Connection Post #3 - Social Practice Art3/18/2019 When reading "How the Art of Social Practice is Changing the World One Row House at a Time" and "Outside the Citadel, Social Practice Art Is Intended to Nurture," I was struck by the sheer magnitude that art has changed in the past 200 years. To think, in the grand scheme of things, the Renaissance was not too long ago and the concept of art has evolved immensely. Social Practice Art is yet another medium that calls into question the definition of art and raises many questions about the practice and nature of its existence. The two articles were quite similar in how they analyzed this new medium and presented the different perspectives surrounding it. I really enjoyed reading both articles because I believe they were executed well and written wonderfully. They both presented both sides of the argument for and against Social Practice art which is a positive attribute when discussing transient subjects like art.
While reading these two articles, I was very curious about many aspects of this practice. Due to the article we read last year about "isms", I wanted to know if social practice art could be considered an art movement? Furthermore, why is social practice art rising in popularity recently? In addition, how do we evaluate social practice art? It is such an amorphous style of art that I want to know what kind of criteria is used to critique it. Lastly, is social practice art actually art? This is a very broad question and centers around the question that is usually the star of all of our socratic seminars. In my opinion, social practice art is NOT an art movement but a medium. The California College of the Arts even offered it as a concentration which is not possible for art movements. However, intrinsic to the argument against social practice art being a movement is the fact that the artists practicing this kind of art are not united by a common idea. They are all impacting and involving the community in different ways and creating art for different reasons which means social practice art is a medium rather than a movement. In regards to my second question about social practice art's rise in popularity, I think that "Outside the Citadel..." really hit the nail on the head when they stated that "many artists, however, say the motivation is much broader: to make a difference in the world that is more than aesthetic" (4). I would argue against the ideas presented in "How the Art of Social Practice..." that presumes that "the popularity of social practice among today's artists reflects a pendulum swing away from the art market. 'It's a reaction against the excesses of individualism,'" (4). I think that the second idea is too limiting and, if it were true, social practice art would be a movement as they are all creating art for a common purpose and to comment on a certain issue. However, social practice artists are not doing such things. They are more closely creating art to make a difference in a community that is more than beautifying the environment. This hypothesis allows for more movement within the definition of social practice art and better encompasses the kinds of artwork being created under the guise of this medium. In regards to evaluating social practice art, I am impartial to the idea that social practice art should accomplish its original purpose. Like most art, if it has a purpose, it should accomplish that purpose in order to be a successful work of art. For example, social practice art is not good if it is incapable of involving the community and/or provides thoughtful commentary on a problem while doing so. A social practice work of art that has no individual interacting with it is not a good work of art. In "How the Art of Social Practice...," the author quotes "'It's really about thinking about process: Who does it connect? And how does it connect them? And what makes this a unique experience for those involved?'" (9) which I believe is also a good way of thinking about this medium. Lastly, at least to me, social practice art is art. Art that has involved the community has existed for decades (the Surrealists, Dadaists, and Fluxus), and the ideas and intentions behind these actions are what make it art. Art is meant to change perspectives, shift ideas, comment on problems, tell a story, and if a work accomplishes one of these by connecting the community and the artist deems it to be art, then it is art. I very much enjoyed both articles. They were both very informative and helpful in wrapping my head around such an amorphous and complicated subject as this newfangled form of art. I loved how they both included different perspectives about this medium and whether it was valid as a form of art or an effective way of enacting social change. They both also addressed the origins of this practice, and its rise in recent years. "Outside the Citadel..." definitely addressed social practice art's role as art more than "How the Art of Social Practice..." which is an incredibly riveting topic especially with all the naysayers and ever present negative views of contemporary art. In my opinion, the two articles could have mentioned more artists in order to encourage further research about this medium. More artist information would also educate the underpinnings of this surge in this type of art. Further, I would have enjoyed more negative opinions about social practice art, so I could feel comfortable in my opinion. I feel like there are definitely more arguments against social practice art that could further educate my views and how I see this type of art. In conclusion, I think that social practice art is incredibly cool and representative of this new age art culture that we live in that consistently stretches the borders of what can be defined as art. I know that the "what is art?" question is quite tired especially as it has been posed since the beginning of art history, but I think this question defines the progression of art over time. Artists are constantly pushing to expand the definition of art, and social practice art is not an exception. The rise in this medium is a step towards the future of art, and I can't wait to see how it progresses.
