Week 10: Match of the Century: Absence Versus Thin Air

In "A Farwell to Modernism" with Leo Castelli, he argues that art must have an aesthetic aspect to be considered art. It seems the Whitney Biennial produced negative thinking for him, but it also provoked him and got him thinking, and affected him in a meaningful way; after viewing the Whitney Biennial he finally started to accept that art as he knew it was over. In a sense, he came face-to-face with the reality that art as changing (or had transformed previously); it was this convergence of all that he knew to be art, all that he had participated in and connected with for so long, and the acceptance that a new kind of art had replaced all that he knew. Castelli admits that he had a kind of nostalgia for the past after he realized that art had moved on, but with this also come a simultaneous shift in his attitude toward it: don't resist change- instead, embrace it. If you resist it, you may become blindsided by the past, and it may limit the future, and with that, stifle new, meaningful possibilities.  He admits that in the Whitney Biennial, there was enormous ambition, yet it lacked a certain amount of feeling or innovation, unlike previous artists in Castelli's years. He also claims that, the gallery, to a certain extent, creates the artists, makes them what they are.

Donald Morgan was fascinating to me; I loved his work, and the passive-aggressive stance he gave most of his interactive work. For example, the sculpture made out of wood that had snowflakes painted on it beneath glass, and it took the shape of a log propped up on two little sticks (edited to add: the title of the piece is called THAW)... anyway, this structure wasn't miniature, and wasn't huge, it stood just tall enough that the person observing the work has this kind of passive-aggressive reaction to it- like "I could try to jump over that thing if I really wanted, but it's just a couple inches too tall to jump over, I think, but I'm not completely sure.." The work that provokes the kind of attitude where you have to enter into this dialogue with it, whether you want to or not, and it's the kind of dialogue that, albeit silently in your head, you are confronted with this external thing, this object/obstacle that is challenging you and making you think differently about the space you are in, and in the same regard it heightens your awareness of yourself, your body, and the physical plane you are existing in. I think that is brilliant.

So... where does this leave us? With Donald Morgan and Leo Castelli in the last week of our artist experience. We're here, writing, and we're tired. We're trying to be innovative, creative, score some points on our blogs, and we're tired. We have piles of homework to do, spanish presentations to do, and civil war games to anticipate, and yet through it all, I am loving writing this blog post. And I'm tired. I think there is something to be said about that. The fact that I am relishing in thinking of, thinking in, thinking outwardly and creatively, engaging in an open and honest dialogue with all the artists and readings we've encountered, it speaks tremendously for what this class has done for me. It has me slowing down, thinking and writing with intention (or attempting to, anyway), and really developing meaningful and insightful dialogue on a subject in which I had nary a true understanding nor compassion for ten weeks ago. And I think these very same notions, of slowing down, of engaging and creating dialogue with intention, and for a purpose, and cultivating an open and honest dialogue, is what both Morgan and Castelli have in common. Not merely existing. They think with intention, create things (writings, critiques, sculptures, paintings, what-have-yous) that are meaningful to them and engage themselves in an open dialogue with, for the most part, the world. They do more than exist. They live. in the most brilliant and inspiring way.

Week 8: The Aesthetics of Everyday Life

This week, I am struggling to find the words to adequately convey my feelings, thoughts, and issues with this weeks readings and presentation. Perhaps it's because I have a lot on my plate, academically speaking of course, or perhaps its the live streaming of Christmas music I've been listening to for 15 hours straight, but the words are escaping me. All I can think is "fa la la la la la" "gramma got ran over by a reindeer"... But I digress.  Hmm, on second thought, maybe I don't digress. Maybe I'm on to something here with this whole Christmas thing. I think I am. I think my traditions are art in it's most noble form. I've never thought of Christmas traditions as art. But that's all changing right now.

