4/16/14
CHOOSING A MISSION
1-what does choosing a mission in art entail?
2-must one choose a mission for art to be effective?
3-how can one use art to make a political statement?
This passage talks about how vast the response for the question “what do artists do?” can be. Anything
can pretty much be called art-teaching, building, cooking, healing, performing.
So what distinguishes art from these everyday activities; and that is a mission—artists
have the ability to exaggerate things and bend the truth however they like,
whenever they like. There really is no limit or constraint. They can question
or attack values or beliefs, they can advocate or oppose something and they don’t
have to do so humbly—they can be as radical as they’d like. The passage
describes a three step process when finding a mission-acquisition,
perseverance, possession. Acquisition—conscious choice to go in a certain
direction; perseverance-pursuing topic because of enough research, impulse, use
of strategy; possession—having dedication, passion seriousness with the topic.
So, I guess choosing a mission is not necessarily required to make art, but it
probably helps make the piece more poignant if the artist is passionate about a
subject and making bold statements.
1-are art pieces with clearly chosen missions received
better by an audience than a piece that’s more trivial or aesthetic?
2-is choosing to create art simply for visual reasons/frivolity
actually choosing a mission anyway?
3-does art have to have a mission/statement to be able to resonate
with a viewer?
Daniel Joseph
Martinez
1- What medium does Martinez mostly work with?
2- What is Martinez trying to say with his work?
3- Has Martinez ‘chosen a mission’ with his work?
Does not refer to himself as an artist, rather a “Tactical
Media Strategist.”
-defies rules
-disrupts conventions
It’s pretty much a given that I fall in love with any artist
who speaks up against or creates a dialogue for political issues, racism and
sexism in particular. These things aren’t discussed enough. It’s 2014 and we
still have this shit permeating every aspect of our culture.
I love that he is so aggressive with his tactics, he’s unapologetic,
he’s not quiet or gentle or modest in his presentation—it is fantastic, and
very much like my own personality when it comes to fighting these issues so
annoyingly pervasive in our culture.
Martinez’ work is the perfect example of revealing the state
of our country. I know some people in class were saying things about how they don’t
like work that simply spells out the issue and doesn’t solve anything or aim to
propose a solution. However, I disagree. A HUGE part of the reason why our
country is so messed up is that people are unaware, completely ignorant about
what goes on around them. I know copious amounts of ridiculous people who deny
sexism even exists anymore. We’re at a state where we need to be laying these
things out on the table so people can see things for how they really are—how terrible
everything is. Nothing else needs to be said—it’s just self-explanatory. So
that’s why I LOVE the fact that he just let the students respond—he just let
the state of this school unfold and reveal itself. The passage describes this
as an “exposure of the veiled racist climate” of the school; white people get
really cranky and whiny and defensive when people of color speak up against the
racism they deal with on the daily. (LOL at white pride. Get real people.) I
can 127855% guarantee that the Cornell review opinion piece was written by a
white guy. Ruined your campus? More like reveal how ruined it already was. I
laughed so hard at his response and offering the campus The castle is Burning
as a permanent gift. What a badass. What a perfect response. Genius.
Martinez is truly inspiring—the story of his childhood and
how he got his head cracked open for his rebellion. And to continue with that,
especially as a kid. Complete bravery and courage—so admirable.
1-If an art piece is received negatively(on a colossal
scale) isn’t it still considered a success because of how much attention it has
drawn/reaction it has spawned?
2-Why would someone receive so much hate for simply opening
a discussion? the audience made these horrible comments, they physically wrote
them…why is Martinez at fault at all?
3-why do white people suck?
3/30/14
Expressing an
Artistic Attitude
1-What exactly is an artistic attitude?
2-Does it differ from regular notions/definitions of
‘attitude’? If so, how?
3-How does an artistic attitude influence artwork?
When reading, I discovered that there is another definition
of attitude I’d never even heard of—the aviation example. I was always more
familiar with the second definition of attitude mentioned—someone having a
sense of arrogance/acting bratty. The text mentions that artists can have
several kinds of attitudes, ranging from humble to self-important to shy and so
on. “In art, attitudes refer to a variety of angles of positioning.” So
basically, all of the decisions an artist can make while making the piece, what
kind of mood it will have, what to emphasize, etc—that creates artistic
attitude. So, basically, doing whatever it takes to send the message without
the artist having to be there to spell it out for everyone—viewers will just
get it by seeing it. Like the text mentions, attitudes of the artist become
attitudes of the viewer—it can’t really be helped, I don’t think. Art that
evokes some kind of feeling or emotion because of its attitude is often revered
as successful. “Attitudes reveal little about the issues, but a great deal
about the person who possesses them.” I can definitely see this, and I know
it’s true of my work and of work I respond to—one can usually tell what the
artist is trying to get across by the visual choices he or she makes.
