SUMMARY / RELATED TOPICS

Installation art

Installation art is an artistic genre of three-dimensional works that are site-specific and designed to transform the perception of a space. The term is applied to interior spaces, whereas exterior interventions are called public art, land art or intervention art. Installation art can be either permanent. Installation artworks have been constructed in exhibition spaces such as museums and galleries, as well as public and private spaces; the genre incorporates a broad range of everyday and natural materials, which are chosen for their "evocative" qualities, as well as new media such as video, performance, immersive virtual reality and the internet. Many installations are site-specific in that they are designed to exist only in the space for which they were created, appealing to qualities evident in a three-dimensional immersive medium. Artistic collectives such as the Exhibition Lab at New York's American Museum of Natural History created environments to showcase the natural world in as realistic a medium as possible.

Walt Disney Imagineering employed a similar philosophy when designing the multiple immersive spaces for Disneyland in 1955. Since its acceptance as a separate discipline, a number of institutions focusing on Installation art were created; these included the Mattress Factory, the Museum of Installation in London, the Fairy Doors of Ann Arbor, MI, among others. Installation art came to prominence in the 1970s but its roots can be identified in earlier artists such as Marcel Duchamp and his use of the readymade and Kurt Schwitters' Merz art objects, rather than more traditional craft based sculpture; the "intention" of the artist is paramount in much installation art whose roots lie in the conceptual art of the 1960s. This again is a departure from traditional sculpture. Early non-Western installation art includes events staged by the Gutai group in Japan starting in 1954, which influenced American installation pioneers like Allan Kaprow. Wolf Vostell shows his installation 6 TV Dé-coll/age in 1963 at the Smolin Gallery in New York.

Installation as nomenclature for a specific form of art came into use recently. It was coined in this context, in reference to a form of art that had arguably existed since prehistory but was not regarded as a discrete category until the mid-twentieth century. Allan Kaprow used the term "Environment" in 1958 to describe his transformed indoor spaces. Installation/environmental art takes into account a broader sensory experience, rather than floating framed points of focus on a "neutral" wall or displaying isolated objects on a pedestal; this may leave space and time as its only dimensional constants, implying dissolution of the line between "art" and "life". The conscious act of artistically addressing all the senses with regard to a total experience made a resounding debut in 1849 when Richard Wagner conceived of a Gesamtkunstwerk, or an operatic work for the stage that drew inspiration from ancient Greek theater in its inclusion of all the major art forms: painting, music, etc.. In devising operatic works to commandeer the audience's senses, Wagner left nothing unobserved: architecture and the audience itself were considered and manipulated in order to achieve a state of total artistic immersion.

In the book "Themes in Contemporary Art", it is suggested that "installations in the 1980s and 1990s were characterized by networks of operations involving the interaction among complex architectural settings, environmental sites and extensive use of everyday objects in ordinary contexts. With the advent of video in 1965, a concurrent strand of installation evolved through the use of new and ever-changing technologies, what had been simple video installations expanded to include complex interactive and virtual reality environments". In "Art and Objecthood", Michael Fried derisively labels art that acknowledges the viewer as "theatrical". There is a strong parallel between installation and theater: both play to a viewer, expected to be at once immersed in the sensory/narrative experience that surrounds him and maintain a degree of self-identity as a viewer; the traditional theater-goer does not forget that he has come in from outside to sit and take in a created experience. The artist and critic Ilya Kabakov mentions this essential phenomenon in the introduction to his lectures "On the "Total" Installation": " is both a'victim' and a viewer, who on the one hand surveys and evaluates the installation, on the other, follows those associations, recollections which arise in him he is overcome by the intense atmosphere of the total illusion".

Here installation art bestows an unprecedented importance on the observer's inclusion in that which he observes. The expectations and social habits that the viewer takes with him into the space of the installation will remain with him as he enters, to be either applied or negated once he has taken in the new environment. What is common to nearly all installation art is a consideration of the experience in toto and the problems it may present, namely the constant conflict between disinterested criticism

Doggett v. United States

Doggett v. United States, 505 U. S. 647, was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court held that the ​8 1⁄2 year delay between Doggett's indictment and actual arrest violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, arguing that the government had been negligent in pursuing him and that Doggett had remained unaware of the indictment until his arrest. Marc Doggett was indicted in February 1980 on charges of conspiring with several others to import and distribute cocaine. Douglas Driver, the Drug Enforcement Administration's principal agent in the case, informed the United States Marshals Service that DEA would oversee the arrest of Doggett and his confederates. One month in March 1980, two police officers traveled to Raleigh, North Carolina, to arrest Doggett at his parents' house. However, the officers learned from Doggett's mother. Upon learning of Doggett's actions, in an attempt to arrest Doggett upon his return, Driver notified the United States Customs stations and several law enforcement agencies, as well as posting Doggett's info on the Treasury Enforcement Communication System.

