Brenson states that the “era of the curator has begun” (Kocur 56) Contemporary art has transformed the language and context of the curator, exhibition and institution. Now, more than ever the role of the curator is vital in not only selection and presentation, but in producing debates and dialogues for the works, artists, institutions, cultures, and society. A curator “ who work across cultures and are able to think imaginatively about the points of compatibility and conflict among them, must be at once aestheticians, diplomats, economists, critics, historians, politicians, audience developers, and promoters” (Kocur 56). The new aspirations of all curators is to use art to implicate a narrative that looks to “redefine national and international relationships” and used as a “means of improving society and making the world better” (Kocur 61). But that idea is contradicted by constellation of words discussed in Bellagio such as hybridity, reciprocity, negotiation and reconciliation which are defined as interconnected words and ideas that encapsulate art institutions and curators.
The problem that arises out of using curators as a social and cultural advocate is language. Like Saussure has taught us, the study of linguistics is arbitrary. If the meaning of art and the discussion of legitimization, quality, appropriation and aesthetics is based on individual and thus varied definitions, how can there be any universal and fair judgment, selection and critique of art. If all curators are affected and defined by their own lives, morals and context how can they be a mediator for any other artist’s reality of life. Yes, I know we go to school to learn the language and knowledge of art, and we learn to have non bias and removed ideas towards a work of art. But if a curators job is to create a narrative and a response from works of art, how is it possible to not interject their own opinions, feelings and messages into the installation? And thus, is it really possible to place such a cultural, social and political responsibility on an individual artistic service.
Kocur , Zoya, and Simon Leung. "The Curator's Moment." Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Print.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
When I first read Andrea Fraser’s “How to Provide an Artistic Service”, it was a little bit confusing and somewhat cumbersome. However after re-reading and reading an article she had written online, “Services: A Working Group Exhibition”, I began to understand her train of thought more. The article “Services: A Working Group Exhibition”, discussed the issues artists experienced when dealing with exhibitions and curators. Difficulties such as, the “’problem of getting paid’ to the experiences of censorship and concerns over the loss of autonomy” (Fraser). In simplest terms, in situations like this, when curators are being specific and demanding of the artists, yet the artists are not receiving compensation, the artists lose their freedom and begin to wonder who they are actually creating their work for. They ask the question of whether they are creating it solely for self-gratification or are they creating for the curator’s own purpose? This concept was explained more adequately in her online essay than it was in the essay, “How to Provide an Artistic Service”.
After reading the online essay, I can now agree with some of Fraser’s statements. Fraser says, “There are no artists I can think of who could credibly suggest that the functions their works serve have nothing to do with them or their artistic activity” (Kocur, Leung, 73). I agree with this statement, because even though my work is not being displayed in exhibitions, I can still say that I have never created a piece of artwork and it not relate to me in some way or another. I feel as if that would be impossible to do so, unless you were commissioned to create work in which you had zero interest. For example, some of the Renaissance painters were commissioned to create religious artwork, even though they could be considered atheist. Even in this case, I find it hard to believe that they’re personal self did not express itself in their work.
Relating back to Frasier’s essay, “Services: A Working Group Exhibition”, I think that if I were an artist who was having issues with receiving payment, then I would have the attitude of working for myself only. Just as Fraser says, “According to the logic of artistic autonomy, we work only for ourselves; for our own satisfaction, for the satisfaction of our own criteria of judgment, subject only to the internal logic of our practice, the demands of our consciences or our drives” (Kocur, Leung, 74). So in a sense we have to ask ourselves is the satisfaction we receive from creating artwork enough even when it comes to situations where we are on the verge of being broke due to curators not following through with the promised payment?
Kocur, Zoya, and Simon Leung. Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Print.
Fraser, Andrea. “Services: A working Group Exhibition”. www.eipcp.net. Eipcp, n.d. Web. 31 March 2010.
Institutions
After reading Mirroring Evil, I began thinking about the reactions that people had prior to the show opening. When people heard the exhibition was going to feature Nazi imagery, the negative comments began. Since the institution hosting the exhibition was a Jewish Museum (and Jews were exterminated by Nazis during WWII and the Holocaust), I would assume that people would ask questions about why they would host these works. More often than not, if a museum or curator dislikes the art or finds it to be distasteful, they probably would not want to show it in their facility. The photos, movies, new articles about the Holocaust tell about the horrible things done to Jews, among other groups; rarely do you hear about any other views of what happened. It is understood that what the Nazis had done was beyond horrible and those individuals involved are ruined people because of what they had done. There are not many survivors of WWII/ the Holocaust still alive today- the majority of the people going to see the exhibition did not directly experience what happened. The Holocaust effected people on both sides, the victims and the participants (Nazis). Both have left legacies. The public is use to seeing and sympathizes with the victims' side. The time and place seem kind of odd. It was shortly after the terrorist attack on September 11, the country was not in a happy and open-minded place. The Jewish Museum hosting this exhibition was controversial. This exhibition was of "contemporary artists using 'imagery from the Nazi era to explore the nature of evil'" (107). I think that quote best explains it. It was not an attack on anyone; it was an exploration.
I found it interesting that Hitler was compared to Duchamp. "...Adolf Hitler, murderer of millions of Jews, and Marcel Duchamp, murderer of the traditional art often found in Jewish museums. The very presence of images of Hitler and Duchamp in a Jewish museum provokes questions about what forms of representation are allowed when and where" (110). I understand that they were both the death of something but I'm not sure that I understand why these two men should have any influence on what is or is not represented in a museum. The curators in the institutions have the authority/influence of what ends up being shown.
I found it interesting that Hitler was compared to Duchamp. "...Adolf Hitler, murderer of millions of Jews, and Marcel Duchamp, murderer of the traditional art often found in Jewish museums. The very presence of images of Hitler and Duchamp in a Jewish museum provokes questions about what forms of representation are allowed when and where" (110). I understand that they were both the death of something but I'm not sure that I understand why these two men should have any influence on what is or is not represented in a museum. The curators in the institutions have the authority/influence of what ends up being shown.
Reesa Greenberg's examination of the 2002 show Mirroring Evil looked at various elements that caused the show to be so controversial. Naturally, when responding to what I was reading I tried to keep an open mind about was being presented. The show was mostly a collection of works by artists of a younger generation not directly associated with the Holocaust, who created responses using Nazi imagery. With this basis, I was intrigued and wasn't completely put off by the idea. Greenberg states "The Jewish Museum believed it was important to exhibit artworks that portrayed a different range of responses..."(105). This is certainly a valid point, but I felt the art described in this show was a bit of a let down, and when the stakes are this high it certainly didn't help matters.
The article states a variety of conjectures for why the show was so unwelcome, both before and after, looking at the recent terrorist attacks as a main source for the controversy: "The timing of the exhibition, March 2002, may well have been too soon after the September 11, 2001 mass murders at the Twin Towers..."(111). While the timing surely had a legitimate impact on people's sensitivity to the art, I find that it was more a questions of the quality of the art. In particular, Rudolph Herz's Zugzwang was particularly weak, covering the walls with a checkerboard pattern of repeated images of "Adolph Hitler, murderer of millions of Jews, and Marcel Duchamp, murderer of the traditional art found in Jewish Museums" (110). I find the comparison to be fairly over dramatic and trite, and certainly more offensive to those who place little value in art in the first place (How can you compare a urinal to murdering millions of innocent Jews?!). Similar reactions can be drawn from other pieces in the show. I believe the concept was not all together wrong, but considering the circumstances, the curators and artists should have pulled together something a little more universal and thought out.
The article states a variety of conjectures for why the show was so unwelcome, both before and after, looking at the recent terrorist attacks as a main source for the controversy: "The timing of the exhibition, March 2002, may well have been too soon after the September 11, 2001 mass murders at the Twin Towers..."(111). While the timing surely had a legitimate impact on people's sensitivity to the art, I find that it was more a questions of the quality of the art. In particular, Rudolph Herz's Zugzwang was particularly weak, covering the walls with a checkerboard pattern of repeated images of "Adolph Hitler, murderer of millions of Jews, and Marcel Duchamp, murderer of the traditional art found in Jewish Museums" (110). I find the comparison to be fairly over dramatic and trite, and certainly more offensive to those who place little value in art in the first place (How can you compare a urinal to murdering millions of innocent Jews?!). Similar reactions can be drawn from other pieces in the show. I believe the concept was not all together wrong, but considering the circumstances, the curators and artists should have pulled together something a little more universal and thought out.
Greenberg, Reesa. "Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma, and Temporary Exhibitions." (2002): 104-17. Print.
Museums as cultural institutions can hold a vast amount of influence over a public—this is nothing new. As demonstrated previously in Charles A. Wright’s piece “The Mythology of Difference: Vulgar Identity Politics at the Whitney Biennial”, we have seen the power to manipulate sentiment a museum exposes in the development of a show, in the placing of an exhibit, in the inclusion of an artist and the formation of an organizational identity. This presents a unique problem for the objective of certain artistic institutions: if they venture out of the realm of the objective into the world of art as a healing process, how exactly can the museum ensure that they will do more good than harm? Will the exhibit rectify, or will it incite deeper, darker emotions? It seems as if the wounds in need of healing the most are also the most sensitive to negatively perceived public action, and the least likely to be healed. Reesa Greenberg, like Charles A. Wright, attempts to understand the struggle between a injured public and an institution that does not seem to know its own strength.
How much responsibility can be attributed to a museum before one must take control over their own emotions and reactions? In the exhibit in question, “viewers were surrounded by Nazi imagery and left without any sense of certainty about how to respond to hitherto taboo images of Hitler, games about the Holocaust, and the sexual tugs of Fascism” (Greenberg 104). Subliminally, the museum manipulated patrons’ emotions with lighting techniques and a claustrophobic sense of space (with an excess of work spread over already cramped). On the physical plane, the museum attempted to shield viewers from some of the horrors of the exhibit via signs guiding the path to escape back to the real world. Both the subliminal and physical messages sent indicated to viewers that they were in the presence of, for lack of a better word, true evil.
The exhibit angered many by choosing to portray the emblems of the oppressors instead of the oppressed. In some work, there seemed to be a flippant callousness in the treatment of Nazi imagery—Marcel Duchamp was cited as a source for some of the works—and in others, it was simply the subject matter itself that caused such an uproar. Did the museum succeed in helping people better understand the malevolence that was the Holocaust? Did it help to heal? Greenberg posits that, in the public eye, it did not. Instead, the exhibit “fueled the argument for those who call for the end of ironic and pedagogic art and a return to beauty” (Greenberg 111). But the exhibit did more than that. It raised the question: can wounds this large really ever be healed? There may be no way to know.
Reesa Greenberg. "Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma, and Temporary Exhibitions". Pp 104-118.
How much responsibility can be attributed to a museum before one must take control over their own emotions and reactions? In the exhibit in question, “viewers were surrounded by Nazi imagery and left without any sense of certainty about how to respond to hitherto taboo images of Hitler, games about the Holocaust, and the sexual tugs of Fascism” (Greenberg 104). Subliminally, the museum manipulated patrons’ emotions with lighting techniques and a claustrophobic sense of space (with an excess of work spread over already cramped). On the physical plane, the museum attempted to shield viewers from some of the horrors of the exhibit via signs guiding the path to escape back to the real world. Both the subliminal and physical messages sent indicated to viewers that they were in the presence of, for lack of a better word, true evil.
