Installation Art

While reading Michael Rush's chapter on video installation art, I was struck by the confrontational nature of each piece he described. Virtually every installation recounted in the chapter is aggressive and invasive, hostile toward the spectator and toward the practice of video watching. Is this sort of hostility necessary to in order to transform the context of art into its content? Must a reflexive piece mean an antagonistic point of view?

Last week, I was disappointed by Rush's admonishing view of popular culture, advertising and television, and this week I was let down again. He presents television and video installation as though they were opponents. For Rush, Installation art is the noble crusader battling against television's tirade of brainwashing, artistically void mass media sludge, and I so disagree. Growing up, I was kind of a solitary kid. I had friends, I just preferred at moments to take time and recharge by myself, and who was my companion on afternoons when I was all alone in my big empty house? It was the TV. Some of the time I watched programs, but some of the time I just needed the noise on in the house to not feel alone. I'd curl up with a "chapter book" and my dog, Willy, and would just enjoy the ambience of the television running.

 For my link, I've included another advertisement. This specific ad for Samsung TV features a unique form of installation art, one that exists outside the museum; and yes, it is art.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LD2fVZDG8VI