Modernism

I love the quote that Prince Albert spoke at the opening of the exhibition, "... knowledge becomes the property of the community at large."  These words spoken 160 years ago ring true to this day, particularly due to the internet.  This sentiment makes art more interesting because of the free exchange of ideas, but also more difficult because everywhere you look you see artwork that is better than yours.  It is so daunting to google search images, and just think, "Man, I wish I made that." There is also such a fine line between borrowing imagery/ drawing inspiration from source material and straight up ripping someone off.  One may call recontextualizing simply copying.

I have generally disagreed with the thought that art is just as much about representation as it is about the art itself.  I have always thought that if you lose too much of the art and weigh too heavy on representation then you are forgetting what it was all about in the first place… making art.  I have always valued high craftsmanship and art for art’s sake, and art just to be pretty.  But, the farther along I get in my art education, the more I appreciate the ideas and concepts more and more.  I guess you could say I am maturing as an artist.  When I was younger I would only like to look at “pretty” things.  Now I really appreciate to hear artist talks and understand the “why.”  I have been enjoying conceptualizing in my own work, and I really enjoy the “idea” as much as the “art.”  I think the first class I had with you spurred this change.  I still think some things I hear are slightly elated, and ideas, in my mind, do not make up for shoddy craft, but I now appreciate a good concept in modern or contemporary work over a “pretty” painting of a flower or something.

In the impressionism discussion, particularly Transparent Impressionism, I find it interesting that the artist paints what “what appear to be impressions of visual reality… The eye is fetishized rather than reality described.”  I really like this idea.  Aesthetically, I wouldn’t say I am a big fan of impressionism, but I do enjoy what they were doing.

My favorite piece in this reading was “Strange Garden” by Jozef Mehoffer.  This piece is just amazing.  I looked at it for so long during the reading.  I would love to see it in real life.  The symbolists explored the imagination as opposed to visual reality.  I am particularly drawn to this movement as well as Surrealism.  Both are concerned with the imagination, which, I guess, is what art has always been about to me.  I love the idea of the Surrealists that “the unconscious was as real and as susceptible to representation as the visual world.”  I have liked Surrealism since early in high school.  I have also long been interested in psychology and I like the ties between the two.  It was said in the section on Symbolism that the artist’s presence is always felt by the viewer.  My question here is:  Is it really possible to separate the artist from the work?  I tend to generally always feel the artist in the work, particularly in paintings.  The artist isn’t as felt in, say, a perfect, shiny slip cast from a mold, but I feel the presence is there in most paintings.  I do not understand how it would be more so in these Symbolist paintings.

I am also really drawn to the collage pieces as well as the photography in this chapter.  I enjoy Redon’s “Decorative Panel.”  I like the use of color harmony and the aesthetic of the decoration.  I find patterning aesthetically pleasing.  I like the Post-Impressionistic idea that color is an emotional and aesthetic carrier of meaning.  I definitely respond to color. 

The Cubists redefined the relationship between seeing and representing.  I was also drawn to Pablo Picasso’s “The Bird Cage.”  I enjoy “the idea that the image is a synthesis of pictorial elements, some of which are hand-made and others of which are borrowed, makes it clear that the representation is not only artificial, but essentially flat.”  Here, again, is the collage that I am fond of, and also that idea of borrowed imagery.  It is nearly impossible these days to not borrow imagery or ideas…..

I remember in my first semester of college I saw a Futurist piece of a man in a rain coat walking a dog.  I really liked that piece.  I was really affected by the rhythm and the energy of moving time.  That was something I had never seen or thought of before.

There is still a part of me that loves the idea of art for art’s sake and appreciates that “pure aesthetic research” of Suprematism/Constructivism. 

I would have to say that Piet Mondrian is my preferred Neo-Plastic.  I rather enjoy his work.  There is something to be admired in his consciously constrained, classic celebration of restrictions.  His pieces just seem so perfect and well-done.  There is definitely a finished quality about his work.  I like looking at them.

