After reading both of these articles … I'm going to be frank … I really don't understand social practice art. I just don't really get it? And it frustrates me to no end because the concept of it is really interesting and some of the results are incredibly beautiful- both emotionally and sometimes aesthetically- and yet I still can't wrap my head around it. I'd chalk it up to this art movement not really looking like an art movement. Like paintings, sculptures, drawings, oh my! I like that it challenges the conventional standards of "What is art?", but the inner skeptic in me is very doubtful of social practice art. To me, some of the works seem more impactful than others- but of course I wasn't there so my opinion doesn't really matter now does it.
I get that these art pieces are meant to "encourage interaction" and serve as "a question of human encounter" (How the Art, 1), but somehow this seems too loose of a definition and purpose for me. And I'm an abstract painter! I think that there's something to be said about the dedication of these projects though. Having to spend years to put up something ultimately ephemeral seems very counterintuitive to me, but kudos towards that persistence and dedication- I'm sure the community impact is very reliant on some of these long lasting projects. But "letting the community help shape the direction of the work" may take some time I suppose (How the Art, 7). I do agree with Lowe that it's extremely rude and disrespectful to come into a community "and think you can grasp all the complexities of a place in a short time" (How the Art, 7). But, alas, the commercial art world seems to think that this is the case … at least that's what these social practice artists believe. I'm not quite sure if I agree. This great schism between the commercial art world and the social practice art world seems very redundant. Social practice artists claim that "art is elastic" (Outside the Citadel, 7)- and I do agree for the most part- but if that's the case, why so much disdain for commercial artists? They're artists too! The question of enticing social change through art I think can be answered by both social practice artists and commercial artists. Maybe not to the same extent as one or the other, but I think that there's potential in both to effect some sort of social change via art. So again, this separation and disdain seems redundant. But, that does seem to be the case for all up-coming, cutting edge art movements … so why should this one be any different? Again, I find myself perplexed by this movement- and wanting to learn more, obviously- so maybe it's a route I should take up? I don't think it would lend itself very well to my personal style but hey, don't knock it 'till you try it.
1 Comment
What I found most compelling whilst reading these two articles is their approach to the removal/changing of Confederate monuments. One takes an artistic stance on what should replace these monuments, and how these new art pieces may affect the meaning of the statue of a past Confederate man. While the other article takes into account the legality of these situations, and the extreme difficulty that comes from attempting to remove a long-standing monument. So, I found it refreshing to see both the artistic and legal sides of this situation.
Obviously I have my own views on the issue of Confederate monuments, specifically Richmond oriented. Regarding Monument Avenue, I'm in the same beliefs as Kenya (Robinson); "Keep the statues. […] Because we need a visual reminder of our stubborn tendency to elevate mediocrity." (Monuments 11) I think this whole controversy could be solved by keeping all of the Confederate statues- as a reminder of our past actions, Virginia was the capital of the Confederacy- and simply adding a plaque or something to state, "This is no longer us." It's a simple solution, but I think it could be effective. It would keep up the statues that the white supremacists fight so hard for, while also maintaining a sense of separation from our violent past. (The only monument that should be removed is the Arthur Ashe monument, but that's a debate for another time.) Of course, to me, my solution seems perfect. Efficient. But after reading these articles, the legality of the situation hit me. Even attempting to alter these monuments in some way would not only cause public upheaval, sadly, but would also drag us down a spiral of laws and contracts. After all, "[…] some conservative state legislatures have passed or bolstered cultural heritage laws that make it difficult, if not impossible, for local cities to remove or rethink these controversial monuments." (States 1) So everything is not as it seems, it's not that easy. So, while I'm not surprised that the legal repercussions of altering a monument put us in between a rock and a hard place, I am surprised that it took me this article to remind me of that. I … feel kind of dumb. Maybe- and this is a stretch here- the altering or removal of Confederate monuments could be considered a form of censorship? Historical censorship? If that is a thing. I don't think that its a valid argument, but it is some food for thought. There is the argument that "they are culturally important and pay homage to figures who, despite all else, are historically significant." (States 1) Hence the reason why I think these monuments should remain erected. They are a significant part of history. Obviously not a good part, and I'm in no way supporting the Confederacy, and those who continue to contemporarily fight for it (I'm looking at the folks who loiter in front of the VMFA. I mean, it's 2019, time to move on.) but these people, and these monuments, honor a part of our- albeit awful- history. So really, the choice to replace monuments with new works of art, as suggested by "Monuments for a New Era", may not be the best idea. While inherently creative and intriguing from an artistic standpoint, the legal and public setbacks seem a little too harsh to handle. Maybe that's just me, but I think the monuments could stay. It's possible to "honor" our past history, while also making our contemporary ideals and standpoint loud and clear. It's just a matter of finding that in-between. What it is? I don't know. What I do know? The Confederacy is dead. Get over it. Not only reading both of these readings- The Art of Controversy & Art on the Firing Line- was extremely infuriating, but also showed how prevalent the concept of "freedom" is in America. It makes the question to concept of freedom of speech, and our historical separation from an oppressive system. Why even separate from England if America itself is going to be oppressive as well? It just confuses and angers me to no end, but I digress. Both of the readings focus on similar historical events- the censorship of two separate shows that were deemed controversial and "offensive". But, how the exhibits are censored- for lack of a better term- is different. In the Art of Controversy, the censorship is governmental censorship, since the content of the exhibit was "totally inappropriate, certainly for children, and beyond that, it’s really not even for the general public the kind of exhibit that taxpayers should pay for," (AoC Page 4). In contrast, in Art on the Firing Line was the museum shutting down a Mapplethorpe exhibit before it even opened because "It was a no-win situation. We decided we wouldn't be anyone's political platform" (AotFL Page 4). The latter situation makes me question the censorship of the matter- was it really censorship?- but i'll get into that later.