0 Comments
The confederate monuments are perhaps one of the greatest struggles between the right and the left today. Their installations across the South spark unanswerable questions about what the Confederacy stood for and how we should preserve history while still perpetuating a politically correct narrative. In "The Fight Over Virginia's Confederate Monuments," Benjamin Wallace-Wells examines the most vitriolic aspect of this controversy and the violence that took place in Charlottesville as a result of extremely partisan ideology. This article is a lengthy piece, and the information provided raises many questions regarding the role of monuments, especially Confederate ones. For instance, are confederate monuments, as they are now, important to and effective in remembering our history? Furthermore, how should we deal with these monuments? Should we change them, take them down, preserve them in a museum? Lastly, how has the use of the monuments as a rallying cry for white supremacists affected the discourse about their removal? These questions were not answered by the second article that I read, "States Are Using Preservation Laws to Block the Removal of Confederate Monuments;" however, I did learn that certain lawmakers and individuals had made up their minds about the nature of confederate monuments. Further, what shall be done of these monuments were not up to the people but to those in power. Which raises more questions about who owns monuments and makes decisions about monuments. If monuments can be considered public art, why are the people unable to have a prominent say in the fate of these monuments?
In my opinion, confederate monuments, as they are now, are not the most effective way to remember our history. They idolize confederate generals and neglect to include and showcase the horrors that these individuals committed against slaves. There are so many better ways to remember our history besides quite literally elevating Robert E. Lee on a podium, on a horse, in a heroic pose in the most beautiful road in Richmond. Robert E. Lee is not a hero. He fought to keep hundreds of thousands of people in bondage simply because of their skin tone. Maybe he may not have supported slavery personally, and maybe he was fighting for Virginia, but that doesn't erase the fact that, if he had won, then slavery would have persisted in America. I think that the statue should not be destroyed, as it does represent history in a sense. However, I think that it should be taken off of its pedestal at the very least. I quite liked the idea of surrounding it with panes of glass with the testimony of Lee's former slaves (Wells, pg. 6). In addition, in regards to my third question about white supremacists, I think that white supremacists have driven this argument to its most extreme. Previously, it was about preserving southern "heritage" vs. not erasing the horrors of slavery from the Confederacy. Now, on the other hand, this fight is about racism by white people vs. absolutely everyone else. More people than ever are heated up about this, in part because white supremacists are involved. Practically any non-racist, person of color, and immigrant has a bone to pick with white supremacists. The involvement of this group has diluted the argument and caused it to become more violent than ever. In response to my last question, I believe that the people should decide what happens to these monuments. State preservation laws are ridiculous. The people in office enforcing these laws are not properly representing their constituents which undermines a representative democracy. If the community where a confederate statue is wants the confederate statue gone, the confederate statue should be removed. The readings are quite similar in their cut and dry presentation of the facts. They provide numerous perspectives from each side of the argument and reveal the reasoning behind those who either support or despise these monuments. The writing shows that the journalists have an implicit bias against the monuments. For example, in "States Are Using...", the author describes the removal of confederate statues as a "national reckoning" (pg. 1). The use of the term reckoning inspires the image of redemption. "The Fight Over Virginia's..." is much less biased and, therefore, has more reliable information. The only problem I had with Wells' article was the fact that a lot of the images included were not relevant to the article at all. Maybe this was a formatting error, but it distracted from what he was trying to say and present to the audience. Connection Post #1 - Censorship10/31/2018 Personal Opinion and Analysis
Censorship is a prevalent issue in the artistic community today. Despite the promotion of free speech in democratic societies like the United States, politicians and people in power still work to censor artistic expression that may offend them or oppose their ideology. For example, in "The Art of Controversy," Kwame Holman explores the "Sensation" art exhibition which caused public outrage with the piece "The Holy Virgin Mary" and provoked Rudy Giuliani to threaten the museum with cutting funding. The museum appealed to the courts and refused to take down the work or close the exhibition. Throughout the transcript, questions regarding the ethics of censoring this work, especially since the museum is a publicly funded institution, are raised and debated. Primarily, if the government can censor a public institution, would that infringe on free