The exhibit angered many by choosing to portray the emblems of the oppressors instead of the oppressed. In some work, there seemed to be a flippant callousness in the treatment of Nazi imagery—Marcel Duchamp was cited as a source for some of the works—and in others, it was simply the subject matter itself that caused such an uproar. Did the museum succeed in helping people better understand the malevolence that was the Holocaust? Did it help to heal? Greenberg posits that, in the public eye, it did not. Instead, the exhibit “fueled the argument for those who call for the end of ironic and pedagogic art and a return to beauty” (Greenberg 111). But the exhibit did more than that. It raised the question: can wounds this large really ever be healed? There may be no way to know.
Reesa Greenberg. "Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma, and Temporary Exhibitions". Pp 104-118.
Curating on campus
The Alabama Art Display is one of the projects I developed during my time as an intern for Creative Campus. I sought art submissions from student artists of any major for this project. Several buildings on campus are now enhanced with artwork created by University of Alabama students. I thought the Alabama Art Display would be a great opportunity for student artists to be able to display their work on various locations on campus and to enrich more University student's everyday life with the presence of art.
Before artwork is placed within a location on campus. The office members form a selection committee to pick out the pieces they would like to have on display in their workspace. These individuals act as curators. The works they select to display among their work space will inevitably be a reflection of their office members. Art serves as a visual representation of ideals, interests, values and truths. It is interesting to set up the artwork and watch the selection committees discuss which pieces would be best. In The Curator’s Moment, Michael Brenson states that “The organizers of these exhibitions, as well as other curators around the world who work across cultures are able to think imaginatively about the points of compatibility and conflict among them” (Brenson, 56). One student who submitted work is a computer science graduate student from India. Her work was chosen by the law school to be displayed in their interview rooms. Although on a much smaller scale, I have enjoyed linking our University’s separate “cultures” through this exhibition. I believe art is universal and can act as a bridge between groups.
Kocur , Zoya, and Simon Leung. "The Curator's Moment." Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Print.
Mirroring Evil
“Who can speak for the Holocaust?” This question was asked by the Jewish Museum displaying the exhibition Mirroring Evil: Nazi Imagery/Recent Art. Is it right that some believe that the only people who can examine the impact of a traumatic event such as the Holocaust are those who were involved or those immediately affected? Can the Holocaust be addressed in ways other than from the perspective of the victims? The Jewish Museum in New York felt that it was time for today’s generation to be given the opportunity to show the way in which they were impacted by the Holocaust. For today’s Jewish people, WWII and the Holocaust are closely tied to their identity. The exhibition discusses Hitler, Nazi paraphernalia, and other things that are incorporated with the Holocaust but unlike traditional Holocaust museums, the imagery is removed from the victims.
With Jewish culture being so closely connected to these elements, it is easy to say that even though the exhibit is different from the accepted Jewish exhibits, the viewers mind can still be brought to the idea of the Holocaust and the murders that took place during that time period. The artists within the exhibit decided to take a different approach in how they wanted to discuss its legacy. Being all young, mostly under 40, none of the artists have a direct personal experience with the event in which they are discussing. The artists understand that “younger generations have no direct experience of the Holocaust and know it only through images” (Greenberg 106). It is this understanding of the image that allows for some age groups to see this as more of a documentation of the Nazi regime in an artistic fashion while still being able to see the Jewish place in their history, instead of seeing it as a glorification of their reign.
With Jewish culture being so closely connected to these elements, it is easy to say that even though the exhibit is different from the accepted Jewish exhibits, the viewers mind can still be brought to the idea of the Holocaust and the murders that took place during that time period. The artists within the exhibit decided to take a different approach in how they wanted to discuss its legacy. Being all young, mostly under 40, none of the artists have a direct personal experience with the event in which they are discussing. The artists understand that “younger generations have no direct experience of the Holocaust and know it only through images” (Greenberg 106). It is this understanding of the image that allows for some age groups to see this as more of a documentation of the Nazi regime in an artistic fashion while still being able to see the Jewish place in their history, instead of seeing it as a glorification of their reign.
By having these images in a Jewish museum, I believe that it makes it more understandable than if a person walked into the Metropolitan Museum of Art and saw a huge swastika on the wall. If it were in a Jewish museum, my immediate thought would be what its relation to the Jewish race was, I would not think it was trying to make a political statement, as would have been my first thought had it been somewhere else. Placement for these exhibits is a key element. This exhibit was accused of not adhering to time constraints for the victims. With some survivors and their descendents still alive, some believed that the exhibit “reopened the wounds of [the] trauma” too soon for some of these victims (Greenberg 108). However some feel that by not addressing these traumas can cause just as much pain than by reopening the injuries.
“Who can speak for the Holocaust?” This question was asked by the Jewish Museum displaying the exhibition Mirroring Evil: Nazi Imagery/Recent Art. Is it right that some believe that the only people who can examine the impact of a traumatic event such as the Holocaust are those who were involved or those immediately affected? Can the Holocaust be addressed in ways other than from the perspective of the victims? The Jewish Museum in New York felt that it was time for today’s generation to be given the opportunity to show the way in which they were impacted by the Holocaust. For today’s Jewish people, WWII and the Holocaust are closely tied to their identity. The exhibition discusses Hitler, Nazi paraphernalia, and other things that are incorporated with the Holocaust but unlike traditional Holocaust museums, the imagery is removed from the victims.
With Jewish culture being so closely connected to these elements, it is easy to say that even though the exhibit is different from the accepted Jewish exhibits, the viewers mind can still be brought to the idea of the Holocaust and the murders that took place during that time period. The artists within the exhibit decided to take a different approach in how they wanted to discuss its legacy. Being all young, mostly under 40, none of the artists have a direct personal experience with the event in which they are discussing. The artists understand that “younger generations have no direct experience of the Holocaust and know it only through images” (Greenberg 106). It is this understanding of the image that allows for some age groups to see this as more of a documentation of the Nazi regime in an artistic fashion while still being able to see the Jewish place in their history, instead of seeing it as a glorification of their reign.
By having these images in a Jewish museum, I believe that it makes it more understandable than if a person walked into the Metropolitan Museum of Art and saw a huge swastika on the wall. If it were in a Jewish museum, my immediate thought would be what its relation to the Jewish race was, I would not think it was trying to make a political statement, as would have been my first thought had it been somewhere else. Placement for these exhibits is a key element. This exhibit was accused of not adhering to time constraints for the victims. With some survivors and their descendents still alive, some believed that the exhibit “reopened the wounds of [the] trauma” too soon for some of these victims (Greenberg 108). However some feel that by not addressing these traumas can cause just as much pain than by reopening the injuries.
With Jewish culture being so closely connected to these elements, it is easy to say that even though the exhibit is different from the accepted Jewish exhibits, the viewers mind can still be brought to the idea of the Holocaust and the murders that took place during that time period. The artists within the exhibit decided to take a different approach in how they wanted to discuss its legacy. Being all young, mostly under 40, none of the artists have a direct personal experience with the event in which they are discussing. The artists understand that “younger generations have no direct experience of the Holocaust and know it only through images” (Greenberg 106). It is this understanding of the image that allows for some age groups to see this as more of a documentation of the Nazi regime in an artistic fashion while still being able to see the Jewish place in their history, instead of seeing it as a glorification of their reign.
By having these images in a Jewish museum, I believe that it makes it more understandable than if a person walked into the Metropolitan Museum of Art and saw a huge swastika on the wall. If it were in a Jewish museum, my immediate thought would be what its relation to the Jewish race was, I would not think it was trying to make a political statement, as would have been my first thought had it been somewhere else. Placement for these exhibits is a key element. This exhibit was accused of not adhering to time constraints for the victims. With some survivors and their descendents still alive, some believed that the exhibit “reopened the wounds of [the] trauma” too soon for some of these victims (Greenberg 108). However some feel that by not addressing these traumas can cause just as much pain than by reopening the injuries.
Greenberg, Reesa. "Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma, and Temporary Exhibitions." (2002): 104-17. Print.
Curators
I found this article very interesting to read. I had never thought about the duties of a curator before. One of the quotes that I found most interesting was when he stated,
"We are demanding fees as compensation for work within organizations. Fees are, by definition, payment for services. If we are, then, accepting payment in exchange for our services, does that mean we are serving those who pay us? If not, who are we serving and on what basis are we demanding payment? (Should we be demanding payment?) Or, if so, how are we serving them? (And what are we serving?)"(Kocur and Leung pg. 72).
This quote puzzled me because is he trying to say that he doesn't want to be seen as employed by the artist and therefore doesn't know if he wants to accept payment? Does he think that this devalues his job as a curator?
Another quote that i found interesting was on page 73 that reads,
"There are no artists I can think of who could credibly suggest that the funcions their works serve have nothing to do with them or their artistic activity, as all artists are called upon to augment these functions for organizations and individuals at openings, cocktail parties, press conferences, et cetera" (kocur and leung pg. 73).
I don't think that anyone can produce artwork that has nothing to do with them unless commissioned to do so. You do kindof serve your own interests and it would make sense that you would paint something that you, yourself would want to look at for long periods of time and be proud to sell.
Overall, I found this reading to be interesting but still kindof hard to read.
Fraser, Andrea. "How to Provide an Artistic Service." Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Ed. Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 69-75. Print.
Mirroring Evil
After reading Reesa Greenberg’s article Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma, and Temporary Exhibitions I was filled with mixed emotions. When I began reading, I thought the exhibit was a somewhat odd but unique way to present a theme commonly represented in Jewish art. Instead of taking the traditional stance of the Holocaust victim, the curator and director decided to present art from the stance of the Holocaust perpetrators. I thought it was interesting to show the ways in which new generations of artists have chosen to deal with the horrendous atrocities. The artists created “art about the roles of commercialization and the mass media, play, and sexual fantasy in relation to Nazi imagery and the ways the Holocaust functions in Western societies today” (Greenberg 105). These pieces were much different than those I have seen in Holocaust museums, which tend to consist of many photographs and long lines of text. The Mirroring Evil exhibit removes us from our comfort zone and forces us to reevaluate the way we view Nazi images and their modern-day connotations. At first, I believed this was an appropriate exhibition, since the curator offered viewers a thorough description of the exhibit before actually viewing the artwork.
However, I read Greenberg’s article a second time, and I felt my mood gradually change. I am not Jewish, and I do not know anyone who was victimized during the Holocaust. This fact alone prevents me from offering a valid critique the “appropriateness” of this exhibit, since I was not directly affected. The Jewish Museum had been a safe haven for Jews, a place to memorialize deceased friends and relatives, and a place to celebrate their unique culture. Instead, this exhibit forced Jews to relive the past and reopened wounds that had probably long since healed. Also, the date of the exhibition’s opening was poorly chosen. Only six months after the September 11th attacks, the entire nation was still in a state of shock, and New Yorkers were extremely sensitive about the incident (Greenberg 109-111). If installations and films depicting Taliban leaders and symbols were displayed in a museum dedicated to the September 11th attacks, under any circumstance or context, I would be extremely offended. I, like Jewish Nobel Laureate, Elie Wiesel, would most likely “declare the exhibition ‘disgusting’ and a ‘mockery’” (Greenberg 108). No curatorial warning or explanation could change my opinion. Though I still respect the idea of showing a well-known event from a new perspective, it is far outweighed by the seriousness of the Holocaust, poor timing, and unsuitable location of the exhibit’s opening.