The fact that these two exhibits were censored is not at all surprising. Homosexual "pornographic" images? Defacing the Virgin Mary? Someone's bound to get offended. But, I question, is a specific group becoming offended by art- something subjective and controversial in itself- really the catalyst for removing an entire show from the eyes of the public? Evidently it was. In the Art of Controversy, the exhibition was taken down to the publics take on it, and most importantly Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. But, in the reading it also shows the opinion of a few museum goers: "MUSEUM GOER: I can’t believe that this has caused this commotion. MUSEUM GOER: I don’t know. I don’t have an adverse reaction to it. You know, it’s someone’s view on something. MUSEUM GOER: I’m furious about this. This is a tremendous insult to the mother of my God and to me. MUSEUM GOER: I think it’s a disgrace that people can bash other people’s religion" (AoC Page 2). We clearly see a distinction between those who were offended by the "sacrilegious" painting, and those who were indifferent to its contents. So clearly, taking something down to appease the public, or shield them from "offensive art", isn't an adequate excuse. And yet, that's the excuse used in Art on the Firing Line. "We never questioned the importance of the show,'' Dr. Orr-Cahall said. ''Our decision wasn't about the esthetics of the work, but about the circumstances in which it was to be shown. It was a matter of time and place.'" (AotFL Page 5) It is then defended that the content was not the cause of the removal. And, that may be true, but the problem is that the exhibition was removed in the first place. So, would I call the Mapplethorpe case censorship? Towards the artist? Yes. Even though he was dead, it is still a removal of his freedom of speech that was precedented in a contract. Towards the museum? No, because it was the museum's decision to remove the artist's works. The main takeaway of these two articles (and the other optional ones, I'm sure) is that censorship is a tricky subject. It's all about perspective, and even so, somebody is bound to become offended. Both exhibitions discussed were deemed controversial by public standards, and yet we see a significant amount of the public not seeing it as such. So is it fair to censor things that aren't offensive to all? I would say no, and seemingly these articles as well. As these readings are both relatively recent events, their takeaways' are something that is heavily present in contemporary ages. Challenging the First Amendment, governmental censorship, etc. All present today, as they were in these two articles. Probably the most common factor between these two articles is the discussion of -isms and how art has evolved over time, in such a way that causes outright disruption of the public. Both shows address how some movements may have seem radical at the time, but are contemporarily considered normal. “Modern art movements speak a language of revolution.” (The ‘Ism’ That Isn’t, page 5) So there you go, the reason behind these drastic changes is the concept of sparking revolutions- which happens every time as well. Another interesting comparison between these two articles is the discussion of which the question is posed- how do we view the world? And how these revolutionary art movements always seemed to obtain the answer to that question through art. “While other Cubist works of the period stressed the multiplicity of a single moment ….” (The 1913 Armory Show, page 4) Cubists attempt to capture a specific moment in time, Impressionism attempted to view the world with “deliberate misperception”, and so on. So, I caught myself wondering, what exactly is the Neurotic Realism that Saatchi is deploying trying to represent? I still can’t quite wrap my head around what is trying to be achieved with this movement, by “remaining lump in the present”, “stripped of politics”, and the general melancholia being used. It all seems a little showy, like one attempting to be “edgy” and abstract for the sake of being considered a revolutionary, not for the actual art. Though this thought may be completely out of line, again, I still can’t truly understand what there is to achieve by stripping art from politics. In previous class discussion, the topic of art and politics has come up. This specific discussion coaxed us to ask question about the relationship between art and politics. Can they truly be separate? The answer is probably highly subjective, but I would like to say no. It’s near impossible to not employ the least bit of bias into a work, even if you aren’t conscious of your opinions uprising. There’s a specific quote regarding Neurotic Realism that I would like to address in this analysis, “ … Neurotic Realism is like the new absinthe- purified of dangerous intoxicants. It won’t change your sense of reality.” (The ‘Ism’ That Isn’t, page 5) Doesn’t this defeat the purpose of creating an art movement? Addressed in the other article is the fact that art movements were created to be revolutionary, to create public upheaval, to cause chaos! So I find myself back to the relaying question- What is the point, the motivation, behind an art movement? Specifically Neurotic Realism, but maybe we’ll see the outcome of that art “revolution” in the years to come. These two articles don't necessarily contrast each other when you read them, but rather they contradict the basic "rules" of Abstract Expressionism. The one term that seems to be thrown around quite a lot in both articles is freedom. Freedom from "political, anti-imperialist commitment." (MoMA, The Bomb …. ,page 5), the "intellectual freedom" (Modern Art Was…. , page 1) that having this Abstract art provided, and the modern artist's "nonconformity and love of freedom" (MoMA… page 3), just to name a few.
