Geez , Walter Benjamin and I have some things to discuss. His reading was most definitely the hardest reading for me - literally had to read this maybe ten times to get my head around it all. I tried to write about Benjamin but it never ended up working for me, so maybe I just took the easy way out.
Anyway, the whole idea about images of death within the media really stuck with me. First of all, the forms and ideas used in regulating the representation of events that have really happened seems to be questionable. It seems more and more people these days are unsure about the basis of news reports and the truth - can we trust the sources that are meant to provide us with information to be informed, aware citizens of our world? When does censorship blend into hiding aspects of the truth that provide us with vital information? A new study shows that 63% of Americans believe that news stories are inaccurate. Of course, the USA has media outlets like Fox news that show a definite favour for one 'side' , or view. Are we really getting the impartial information we need to make informed decisions?
I found the term Campbell used, ' War pornography', particularly interesting for many reasons. Using the term pornography implies that there is some kind of pleasure people get from seeing such images. When the phrase is used in conjunction with war images such as the confronting images from the Vietnam war,or Iraq war, it ( for me) implies that there is a sick fetishism attached to viewing such images. Does the public deserve to see such images, with the questionable reasons for viewing them, if we indeed view them as 'war pornography'? Are we drawn to these images the same way we can't look away from a car crash we drive past?
I find a lot of these same sentiments about some art - I recently came across Damien Hirst's 'The Wounds of Christ', and at first, felt so repulsed I turned the page and moved on. But I couldn't help, eventually going back to the images and studying them. Upon reading the interview that accompanied the image, I realized the image was fake, and felt I could turn back and look at it again without feeling some kind of voyeuristic shame for studying something so initially repulsive.
Is this the same for images of 'Horrific Blindness'? Perhaps we revisit things that were once shocking, and see them as a document, historical evidence and see them in a way that makes it ok.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
QUALITY NO! ENERGY YES!
Thomas Hirschhorn interview with Hans Ulrich Orbist, Thomas Boutoux ed., Hans Ulrich Orbist: Interviews Volume 1, Milan:
Charta, 2003, pp..393-400.
Anna Sanderson, "Brainpark" and "Haesje van Cleyburg" from Brainpark,Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2006 , pp.9-16
Thomas Hirschhorn says some interesting things- I particularly connected with his statement, " Art is a tool to learn about the world, a tool to engage with reality, and a tool to experience the time I live in." (397) Sometimes I think its easy to see some art simply as a marketing tool, or a way of blowing ones own trumpet. Just say, maybe , someone like mmm... I dont know, Damien Hirst? Andy Warhol?
I found Hirschhorn's comments about art and culture almost contradictory. He says, " I have no respect for Culture. Culture is not Art." (399)
Culture ( referring to culture in the sense of "high culture", not culture belonging to a particular ethnicity) is not art? Hasn't the knowledge and understanding of art been understood for centuries as being 'cultured'?? Have we used culture as a way of separation rather than a form or unification?
Art has been made something that is literally available to whoever wants to be involved. But with the development of modern art and educational institutions such as Elam, how are we making art accessible to the average person? Distribution and circulation essentially are the easy part - breaking down the borders about art is the hard part. Borders that separate art into art that people can understand and art that can appeal only to people who are educated in art create a weird barrier that makes a lot of modern art a kind of club. Is this even something the art world wants? No doubt there is a difference between the kind of art that most people at Elam make and the art that your neighbour would hang over the mantelpiece.
Is Modern art too high brow for its own good? Or maybe the general public needs to cultivate a better understanding and become more educated about modern art.
Personally, made me think about Dan Arps A little bit. Fair to say I'm not really a fan -I understand that many people do enjoy the work, but sometime when I see it without my 'Elam Vision' on I look at it and sometimes really don't get it. And I wonder what the average person on the street thinks when they walk past. Pile of rubbish? Taking the piss? Maybe its easier to see why a lot of people don't appreciate modern art like this when it feels so disconnected from something that we can appreciate.