1-Is an artistic attitude necessary to get a reaction out of
a viewer?
2-What if the artist is ambiguous and there is no attitude?
Would it still have the same effect as a piece with a clearly defined artistic
attitude?
3-Can artistic attitude change between pieces made by the
same artist?
Lorna Simpson
1-What is Lorna Simpson’s medium of choice?
2- what subject matter does she implement in her work?
3- How does Lorna Simpson feel about expressing artistic
attitude?
Immediately after reading this excerpt on Lorna, I looked up
her work and became instantly obsessed. She touches on topics that mean a lot
to me, and I like the ambiguity in her work—it’s exactly the type of approach I
would take when discussing matters like sexism and racism—by stripping away
individuality. Basically, it’s women and people of color, ESPECIALLY women of
color who are constantly made to feel as if they possess no voice, no place in a white man’s world. Her piece Three
Seated Figures which suggests the topic of sexual assault/rape really spoke to
me. With rape culture today, victims hardly have a voice and this piece calls
attention to that. Even though she makes it a point to remain ambivalent/void
of any artistic attitude, you can still kind of tell how she feels about the
subject. Even though she avoids that artistic attitude and expressing her
opinions about a piece (which I think is really cool, because it forces the
viewer to make their own opinions of the piece rather than just follow what she
has in mind), the subject matter she chooses reveals what she thinks on the
matters, I think—it can’t be helped.
1-can an artistic attitude really be obsolete in a piece?
2-doesn’t the choice of any visual aspect/subject matter
create some sort of attitude—even if that attitude is ambivalence?
3-how do people respond to Lorna’s work? If she forgoes her
own opinions on the pieces, what do viewers think she’s trying to say?
3/9/14
CRAFTING AN ARTISTIC SELF
1) What does it mean to establish
an artistic “self”?
2) What is “wego”?
3) Does an artistic “self” differ
from an individual’s personal identity?
In this day and age, with such
advancements in technology, artists have the choice to be whoever they’d like,
artistically. Artists can choose if their work will be reflective of their personal
self, completely fabricated, focus on one aspect of their identity, etc.
However, even if it artists choose not to be reflective of his or her selves,
it may be sort of inevitable—your work ultimately reveals something about who
you are. I think it is nearly impossible to separate art from artist. So to
answer my third question, I guess an artistic self can differ from an
individual’s identity to an extent, but there will always be some sliver of the
artist’s true self. Wego is a term created to describe a “collective identity”
and allude to the artist as a representation of some sort of community, rather
than the singular “ego,” referring to the tradition of artists to focus on the individual.
So, I guess to establish an artistic “self” is to choose one or several
elements that reflect whatever it is you want to convey through your art. The
book mentions that the process is a lot of addition and subtraction. You add
whatever elements aid in the construction of your identity, and you subtract
material that is unneeded, unhelpful, etc. One needs to establish an artistic
self in order to decide what his or work will be like. Establishing an artistic
self is also essential for the artist’s viewers, so they can understand the
work.
1) Is a specific identity
required to establish who you are as an artist?
2) How flexible is identity?
3) Should we worry so much about identity
since we are constantly changing?
SKIP SCHULKMAN
1) What inspires Schulkman to use
nature as a medium?
2) If Schulkman does not accept a
steady income for his work, how does he make a living?
3) How did Schulkman gain such notoriety
in the art world if works are seen by only his clients?
-Schulkman seems to be all about avoiding
fame and money, and doesn’t even like the term “audience” because it implies
many people are viewing his work and he would rather work with individuals. He
also doesn’t like the term “customer” because it implies buying goods and services,
and he feels as though this is a tutoring, learning experience, void of awkward
professionalism. He likes interaction between the individual and creating the
art with them. This may be why he’s gained such notoriety; he rejects fame and
money for creating his art, which is very unlike a lot of artists out there. People
are probably intrigued with this method; although he seems like he doesn’t like
fame, inevitably, he’s received the attention for his defiance. Schulkman’s art
process is described as “respectful,” with the end result being a “graceful”
one. He wants to include compassion in
his process—he seems like a very sensitive caring individual, which is probably
why he would resort to nature as a medium. He wants to help people learn how to
“develop their land”, since he has scientific knowledge about the earth and
uses that to help others understand it and create something beautiful out of
nature’s beautiful resources we are given. He often heals damaged land, like
using leftovers from excavation to create an amphitheater. He rearranges nature
to make people notice it; the twigs and dirt have always been there, but he
rearranges it so that they’ll be seen for the beauty that they inherently hold.