Both readings address the CIA's involvement with the Abstract Expressionist movement and the Anti-Communist values that the CIA was attempting to display. This "macho" American display of superiority was shown through the arts and the idea that bigger is better. "The general idea was to parade art (writing, visual arts, music) that was as antithetical as possible to Stalinist dictums about what art should be" (MoMA… page 2). What the CIA, and the political US, were striving to do was show how America was flourishing under an Anti-Communist regime. To do this the government commissioned artists to create works that "represent freedom", works like free flowing, non-objective pieces. These exact pieces that were denounced in Moscow due to its "non-conformity". This whole situation is ironic, because those Abstract Expressionist artists who were "people who had very little respect for the government" (Modern… page 3) were now being, knowingly, commissioned by the government to create works to displayed as a type of propaganda. This is only semi-surprising to me, I'm only surprised that these artists went along with these "campaigns". Although it is noted that these artists knew that they were opposing their core values. "Rothko's friends felt his suicide resulted from being so well paid for his painting that 'howled their opposition to bourgeois materialism.'"(MoMA… page 9). But it is also noted that Abstract Expressionism, without government interference, went against Communist values. "It was recognized that Abstract Expressionism was the kind of art that made Socialist Realism look even more stylized and more rigid and confined than it was." (Modern… page 3). This brings up the question, could Abstract Expressionism, without government interference, operate as an anti-politic, anti-imperialistic force? I think that the Abstract Expressionists, unknowingly, exhibited works that were riddled with political content. Although this could be said about almost any piece of art if analyzed with that specific intent. What I'm getting at here, is that there is no true "freedom" when addressing what interactions the Abstract Expressionists had with the CIA. It was all exploitation of a non-political theme and art style that was turned into an Anti-Communist regime by those who wanted to see it that way. "Yes … the agency saw Abstract Expressionism as an opportunity, and yes, it ran with it." (Modern… page 3). While these two articles focus on different areas on the map, there are some clear cut questions and topics that are aroused when reading these items. Some themes that came to mind when reading both were originality and acceptance. Both articles contain controversial material pertaining to a specific art movement, and each main conflict of that particular article has a different way of solution.
In the case of Whistler vs Ruskin, it wasn't so much that Whistler's art wasn't original, because it certainly was, but it seems that the originality of his art, and its defiance to Ruskin's beliefs, is what caused this conflict. The article addresses the fact that Ruskin, does in fact, understand modernism, but it seems that he simply cannot accept Whistler's art as art, because it defies his concrete understanding of what art is. "It is not that Ruskin failed to get modernism. It is that absolutely got it. He saw that this was an art in defiance of all expectation, whose enemy was expectation, and that it would be … ." ("Whistler vs Ruskin", page 3) This, I believe, and Ruskin's slight insanity, are what caused such a huge reaction to be made, that and, dignity. This court case is never clearly solved. Yes, Whistler technically wins, but it still is a controversial conspiracy topic today. It brings up the questions of "What is art?" and "What is art to me?". These, of course are very loaded questions that come with very opinionated answers, which brings me to the second article Arab Spring. Arab Spring addresses the lack of art from the Middle East, specifically modern and contemporary art. This area of art is unsurprisingly unexplored by most, this is justified with political-economic reasons. But, even now, as Western societies are becoming more exposed to modern art from this culture, the individuality of the art itself is under scrutinization. "'People would look at the work of Arab modernists and say, 'This is really pastiche. They're just copying Picasso or Braque.'" ("Arab Spring", Venetia Porter, page 2) Questioning the originality of the work and comparing it to more Western artists is essentially saying "You couldn't have made that! You're not from here!" which people will deny thinking, but it's the subtextual message. So, if these arts aren't original because they copied art from other people, then what is originality? Posing this question comes with many issues, because there is not definite answer to this question. Originality is technically in the eye of the beholder, you see the influence in the art however you want to see it. Whether that makes the work a copy of something or simply the product of inspiration is up to you. "There are multiple modernisms," (Arab Spring, Iwona Blazwick, page 3) this quote pertains to both articles. There were two modernisms in Whistler vs Ruskin, and there are multiple modernisms to be seen throughout different cultures and societies, as seen in Arab Spring. So, really, influence is coming from all areas. The final decision is up to you: is this original art and am I willing to accept it as so? |
Categories |