 This time of year, for me, is the most beautiful, warm, creative, uplifting time. Things in my world shine and sparkle exceptionally bright during the winter months. I love the traditions, the family gatherings, the huge meals complete with grandpa's caramel squares and my mom's homemade stuffing. Quite simply, the months of November and December cannot be beat. There is something so inherently magical and soulful about them, something so comforting and renewing. All these traditions, however aesthetically pleasing or functional they are, are essential to a merry Christmas, crucial to our lives. Because they nurture us, they cultivate a sense of connection to our family and to our lives and to our souls. We create our life, our experiences, our values, through these traditions. We listen to the same Christmas cd every year- A Charlie Brown Christmas. We eat the same foods every year, even, much to my chagrin, grandma's infamous jello salad. (One year I had a boyfriend over to grams for Thanksgiving-she served him up a good ole helping of jello salad, and needless to say, said boy and I are no longer dating). We hang our stockings in the same order every year. And we almost always wear our same "holiday" outfit every christmas eve. And for all this, I am forever grateful. I have deep gratitude for my family, for the traditions they've passed down to me, and the traditions they've created for me. It makes my life so rich and wonderful, so comforting and , to know that every year, even if everything else has changed, we'll be watching Griswald Family Vacation around 6pm on Christmas Day, in our pjs, because it's a tradition- and our most favorite movie as a family.

 You see, there's such a deep and rich connection that we feel with these traditions; the aesthetics of it, the stringing of the popcorn and the trimming of the tree, the form of it, basting the turkey and whipping the mashed potatoes to a creamy decadence. It's this living of life for both the pleasure and the functionality of it that we experience around the holidays, that for me, makes me glow. The deep rooted traditions, the history of it all, the anticipation of it all. And it makes for an incredibly satisfying life experience. Isn't that what it's all about?

For Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, we shouldn't define art as having to be something strictly aesthetically pleasing; instead we should assign "form to value."  The institution tries to speak for everyone, make claims and classify what art is and how it should function, for not only itself but for everyone else/everything else, while simultaneously asserting itself as distinct and above all the "Others." This marginalization of space and time, of aesthetics and functionality, that they cannot exist equally and beautifully, limits art in all ways. This limits how the aesthetics in our every day function, because we don't see our social interactions or our family traditions as functional and beautiful art; in fact, we don't view it as art at all. The institution has instilled in our minds, that our day to day lives, and our actions and interactions within them, are average, and pale in comparison to the grand show pieces in museums. But that's not true. I'm learning that, for me, art is most beautiful when it's uninhibited and pure, when it has an aesthetic component and a functional component. For Tannaz, it is an interesting evolution of the art and the life, and how the two function together. With her journey from Iran to the US, her identity was transformed. I found the use of her cultural identity as it relates to spatial time in her art very powerful. For me, Tannaz is cultivating this awareness of identity and time and the possibilities that it provides. With the nature of art in daily life and social interaction, we should realize these possibilities in the everyday life. Like the possibility of improvision when it comes to making gravy (you know it never turns out quite like you want it to- too much flour, not enough turkey drippings). This art of living as improvision, doing what works, getting innovative and deliberate in how we are living and what we are doing, in both the aesthetic and functional aspects of living, I think, is the essence of what tradition is made of. We utilize these traditions, or simple rituals, in our every day lives, creating something wonderfully dynamic and nourishing for our creative spirits. And in doing so, I think, we are assigning form to value in our every day lives. 

Week 7: White Cube in the City

In "Our Students Need the City" with Carol Becker, who offers a different perspective. She  mentions that isolation of artists is often confused with freedom, and that most students not "trained" to think or act globally or politically. If this is, indeed true, which in most cases it likely is, then art is merely a process of objectification, and important issues are not in focus because art students are trained to look at world individually, through an isolated eye. Institutions have made it so artists are only perceived as "producers of commodities" as opposed to an integral, and crucial expression of identity and culture. And our culture is pervasive in the sense that we assume the attitudes, practices, and beliefs are indeed a fact of life. We don't question them, or the institutions they are derived from. In short, we've "cultivated separateness." So, this begs the question: should institutions teach artists how to remain autonomous? Or should they remove the frame, and rebuild a foundation for art based on ideas? is it freedom?