Greenberg, Reesa. “Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma, and Temporary Exhibitions.” In Museums After Modernism: Strategies of Engagement, edited by Griselda Pollock and Joyce Zemans. London/New York: Wiley Blackwell, 2007.
However, I read Greenberg’s article a second time, and I felt my mood gradually change. I am not Jewish, and I do not know anyone who was victimized during the Holocaust. This fact alone prevents me from offering a valid critique the “appropriateness” of this exhibit, since I was not directly affected. The Jewish Museum had been a safe haven for Jews, a place to memorialize deceased friends and relatives, and a place to celebrate their unique culture. Instead, this exhibit forced Jews to relive the past and reopened wounds that had probably long since healed. Also, the date of the exhibition’s opening was poorly chosen. Only six months after the September 11th attacks, the entire nation was still in a state of shock, and New Yorkers were extremely sensitive about the incident (Greenberg 109-111). If installations and films depicting Taliban leaders and symbols were displayed in a museum dedicated to the September 11th attacks, under any circumstance or context, I would be extremely offended. I, like Jewish Nobel Laureate, Elie Wiesel, would most likely “declare the exhibition ‘disgusting’ and a ‘mockery’” (Greenberg 108). No curatorial warning or explanation could change my opinion. Though I still respect the idea of showing a well-known event from a new perspective, it is far outweighed by the seriousness of the Holocaust, poor timing, and unsuitable location of the exhibit’s opening.
Greenberg, Reesa. “Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma, and Temporary Exhibitions.” In Museums After Modernism: Strategies of Engagement, edited by Griselda Pollock and Joyce Zemans. London/New York: Wiley Blackwell, 2007.
What is a Curator of Art?
What is a curator of art? A curator is, by simple definition, is an overseer or a manager of art. What are their respondibiliteies , what are their goals? Are they mediators between the artwork and the audience? Are they organizers for artists? Curators of the Arts respondibiliteies are not only to the artist and their artwork but to the public as well. Their goals are to organize exhibitions that display artwork in a way in which different kinds of audiences can view it. They must be comfortable with the people who have devoted their lives to art and culture, with people who neither like nor trust art, and with people who may be willing, if they are convinced that art serves their interests or is sufficiently connected to their lives, to be won over by an artist or an exhibition ( pg 56). The curator set the founation, the stage, for the artwork that is being displayed. The curator helps set the environment and mood for the artists to welcome and challengne the viewer though their art. As much as any artist, critic, or museum director, the new curator understands, and is able to articulate, the ability of art to touch and mobilize people and encourage debates about spirituality, creativity, identity, and the nation ( pg 56). The curator is a key figure between artists, their artwork, and the audience.
Kocur, Zoya, and Simon Leung. "The Curator's Moment". Theory in
Contemporary Art since 1985. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. 2005. Print
Kocur, Zoya, and Simon Leung. "The Curator's Moment". Theory in
Contemporary Art since 1985. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. 2005. Print
Negative Reactions
Critics and viewers reacted in a negative and harsh manner to the exhibition Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored. When dealing with the Holocaust in general, the curator already hada wide variety of audiences including those who physically experienced it, those affected by it, and those who hear about it through books, stories, and films. The Holocaust is a sensitive subject since it was a genocide and killed many innocent victims. Reesa Greenberg's article "Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma, and Temporary Exhibitions" she describes, "The exhibition was unlike any exhibition in a Jewish Museum... Before, imagery focused on victims of the Holocaust and the overall feeling tone was one of mourning" (104). The exhibition Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored displayed artwork that was provacative and sometimes disturbing to the viewer to present the Holocaust as evil.
Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored was criticized numerously in a negative aspect. The catalog was actually released a few months prior to the opening of the exhibition. Viewers and critics based their opinions of each artwork individually, rather than reading it as a group in an exhibit. As the audience entered the space, they were warned by a contrasting color of white on black letters stating what they were about to see. The audience also had numerous exits while touring the exhibit. I believe they were given a fair warning of what to expect due to the amount of warnings. Timing was also a main factor in the negative criticism. The exhibit opened a few months after 9/11. Greenberg informs that " The museum was accused of not respecting survivors and their children, of unnecessarily reopening the wounds of trauma, of inflicting pain,... and causing such grief" (108). I agree due to the timing issue, but it also was planned to open a year before 9/11 actually happened. Due to trauma and bad timing, the exhibit Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored recieved bad criticizm that could have possibly been avoided if 9/11 had not have happened and the catalog been published when the exhibit opened.
Greenberg, Reesa. Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma, and Temporary Exhibitions. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. 104 and 108. Print.
Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored was criticized numerously in a negative aspect. The catalog was actually released a few months prior to the opening of the exhibition. Viewers and critics based their opinions of each artwork individually, rather than reading it as a group in an exhibit. As the audience entered the space, they were warned by a contrasting color of white on black letters stating what they were about to see. The audience also had numerous exits while touring the exhibit. I believe they were given a fair warning of what to expect due to the amount of warnings. Timing was also a main factor in the negative criticism. The exhibit opened a few months after 9/11. Greenberg informs that " The museum was accused of not respecting survivors and their children, of unnecessarily reopening the wounds of trauma, of inflicting pain,... and causing such grief" (108). I agree due to the timing issue, but it also was planned to open a year before 9/11 actually happened. Due to trauma and bad timing, the exhibit Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored recieved bad criticizm that could have possibly been avoided if 9/11 had not have happened and the catalog been published when the exhibit opened.
Greenberg, Reesa. Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma, and Temporary Exhibitions. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. 104 and 108. Print.
Is it pure Evil?
In March 2002, a very challenging exhibit opened at the Jewish Museum in New York. It was based on the Holocaust but in a very non-traditional way. Mirroring Evil sought to change the traditional way that art portrayed and memorialized the holocaust. Instead, Mirroring Evil focused on the Nazis in a glamorizing and romantic light. While this approach was challenging, many community groups protested the exhibition as disrespectful to survivors. However, artist and exhibitors expressed that survivors are not the only authentic voice of the holocaust. There were multiple groups involved during the holocaust but not all perspectives mirror that of the victims. Greenberg notes that “daring to suggest that all people image or imagine the Holocaust as a narrative of victimhood or a forum for mourning was deemed unacceptable” ( p. 108, Greenberg). This view was criticized heavily and made the exhibit a social pariah.
Additionally, the exhibit opened six months after 9-11 during a resurgence of traumatization. Greenberg felt that this timing added to public anger over the exhibit especially after extensive discussion of evil and mass murder that surrounded the World Trade Center attacks. Then, with the opening of the exhibit, it was “about evil men who dehumanize and commit mass murder” (Greenberg, p. 111). This may have been too much for a sensitive public to have been able to understand and accept the differences in perspectives.
Additionally, the exhibit opened six months after 9-11 during a resurgence of traumatization. Greenberg felt that this timing added to public anger over the exhibit especially after extensive discussion of evil and mass murder that surrounded the World Trade Center attacks. Then, with the opening of the exhibit, it was “about evil men who dehumanize and commit mass murder” (Greenberg, p. 111). This may have been too much for a sensitive public to have been able to understand and accept the differences in perspectives.
While the power that the curator has in the art world is becoming more apparent to me, what I found noteworthy in this article was its discussion of art from other cultures being presented in another. The altogether disturbing statement that "there seems to be a consensus that when art from one culture is shown in another, it cannot speak for itself" seems, on observation, true (Brenson 57). A recent example is the Hanga of Japanese printmaking, both traditional and contemporary, that was on display in the Ferguson Center. Those who visited the gallery for this show will recall there was also a portion of the exhibition that was comprised of a small display of the tools that the artists worked with, the type of paper they would use, and several textual explanations of aspects of the culture that the work came from.
Brenson explains that, according to contemporary practices in this area, "sufficient clues must be given to enable viewers and to provide viewers unfamiliar with the conditions in which it was created at least some sense of what it means to appreciate it on its own terms" (Brenson 57). I believe that these non-art displays and the textual explanations of everything from the process of printing the image to how they made their ink to what bugs were responsible for the tiny circular holes in the paper. It's also arguable that these displays, meant to legitimize the art, received more attention from some viewers than the actual prints. On one of my visits, I recall seeing and overhearing one person with at least some basic knowledge of the process explaining the cutting procedure to a group of her friends who were gathered around the carved woodblock in the display.
A question that comes to mind here is whether the process by which a work was made is actually vital to the appreciation of the work. As a printmaker myself, I found the small technicalities of how they crafted some of the images fascinating, but for someone other than the artist, wouldn't an explanation of the work just complicate their enjoyment of the image, their experience with simply looking at it's content and feeling something from the action. Knowing the process and thinking about it when viewing an image has the power to flatten the emotional depth in any image and to destroy the illusion of a piece of work as anything other than something that was done to a piece of paper. By "legitimizing" the work in this way, they are allowing the viewers to look at the work, to a degree, the way that an artist does, which traditionally is destroying a large chunk of what the artist was working towards when making the piece; but it also reinforces this culture from which work is on display as an Other. And, along with the other culture, it establishes the Artist (every artist, the concept of the artist) as an Other. This effect of the curator is contradictory to Brenson's explanation that the artist, even within the art community, is held in contempt "... for any tendency to romanticize the individuality, personality, hand, and heroism of the artist" (Brenson 57).
Brenson, Michael. "The Curator's Movement." Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Ed. Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 55-68.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Institution
The reading by Michael Brenson made me think about the role of the modern-day curator and how much it has changed over the years. I always thought of a curator having an easy job that involved the handling of beautiful artworks and making them look good in a museum setting. But this is only a small portion of what their job entails. One main point that I would like to discuss is the role of language in the curator's daily job.
One thing that I realized is that the job of a curator has morphed into a much larger job than it has been in the past. Brenson states that the "transformation of the curator of contemporary art from behind-the-scences aesthetic arbiter to central player in the broader stage of cultural politics" (Kocur, 56). Also, another point that Brenson mentions was that "the presentation of art is more dependent on the curator than ever. There seems to be a concensus that when art from another culture is shown in another, it cannot speak for itself" (Kocur, 57). How does the curator effectively express the importance of a foreign work of art to a domestic public? It is extremely difficult to do. I was told today that no one really needs to go to college, but the only reason that we go is so that we gain knowledge of th LANGUAGE that we need in order to flourish in our work enviroment. We need to talk the talk and walk the walk. Language is very important for a curator. They need to know the right words to use so as to not offend or discriminate against anyone. The difficulty with language is that the words that we use to describe and talk about art does not contain any inherent value and the words are unstable. Ferdinand de Saussure "argued that the meaning of language comes from an underlying 'structure' or system and, in turn, that each structure is specific to a certain culture" (Curzon). The curator must be in charge of knowing the structure of language that is specific to the culture of the artworks that they display. The word "art" means something different in different cultures, and it is the job of the curator to explain art to the public in a way that helps them understand the origins of it and why it should be called a work of art. The modern-day curator's job has morphed into one that consists of bridging the gap between cultures through the use of language and this is what makes them a central figure in institutions.
Bibliography:
Kocur, Zoya, and Simon Leung. Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. p 56-57.
