The leggy damsel with raven hair and Doc Martens to match is unequivocal. ''No,'' she tells the small, freckled boy. ''You can't climb here. Go in there where it's safe.'' [...]
But the boy - not recognising her livery - can be forgiven his mistake. To him, the large, gridded edifice that she guards promises infinite climbability. [...]
The climbing frame in question is in fact art. It is this summer's Serpentine Pavilion, by Japanese architect Sou Fujimoto. — smh.com.au
What role should interactivity play in art? Should public opinion decide what is and isn't art? Can good art also have utility? These are a few polemics posed in the Sydney Morning Herald by columnist Elizabeth Farrelly, reacting to Sou Fujimoto's Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, featured here on Archinect this past June.
These questions have been posed for ages, but as human interaction shifts further into the digital realm, artists and architects have had to adapt to the changing atmosphere of interactivity while also representing it. As Farrelly puts it, "I'd trade all climbability for more beauty and subtlety, any day. Mountains are for climbing. Art should take you somewhere high, airy and new". Is she right to draw the line?