It is also fair to say that perhaps modern art isn't specifically aimed at the masses - chances are that most of it appeals to a certain crowd that has some knowledge or education about such art. So, coming from someone like Hirschhorn, who is fairly progressive in his art systems and circulations, perhaps art is referred to in a more niche sense. Maybe art is something that like science or literature, can be only truly appreciated within certain circles.
Charta, 2003, pp..393-400.
Anna Sanderson, "Brainpark" and "Haesje van Cleyburg" from Brainpark,Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2006 , pp.9-16
Thomas Hirschhorn says some interesting things- I particularly connected with his statement, " Art is a tool to learn about the world, a tool to engage with reality, and a tool to experience the time I live in." (397) Sometimes I think its easy to see some art simply as a marketing tool, or a way of blowing ones own trumpet. Just say, maybe , someone like mmm... I dont know, Damien Hirst? Andy Warhol?
I found Hirschhorn's comments about art and culture almost contradictory. He says, " I have no respect for Culture. Culture is not Art." (399)
Culture ( referring to culture in the sense of "high culture", not culture belonging to a particular ethnicity) is not art? Hasn't the knowledge and understanding of art been understood for centuries as being 'cultured'?? Have we used culture as a way of separation rather than a form or unification?
Art has been made something that is literally available to whoever wants to be involved. But with the development of modern art and educational institutions such as Elam, how are we making art accessible to the average person? Distribution and circulation essentially are the easy part - breaking down the borders about art is the hard part. Borders that separate art into art that people can understand and art that can appeal only to people who are educated in art create a weird barrier that makes a lot of modern art a kind of club. Is this even something the art world wants? No doubt there is a difference between the kind of art that most people at Elam make and the art that your neighbour would hang over the mantelpiece.
Is Modern art too high brow for its own good? Or maybe the general public needs to cultivate a better understanding and become more educated about modern art.
Personally, made me think about Dan Arps A little bit. Fair to say I'm not really a fan -I understand that many people do enjoy the work, but sometime when I see it without my 'Elam Vision' on I look at it and sometimes really don't get it. And I wonder what the average person on the street thinks when they walk past. Pile of rubbish? Taking the piss? Maybe its easier to see why a lot of people don't appreciate modern art like this when it feels so disconnected from something that we can appreciate.
It is also fair to say that perhaps modern art isn't specifically aimed at the masses - chances are that most of it appeals to a certain crowd that has some knowledge or education about such art. So, coming from someone like Hirschhorn, who is fairly progressive in his art systems and circulations, perhaps art is referred to in a more niche sense. Maybe art is something that like science or literature, can be only truly appreciated within certain circles.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Metaphysics and Shit.
Jean Fisher , "Towards a Metaphysics of Shit," in Documenta 11 Platform 5 The Catalog, Ostfildern-Ruit : Hajte Cantz, 2002, pp. 63-70.
Nicolas Bourriaud, "Art if the 1990's", from Relational Aesthetics, Paris : Les presses de reel, 2002, pp 25-40.
Jean Fisher bring up the old favourite , The Trickster. The thing that caught my attention in this exert is the idea bought up on page 64 about dialogue. " To hold a dialogue is to suppose a third man and seek to exclude him" ( Michel Serres) really struck a chord with me.
The third man exists in many forms. In the Serres quote we assume the third man becomes active in "successful communication' (64) but it seems this mysterious third man (or woman) exists in so many other situations in which we seek to prove ourselves to someone who may not exist. Not only in a conversation - in social situation or intellectual situation. Fisher claims that by including this third man, the message becomes "blurred .. or unintelligible", and when exclude or seek to exclude the third man, the trasmission of the intended message is ensured - but why is this?
Is it supposing that we can only successfully communicate when we suppose that their is one listening who is perhaps,less than ourselves? When we assume the third man is our equal, or even superior, does it make our personal message less self assured and open to criticism through sheer uncertainty?
Serres and Fisher use the example of Eshu - the created third man who has a two tone hat. Apparently Eshu 'creates noise to engender a new pattern of relations' (64). These new patterns, I think, what ARE they? Does an Eshu example force us to show our inherent distrust of others , or does it simply show us our own stubborness and our ability to sell out a friend rather than admit we are wrong; in order to save face?