Curzon, Lucy. Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, and Deconstruction. Tegrity Recording. 2010
One thing that I realized is that the job of a curator has morphed into a much larger job than it has been in the past. Brenson states that the "transformation of the curator of contemporary art from behind-the-scences aesthetic arbiter to central player in the broader stage of cultural politics" (Kocur, 56). Also, another point that Brenson mentions was that "the presentation of art is more dependent on the curator than ever. There seems to be a concensus that when art from another culture is shown in another, it cannot speak for itself" (Kocur, 57). How does the curator effectively express the importance of a foreign work of art to a domestic public? It is extremely difficult to do. I was told today that no one really needs to go to college, but the only reason that we go is so that we gain knowledge of th LANGUAGE that we need in order to flourish in our work enviroment. We need to talk the talk and walk the walk. Language is very important for a curator. They need to know the right words to use so as to not offend or discriminate against anyone. The difficulty with language is that the words that we use to describe and talk about art does not contain any inherent value and the words are unstable. Ferdinand de Saussure "argued that the meaning of language comes from an underlying 'structure' or system and, in turn, that each structure is specific to a certain culture" (Curzon). The curator must be in charge of knowing the structure of language that is specific to the culture of the artworks that they display. The word "art" means something different in different cultures, and it is the job of the curator to explain art to the public in a way that helps them understand the origins of it and why it should be called a work of art. The modern-day curator's job has morphed into one that consists of bridging the gap between cultures through the use of language and this is what makes them a central figure in institutions.
Bibliography:
Kocur, Zoya, and Simon Leung. Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. p 56-57.
Curzon, Lucy. Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, and Deconstruction. Tegrity Recording. 2010
Institutions
In the article "Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma, and Temporary Exhibitions," Ressa Greenburg discusses the controversial exhibition Mirroring Evil: Nazi Imagery/Recent Art. The exhibitions provided an unconventional view of the Holocaust. As Greenburg writes, "In Mirroring Evil, viewers are surrounded by Nazi imagery and left without any sense of certainty about how to respond to hitherto taboo images of Hitler, games about the Holocaust, and the sexual tugs of Fascism" (104). I feel that taking on this exhibition was a brave and commendable act. However, it brought about much criticism. It also raised many questions.
In "The Curator's Moment" Michael Brenson writes about the role of the curator and raises questions about the role of museums and artists in society. Brenson writes, "How did we reach the point where we expect art to respond to the needs and aspirations of peoples and nations?...Why have the expectations for art increased at a time when the individual artist is feared, not only in the United States but in many other countries as well..." (58). Perhaps it was partially this fear of the artist that caused such an uproar over Mirroring Evil. Art has the ability to begin dialogue and raise questions. Mirroring Evil brought up the questions that Brenson addresses. As Greenburg writes, "In a time of terror, imploding the exhibition rhetorics of two genres that once promised transcendence reopened a series of questions many would prefer to believe closed: How can a museum offer hope? How can a museum be a moral force? How can a museum contribute effectively to societal change? The lack of definitive answers may be another reason for the anger that Mirroring Evil attracted" (117). The fear that these questions raise may pair with anger at the fact that they come without answers.
In "The Curator's Moment" Michael Brenson writes about the role of the curator and raises questions about the role of museums and artists in society. Brenson writes, "How did we reach the point where we expect art to respond to the needs and aspirations of peoples and nations?...Why have the expectations for art increased at a time when the individual artist is feared, not only in the United States but in many other countries as well..." (58). Perhaps it was partially this fear of the artist that caused such an uproar over Mirroring Evil. Art has the ability to begin dialogue and raise questions. Mirroring Evil brought up the questions that Brenson addresses. As Greenburg writes, "In a time of terror, imploding the exhibition rhetorics of two genres that once promised transcendence reopened a series of questions many would prefer to believe closed: How can a museum offer hope? How can a museum be a moral force? How can a museum contribute effectively to societal change? The lack of definitive answers may be another reason for the anger that Mirroring Evil attracted" (117). The fear that these questions raise may pair with anger at the fact that they come without answers.
Art and Business
In “How to Provide an Artistic Service: An Introduction,” Andrea Fraser brings up the dilemma of freedom for members of the art world. In the article she seeks to “address the potential loss of autonomy consequent to appropriating models from other professional fields – such as contracts and fee structures – as a means of resolving practical problems” (71). The point here is that the art business is not all that different from other businesses.
For Fraser, autonomy is “represented…in our relative freedom from the rationalization of our activity in the service of specific interests” (71). Moreover, art objects are not needed the way other goods are – such as houses and food. It would seem that because there is no explicit need for art objects, artists are free to make the pieces they wish to make according to their “own criteria of judgment” (74). However, there exists a whole world of business dedicated to these seemingly functionless objects.
Like other manufacturers, artists, curators, and galleries can experience demand for their products. However, demand does not have to involve a specific need. It could simply be that an artist sees this body of work sell better and receive better reviews than this other body of work. The problem for the artist then is whether to make work similar to the successful body in order to survive as an artist, or to practice artistic freedom, create a different body of work, and risk failing as a working artist. Fraser comes to a paradoxical conclusion: “dependency is the condition of our autonomy” (74). She notes that an artist can do whatever they want, but risks failing if they do not consider the “social and economic conditions of [their] activity” (75). With this in mind, she decides that the most freedom that can be practiced by someone who wants to make a living as an artist is to find an audience – to decide “who and how we serve”—in order to autonomy without risk of losing financial support.
Andrea Fraser. “How to Provide an Artistic Service: An Introduction.” Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Ed. Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 69-75.
For Fraser, autonomy is “represented…in our relative freedom from the rationalization of our activity in the service of specific interests” (71). Moreover, art objects are not needed the way other goods are – such as houses and food. It would seem that because there is no explicit need for art objects, artists are free to make the pieces they wish to make according to their “own criteria of judgment” (74). However, there exists a whole world of business dedicated to these seemingly functionless objects.
Like other manufacturers, artists, curators, and galleries can experience demand for their products. However, demand does not have to involve a specific need. It could simply be that an artist sees this body of work sell better and receive better reviews than this other body of work. The problem for the artist then is whether to make work similar to the successful body in order to survive as an artist, or to practice artistic freedom, create a different body of work, and risk failing as a working artist. Fraser comes to a paradoxical conclusion: “dependency is the condition of our autonomy” (74). She notes that an artist can do whatever they want, but risks failing if they do not consider the “social and economic conditions of [their] activity” (75). With this in mind, she decides that the most freedom that can be practiced by someone who wants to make a living as an artist is to find an audience – to decide “who and how we serve”—in order to autonomy without risk of losing financial support.
Andrea Fraser. “How to Provide an Artistic Service: An Introduction.” Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Ed. Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 69-75.
Any material referring to the Holocaust is usually perceived as mournful, depressing, and desolated. When I first read the article 'Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma and Temporary Exhibitions' I initially perceived it as just that because it dealt with the Holocaust. Reesa Greenberg starts the article by stating the exhibition 'Mirroring Evil', which included Nazi imagery, created a negative reaction from many viewers. Although the Holocaust is indeed a very sorrowful subject, I applaud the Jewish Museum in New York for displaying this particular exhibition in March of 2002. Greenberg writes "The museum understood that the premises of the exhibition were controversial, but believed that it had a responsibility to present the ways younger artists with links to either victims or perpetrators of the Holocaust were grappling with their respective legacies" (Greenberg, 105). Many museums follow this same motif. I believe this to be one of the many beauties of art. Quite often exhibitions express controversial subjects. This is to create a reaction from the viewer, whether it be positive or negative.
I believe the exhibition to be very innovative, original, and controversial. It questions our society's perception of reality. The curator, Norman Kleeblatt, based the exhibition on a number of premises about representation and reality. My personal favorite was number 5: Everyone has a moral responsibility when confronted with evil, but translating that responsibility into effective action does not always occur. This statement is very true of our culture and it relates well to the exhibition.
I found it interesting that the exhibition consisted of 19 works from 13 different artists. These artists were from all over the world. I believe this to be an important aspect of the exhibition because it includes perceptions of the Holocaust from people that might not have been directly affected. By providing various interpretations of the Holocaust, viewers are able to see different perceptions of the subject. I also found it interesting that this exhibition was the first to "use imagery from the Nazi era to explore the nature of evil" (Greenberg, 107). This further explains why the piece was so contentious. The nature of evil impacts all of us personally in one way or another. Whether we choose to discuss it or become aware of it is another thing. This exhibition pushed viewers to explore that aspect of their lives.
It seems as though the work was criticized from the start and destined to maintain negative opinions. I think this is what makes the exhibition stand out. Despite all the disapproval, it is still talked about today and will be remembered for expressing such a sensitive subject.
I believe the exhibition to be very innovative, original, and controversial. It questions our society's perception of reality. The curator, Norman Kleeblatt, based the exhibition on a number of premises about representation and reality. My personal favorite was number 5: Everyone has a moral responsibility when confronted with evil, but translating that responsibility into effective action does not always occur. This statement is very true of our culture and it relates well to the exhibition.
I found it interesting that the exhibition consisted of 19 works from 13 different artists. These artists were from all over the world. I believe this to be an important aspect of the exhibition because it includes perceptions of the Holocaust from people that might not have been directly affected. By providing various interpretations of the Holocaust, viewers are able to see different perceptions of the subject. I also found it interesting that this exhibition was the first to "use imagery from the Nazi era to explore the nature of evil" (Greenberg, 107). This further explains why the piece was so contentious. The nature of evil impacts all of us personally in one way or another. Whether we choose to discuss it or become aware of it is another thing. This exhibition pushed viewers to explore that aspect of their lives.
It seems as though the work was criticized from the start and destined to maintain negative opinions. I think this is what makes the exhibition stand out. Despite all the disapproval, it is still talked about today and will be remembered for expressing such a sensitive subject.
The Era of the Curator
Not many people understand that the museum exhibit they go and see is planned out meticulously for months. How will the works be received? Are they represented properly? Is the artist's statement visible through the display of his/her work? These things do not fall upon the artist, but the curator. "At the same time, the presentation of art is more dependent on the curator than ever" (Brenson 57). I never thought about how different cultures and countries would perceive art from other cultures, and a large part of that falls open the shoulders of the curator. Artists have been becoming more and more elusive and this is causing the curator's role to become more and more important. "The work will take credit for itself"- andy Goldsworthy. Things like this have also made the curator's role more difficult. Artists are staying more hidden and they are letting their work speak for themselves but in all reality the curator is making sure the works' voices are heard.
Mirroring Evil: Nazi Imagery/Recent Art
The Mirroring Evil art exhibit consisted of 19 works by 13 artists and was on display in a Jewish Museum in New York in March 2002. It "sought to expand debates and dialogues about how museums represent the Holocaust" rather than focusing on mourning the disaster(Greenberg,105). The exhibit did successfully open dialogues, but mainly negative ones. The exhibit recieved bad reviews from the viewing public because it was timed only a year after the Twin Towers mass murders and innapropriately shown in a reverent Jewish Museum.
The art shown was impersonal and shocking. It did not focus on stories about those who were killed during the Holocaust. Instead, it was an intellectual exploration of the Nazi perspective. For example, some pieces made parallels between materialism and fascism. There were many graphic images shown as well. The installation did not provide solace for traumatized Twin Towers survivors or Holocaust survivors. It was also not appropriate for children to view.