Driver learned in September 1981. Believing an extradition request to be futile, Driver asked Panamanian authorities to "expel" Doggett to the United States upon his release; the American Embassy in Panama notified the Department of State of Doggett's departure to Colombia, but DEA was never informed and presumed that Doggett was still in a Panamanian prison. Driver would not learn of Doggett's travels to Colombia until he was reassigned to Colombia in 1985. However, this was not the case: Doggett had returned to the United States on September 25, 1982, passing through Customs in New York City with no incident. Upon his return, Doggett did not return to the drug trade. Most notably, Doggett was never made aware of the indictment against him. Only in September 1988, when the Marshal's Service ran a credit check on several thousand people, did they find out where Doggett was living. Doggett moved to have the indictment dismissed on speedy trial grounds; the federal magistrate agreed with Doggett that the length of the delay was long enough to be "presumptively prejudicial", that the delay "clearly attributable to the negligence of the government", "and that Doggett could not be faulted for any delay in asserting his right to a speedy trial, there being no evidence that he had known of the charges against him until his arrest".

However, the magistrate found "that Doggett had made no affirmative showing that the delay had impaired his ability to mount a successful defense or had otherwise prejudiced him" and in its recommendation to the district court "contended that this failure to demonstrate particular prejudice sufficed to defeat Doggett's speedy trial claim". The district court denied Doggett's motion. Doggett entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving the right to appeal the speedy trial claim. A split panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in 1990; the majority agreed with the magistrate that Doggett had not shown actual prejudice, attributing the government's actions to "negligence" rather than "bad faith", "concluded that Barker's first three factors did not weigh so against the government as to make proof of specific prejudice unnecessary". The dissent argued that the majority had placed too much emphasis on Doggett's inability to prove actual prejudice.

The United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in 1991. In a 5–4 decision in favor of Doggett, Justice Souter wrote the opinion of the court. Justice Souter noted that the question before the court was whether or not eight and half years between the plaintiff's indictment and arrest violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Citing previous Supreme Court cases, Justice Souter notes, " observed in prior cases that unreasonable delay between formal accusation and trial threatens to produce more than one sort of harm, including'oppressive pretrial incarceration','anxiety and concern of the accused', and'the possibility that the defense will be impaired'", citing the three cases Barker, Smith v. Hooey, United States v. Ewell. Justice O'Connor in dissent noted that Doggett's liberty was never inhibited between his indictment and arrest, therefore did not have his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial violated. "Although the delay between indictment and trial was lengthy, petitioner did not suffer any anxiety or restriction on his liberty."

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 505 List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court Conforti, Daniel A.. "Doggett v. United States: Breathing New Life into the Right to a Speedy Trial". Western State University Law Review. 21: 619–635. Text of Doggett v. United States, 505 U. S. 647 is available from: Cornell Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral

Will Clarke (American football)

William Clarke, Jr. is an American football defensive end, a free agent. He was drafted by the Cincinnati Bengals in the third round of the 2014 NFL Draft, he played college football at West Virginia. Clarke attended Taylor Allderdice High School in Pittsburgh, where he was a two-time Tribune Review All-City League as tight end and linebacker, he was considered a two-star recruit by Rivals.com. Clarke attended West Virginia University from 2009 to 2013. In 2009, he redshirted as a true freshman. In 2010, he played in only four games. In 2011, he played in all 13 games, starting 11, recording 34 tackles, including five for loss and two sacks. In 2012, he started 12 games, recording 26 tackles, including 6.5 for 1.5 sacks. In 2013, he set career highs in tackles, tackles for loss, sacks, while earning second-team All-Big-12 honors, he was drafted by the Cincinnati Bengals in the third round of the 2014 NFL Draft. On September 2, 2017, Clarke was released by the Bengals. On September 5, 2017, Clarke signed with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

On March 15, 2018, Clarke re-signed with the Buccaneers. He was released by the team on September 3, 2018, he was re-signed on September 12, 2018. On October 10, 2018, Clarke was released by the Buccaneers. West Virginia Mountaineers bio