The third man is like the sneaky person inside your head who can consistently prove you wrong, reveal your true colours, embarrass you in front of your friends. He is like the person you secretly try to impress but who pokes holes through all your arguments. So in excluding the third man, as Fisher and Serres suggest, it seems we are just protecting ourselves from the person who will always prove us wrong.
Nicolas Bourriaud, "Art if the 1990's", from Relational Aesthetics, Paris : Les presses de reel, 2002, pp 25-40.
Jean Fisher bring up the old favourite , The Trickster. The thing that caught my attention in this exert is the idea bought up on page 64 about dialogue. " To hold a dialogue is to suppose a third man and seek to exclude him" ( Michel Serres) really struck a chord with me.
The third man exists in many forms. In the Serres quote we assume the third man becomes active in "successful communication' (64) but it seems this mysterious third man (or woman) exists in so many other situations in which we seek to prove ourselves to someone who may not exist. Not only in a conversation - in social situation or intellectual situation. Fisher claims that by including this third man, the message becomes "blurred .. or unintelligible", and when exclude or seek to exclude the third man, the trasmission of the intended message is ensured - but why is this?
Is it supposing that we can only successfully communicate when we suppose that their is one listening who is perhaps,less than ourselves? When we assume the third man is our equal, or even superior, does it make our personal message less self assured and open to criticism through sheer uncertainty?
Serres and Fisher use the example of Eshu - the created third man who has a two tone hat. Apparently Eshu 'creates noise to engender a new pattern of relations' (64). These new patterns, I think, what ARE they? Does an Eshu example force us to show our inherent distrust of others , or does it simply show us our own stubborness and our ability to sell out a friend rather than admit we are wrong; in order to save face?
The third man is like the sneaky person inside your head who can consistently prove you wrong, reveal your true colours, embarrass you in front of your friends. He is like the person you secretly try to impress but who pokes holes through all your arguments. So in excluding the third man, as Fisher and Serres suggest, it seems we are just protecting ourselves from the person who will always prove us wrong.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Magic realism --Oxymoron-ic.
Natalie Robertson, " The 10 Predicaments of Maui: Notes on Tricksters", Brian Butler ed., Volume 1, Auckland : Artspace and CLouds, 2008, pp.16-28.
Arun Appadirai, 'Disjuncture and Difference in Global Cultural Economy' Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation, Minneapolis, University of MInnesota Press, 1996, pp.27-47.
History is filled with hundreds of Tricksters, each more tricky and sneaky and rebellious than the last.
From Isabella Blow to Sid Vicious, Stephen Sprouse ( Rebel without a cause (16), Gloria Steinem (the trickster can be the anarchist who challenges governance and societal structure (16)) to the more reclusive kinds such as Friedrich Nietzsche, the trickster is a repeating character throughout time. But what really is the trickster, other than a Radiohead song? While the more modern versions of trickster I labelled certainly fit Robertson's idea of " trickster ways of moving the goal posts,the boundary markers" (21) perhaps the idea of the trickster taken in a mythical or metaphorical context can be more of the badass they know they are deep down.
Francis Alys' 10 Predicaments for Tricksters at first, seemed like the ramblings of a madman, but then I started thinking about it in relation to my art work this year which is based on classical myth. And the thought struck me, the list, however disjointed and unlikely, pretty much ticked all the boxes according to Greek and Roman myth. These, like many of the stories of Maui, almost go against the conventions of Western storytelling and sometimes morals, using devices such as incest,rape, magic and fantasy, human-animal transformation, and immaculate conception.
To me, such stories and myths are historically the basis of Western society. Until, essentially some bloke decided that Christianity was the way to go and many of these stories wee deemed irrelevant, immoral and pagan. The same thing essentially happened when our very own New Zealand was colonized - the Maori people were pushed toward Christianity and the myths and legends became less about moral teachings and metaphors and became a form of pagan story telling. The trickster reigns supreme in these stories, living at his (or her will) and taking the world by storm. But where is the true trickster today, the Maui's and the Zeus'?? Perhaps the trickster has toned him or herself down to become those that go against the norm and go unnoticed as silent prodigies or loudmouth misunderstood genius'.