"How can a museum offer hope? How can a museum be a moral force? How can a museum contribute effectively to societal change?" (Greenberg, 117) I think a museum should be a place to explore truths of history, whether that is hopeful or not. By remembering and understanding past mistakes, we can keep from repeating them and therefore have hope for a better future. In this generation, there are fewer people who lived during the Holocaust, so it is important to remember the brutality of the event. There is an old saying that 'those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'
The artists of the Mirroring Evil exhibit failed to address the historical importance of the Holocaust, instead deferring to shock tactics and loose metaphors about American materialism that were difficult to understand. Imagery of legos and glitsy phones seemed to mock or desensitize the viewer rather than reveal truth. I think the exhibit would have been more effective if the artists had literally placed rotting corpses in the middle of the exhibit floor to help viewers get a reality check about the Holocaust. Perhaps the Mirroring Evil exhibit would have been more effective if it were presented in an art museum as an experimental installation instead of in a history museum. The art displayed was inneffective because of its location, presentation, and timing.
Reesa Greenberg, "Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma, and Temporary Exhibitions" (eLearning)
The art shown was impersonal and shocking. It did not focus on stories about those who were killed during the Holocaust. Instead, it was an intellectual exploration of the Nazi perspective. For example, some pieces made parallels between materialism and fascism. There were many graphic images shown as well. The installation did not provide solace for traumatized Twin Towers survivors or Holocaust survivors. It was also not appropriate for children to view.
"How can a museum offer hope? How can a museum be a moral force? How can a museum contribute effectively to societal change?" (Greenberg, 117) I think a museum should be a place to explore truths of history, whether that is hopeful or not. By remembering and understanding past mistakes, we can keep from repeating them and therefore have hope for a better future. In this generation, there are fewer people who lived during the Holocaust, so it is important to remember the brutality of the event. There is an old saying that 'those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'
The artists of the Mirroring Evil exhibit failed to address the historical importance of the Holocaust, instead deferring to shock tactics and loose metaphors about American materialism that were difficult to understand. Imagery of legos and glitsy phones seemed to mock or desensitize the viewer rather than reveal truth. I think the exhibit would have been more effective if the artists had literally placed rotting corpses in the middle of the exhibit floor to help viewers get a reality check about the Holocaust. Perhaps the Mirroring Evil exhibit would have been more effective if it were presented in an art museum as an experimental installation instead of in a history museum. The art displayed was inneffective because of its location, presentation, and timing.
Reesa Greenberg, "Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma, and Temporary Exhibitions" (eLearning)
Monday, March 29, 2010
Why So Poorly Received?
The 2002 Mirroring Evil art exhibit at New York’s Jewish Museum caused quite uproar, but I’m not sure it was a total failure. The exhibit was charged with being “‘disgusting’ and ‘a mockery’,” but it seems to be showing a whole other side to the Holocaust that is less gruesome but no less terrifying. By showing images of glamorous actors in the guise of Nazi soldiers, Piotr Uklanski's The Nazis, shows us how we, as a society, have been glamorizing the perpetrators of the Holocaust. Similarly, Zbigniew Libera's LEGO Concentration Camp Set points out how even the holocaust can become a commodity. Reesa Greenberg points out a couple of reasons why the show was so ill received; including the timing, which was so close to the Sep. 11th terrorist attacks, and even the layout of the exhibit.
Despite Greenburg’s explanations, it seems that the seemingly light nature of the works and how they can relate to everyday life may be what caused such disdain for the show. The art works seemed to point a finger back on the viewer. They show us how far removed we have grown from the atrocities of the Holocaust and how those atrocities have maybe lost a little of their weight. I think that idea in itself is the “Mirroring of Evil.”
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
   |
The Genetic Revolution
The Paradise Now exhibition handout stated: “We are at a threshold, witnesses to the moment when genetic research is rewriting the definition of life . . . Artists have claimed an important role in this ongoing exploration, creating images that literally give shape to abstract, complex concepts.” (Janice Hopkins Tanne). The artworks of many artists were innovative in content and rendering focusing on 1) research into the nature of the human genome and 2) exploring the implications of biotechnology on animal and plant life. The two sections of the exhibition address major issues such as race, economics, reproduction, privacy, identification, health, time and religion. The artists, curators and artworks are all examples and representations of the connection between science, society and the arts.
After researching the Paradise Now art works and instillations I came across photographer Nancy Burson’s “the Human Race Machine”. The interactive computer instillations allows for the viewer to step into the photo booth, take a passport size picture, and then takes that recorded picture and transforms it into a White, Black, Hispanic or Asian face. The point of the instillation is to prove that “all humans are 99.9% genetically identical and there is no gene for race” (Tanne). Thus far in the semester we have been prodding and poking and trying to define and characterize the artist by gender, race and sexuality, form, space and time only to be positioned against science and evolution and psychology and quantum physics which tell us that we are actually only .1% different.
1. Tanne, Janice Hopkins “Paradise Now: picturinh the genetic revolution” British Medical Journal. October 7 2000. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118701/.
2. Lynch, Lisa. “Culturing the Pleeband: The Idea of the ‘Public’ In Genetic Art”. Project Muse: Scholarly Online Journals. 24 March 2010.
Life
Robertson and McDaniel write about Science in relation to Art. They write, "Scientific images can rival art in their power and authority, posing a philosophical conundrum: If an artist can create an artwork that could pass as a science project, can a scientist produce a work of science that crosses the border into art" (Robertson, McDaniel 251)? Their answer is yes. At the same moment I was reading this paragraph an advertisement for the Discovery series Life (Planet Earth being its predecessor) appeared on the television screen. I could be way off in this comparison, but it seems to me that there is some type of correlation between Robertson and McDaniel's idea about science bordering art in this series. The images in the Discovery channel's series definitely have a scientific basis. It depicts views of all types of life on earth along with commentary about how each organism survives and continues the species. The images are often stunning. Unlike other series before Life and Planet Earth, television channels were producing shows that strictly remained in the realm of science. Obviously, editing and camera angle must be taken into account in all television and film productions, which do involve an art, but the newer Life and Planet Earth series seem to attempt to create an artistic image more so than previous series.
Robertson and McDaniel write about an image bordering science and art saying, "For example, in 2000, a widely reproduced "astrophoto" of the Eagle Nebula (a mammoth cluster of stars in the process of formation seven thousand light-years from Earth) was selected as the image on a U.S. commemorative postage stamp honoring the first decade of the Hubble Space Telescope" (251). It seems, the sheer beauty we find in nature is easily transformed into a work of art. One can take a photograph of a flower from a certain angle, in a certain light and produce a piece of art. It seems that the creators of series like Life are purposefully choosing to create something that borders on science and art to appeal to their viewers. Many are interested in learning about the science behind various forms of life, and when that scientific knowledge is packaged in an artistic way it becomes even more appealing to watch. In saying all of this, I think that it is a great thing that science and art can be combined in such a way. Even though these series do not delve too deeply into more complex scientific knowledge, it opens many doors to education as it draws those who may not have been interested in science at all before it was so aesthetically pleasing to watch.
Robertson and McDaniel write about an image bordering science and art saying, "For example, in 2000, a widely reproduced "astrophoto" of the Eagle Nebula (a mammoth cluster of stars in the process of formation seven thousand light-years from Earth) was selected as the image on a U.S. commemorative postage stamp honoring the first decade of the Hubble Space Telescope" (251). It seems, the sheer beauty we find in nature is easily transformed into a work of art. One can take a photograph of a flower from a certain angle, in a certain light and produce a piece of art. It seems that the creators of series like Life are purposefully choosing to create something that borders on science and art to appeal to their viewers. Many are interested in learning about the science behind various forms of life, and when that scientific knowledge is packaged in an artistic way it becomes even more appealing to watch. In saying all of this, I think that it is a great thing that science and art can be combined in such a way. Even though these series do not delve too deeply into more complex scientific knowledge, it opens many doors to education as it draws those who may not have been interested in science at all before it was so aesthetically pleasing to watch.
Science
A topic or idea falls most always in more than one category. Art and science have always been mixed together. Materials for art production are often man made (synthetic paints and clay are mixed chemicals). Leonardo da Vinci sketched from muscles, dissected bodies and took an interest in the human form to created more accurate work. Renaissance painters used linear perspective to give the illusion of three dimensions- that is a mathematical (or scientific) concept (McDaniel). In my opinion, the reason why art and science mesh so well is that there is room for exploration in both. They evolve with every generation and every new technology. The ideas of art and science flow back and forth and can go in almost any direction.
After reading the text, I found the work of Patricia Piccini to be very interesting. She not only makes up a creature based on multiple other creatures, she give it a "human" look. The works she created in her We Are Family series depicts a new creature, but evokes a certain emotion from the viewer. The Young Family showing a mother creature with her three babies may evoke sympathy- the "disturbingly self-conscience" mother may be relateable. She is vulnerable and on display. If the viewer could, for a moment think that this creature is "real," what rights does it have? The question has come up in the text of what human rights would a hybrid creature have if there were to be a hybrid creature created (McDaniel). Could art like this be considered activist art if in fact on day there are human hybrids?
McDaniel, Craig and Jean Robertson. Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art after 1980. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2010. 233-271.
After reading the text, I found the work of Patricia Piccini to be very interesting. She not only makes up a creature based on multiple other creatures, she give it a "human" look. The works she created in her We Are Family series depicts a new creature, but evokes a certain emotion from the viewer. The Young Family showing a mother creature with her three babies may evoke sympathy- the "disturbingly self-conscience" mother may be relateable. She is vulnerable and on display. If the viewer could, for a moment think that this creature is "real," what rights does it have? The question has come up in the text of what human rights would a hybrid creature have if there were to be a hybrid creature created (McDaniel). Could art like this be considered activist art if in fact on day there are human hybrids?
McDaniel, Craig and Jean Robertson. Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art after 1980. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2010. 233-271.
Bio Artists
Bio artists are trained to know how to work in areas on science where they can manipulate their “materials” to produce their work. They use this manipulation and the outcome as their creation like a painter would use paint to create a painting. The creations can be created either in a laboratory like scientists or in a studio like artists. It is said that “the term bio art is used for art by artists who work with the same living organic materials that scientists do: bacteria, cell lines, molecules, plants, body fluids and tissues, and even living animals” (McDaniel 245). Because of the way that these artists conduct their work, they can be considered more of scientists than artists. There is a thin line in their work on where they sit as artists and where they are as scientists; however they view their work as artistic expression and therefore are viewed in that way. However, because of the content, their findings and “pieces” can also be used within the scientific society. The bioartists have joined together two show off the artistic part of scientists, being that the bio artists all (for the most part) had science backgrounds before joining with the bio artists (BIOart). Being that bio art has become so known within the science world, the artists/scientists really do need to “acquire knowledge about a biotechnology, such as genetic engineering and cloning” which is why most bio artists were scientists before joining with the bio artists (McDaniel 245). With science becoming increasing more involved in our everyday life, and more and more accomplished (especially in the realms of biochemistry and genetics) it is no wonder that artists want to join in. They see the creation of the scientists as simply a mirror of their own work, except with a more scientific approach instead of an artistic one. All in all, there is a creator and a creation, and the artist is still a creator, and a curious one at that.
BIOart. Web. 24 Mar. 2010. https://bioart.med.harvard.edu/index.html.
"BioArt." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 24 Mar. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioArt.
McDaniel, Craig, and Jean Robertson, eds. Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art after 1980. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
BIOart. Web. 24 Mar. 2010. https://bioart.med.harvard.edu/index.html.
"BioArt." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 24 Mar. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioArt.
