Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS:
Title: Installation and theatricality thinking through objects
Author: Azevedo, Gisel Carriconde
ISNI:       0000 0004 2733 4203
Awarding Body: University of East London
Current Institution: University of East London
Date of Award: 2012
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
The last four years have been intense. The discoveries in the studio, the struggles with my readings and writings, having my work discussed and criticized, the close contact with other artists, scholars, curators and museums, combined with my travels abroad and the experience of living in a metropolis like London, enlightened my practice, enabling me to see from where my work came and find some of the questions it poses. Researching art history proved to be helpful in establishing the context where Installation Art emerged and developed. Claire Bishop’s critical writings provided me with the theory to understand the installation approach to the viewer, and Michael Fried’s criticism of ephemeral works of art and his claims for the autonomy of the art object, established the starting point of my research. My explorations into sculpture brought studio-life at the centre of my creative process and allowed me to look at installation with fresh eyes, reaffirming its importance within my practice and giving me the objectivity necessary to be critical as well. Thinking in terms of ‘making’ increased my awareness of the connections of my work and material culture and brought to the surface the role that audience and objects play in my work. The variety of media I explored and my interest in addressing art institutions and art history made it clear that I am not interested in formal experiments but in working from within the system of values, ideas and practices that form the whole of our culture, visually and theoretically, high and low. This report is organized in seven sections plus references and three appendices. The first section is a brief account of my educational and creative background followed by a shortened version of the proposal I submitted at the end of the first year. The next four sections constitute the main part of my investigation, reflecting the development of theory and practice during the doctorate. The last section is a general conclusion about the whole process. The style of writing reflects the subjective process of describing and analyzing my path throughout the art doctorate. The text is a collage of data, personal thoughts, quotes, aphorisms, diagrams, remarks, doubts and opinions; a bricolage that mirrored my creative process. I owe a lot to my doctorate colleagues and tutors, who helped to push my art further and strengthen me as an artist. I am especially grateful to Alison Winkle, Eemyun Kang, Geoffrey Brunell, Hideyuki Sawayanagi, Karen Raney, Mark Sowden, Sharone Lifschitz, Tim Weston and Tetriana Ahmed Fauzi. Further, I’d like to thank Aharon Amir, Ana Dumitriu, Carla Barreto, Danilo Antonelli, Darius Sokolov, Dulce Mourão, Fabi Borges, Hilan Bensusan, Josephine and David Beaumont, Gilda Carriconde Azevedo, Jussara Zottmann, Laura Virginia, Olga Shaumann and Eric Korn, Philip Jones, Priscilla Salvino, Rachel Cohen, Rita Monteiro, Rogerio Quintão, Susan Jones and Walter Menon who in different ways, generously contributed to my doctorate. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support of the Brazilian Central Bank museum of money which made my study possible.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral