael Whiteread’s work in real-life - casts of the space beneath six chairs. But I didn’t find it particularly exciting to look at. I think they’d be more engaging if you could touch them, sit on them and maybe move them around.
It could be argued that being able to touch a ‘work of art’ some how de-values it because it makes it less precious. If something is ‘un-touched by human hands’ it is more unique and people put more value on it. I guess in terms of artwork, it depends what sort of approach the artist wants people to have towards their work. If you can touch, hold or move a work, it is generally more accessible to a wider audience because interacting with something helps our understanding of it.
I’m generally against the idea of stopping people from touching artwork but obviously this can be quite a big sacrifice for an artist who may have spent a lot of money and time making whatever it is. I’m interested in the sort of work though that comes and goes, things you have to experience and can only be created once. Documentation becomes very important in these cases, even the choice of whether to document it or not can be very significant and may divide many artists.