McDaniel, Craig, and Jean Robertson, eds. Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art after 1980. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
Humans have proven to themselves their own superiority over the species of the earth time and time again. Using prodigious problem solving abilities and exemplary brain power, they have overcome biological lack and can now fly through the air, live under the sea, travel to space. They have such delicately technical things as the electron microscope or the Large Hadron Collider as examples of their superiority over the Earth, and it seems that their assumption of the role of dominant species over the rest of the animal kingdom was the correct one. But what of animals that seem to mimic our behavior, and what is more, have done so for hundreds of years before we even knew there was a problem to manipulate? Such as a type of wasp that has discovered and cultivated a "cocktail of nine different antibiotics" to protect its young (1), much like our own use of the organism? Or perhaps a pod of orcas that demonstrate the passing of discovered knowledge specific to their own group to their progeny (2)?
Science in art defines and bolsters the "clear separation between humans and other species" (M&R 236), but even with the rising popularity of transgenic imagery, I feel humans and animals have more in common than we as a species are willing to give them credit for. Yet it seems that only a true human connection--the ability to scientifically identify genetically human parts in other creatures--is what it would take for us to truly 'see ourselves' in them. Let us look at the transgenic work of Patricia Piccinini: her humanoid mammals evoke a kind of uncanny humanity, a spark that most can only approach through facial features (the sculpture, of course, has human eyes for this express purpose {Robertson 264}). Her work forces us to re-evaluate our relationship to the so-called lesser creatures, and in doing so, ask many questions of the nature of that relationship.
"As people, we have no taboos against eating many species of animals, we force animals to do our work for us, we use their fur and skin in clothing, and we confine them for our convenience. Would we do similar things to beings that are part human?" (Robertson 265)
If we are shown clear examples of our own non-uniqueness, why do we still harbor the illusion of it? As a species, we have three specific pillars of identity that we use to argue for a separation from the beasts: proliferation (in offspring and labor), self-identity, and language.
Proliferation is an easy pillar to topple--there are more ants in the world, both in numbers and sheer mass, than the same statistics for humans. In a much shorter time frame, their highly specialized working units can build structures comparable to our own huge structures (3)--complete with air conditioning and CO2/O2 level control.
Self-identification can, as we have studied previously, be disproved as illusion. How in control of your own thoughts are you? Where have your motives originated--from yourself, society, or genetics? At what specific levels of self-image and personality can we say for sure comprise identity, if all it takes to assume the humanity of other creatures is similar ocular structure and simply an inkling of human behavior?
Yet perhaps the strongest argument we have for a unique "humanity" we have is our thousands of language structures, used to define and control the world around us. Language not only describes the world, but can be used to discuss abstract ideas. But again, this is not unique to our own species, as proven by whales and prairie dogs. Orcas are highly intelligent creatures, with their own complex language structure. Like humans, their language is even regional: "the calls of each pod has unique differences, indicating that each pod has its own dialect. Transient group calls are so different from resident calls that they may speak a different language" (4). Studies show humpback whales use grammar and syntax, and "are the only other animals beside humans to use hierarchical structure in language, in which phrases are embedded in larger, recurring themes" (5). According to Professor Con Slobodchikoff, prairie dogs "have the most complex natural language that has been decoded so far. They have words for different predators, they have descriptive words for describing the individual features of different predators, so it's a pretty complex language that has a lot of elements" (6). In fact, their language is so complex that they can convey the identification of different animals (including humans), their shape, size, color, direction, and speed, all within a short series of modulated barks. Prof Slobodchikoff even believes they are capable of "gossip" (7).
It is in language that I argue contains the true seeds of humanity. Here is how we can express our deepest inner workings. Yet, it seems we are not alone in doing so. How does the knowledge of a translatable animal affect our relationship with it? With translation comes the realization of language in another species, the assumption of their own self-identification, and the application of "human" qualities--the same steps it took many imperialist nations to realize their conquered subjects were indeed people, and not savage animals. With all of this evidence, why is trangenics in art what it takes to make us see the humanity in others?
Robertson, Jean and Craig McDaniel. "Themes of Contemporary Art". New York. Oxford University Press. 2010. pp 232-271.
(1) "Beewolves Protect their Offspring With Antibiotics".
(2)" Orcas are Better Than You, unbelievable footage of Orcas teaching their Pup's".
Originally CNN. < i="0cab6157e7">
(3) "Worlds Biggest Ant Hill AMAZING".
(4)"Communication". <>
(5) Khamsi, Roxanne. "Whale Song Reveals Sophisticated Language Skills."
(6) Walker, Matt." Burrowing US prairie dogs use complex language".
(7) " Scientist: Prairie Dogs Have Own Language".
Science in art defines and bolsters the "clear separation between humans and other species" (M&R 236), but even with the rising popularity of transgenic imagery, I feel humans and animals have more in common than we as a species are willing to give them credit for. Yet it seems that only a true human connection--the ability to scientifically identify genetically human parts in other creatures--is what it would take for us to truly 'see ourselves' in them. Let us look at the transgenic work of Patricia Piccinini: her humanoid mammals evoke a kind of uncanny humanity, a spark that most can only approach through facial features (the sculpture, of course, has human eyes for this express purpose {Robertson 264}). Her work forces us to re-evaluate our relationship to the so-called lesser creatures, and in doing so, ask many questions of the nature of that relationship.
"As people, we have no taboos against eating many species of animals, we force animals to do our work for us, we use their fur and skin in clothing, and we confine them for our convenience. Would we do similar things to beings that are part human?" (Robertson 265)
If we are shown clear examples of our own non-uniqueness, why do we still harbor the illusion of it? As a species, we have three specific pillars of identity that we use to argue for a separation from the beasts: proliferation (in offspring and labor), self-identity, and language.
Proliferation is an easy pillar to topple--there are more ants in the world, both in numbers and sheer mass, than the same statistics for humans. In a much shorter time frame, their highly specialized working units can build structures comparable to our own huge structures (3)--complete with air conditioning and CO2/O2 level control.
Self-identification can, as we have studied previously, be disproved as illusion. How in control of your own thoughts are you? Where have your motives originated--from yourself, society, or genetics? At what specific levels of self-image and personality can we say for sure comprise identity, if all it takes to assume the humanity of other creatures is similar ocular structure and simply an inkling of human behavior?
Yet perhaps the strongest argument we have for a unique "humanity" we have is our thousands of language structures, used to define and control the world around us. Language not only describes the world, but can be used to discuss abstract ideas. But again, this is not unique to our own species, as proven by whales and prairie dogs. Orcas are highly intelligent creatures, with their own complex language structure. Like humans, their language is even regional: "the calls of each pod has unique differences, indicating that each pod has its own dialect. Transient group calls are so different from resident calls that they may speak a different language" (4). Studies show humpback whales use grammar and syntax, and "are the only other animals beside humans to use hierarchical structure in language, in which phrases are embedded in larger, recurring themes" (5). According to Professor Con Slobodchikoff, prairie dogs "have the most complex natural language that has been decoded so far. They have words for different predators, they have descriptive words for describing the individual features of different predators, so it's a pretty complex language that has a lot of elements" (6). In fact, their language is so complex that they can convey the identification of different animals (including humans), their shape, size, color, direction, and speed, all within a short series of modulated barks. Prof Slobodchikoff even believes they are capable of "gossip" (7).
It is in language that I argue contains the true seeds of humanity. Here is how we can express our deepest inner workings. Yet, it seems we are not alone in doing so. How does the knowledge of a translatable animal affect our relationship with it? With translation comes the realization of language in another species, the assumption of their own self-identification, and the application of "human" qualities--the same steps it took many imperialist nations to realize their conquered subjects were indeed people, and not savage animals. With all of this evidence, why is trangenics in art what it takes to make us see the humanity in others?
Robertson, Jean and Craig McDaniel. "Themes of Contemporary Art". New York. Oxford University Press. 2010. pp 232-271.
(1) "Beewolves Protect their Offspring With Antibiotics".
(2)" Orcas are Better Than You, unbelievable footage of Orcas teaching their Pup's".
Originally CNN. < i="0cab6157e7">
(3) "Worlds Biggest Ant Hill AMAZING".
(4)"Communication". <>
(5) Khamsi, Roxanne. "Whale Song Reveals Sophisticated Language Skills."
(6) Walker, Matt." Burrowing US prairie dogs use complex language".
(7) " Scientist: Prairie Dogs Have Own Language".
Genetic Art
I find the concept of learning from art work fascinating. When I read the article I thought that it was such a brilliant idea, and so new, but then I thought about everyday art that teaches us things. For instance my mom is a kindergarten teacher and a big percentage of how she teaches uses illustrations to teach her children. However, I think Genetic Art is an incredible way of teaching the public about science and technology. "As important as the scientific process is going to be, there’s an equally important need to struggle over the images and the metaphors that we’re going to be able to use to understand the science, and in the end I think that the people who contribute the images and the metaphors that we as a society choose will shape the impact
of the genetics every bit as much as the scientists" (Culturing the Pleeband). In this article Lisa Lynch discusses and explains different examples of genetic art and the struggles artists face while trying to represent it.
One of the things she discusses is Paradise Now. Which was described as, "“the first major exhibition to identify key work by artists who are examining the meaning and urgent implications
of dramatic breakthroughs in genetic research", by it's curators Heiferman and Kismaric. This exhibition brought together 39 artists who had been interested in genetic art or were just started to look into genetic art. I think that the idea that art had potential for social change is amazing, and one we often over look. Art can be used for so many things, and Genetic Art Teaches as well as brings to light issues of social change.
Lisa Lynch's "Culturing the Pleebland" told may tales and made a lot of interesting assertions. It was an engaging article, but I could not help but think that her criticisms of the Paradise Now exhibition were a defense for artists who seemed to have failed to get their point across (especially during her description of the reverse-bred frogs project and "One Tree"). However, it seems that many other critics, including prominent newspaper editors, were disappointed with the show as well, so surely something was amiss. The title alone of Jeremy Rifkin's January 2003 article in London's The Guardian asserts her opinion: "Dazzled by the science: Biologists who dress up eugenics as a new art form are dangerously deluded".
More to the point of the article, however, is Lynch's discussion of the public identity and its role in the exhibition (as well as Eduardo Kac's "GFP Bunny" and the Steve Kurtz legal battle). She especially focuses on the "illusion of unity among people who [...] rightly belong on opposite sides," which she quotes Bruce Robbins as saying in his work The Phantom Public Sphere (4). Going even deeper, she discusses the different ways that individuals and organizations treat this "public", some working from the idea that the public shares some common narrative or common good (the social scientists), others believing that the public lacks an understanding of higher concepts, especially in regard to science (the natural scientists, and still others treating the public as a mass of citizens which must be sheltered and protected against some perceived danger in genetic art (the "government lawyers" in the Kurtz case).
Through this article, I found that the once convenient term "public" was just as unstable in its meaning and usage as any other blanket signifier we have studied this term. It had once seemed a pleasing term in its general harmlessness, being all-inclusive, never exclusive or even definitive enough to become offensive. But Lynch argues that it is exactly this vague broadness that inhibits effective dialogue with any "public", especially in regards to the Paradise Now exhibit. She argues that the curators' failure was to address one single, all-inclusive public and not the multiple publics of an "increasingly complex world". (24)
Between Judith Butler's arguments against blanket terms that are too restricting and therefore oppressive (such as "woman") and Lynch's argument against definitions that are too lose, it seems that today's art critics are just impossible to please!