 I, for one, think we should expand to create, not limit to implode. Freedom, after all, equals possibilities. Becker says, "But there's this idea that if you verbalize, or intellectualize, it'll destroy the spontaneous, intuitive qualities of artmaking" which really resonated with me. Growing up, I thought all artists were these dark, lonely, brooding, miserable people, surely making art intuitively, as if they had some divine gift. You weren't supposed to ask questions about what the art is, what it's trying to say, you weren't supposed to intellectualize it and connect it with other social/political issues; you were supposed to look at it and appreciate it for its aesthetics. Don't ask questions. Don't challenge the artist. Don't challenge the ideas behind the art. They just are. The artist is brilliant. You don't need to know why, or how. That was my perception of artists growing up, and although it was obviously misconstrued, I think it relates to this whole idea of aesthetic and autonomous art. That we should not intellectualize and verbalize, limits us in every way. Instead, ideas give us freedom. The aesthetic attitude, the autonomy, the disconnectedness, being a prisoner of one specific medium, in art, isn't beneficial. The freedom to choose is.  And I think that is what Becker is getting at. That ideas can frame the school! Not the medium, but rather the ideas surrounding the art, and the possibilities that these ideas provide. There should be flexibility among artists, among ideas and the mediums, rather than this isolation and inflexible frame that most artists/students are taught. We should structure our lives in a way that invites and encourages possibility and expression and unlimited creativity, not tie ourselves down to the institution and the notion of artistic ideas and mediums as a separate. They're all interconnected. They all feed off each other. From ideas to art to new art to new ideas. It's time to remove the frame.

In "Breaking Out of the White Cube" with Richard Shusterman, we've gotta give up the "ideology of aesthetic autonomy", aka aesthetic limits are no longer acceptable in the art world. Instead, we've got to reconceive art in more liberal terms, reshaping aesthetics so they can function/serve how we want them to. not necessarily a rejection of aesthetics, as they are obviously very pleasing to look and do serve a purpose, but an expansion of aesthetics/arts to function together with ideas and the bigger picture. In most other cultures, art is integrated into daily life through celebrations, customs, traditions, any kind of participatory art, but in our culture we seem to have isolated ourselves from art. Shusterman mentions that in our art culture, aesthetic attitude is a social and intellectual distinction- those who can look a pretty picture of scenery and only look at it for its aesthetics, not for its emotional properties, are people who aren't connected with nature and the world around them; instead, they are isolated from the world and use their objectifying eye to cultivate the aesthetic attitude that embodies art in western culture. Aristotle defined art as poesis, or making, not as praxis, or doing, which seems quite contradictory because what we make does affect who we are, what we create is a product of who we are, and who we are is an expression of what we create. So, in that sense, art is praxis, the doing, because with art we are doing things, we are creating things, yes things external to ourselves, but things none the less that affect not only us but also, hopefully, others as well. And if art isn't doing, it should. It shouldn't be merely making. It shouldn't settle. It shouldn't put these restrictions upon itself. At least, I think that is what Shusterman is getting at. He also mentions that art and science are parallels, in the sense that both are taken out of the "life world", or isolated from life, while simultaneously being conceptualized and disconnected from the modern world. What we should strive for, instead of isolation and limitations, is liberation from the oppressive bonds of tradition. For freedom from the aesthetic attitude yields unlimited possibilities and expansive, brilliant ideas.

Terri Warpinski, a photography professor, showed us her work, starting with her earliest pieces in paintings/printmakings, to where she is now in her art practice with photography. Upon seeing her transformation from one art medium to another, I immediately connected  the "removing the frame" idea with her journey throughout different mediums. She ultimately used her ideas to propel her forward and eventually evolved her mediums to suit her ideas. And throughout it all, she seemed to be evoking this zest for art, for optimism, for the transformation of ideas into something meaningful and powerful. And I think that's what it's all about. Giving our ideas a chance. So that they can develop into something wonderfully brilliant and uniquely serendipitous.