speech? In my opinion, in this situation, the government can censor the Brooklyn Museum. The government is funding this institution, and they have the right to have a say in what is presented to the public. If the museum was privately owned, then they could definitely show this exhibition, but since it is not, it needs to listen to the people who give them the majority of their money to exist or risk losing that funding and support. Although I disagree with the way that Rudy Giuliani reacted to the exhibition without ever stepping foot in the gallery himself, I understand where he is coming from. The museum is bound by contract to "have open access to the public, to train young people in artistic things, and to really put on an appropriate show for the citizens of the city" (pg. 3). If they fail to meet these guidelines, then they are liable to punishment. In defense of the museum, I believe that the government should have a consultant in matters like this who specializes in art who can educate the policymakers in how they should consider situations like these. Someone who knows the significance of these pieces and their messages should be advising those who have a say in the fate of these exhibitions. Furthermore, I believe the public needs a larger role when it comes to censorship in publicly funded institutions. If there was indeed widespread public outcry, as Giuliani and his constituents claim, then the exhibit was damaging to stability and there are grounds to take it down. In the end, these facilities are created to help the public, and, if they are not achieving that goal, then they can be shut down or changed. However, if claims of unrest are untrue, then the government has no grounds to take it down especially if it is just a handful of policymakers who dislike the art. Obviously, a society not as "free" as the United States would make a more concerted effort to censor art. For instance, in China, Ai Weiwei is frequently attacked by the Chinese government for his open critiques of them. This is a different situation because it is clear that China is in the wrong. Ai is not displaying any of his work in publicly funded institutions, but China continues to block his every move, even going as far as destroying his Shanghai and Beijing studio. In "Is Ai Weiwei China's Most Dangerous Man?" the writer explores Ai Weiwei's role in society. I found particularly interesting how China's best attempts at censoring Ai really only make him more popular. This begs the question, is China really censoring Ai Weiwei if his message is just further disseminated by their actions? China is definitely trying to censor Ai Weiwei. However, they just raise more support for him in the process. In our technologically advanced world, nothing is truly secret, and China's acts are causing social media storms that increase Ai's prominence. Sure, they stop him from making art by destroying his studio and keep him on his toes with the amount of security cameras they have set up around his residence, but every time Ai makes work, everyone is watching. This audience can be partially attributed to people's outrage at China's attempts to censor Ai. Ai said it himself in the article when he stated "'They create me rather than solve the problems I raise'" (pg. 3). Ai's quote brings up an interesting perspective. Instead of addressing Ai's discontent, they try to stop him which brings media attention to the Chinese government's anti-free speech stance instead of the other serious issues Ai tries to comment on. In a way, this is a form of censorship. By drawing attention to something else, the government is hindering Ai's communication. That is, if it worked. I believe that if this is China's intended strategy, then it is horribly executed. Through their very public acts, they are drawing negative attention to themselves and Ai's work is very easily interpreted. The media focuses on China's actions that is true, but they also convey Ai's message to show what the government is trying to suppress. Furthermore, sometimes Ai's work is commenting on government censorship, and, if China tries to suppress that, it would be irony at its finest. Following along with the idea that censorship just perpetuates a work and an artist, this phenomenon also presents itself in the "Sensation" art exhibition. People came to Brooklyn from far and wide to see what all of the controversy and anger was about. There were people lined up to get into the gallery. In this situation, I believe it is not truly censorship until they have to take the art off the walls and close down the gallery. To conclude these four loosely related paragraphs, I believe that the government has the right to censor a gallery when they are funding that gallery, but only with the consent of the people who are funding the government and with adequate reasoning. Furthermore, censorship is not truly censorship until the art is not able to be accessed by anyone. Comparing The Two Articles and Some Opinions About How They Were Written These two articles both explore the meaning of censorship and the reaches of it. When put together, the articles reveal the differences between a democratic and non-democratic society. Both governments exercise censorship but with very different reaches. The US can only censor that which belongs to them or is funded by them, and even then, that draws controversy, whilst the Chinese government is free to censor whatever it likes with the ire of every free-speech loving country in the world. "The Art of Controversy" was very fun to read as there was a real interview conducted between two contrasting opinions. "Is Ai Weiwei China's Most Dangerous Man?" was much more expressive and stylistic with great quotes from Ai Weiwei that really enriched the article. Common Themes and Analysis