1) Why do people seem to care
more about nature only when it is more visual pleasing?
2) Do people put too much
emphasis on making a profit from art?
3) Is Schulkman trying to make a point
that art shouldn’t be all about making a profit and that is why his
artist/client process is so different than the norm?
BETSY DAMON
1) What kind of activist is Betsy
Damon?
2) Like Schulkman, is Damon
making a statement through her disapproval of profit/success from art?
3) Would Damon have received similar
results had she remained a painter?
Back in the 70s, Betsy Damon
decided to stop measuring income, success, etc. with art and begin to focus on
more important issues—one of the most vital things in the world: water. Not
only does she use water to create a visually pleasing art work, but her works
are also functional, aiming to sustain life and return water to health. She
takes damaged water sources and returns them to a healthy state. Water makes
life possible and it is full of meaning-brings life, joy, entertainment, peace,
depending on how it is used. Damon is practicing “wego” mentioned earlier in Creating an Artistic Self by gravitating
toward work that benefits a community. If she pursued painting, the book notes
that she’d probably be stuck in a studio, doing work that was egocentric, for
her own individual benefit, about her personal expression. With her current
work, she is probably positively affecting more people than she would had she
remained a painter. She may have gained notoriety with her paintings, but her
current work seems more beneficial, not just for her, but for several groups of
people. The book notes that her works have received a lot more success than she
expected, which is kind of funny because this is precisely what she was trying
to avoid when she quit painting. I really like how Damon makes it a point to
include other people, and make the process a collaborative effort. Not only
would she may not be able to achieve similar results without the help of
others, but its probably a learning experience for everyone involved—everyone
making an effort to restore the water to its origin, while sprucing it up in a
visually pleasing manner. She creates park, which allows for more human
interaction with the art. I also really like how she works in countries other
than America, especially because she mentions how the Chinese appreciate and “acknowledge
the role water plays in our lives.” I doubt she would receive the same enthusiasm
and group effort if she were to do this work in our country.
1) Why would people respond more
to earthworks/art out in the natural world vs. an art museum?
2) Why do people seem to begin to
care about nature and resources only once there is extreme damage or threat of extinction?
3) Why do other countries seem
more appreciative of nature and how could artist like Damon use their work to
maybe change the way Americans view/treat the environment?
2/10/2014
- William Kentridge
- Chapter 1: Scoping an Audience
1) Should an artist create art solely for their target audience, if they are the ones who will be viewing/buying/etc.? (or)
2) Should art be purely for the maker, without any consideration for the viewer?
3)What is the importance of creating art that is confrontational?
Notes taken during reading:
-When reading about Thomas Kinkade and his desire (and success) to be renowned all across America/be exhibited in every household in America, I couldn't help but feel annoyed. I feel like I've seen his paintings millions of times and it's probably because I have. They're familiar and popular and I wondered why paintings like his get so popular? They're boring to me. His paintings are universally accepted and liked, and I get why, but I wish it wasn't so. A lot of his work has Christian implications, depicts pretty landscapes, etc. No wonder it appeals to everyone. It is comforting and doesn't really say much. It's quiet and passive. It really bugs me that work like his is so popularized, while Issac Julien's work (for example) is not. The provocative, unique artists with important messages concerning misogyny, racism, homophobia get the short end of the stick, I think. The vast majority think of them as "weird art people" and they don't get it. They don't get the call to end oppression. They would rather decorate their homes with pretty landscapes, painted by, of course, a white man.
-Julien is 100% my kind of artist. Not only does he do a lot of video art, but he tackles important subject matter. I, too, try to use my art/writing to confront the fallacy of stereotypes assigned to people of color, women (especially feminists), religious groups (especially Witches), members of the LGBT community, etc. I like his straightforwardness, his aggression, his confrontational attitude.