I also liked the ideas of Purism that nothing was outside the realm of art, and beauty was to be found in the world of mass production.  I am reminded of screen prints and Andy Warhol.  I am a fan of screen printing.

a lot of things

commodity critics-

anti-aesthetes like negation of aesthetics in dada- like, duchamp's urinal.
commodity critics like the GESTURE, rather than deflating high art (what is walter benjamin's famous aura??)
So, art isn't really dead, instead there is nothing more for art to do but splinter into different varieties of art making- the pluralistic creation of hand-crafted objects that no longer asked philosophical questions. In other words, art is now shallow. ?
Commodity critics believe there is no real individuality, only the illusion of it.
The work is a response to this takeover of individual consciousness by the mass media.
So, now the commodity status of art is being ironically celebrated. ?

PoMo Feminism-
I love this and the following essay!!

1st wave= feminist consciousness raising, changed "woman as nature, body, emotion" from negative to positive qualities
2nd wave= reveal the way the ideas of womanhood and femininity are socially constructed
Reading states "woman is only an internalised set of representations." Our body is what sets us apart from man. I feel this reading does not take biology into account. Perhaps our biological differences have something to do with many socially constructed stereotypes. The reading states there is "no reality outside of representation." Therefore, doesn't that make it reality??
What is the castrated woman?
Analyzing pleasure or beauty destroys it. I love that.
If there is no complementary female gaze (pg 54), there is no other. ?
I'm not a mother, so I don't know, but the statement on pg. 60 that motherhood is socially constructed seems terrible to me. I can agree perhaps to an extent, but aren't women, again, biologically predisposed to be mothers?

Postmodern Multiculturalism-
(pg67) why must art be judged as they reflected the historically necessary progress of art?
I feel like categorizing artists by race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality only perpetuates the problem. Why can't one just be judged based on talent or credentials? I hate when people play the race card or the sex card.
The discussion on 68 about where a multi-ethnic person should turn for identity parallels with the presidential campaign. I wish people could stop turning this into a black president thing. I understand this is history in the making, but he is bi-racial and has ties to numerous ethnicities. I was listening to a radio program today that absolutely enraged me. The African Americans who were speaking could only talk about how we have a black president and how this is so great for black america. Why does this have to turn into a race thing. Why can't people focus on the great things he can do for ALL of america? I wonder what kind of artwork this will spawn?! ha
Some argue this is an issue of representation, not identity. I disagree with Thomas McEvilley here, I believe. Images govern reality (but I also believe there is no set reality, but each person can have their own reality that is true and real to them. How do I know for a fact that you see the color blue the same way I do? Neither of us are right or wrong, it is just our own personal reality). So, who represents whom? Each person's experiences are different just as each person is different, so why can't each person represent themselves? No one white woman can represent me. I represent me. And the only way we know I'm a white woman is because of these socially constructed images that have become reality, right?
Are the projections of Wodiczko and the spectracolor of Jaar legal??
The excerpt from Piper's cornered I feel is more about identity than representation, but rather enhanced by representations of what you view as your identity.
No one can speak for anyone!! because we all have our own personal experiences.
The nature of the representations that govern public perceptions = stereotypes
An exclusive focus on representation offers little in the way of a map for positive change!!
The idea of cultures and individual identities continually being remade through their contact with each other is interesting to me.
representations become raw materials for transformations and new kinds of meaning
There seems to be a thin line between representation and identity here.

The Anti-Aesthetes

Things appear to mean something by themselves. Representation- our illusory senses of self and reality are composed. Clarity is the enemy (initially this statement seemed contradictory to me. It seems self-defeating that clarity be the enemy. I feel I have been searching my whole life for clarity. . . but after reading the essay in entirety, this statement makes more sense to me.). Poststructuralism is married to postmodernism. I need to refresh myself on the meanings of poststructuralism and deconstruction. Are these terms synonymous? They deal with the subject of language and the sign and so on, right? I really like the concept of unearthing the contradictions hidden in ideological constructs.
On the top of pg. 30 it talks about subjects being jostled together in a way that encourages and undermines meaningful associations. With this idea of meaningless art, I am reminded of dada. I know this is a different concept, I was just put in mind of it.
Richter notes that he likes to use images from the mass media because they liberate him from personal experience. This seems counter to what I consider art. When I think of an artist creating, I imagine him exuding personal experience and self-expression. The act of creating art is a personal experience. Salle's works are said to deliberately suppress any hint of self-expression. I find this ironic. And also ironic is that I find many of the works in this section aesthetically pleasing, and they are called anti-aesthetes. I am particularly drawn to the works of Polke, Richter, Longo, Rosenquist, Salle, and Baldessari.
I like these lines:
'They are dead, inert representations of the impossibility of passion in a culture that has institutionalized self expression.'
'The camera, in all its manifestations, is our god, dispensing what we mistakenly take to be truth. The Photograph is the modern world.'