Artistic movements have always been met with aversion by the public. Whether it is the rise of naturalism or abstract expressionism, everyone's a critic of new ideas. However, with non-objective and abstract art, widespread criticism is commonplace. In "The 1913 Armory Show: America's First Art War," the author explores the various complaints of the public and publications during the controversial Armory Show which displayed hot new art from Europe. Hot new art meaning Impressionism, Expressionism, and, the most disputed, Cubism. These movements were all groundbreaking when they were birthed and in "The 'ism' that isn't" the author seeks to define what makes 'ism' movements 'ism' movements. Although at first glance these two articles seem barely similar, they share many common themes. For example, both articles are addressing the explosion of groundbreaking art movements in the late 19th to early 20th centuries. They both reference the influence of Cubism and how artists were truly breaking out of the constraints of realism and what the world had defined as art in the past. Cubism was one of the first movements to show that some artworks' intention is not to depict reality but an alternate, stylized, and sometimes incomprehensible form of it. Furthermore, both articles discuss art pieces' ulterior motives and messages in regards to the political world. When referring to political motives, "the 'ism' that isn't" finds that politics were central to the creation of art movements and is the defining feature of "isms." In "the 1913 Armory Show...," the author states that contemporary art is focused on the emotions of suppressed minorities and are used to make powerful political statements. Both understand the importance of politics in regards to art and the motivations it provides. In terms of differences, the Armory Show has a more focused and narrow approach to artistic movements. It hones in on cubism and its role in public outcry in 1913. On the other hand, the isms is a comprehensive analysis of the meaning of ism and how artists, curators, and collectors alike can not go around willy-nilly making up art movements. In addition, the isms are a critique on a specific art show that, according to the author, "travesties the history of modern art by stripping it of politics." The ism article also brings up multiple questions about how art will change in the future intrinsically while the Armory Show focuses on how reactions and the discourse surrounding art will change. Flaws and Strengths "The 1913 Armory Show: America's First Art War" is wonderfully written and provides images to go along with the article which I found very helpful. Seeing the works that were displayed in this show helped me envision myself in the shoes of a normal civilian going in to see this exhibit. Furthermore, seeing the so called "explosion in a shingle factory" of "Nude Descending A Staircase No. 2" was particularly interesting. The inclusion of quotes from the time period also gave the article a sense of trustworthiness and validity. The article was very easy to understand and digest which is always a good quality for widespread information. However, as someone unfamiliar with Gertrude Stein, I believe there could be more information included about her considering the amount of times she was mentioned in the article. "The 'ism' that isn't" is an intellectual piece. I enjoy the in depth analysis of the idea of an 'ism' and the various examples provided as well as the historical contextualization of the movements. I also enjoyed the quote by the painting tutor as first hand accounts always work in the favor of an article. Seeing the perspective of someone who disliked impressionism at this time period supported the argument about how isms are groundbreaking. Sometimes the article was a bit difficult to follow as it jumped around quite a bit. Personal Opinion As this new age of art dawns upon us in the 21st century, I believe there are no more boundaries left in art to push. As mentioned in the ism article, isms were all groundbreaking movements designed to question the idealized version of art that existed at the time. Their rebellion is part of what made them great. However, Duchamp's beliefs about everything being art as long as the artist intended it to be virtually destroyed the idealized version of art. I think that no more isms can exist as no more boundaries exist to be stretched. Public derision will forever exist towards art as the 1913 Armory Show indicates (as there are people who still hate abstract art today simply for not conforming to perspective and realism). However, their derision will always be towards the wide idea of contemporary art since we are no longer inching along the idea of non-objective, we are entirely in the mouth of non-objective. It's no longer uncommon for people to see works like White on White by Malevich hanging in an art museum. I guess I'm trying to say that the era of life-changing artistic innovation is over? Or, more optimistically, the era of isms are over because nothing is out of the question anymore. author.jacqueline. she/her. senior. virginia, usa. art v. archives.
March 2020
categories.
All
|