-Kinkade adheres to mainstream taste-it's romantic, frivolous, white people love it. Julien, on the other hand, tackles intersectionality issues with his art, which is what society needs. We don't need anymore pretty landscapes, we have enough. We need more thought-provoking work like Julien's. Like the book said, Julien is "not only 'out' (publicly declared homosexual) but he is also 'out there' (extremist among homosexuals)." We need this. When a white male artist does something that society may deem "weird," he is excused. He is just a "weird art guy." However, when a black, gay man does the same thing, people are repulsed. People have a totally different reaction. So, we need more exposure, and Julien is a great example. By facing racism, homophobia, sexism, other -isms head on, with force, I think we'll have the best shot at dispelling these issues.
-I also really loved Julien's statement: "...in this post-colonial moment, black queers should have the choice of acting out the roles of slaves or masters, in the realm of desire and sexual fantasy." People think that slavery=blackness. Julien is delving into stereotypes of stereotypes of stereotypes. People don't think about the fact that a black man has the right to choose the role of slave. Black men are human and they have sexual desires and preferences. Just like a woman has the right to enjoy the role of being placed in bondage and likes to be submissive during sex. It is wrong to think that these HUMANS can't possibly enjoy a certain sexual role because of its inherent associations to racism and sexism.
Questions following reading:
1)Why does society prefer work that has been seen/replicated throughout history?
2)Why do people fear art that deals with important subject matter?
3)Why is art a good outlet for sending poignant messages about society?
- Charles Ray
1)Where does Ray pull inspiration from/is he influenced by anything in particular?
2)Ray's work seems to be incredibly comical/silly. Is he trying to send a certain message/make a statement through his comedic work?
3)If Ray is truly just an "average," "practical joker" with a "lack of passion," why is his work so highly revered by the art world?
Notes taken during reading:
-Ray's work is all about awakening the senses, making people aware of their surroundings and how they perceive the world. His work is shocking, provocative, sometimes ridiculous, probably to keep the viewer interested and engaged. ex. LSD piece makes the viewer feel warped, as if they too are experiencing the drug.
-In the section titled 'Art viewer becomes art medium,' the piece of the Power Woman mannequin described really resonated with me. As a proud feminist, I really liked the message this piece seems it would send. From afar, the business woman seems approachable, average, subtle, not a big deal. (Just like in real life, women are not seen as threatening figures in the business world. Far too often, we are not taken seriously in positions of high power.) However, when one begins to approach the mannequin (metaphorically, make assumptions that this woman is incapable/insignificant based on false stereotypes), you begin to see her power, her authority, her dominance. She is a force to be reckoned with.
-I also resonated a lot with Ray's "Oh! Charley, Charley, Charley..."-a piece composed of mannequin replicas of himself partaking in an orgy. I take away several important messages from this work. It is provocative for one thing and I really like when artists are unafraid of creating discomfort. I think it is really brave and delightful. Some subjects, especially sex, are consistently ignored-well not ignored- but it's kind of like a "hush hush" situation, "these things should be done in private" kind of thing, despite sex being completely natural and innate in humans. It is suggested that this piece is about "self-love" or masturbation. Masturbation, especially, is a really "hush-hush" topic, especially with girls, and I think that can be really detrimental. Many girls in modern society are conditioned to believe that males are the sex-crazed ones, the males are the ones who masturbate, and that sex is not over until a male finishes. As a result, 70% of women do not reach orgasm during sexual intercourse, because very few people know how lady parts work. If masturbation were a more widely accepted/discussed topic, perhaps girls would learn that it is okay to embrace her sexuality, learn what works for them and could then show her partner. Ray's piece is viewed as "provocative" or "embarrassing" by many, but I don't see it that way. I think that's what he is trying to do-let people know that bodily functions are natural and innate and we shouldn't feel ashamed or uncomfortable with it.
-So, to answer my initial questions, I would say that he pulls his inspiration from every day objects/events-toy truck, clock, mannequin, etc. Even though his work is kind of silly, I think he is definitely trying to make a statement to "wake people up" and make people more aware of the world. His work is wild, provocative, probably makes some feel uncomfortable or disturbed. However, he is opening the eyes of people, capturing their attention, shaking up the mundane "eat, sleep, work, repeat" kind of lives we follow- we overlook things, we pass by, bored, tired, unimpressed, comfortable. He changes that. So I think this is why he is highly revered; he's unafraid to be bold and weird and different. He is stimulating.
Questions following reading:
1)What is the importance of making art that creates discomfort for the viewer?
2)How does Ray's styles reflect the values held by postmodernism?
3)How can future artists follow in Ray's footsteps and create art that stimulates the senses, and makes people more aware of the world they live in?
No comments:
Post a Comment