After a few return visits to Sehgal's Unilever commissioned piece, 'These Associations', I was delighted to attend his artist talk at the Tate this weekend. He made some key points that I related to regarding his work and the wider spectrum of contemporary art in general. He explained that people visit museums and galleries to see art, as if to suggest that is where art belongs, then you can differentiate between styles and forms within that setting. He talked about Western culture and the western world in general, relying on change and how art has to be different than what was deemed current before it. I agree with this idea of opposing what has gone before but not as the totality or complete basis for an artwork. He talked about it being hard for a painting to be an artwork because it is so familiarised in society, which is something I have been constantly puzzled by thinking about the painting course here at Wimbledon and the idea of dividing fine art up whatsoever. Finally, he talked about his lack of involvement in the work and his restrained mehtod of imposing instruction, " the performers know more about the piece than I do", he exclaimed, whilst referencing to those involved in the work that were seated in the auditorium. In response to an audience question about the future of 'live art' and where it sits in the time line of contemporary art, he talked about the work of Joseph Beuys and how his charisma got in the way of the work which was ground breakingly conceptual. This made me think a lot about where Sehgal draws the line, after all I laughed and enjoyed his talk, answers were delivered with charisma, would I be a different kind of spectator if I went and viewed the work after seeing him sitting on a stage answering questions?