1. Lynch, Lisa. “Culturing the Pleeband: The Idea of the ‘Public’ In Genetic Art”. Project Muse: Scholarly Online Journals. 24 March 2010.
2. Robbins, Bruce. “The Public As Phantom.” In The Phantom Public Sphere, edited by Bruce Robbins. Minneapolis: U Minn Press, 1993, vii–xxvi.
More to the point of the article, however, is Lynch's discussion of the public identity and its role in the exhibition (as well as Eduardo Kac's "GFP Bunny" and the Steve Kurtz legal battle). She especially focuses on the "illusion of unity among people who [...] rightly belong on opposite sides," which she quotes Bruce Robbins as saying in his work The Phantom Public Sphere (4). Going even deeper, she discusses the different ways that individuals and organizations treat this "public", some working from the idea that the public shares some common narrative or common good (the social scientists), others believing that the public lacks an understanding of higher concepts, especially in regard to science (the natural scientists, and still others treating the public as a mass of citizens which must be sheltered and protected against some perceived danger in genetic art (the "government lawyers" in the Kurtz case).
Through this article, I found that the once convenient term "public" was just as unstable in its meaning and usage as any other blanket signifier we have studied this term. It had once seemed a pleasing term in its general harmlessness, being all-inclusive, never exclusive or even definitive enough to become offensive. But Lynch argues that it is exactly this vague broadness that inhibits effective dialogue with any "public", especially in regards to the Paradise Now exhibit. She argues that the curators' failure was to address one single, all-inclusive public and not the multiple publics of an "increasingly complex world". (24)
Between Judith Butler's arguments against blanket terms that are too restricting and therefore oppressive (such as "woman") and Lynch's argument against definitions that are too lose, it seems that today's art critics are just impossible to please!
1. Lynch, Lisa. “Culturing the Pleeband: The Idea of the ‘Public’ In Genetic Art”. Project Muse: Scholarly Online Journals. 24 March 2010.
2. Robbins, Bruce. “The Public As Phantom.” In The Phantom Public Sphere, edited by Bruce Robbins. Minneapolis: U Minn Press, 1993, vii–xxvi.
Bio-Art
The field of Bio Art is easily, to me, the most interesting of those explored in this chapter. But the chapter states that the boundaries of what does and doesn't belong in this category are vague. "The category is not rigidly defined; as with any medium, there are debates about whether particular materials and practices fall within the category or not, such as whether the biological material needs to be alive when the artist uses it to qualify as bio-art" (Robertson, and McDaniel 245). I am in favor of the line being drawn between living and non-living materials, but where ever it lies, it must be enforced if we want to allow for this category to exist at all, because, as the chapter states, "... many art materials that were used in ancient artistic items were organic in origin, including wood fibers, feathers, and many kinds of pigments and dyes" (Robertson, and McDaniel 245). Indeed, if we are lax with the boundaries of this category, almost anything could be considered bio-art. Consider painting, in which we use brushes made from animal hair to spread pigment and oil onto a canvas (usually made of cotton) that has been primed with gesso or, as the old masters used, a glue made from rabbit skin. You can see that everything about painting originally, if not currently, used materials that were, or came from things that were, once alive, but it seems ridiculous to consider the paintings as Bio Art, doesn't it? If the "material" in question is still alive, though, the presence of life and the concept of manipulating it undeniably takes the foreground as a main them in the work.
But when we look at the concept of manipulating life, we have to ask what exactly makes this practice and study count as Art. George Gessert, who the book introduces, "selectively breeds wild irises to produce what he considers highly artistic versions, calling his practice "genetic folk art" (Robertson, and McDaniel 245). This brief explanation provided may be omitting much of what there is to Gessert's work, but because it is introducing him as an artist, and this is the information it provides, it assumes that this is enough for us to recognize him as an artist. Reading this, I believe he simply sounds like a breeder who calls himself an artist. Eduardo Kac, has been one of my favorite artists for a while. While he does work with gene manipulation and transferring genes between organisms (such as creating a fluorescent green bunny and a petunia with some of his own DNA in it which he named the Edunia), and while the genes may be symbolically meaningful, I know there is an entirely other world involved in his work, where he makes prints and other more traditional artwork inspired and based on his Bio Artwork. Where is the actual Art in this split, in the often aesthetically-lacking experimental work or the traditional work that is easier to distribute and that he doesn't need help from a team of scientists to make? Much of his art that fits into the strict interpretation of Bio Art could also easily be considered Performance Art, such as online broadcasts of himself being hooked up to a machine that uses his blood to keep a flame burning or the controversial events following the birth of the fluorescent bunny. I'd like to posit the notion that because of the presence of life within bio-art, and the fact that life takes place within the passage of time, that all bio art is always a type of performance art.
McDaniel, Craig and Jean Robertson. Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art after 1980. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2010. 233-270.
But when we look at the concept of manipulating life, we have to ask what exactly makes this practice and study count as Art. George Gessert, who the book introduces, "selectively breeds wild irises to produce what he considers highly artistic versions, calling his practice "genetic folk art" (Robertson, and McDaniel 245). This brief explanation provided may be omitting much of what there is to Gessert's work, but because it is introducing him as an artist, and this is the information it provides, it assumes that this is enough for us to recognize him as an artist. Reading this, I believe he simply sounds like a breeder who calls himself an artist. Eduardo Kac, has been one of my favorite artists for a while. While he does work with gene manipulation and transferring genes between organisms (such as creating a fluorescent green bunny and a petunia with some of his own DNA in it which he named the Edunia), and while the genes may be symbolically meaningful, I know there is an entirely other world involved in his work, where he makes prints and other more traditional artwork inspired and based on his Bio Artwork. Where is the actual Art in this split, in the often aesthetically-lacking experimental work or the traditional work that is easier to distribute and that he doesn't need help from a team of scientists to make? Much of his art that fits into the strict interpretation of Bio Art could also easily be considered Performance Art, such as online broadcasts of himself being hooked up to a machine that uses his blood to keep a flame burning or the controversial events following the birth of the fluorescent bunny. I'd like to posit the notion that because of the presence of life within bio-art, and the fact that life takes place within the passage of time, that all bio art is always a type of performance art.
McDaniel, Craig and Jean Robertson. Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art after 1980. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2010. 233-270.
Genetic Art
In “Culturing the Pleebland:The Idea of the “Public” In Genetic Art”, Lisa Lynch writes about art that was inspired by genetic technological advances. Artists saw this as an opportunity to create art to represent scientific advances in a way that made it understandable for the average man. Reading the scientific write-ups were deemed challenging and overwhelming whereas “images.. are more palatable and digestible” and concepts can “better communicate the nature and importance of their work to a public more often comfortable with images than with words” (Lynch, p. 9). So this was presented by artists and gallery operators as a way to help further information to the public to encourage more interaction with the growth of science.
However, one criticism of the show illustrated the differences in definition of “public” and how it affects who views the art, how they perceive it, and their response to it. Ultimately, “the larger public to which the exhibit was addressed was equipped to appreciate serious and topical art, [while] the gallery public was not prepared to do so” and panned the exhibit (Lynch, p. 10). By that evaluation, the show was a success since it was designed with the civic public in mind. It does show the differences in approach to art consumption and appreciation by the outside public and the inner exclusive circles of the art community.
However, one criticism of the show illustrated the differences in definition of “public” and how it affects who views the art, how they perceive it, and their response to it. Ultimately, “the larger public to which the exhibit was addressed was equipped to appreciate serious and topical art, [while] the gallery public was not prepared to do so” and panned the exhibit (Lynch, p. 10). By that evaluation, the show was a success since it was designed with the civic public in mind. It does show the differences in approach to art consumption and appreciation by the outside public and the inner exclusive circles of the art community.
Leonardo da Vinci and Science
It is evident that science has been a part of the art world for a very long time now. From the earliest Renaissance artists to the bioartists working today, certain artists have chosen the field of science to either display in their artworks or use as a means of information of inspiration for their work. Robertson and Mcdaniel touch briefly on the great Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci, who used sicence and mathematics to sketch out his drawings and create his famous paintings. But I want to take a closer look at how da Vinci used science in his art works and why.
Although da Vinci is known as being one of the leading Renaissance artists, he was also a scientist. He made many contributions to the world of science and invented many things, but I think that the most innovative thing that he did was to meld art and science into one. He took the skills that were being practiced at that time and improved them using the methods of science. Da Vinci's "scientific approach to art was in part an effort to persuade others that painting should be considered at the level of the liberal arts, i.e. rhetoric, philosophy, mathematics, poetry, etc. What is more scientific, he reasoned, than being able to see and to project what one sees onto a flat surface?" (Fox) Da Vinci also thought up the idea of the use of the triangle in art, such as the ones seen in "The Last Supper". I feel as though it makes the painting more aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Besides using science for composition, he also used science to create figures that were life-like, and eventually came up with the drawing of the "perfect man". Robertson and Mcdaniel state that "visual artists also trained by drawing from skulls and models of skeletons, as well as from life, and turned to the study of anatomy to enhance their knowledge" (225). Leonardo da Vinci was "so fascinated by interior body structures" that he "sought permission to observe the dissection of human cadavers" (Robertson, 225). His interest in this led to his ability to convey the human muscular system in the most accurate way. Later, da Vinci used a system of ratios to come up with the "Vitruvian Man", which is considered to be the perfect man, and has become one of da Vinci's most widely-known drawings. Because of da Vinci's ability to understand science, he was able to manipulate science and art so that they were able to work together.
Bibliography:
Robertson, Jean and Craig McDaniel. "Themes of Contemporary Art". New York. Oxford University Press. 2010. p. 225.
Fox, Cheryl. "Leonardo's Workshop". The Library of Congress. March 23, 2010. http://www.loc.gov/loc/kidslc/LGpdfs/leo-teacher.pdf
Although da Vinci is known as being one of the leading Renaissance artists, he was also a scientist. He made many contributions to the world of science and invented many things, but I think that the most innovative thing that he did was to meld art and science into one. He took the skills that were being practiced at that time and improved them using the methods of science. Da Vinci's "scientific approach to art was in part an effort to persuade others that painting should be considered at the level of the liberal arts, i.e. rhetoric, philosophy, mathematics, poetry, etc. What is more scientific, he reasoned, than being able to see and to project what one sees onto a flat surface?" (Fox) Da Vinci also thought up the idea of the use of the triangle in art, such as the ones seen in "The Last Supper". I feel as though it makes the painting more aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Besides using science for composition, he also used science to create figures that were life-like, and eventually came up with the drawing of the "perfect man". Robertson and Mcdaniel state that "visual artists also trained by drawing from skulls and models of skeletons, as well as from life, and turned to the study of anatomy to enhance their knowledge" (225). Leonardo da Vinci was "so fascinated by interior body structures" that he "sought permission to observe the dissection of human cadavers" (Robertson, 225). His interest in this led to his ability to convey the human muscular system in the most accurate way. Later, da Vinci used a system of ratios to come up with the "Vitruvian Man", which is considered to be the perfect man, and has become one of da Vinci's most widely-known drawings. Because of da Vinci's ability to understand science, he was able to manipulate science and art so that they were able to work together.
Bibliography:
Robertson, Jean and Craig McDaniel. "Themes of Contemporary Art". New York. Oxford University Press. 2010. p. 225.