The trickster also exists in pop culture in the form of himself, the Trickster, in comic books. The enemy of heroes such as The Flash, he uses gag weapons such as explosives hidden in teddy bears to foil his enemies.
Arun Appadirai, 'Disjuncture and Difference in Global Cultural Economy' Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation, Minneapolis, University of MInnesota Press, 1996, pp.27-47.
History is filled with hundreds of Tricksters, each more tricky and sneaky and rebellious than the last.
From Isabella Blow to Sid Vicious, Stephen Sprouse ( Rebel without a cause (16), Gloria Steinem (the trickster can be the anarchist who challenges governance and societal structure (16)) to the more reclusive kinds such as Friedrich Nietzsche, the trickster is a repeating character throughout time. But what really is the trickster, other than a Radiohead song? While the more modern versions of trickster I labelled certainly fit Robertson's idea of " trickster ways of moving the goal posts,the boundary markers" (21) perhaps the idea of the trickster taken in a mythical or metaphorical context can be more of the badass they know they are deep down.
Francis Alys' 10 Predicaments for Tricksters at first, seemed like the ramblings of a madman, but then I started thinking about it in relation to my art work this year which is based on classical myth. And the thought struck me, the list, however disjointed and unlikely, pretty much ticked all the boxes according to Greek and Roman myth. These, like many of the stories of Maui, almost go against the conventions of Western storytelling and sometimes morals, using devices such as incest,rape, magic and fantasy, human-animal transformation, and immaculate conception.
To me, such stories and myths are historically the basis of Western society. Until, essentially some bloke decided that Christianity was the way to go and many of these stories wee deemed irrelevant, immoral and pagan. The same thing essentially happened when our very own New Zealand was colonized - the Maori people were pushed toward Christianity and the myths and legends became less about moral teachings and metaphors and became a form of pagan story telling. The trickster reigns supreme in these stories, living at his (or her will) and taking the world by storm. But where is the true trickster today, the Maui's and the Zeus'?? Perhaps the trickster has toned him or herself down to become those that go against the norm and go unnoticed as silent prodigies or loudmouth misunderstood genius'.
The trickster also exists in pop culture in the form of himself, the Trickster, in comic books. The enemy of heroes such as The Flash, he uses gag weapons such as explosives hidden in teddy bears to foil his enemies.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Elizabeth Currid = new best friend
Elizabeth Currid, " The Economiscs of A Good Party: Social Mechanisms and the Legitimization of Art/Culture", Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol.31, no.2, Fall 2007, pp.386-394
Celia Lury, " 'Contemplating a Self Portrait as a Pharmacist': A Trade Mark Style of Doing Art and Science", Theory,Culture,Socieety, Vol.22 (1), London: Sage, pp.93-110
Things we all know -
1. Damien Hirst can brand himself until the cows come home, doesn't mean he is 'good'. It’s a matter of taste.
Boy does Elizabeth Currid make sense. All the talk about gatekeepers and hobbyists and I was thinking that not being in the "scene" was ok and that maybe by a miracle I could be an artist fo’ life. The first thing the reading made me think of was a little old NZ magazine called "No." - a magazine that agonizes me to read but I still look at it. It deals with mainly fashion, but art and music too. Essentially, covers all the bases of popular culture. No magazine is run by a select group of people, "scenesters" if you will. If you read the magazine closely, you will see that the people who write the articles/ take the photos/ style the shoots are also the people who feature in the articles/shoots/photos. They are the gatekeepers to their own publication, therefore they control who the exposure limits/pushes. Wouldn't we all like to think that our artwork is good enough for us to get by without "schmoozing" - but maybe it’s not? In which case, the "scene" better be ready. As Damien Hirst proves, perhaps pure taste isn’t enough to hold onto with this, perhaps we all need to be more committed social networkers. If you really wanted to simplify Currid, you might say that because taste is derived from a social context, become popular/ influential enough within one social context, and then you can dominate it. Then your social group will slowly take over the world. Well, maybe get into the mainstream, anyway.
