Week 2: Reaction to James Meyer, “The Functional Site”
This piece attempts to establish a difference between the “site-specific” works of the 60s and 70s, and newer works which appear to reference those principles. Meyer identifies as the key difference the focus on a literal site, a physical location which is intrinsic and inseparable from the work, vs. the functional site, which simply happens to be the place where the work is emplaced (or takes place). One could say that works focused on a literal site are customized for that site, and are not the same work if moved. In contrast, works that make use of a functional site actually recontextualize the site itself – moving such a work to another place simply makes the new site part of the work.
While this is a useful distinction, I am not sure that it is the crucial distinction between the works of the 60s and 70s, and those of mid-90s onwards, or that such a clear-cut distinction even exists. Simple examination of Suderburg’s timeline shows a lot of works during the 80s and 90s, and while there are differences in the most prominent works, there does seem to be a continuity.
Moreover, there are many artists today who continue to be focused on the literal site (eg. Goldsworthy) while artists of the 60s and 70s were already focusing on the functional site (eg. Beuys, Smithson, Acconci).