Fox, Cheryl. "Leonardo's Workshop". The Library of Congress. March 23, 2010. http://www.loc.gov/loc/kidslc/LGpdfs/leo-teacher.pdf
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
science meets art
Art therapy is a relatively new mental health profession that blends the creative process of art making with the science of psychology. It is useful for individuals of all ages and helpful in a wide range of problems such as autism, dementia, eating disorders, terminal illness, and mental or physical trauma (Betts). Although the art therapist can work in a variety of places, from clinical to private practice, many children's hospitals are developing programs to help their patients and family deal with the heavy emotions that come with the disease. The Cedars Cancer Institute is one such hospital. They describe their art therapy program as a time when "children and adolescents gain a sense of control over their lives during a time when everything seems to be spinning out of control" (Who We Are).
I thought that this career fit well with the description of creole technologies as "ways of thinking or making things that are hybrids" (Robertson, 243). Of course, visual art making and psychology are ages old, but they have only been combined into one career since the middle 20th century. Art therapists are both trained in art and licensed mental health professionals. As a hybrid discipline, it is able to rely on information from both areas and use each as a tool to further wellness for patients. Although psychology is considered one of the "soft sciences", it still seeks to use the scientific method in order to obtain credible and reliable information (Robertson, 240).
Betts, Donna PhD ATR-BC. "Information about Art Therapy." Art Therapy. 23, March 2010. http://www.art-therapy.us/art_therapy.htm
"Who We Are." The Cedar Cancer Institute. 23, March 2010.
The idea of visually educating the public on biotechnology and the “genetic revolution” was in my opinion a great one. This is because as humans we are very visual learners and some things are “too complex when encountered in print” (Lynch 186). The intentions of Paradise Now were to create a neutral ground in which viewers could formulate their own opinion on the genetic advances through viewing visual representations of modern day science. However, although the intentions were good and seemed to be a good idea, I do believe there is no way to formulate a neutral arena in which art is present. Art is typically considered an expression. So in what way are people supposed to look at art focused on such a controversial subject and not formulate an opinion based on the idea the artwork is projecting? It seems that people would have taken artwork, such as Alexis Rockman’s “The Farm”, to be pushing to one side or the other, not giving a neutral perspective. However I cannot give an opinion on the entire exhibit, but from the specific works mentioned by Lynch, it seems that this would be the case. The debate “How to Understand Genetic Information and Why” also expressed the idea that neutral territory is impossible. Lynch says “the debate also points to the difficulty, if not impossibility, of using art to construct a neutral space of debate about a topic as controversial as biotechnology” (Lynch 189). It seems that artists such as Eduardo Kac were more successful with were more successful with their intention.
According to Lynch, Kac’s “role as artist is to ‘reinforce the discussion’, by structuring his work in such a way that it becomes a ‘cognitive intervention’” (Lynch 194). Although he may have been successful in creating an opinion from the public because of his extensive media coverage, it seems that his “GFP Bunny” was less of art and more of his way of showing science to the public through the media. The “GFP Bunny” could be compared to “Dolly” the cloned sheep, because they both were genetic experiments that received a mass amount about media coverage. So even though Kac received the reaction from the public that he intended, I don’t think his “GFP Bunny” work can truly be considered “art”.
Lynch, Lisa. “Culturing the Pleeband: The Idea of the ‘Public’ In Genetic Art”. Project Muse: Scholarly Online Jounrlas. 22 March 2010.
Mixing Genetic Art & Research
Through wanting to inform society about genetic research, artists like Steve Kurtz and Eduardo Kac have helped create a controversial issue between art and science. In the exhibit Paradise Now, critics felt that it crossed the line for what is usually considered to be art. Artists displayed several pieces of genetic art for viewers to see. The particular pieces of art varied between a glowing bunny and two DNA strands. By doing so, critics tore the exhibit apart by saying it was more of a science project and too time consuming (Lynch 188). Lisa Lynch describes, "... reviewers claimed that the show was a noble idea, but a failure as an art exhibit" (188).
How is genetic art suppose to inform a viewer about genetic research? In the essay "Culturing the Pleebland", Lynch states, "Kismaric and Heiferman explained that they believed presenting diverse visions of the genetic future would allow visitors to make informed decisions about what kind of future they themselves wanted biotechnology to create" (186). I do not understand how the artists intend to educate viewers about genetic research through art. A viewer sees a piece of art and interprets it through their own understandings. Is this what the artist is trying to achieve or is there more to the piece of artwork? Are artist just trying to make genetic research known to the public or do they expect the viewer to pull away a full understanding of a scientific definition? The audience is also composed of a variety of viewers. Not all who enter the gallery are a scientist, and if they were, it would defeat the purpose of the exhibit. It is difficult to determine whether genetic art really informs the viewer about genetic research or not.
Lynch, Lisa. "Culturing the Pleebland: The Idea of the "Public" In Genetic Art." Project Muse: Scholarly journals online 26.1 (2008): 186-188. Web. 23 Mar 2010.
Risk in Art
In their discussion of science, Robertson and McDaniel bring up Karl Popper and his emphasis on falsifiability. This concept is important not only to science but also to any art that claims to be “about” anything i.e. psychoanalysis, society, identity, etc. Like science, such art supposedly involves an act of not only observing the world but also analyzing the resulting “data” and forming a summarizing statement.
Popper’s critique of Marxism and forms of psychoanalysis points out that such theories “appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred” (Popper 40). Moreover, each theory could explain opposite or unrelated actions as results of the same convenient cause. On the other hand, Popper respects Einstein for the claims contained in his gravitational theory because of “the risk involved in a prediction of this kind” (41). Einstein’s theory could fail. It made specific predictions, which could turn out to be false, and if they did, would demand rewriting of the theory.
A similar critique can be applied to art and discussions of art. Suppose an artist constructs an artwork and puts it in a gallery space. Before showing it to anyone, the artist says, “This piece is about identity.” Different viewers waiting to see the work could imagine a wide variety of possibilities -- photos like those of Catherine Opie, an Abstract Expressionist painting, or even a minimalist box like Donald Judd’s. Identity as a theme could explain any of these possibilities. Other broad themes are equally convenient. This does not make such art bad. It just means that using “Identity” or a similarly broad idea as a beginning and an end to a piece involves little risk in that anything the artist makes could be said to involve identity, society, Lacanian psychoanalysis, etc.
Karl Popper. “Science: Conjectures and Refutations.” Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science. Ed. E. D. Klemke, Robert Hollinger, David Wyss Rudge, and A. David Kline. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1998. 38-47.
Popper’s critique of Marxism and forms of psychoanalysis points out that such theories “appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred” (Popper 40). Moreover, each theory could explain opposite or unrelated actions as results of the same convenient cause. On the other hand, Popper respects Einstein for the claims contained in his gravitational theory because of “the risk involved in a prediction of this kind” (41). Einstein’s theory could fail. It made specific predictions, which could turn out to be false, and if they did, would demand rewriting of the theory.
A similar critique can be applied to art and discussions of art. Suppose an artist constructs an artwork and puts it in a gallery space. Before showing it to anyone, the artist says, “This piece is about identity.” Different viewers waiting to see the work could imagine a wide variety of possibilities -- photos like those of Catherine Opie, an Abstract Expressionist painting, or even a minimalist box like Donald Judd’s. Identity as a theme could explain any of these possibilities. Other broad themes are equally convenient. This does not make such art bad. It just means that using “Identity” or a similarly broad idea as a beginning and an end to a piece involves little risk in that anything the artist makes could be said to involve identity, society, Lacanian psychoanalysis, etc.
Karl Popper. “Science: Conjectures and Refutations.” Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science. Ed. E. D. Klemke, Robert Hollinger, David Wyss Rudge, and A. David Kline. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1998. 38-47.
Kurtz and Bio-Terrorism
The May 2004 FBI detainment of CAE artist and SUNY Buffalo art professor Steven Kurtz for supposed “bio-terrorism” and the subsequent legal charges may seem outrageous but the initial arrest, though seen as unfair, may simply have been a product of the time. May 2004 was not so far removed from the September 11th tragedy, the 2001 anthrax attacks, and the Patriot Act. The general public was in a state of panic and the government was probably feeling much pressure to find “terrorists.” It seems logical that Steven Kurtz would have been investigated, that does not seem so outrageous, especially since most people do not keep bacteria cultures in their house. However, the continued legal trouble surrounding Kurtz, after the cultures and other materials taken from his home were deemed unthreatening, seems ridiculous.
The mail fraud charges placed against Kurtz and Robert Ferrell seem to be a grasping at crumbs by the FBI to justify a fruitless investigation. The CAE website describes it as “a ‘test case’ for how far the government can reach, unopposed, into colleges, universities, museums, and even our homes to silence free speech, thought, and inquiry.” They even go so far as to liken it to the McCarthy trials of the 50s. I probably would not make such a radical comparison but the continued investigations and charges seem unwarranted simply because the original investigations yielded no harmful materials or intents. Moreover, there is no reason why the confiscated “un-harmful” materials should not be returned. Despite my understanding of the initial interest by the FBI, the CAE does seem justified in their outrage even though their wording seems a little radical.
The mail fraud charges placed against Kurtz and Robert Ferrell seem to be a grasping at crumbs by the FBI to justify a fruitless investigation. The CAE website describes it as “a ‘test case’ for how far the government can reach, unopposed, into colleges, universities, museums, and even our homes to silence free speech, thought, and inquiry.” They even go so far as to liken it to the McCarthy trials of the 50s. I probably would not make such a radical comparison but the continued investigations and charges seem unwarranted simply because the original investigations yielded no harmful materials or intents. Moreover, there is no reason why the confiscated “un-harmful” materials should not be returned. Despite my understanding of the initial interest by the FBI, the CAE does seem justified in their outrage even though their wording seems a little radical.
Scientific Illustration
I once thought that science and art were as similar as night and day. It was not until I met someone majoring in scientific illustration that I realized the two fields frequently overlap. In fact, I believe that scientific illustrators are the artists most dependent on science and technology. On the most obvious level, a scientific illustrator must have a great understanding of science in order to visually replicate it. This includes biological processes, medical protocol, and anatomical characteristics. An acute eye for detail is necessary to accurately represent organisms, because medical students and doctors rely heavily on these diagrams before entering the operation room. These artists must understand proportions, scales, and textures to a great extent (Medical Illustrator). However, this intensive study of science is not entirely new to the art field. For many years, fine art students have relied on science in drawing classes. Artists “trained by drawing from skulls and models of skeletons, as well as from life, and turned to the study of anatomy to enhance their knowledge” (McDaniel and Robertson 252).
Beyond a thorough understanding of science which is not entirely new, scientific illustrators also must employ science in order to produce up-to-date images. Advancements in computer science have opened the field of scientific illustration to three dimensions, made images more precise, and made the representations more interactive (Medical Illustrator). “Scientific images…have also affected how visual artists see and think about the fundamental elements of visual art, such as space, texture, movement, and pattern” (McDaniel and Robertson 251). These illustrators are impacting artists far outside of the medical and technological realm. In conclusion, scientific illustrator’s vast knowledge of science and art and their dependence on computer science proves that they are among the artists most heavily reliant on science.
McDaniel, Craig, and Jean Robertson. Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art after 1980. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010. 251-252. Print.
"Medical Illustrator." MHA Health Careers. MHA Health Career Center, 2002-2004. Web. 23 Mar 2010. http://www.mshealthcareers.com/careers/medicalillustrator.htm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