Its kind of like the Sofia Coppola collaboration with Louis Vuitton – the woman is a filmmaker, yes? But she designs an accessories collection for LV and it takes off. So we assume that she has enough connections to make the bridge between fashion and film that much smaller. S.C got “scene” in’s with LV designers (THE GATEKEEPERS to luxury fashion) and this apparently opened a door (or handbag) for her. By the way, the bag comes cheap for LV at a smashing $2,200 US approximately. To use Celia Lury’s idea, it’s like amalgamating one brand name with another, then taking Currid’s idea, making something luxurious and unattainable to most of the world and letting the desire filter down through the masses… sigh.
Celia Lury, " 'Contemplating a Self Portrait as a Pharmacist': A Trade Mark Style of Doing Art and Science", Theory,Culture,Socieety, Vol.22 (1), London: Sage, pp.93-110
Things we all know -
1. Damien Hirst can brand himself until the cows come home, doesn't mean he is 'good'. It’s a matter of taste.
Boy does Elizabeth Currid make sense. All the talk about gatekeepers and hobbyists and I was thinking that not being in the "scene" was ok and that maybe by a miracle I could be an artist fo’ life. The first thing the reading made me think of was a little old NZ magazine called "No." - a magazine that agonizes me to read but I still look at it. It deals with mainly fashion, but art and music too. Essentially, covers all the bases of popular culture. No magazine is run by a select group of people, "scenesters" if you will. If you read the magazine closely, you will see that the people who write the articles/ take the photos/ style the shoots are also the people who feature in the articles/shoots/photos. They are the gatekeepers to their own publication, therefore they control who the exposure limits/pushes. Wouldn't we all like to think that our artwork is good enough for us to get by without "schmoozing" - but maybe it’s not? In which case, the "scene" better be ready. As Damien Hirst proves, perhaps pure taste isn’t enough to hold onto with this, perhaps we all need to be more committed social networkers. If you really wanted to simplify Currid, you might say that because taste is derived from a social context, become popular/ influential enough within one social context, and then you can dominate it. Then your social group will slowly take over the world. Well, maybe get into the mainstream, anyway.
Its kind of like the Sofia Coppola collaboration with Louis Vuitton – the woman is a filmmaker, yes? But she designs an accessories collection for LV and it takes off. So we assume that she has enough connections to make the bridge between fashion and film that much smaller. S.C got “scene” in’s with LV designers (THE GATEKEEPERS to luxury fashion) and this apparently opened a door (or handbag) for her. By the way, the bag comes cheap for LV at a smashing $2,200 US approximately. To use Celia Lury’s idea, it’s like amalgamating one brand name with another, then taking Currid’s idea, making something luxurious and unattainable to most of the world and letting the desire filter down through the masses… sigh.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Over used word at Art School #1 "Appropriation"
Tze Ming Mok, "Race you There", Landfall 208, Dunedin : Otago University Press, 2004, pp. 18-26.
James Clifford , " On Collecting Art and Culture", in The Predicament of Culture : Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art, CAmbridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1988, pp. 215-251.
Two very different responses to two very different readings. Cliffords writing was like Anthro 105 meets Fine Arts Critical Thinking 101. Cool. Key words - fetishism vs. Obsession, "relativist anthropology" , enthnographic contextualization, "art-Culture system", Archiving. Makes sense as Meyer has Ph.D in Art history.
"Race You There" struck more of an emotional chord rather than an intellectual one. I ended up reading this excerpt for fun one night (please dont make fun of me) just because it seemed interesting - kind of like an extended journal entry. I guess the blend of race and culture in New Zealand is kind of a key factor in New Zealand culture , and indeed informs creative Practice in New Zealand. Especially relevant to the show at the Auckland Art Gallery , Picturing History: Goldie to Cotton , which more looks at culturalism in the sense of origins and the development of the land but still makes me think in a similar way in regards to race , culture and minority in NZ.