Obama won.

Neo-Expressionism

This text is a much easier read than the internet downloads and the other text.
This article mentions that we have reached the end of art. It later says, "History is dead and everything is permitted." Does this really mean art is dead. This statement to me says that perhaps art history and philosophy are dead. This statement to me means that art is liberated. If everything is permitted, art should reach new levels and transcend all boundaries. It is no longer tied down by the shackles of meaning and history. It can just be art.
This article also makes the statement that Neo-Expressionism is a sickness that is as product of consumer capitalism. I don't find this connection evident in the examples provided.
"...In a world in which stylistic innovation is no longer possible, all that is left is to imitate dead styles, to speak through the masks and with the voices of the styles in the imaginary museum." I know that if things are over-done they are viewed as trite, tired or boring, but is it not possible to pull inspiration from past movements and styles? Would this always be considered imitation? Is it not possible to breath new life into into a style and make it your own? These critics seem so pessimistic and closed-minded. Or perhaps I'm looking at things too simply.
Later that article says, "Neo-expressionism only appears to be a ... celebration of individual creativity." This is stated as a bad thing. That is ridiculous. Art should be a celebration of individual creativity. There would be no art if it weren't for individual creativity.
It says, "Artists began to explore what had been forbidden fruit." Haven's artists been doing this for a long time. Could this be called that avant-garde?
Later in the article it makes mention that some debate over a new German painting "revolves around its political implications." This seems contrary to what the article is earlier arguing. Isn't it in the beginning saying that art is dead because it no longer has any meaning, political or otherwise?
"He sees no contradiction between abstraction and figuration, noting that his images evolve during the painting process like half-forgotten memories tossed up by the subconscious." I just really like this line. The idea of your images evolving in such a way is really romantic to me.

judd/hesse

Specific Objects (1965), geometric abstraction. Throughout this reading I couldn't help but ask myself, "What is Donald Judd talking about?" So, this new work is neither painting nor sculpture, but is related to one or the other. I brought to mind of happenings and flashmob time and time again. Power is brought up time and again. There is power in this "new" form. Because it is cutting edge? New? Avant-gard? Striking? Getting attention? I would like to see some examples of this work. I guess I'm visual learner. That might help me understand exactly what he's getting at. It is quite vague at times. Clearly he says that Abex emphasizes the rectangle. "The simplicity required to emphasize the rectangle limits the arrangements possible within it." He says the space is shallow. I'm taking it he is a critic of Abex. He says, "The new work obviously resembles sculpture more than it does painting, but it is nearer to painting." This statement is quite contradictory. He mentions "part by part" and things being "composed." These new works seem to be closely parallelled to happenings. It is later stated that these works have no movement. What is being said by not having a movement? Are these artists purposely not forming a movement and if so, what does that say about the message they are trying to convey?
Who are these people in the next section? And in this next section Frank Stella states that Abex is complicated. This is contradictory to what Judd sees it as.