Week 6: Be a Genius -> Remove the Frame

In "Removing the Frame" with Mary Jane Jacob the limitations of working in a museum are spotlighted. Jacob's main intention is to bring art closer to life, through an interactive participation with an audience over an extended period of time. Through social interaction, the audiences role is transformed from the spectator to the participant. Jacob argues that museums aren't neutral, that in fact they are powerful agents in the construction of the cultural identity of art and its people. That is to say, she believes museums call the shots and have a huge impact on the art world. There's this kind of a power struggle going on in the art world. Who gets to decide what is worthy to be deemed 'art'? In the museum, the curator decides. Who gets to dictate what is showing at the museum? In the museum, the curator decides. Who gets to define art? The curator of the art museum, because they are selecting the art that goes it to the museum, deeming it 'worthy' enough, and in turn the art they select defines art. Jacob wants to move back to the community constructing the cultural identity and define art in the terms they see best fit for themselves and the community. Basically, long story short, what Jacob seems to be saying is that the institutionalization of art is bad. Indeed, art is art, but the impact/the message changes depending on the venue. If seen in a museum, art has a different impact then when that same art piece is viewed outside or in a participatory setting. Jacob wants to free art of the space and the authorization that museums manifest, and instead give art freedom to roam, freedom from the frame that institutionalization imposes on it. Through her work with art, she is transcending the space both "physically and conceptually" and bring it back to its primal forms, turning away from the need for validation and recognition that the museum/institutionalization imposes. She gets satisfaction in her work because there is a real sense of dialogue, a genuine and primal connection between the artist and the curator, the curator and the audience. With this dialogue, all parties are involved in the creation and viewing of art and connected to one another. Jacob also emphasizes the importance of art being not just an experience for the privileged, as it most often is in museums, but instead audiences of all classes, races, and genders being able to experience the fullest impact that art has to offer. It is interesting to note that, for Jacob, it is not so much the material or medium being considered art, but rather the contextuality of art that is important. That art has a different impact on the audience whether it is institutionalized, or whether it is set free in a more participatory sense. That the same piece of art can make a completely different impact depending on where it is seen, and who has access to it, is an astoundingly liberating concept.

In "You Don't Have to Have a Penis to Be a Genius" with Guerrilla Girls, the anonymity of it all is intriguing and striking. Anonymity. Who ever really wants to be anonymous? A nobody in a sea of somebodies? Most people live their life and create their art in search of validation from institutions, hopeful that they will be recognized and praised for the life they live or the work they do.  But for the Guerrilla Girls, anonymity is the main goal. And what's striking about it is that it is extremely powerful. The deindividualization of a group of women striving for a common cause, without receiving any individual recognition, is selflessly powerful. The GG strive for women to act as a figure of sensibility in the world of art. They emphasize that feminism should be sexy and funny, and are striving for equal representation of women in art because they feel like they are underrepresented. Using the term 'guerrilla' to represent both a word and an action simultaneously is a brilliantly deliberate act to demonstrate that the GG are not only a group of women, but a group of women with a purpose who strive to participate in the transformation of gender roles in art through anonymity. They desire that a fundamental shift in the representation of women in art be of utmost importance, specifically with women as artists in a cultural setting. They feel it is their responsibility as women artists to work for change on a social and cultural level, and they use their anonymity as a vehicle for promoting the issues at hand and shifting focus to art itself and the issues it's representing, not the people behind the art, as a vehicle to diminish the frustration and isolation that these women feel/have felt- and instead focus on promoting feminism and other social issues through anonymity. They are challenging the infastructure of the art world, as Jacob is doing. more on a civil rights kind of agenda, on a gender conscious level, through a communal and collaborative approach with both the artists and the audience. They are using deindividualization to change the consciousness of the (art) world, and giving a voice to people (women in particular) who want to participate in art, society, culture, what have you, but get lost in the system, while simultaneously making art more accessible to the masses.