Hesse. I enjoy reading a learning about feminism. I, too, often wonder if we are unique. She makes a statement that women are sidetracked by her feminine roles. How true this is. It is such a cruel trick that nature plays on us. I am now 23 and feel my biological clock ticking. My head and my heart often argue. My heart wants one thing, and my head another. There are things I want in life and things I want to do in life. I am so scared that my female urges (ie having a baby) will cloud my goals and aspirations. That will be a shame. I can definately see as I grow older that it is more and more difficult for a woman to "carry ideas to the full developments." I don't really think that the statement, "She also lacks conviction that she has the 'right' to achievement," still holds true in today's society (thank god). However, the following statement, "She also lacks the belief that her achievements are worthy," resonates more with me.
Untitled statements. "The formal principles are understandable and understood." My art mentor in high school taught me that you must know the rules in order to break them. These statements get a little existential at times with "It is something, it is nothing" and "nothing, everything." I like that thought. She says her work is not painting, not sculpture, so is it that "new form" that Mr. Judd spoke of? This 2nd statement from 1969 seems like not so much of a statement but a question to herself. She is wondering down the corridors of her mind. There is a presence of uncertainty. It is no doubt that lack afore mentioned lack of self-esteem. These writings put me in mind of the next art project I am undertaking for my 3d studio. I am making an assemblage box about what it means to be a woman (real and stereotypically). I am going to bring in the element of time. There will be many small boxes that make up the whole. Each box will contain a different period of a woman's life. I hope it turns out how I want it to.

warhol/sontag

I want to go to this.












The Philosophy of Andy Warhol, very interesting. Love and Puberty, they do go hand in hand.
"They were all creative kids, too- it was more or less an Art Commune- so I know they must have had lots of problems..." Why is it that "artsy" kids are "messed up?" I can't think of any "art kids" that aren't a little "off." But, I think that's what makes us so great- our passion- and able to create. All art is created out of some some sort of passion, or feeling. That's it, we just FEEL more intensely.
It is quite ironic how things work out. When he decided he's rather be alone, "friends" began to flock to him. "As soon as you stop wanting something you get it. I've found that to be absolutely axiomatic."
I found it quite amusing what an utterly desensitizing role the media played in this article. He "kept the TV on all the time" in order to divert his attention from his friend's problems. That way they didn't really affect him anymore. His relationship with the TV, and later his tape player, seems rather unhealthy. He has an affair with one and marries the other. Wow. It seems this is his way of running away from the harsh realities of the world, and ultimately the harsh realities of himself. He says time and again that he had no problems, but I seriously doubt this is the case. "When I got my first TV set, I stopped caring so much about having close relationships with other people. I'd been hurt a lot to the degree you can only be hurt if you care a lot." It's sad he stopped trying. He got burned and desensitized. He forgot what emotions were supposed to be. He says he doesn't know if he was "ever capable of love." This is hard for me to fathom. I am such a hopeless romantic. Perhaps some are not capable of love (although it seems selfish) just as some people seem to be made to love. I think he's scared.
Not only is Andy Warhol scared of himself, he seems rather arrogant and self-centered (there does seem to be overwhelming evidence that many artist and art movements have been). He says that this culture and "whatever we think of as young and with it- probably started then," there, with him. There are talks of how extravagant everything was. Is this were we get our stereotypical "addictive, outrageous, excessive" artist personality type?
And then I am brought to the idea of "Camp." Throughout the Sontag reading I was put in mind of what I consider "Pop Art" and fashion. I was thinking perhaps Warhol was "camp" and that his name might be mentioned in the article. Then on the last page of the reading it is stated that Pop Art is in fact different from Camp. So, I guess Warhol was doing something more "serious."
There were several passages in this reading where I would find myself thinking that this idea of "Camp" is ridiculous and tedious, yet some aspects of it seem absolutely tantalizing.
So, this sensibility (aka Camp) has not been named. I am put in mind of the deconstruction essays with the sign and signifier, as well as the roles of language in Dada. And it is rather vague to me exactly what is meant by the word "sensibility."
It is stated that it is naive to allow taste to dictate reactions to art. But it later states that Camp is naive. This seems like quite the conundrum. It goes on to talk about "good" taste and "bad" taste. This is a little biased. Taste does tend to develop unevenly, and it seems extremely unfair to say "it's rare that the same person has good visual taste and good taste in people and taste in ideas." Who's standard of "good" are we talking about?
To admit that something is about "style at the expense of content" seems backward, self-defeating, and shallow. Camp admits an affinity for "silly, bad" things. It seems like a satire of itself.
Camp seems comparable to being a teenage girl with its mellowdrama and "mixture of the exaggerated, the fantastic, the passionate, and the naive."


Now, I must go to bed.