Being an obvious kind of kiwi gal, with kiwi accent and maybe a greeting in Maori ,it isn't very often that I get asked where I am from. But something that does interest me is in relation to my boyfriend. He is Korean by ethnicity ( often placed as" other Asian" by administration), but is as Kiwi as I am and could probably say two words in Korean. When he gets asked about where he is from, he usually replies, "Wellington," his hometown. The Questioner looks confused as this is obviously not the answer they were looking for. The next question becomes more tricky, "Well, what ethnicity are you, where are your parents from?". Sometimes it just isn't enough to sound and act the same, becasue if you look different, people are always going to know and ask that dreaded question that so often has a long-winded answer - "Where are you from?" Even friends of his - though they pride themselves on being offensive, still ask him if he needs chopsticks to eat his hamburger, or call him "Chink" or "Chinamen" - not only generalising his heritage with all other Asian cultures, but effectively creating the barrier of 'us' and 'them'. Particularly in regard to Asian individuals and communities, it seems that Asian communities will struggle to get the acceptance that Pacific and Maori cultures have in NZ, no matter how many or few people there are of each culture.
Perhaps we are all a little 'colourblind' (20) as Ming suggests, until it we feel we have been unjustly targeted as 'them' - no matter how 'us' we really are.How is it that when I go shopping into as Asian clothes store with my boyfriend of half Chinese flatmate, the latter are fawned over and fussed over by sales assistants, where I am left to my own devices??
Being colourblind seems only to apply to Pakeha and visually European people - there is no question that ethnicity has bearing on who you are and how you form your identity. While as NZ pakeha , it is a fact of being that here in New Zealand, colour-blindness is alive and well. It seems colour is only considered colour when it is not white.
James Clifford , " On Collecting Art and Culture", in The Predicament of Culture : Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art, CAmbridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1988, pp. 215-251.
Two very different responses to two very different readings. Cliffords writing was like Anthro 105 meets Fine Arts Critical Thinking 101. Cool. Key words - fetishism vs. Obsession, "relativist anthropology" , enthnographic contextualization, "art-Culture system", Archiving. Makes sense as Meyer has Ph.D in Art history.
"Race You There" struck more of an emotional chord rather than an intellectual one. I ended up reading this excerpt for fun one night (please dont make fun of me) just because it seemed interesting - kind of like an extended journal entry. I guess the blend of race and culture in New Zealand is kind of a key factor in New Zealand culture , and indeed informs creative Practice in New Zealand. Especially relevant to the show at the Auckland Art Gallery , Picturing History: Goldie to Cotton , which more looks at culturalism in the sense of origins and the development of the land but still makes me think in a similar way in regards to race , culture and minority in NZ.
Being an obvious kind of kiwi gal, with kiwi accent and maybe a greeting in Maori ,it isn't very often that I get asked where I am from. But something that does interest me is in relation to my boyfriend. He is Korean by ethnicity ( often placed as" other Asian" by administration), but is as Kiwi as I am and could probably say two words in Korean. When he gets asked about where he is from, he usually replies, "Wellington," his hometown. The Questioner looks confused as this is obviously not the answer they were looking for. The next question becomes more tricky, "Well, what ethnicity are you, where are your parents from?". Sometimes it just isn't enough to sound and act the same, becasue if you look different, people are always going to know and ask that dreaded question that so often has a long-winded answer - "Where are you from?" Even friends of his - though they pride themselves on being offensive, still ask him if he needs chopsticks to eat his hamburger, or call him "Chink" or "Chinamen" - not only generalising his heritage with all other Asian cultures, but effectively creating the barrier of 'us' and 'them'. Particularly in regard to Asian individuals and communities, it seems that Asian communities will struggle to get the acceptance that Pacific and Maori cultures have in NZ, no matter how many or few people there are of each culture.
Perhaps we are all a little 'colourblind' (20) as Ming suggests, until it we feel we have been unjustly targeted as 'them' - no matter how 'us' we really are.How is it that when I go shopping into as Asian clothes store with my boyfriend of half Chinese flatmate, the latter are fawned over and fussed over by sales assistants, where I am left to my own devices??
Being colourblind seems only to apply to Pakeha and visually European people - there is no question that ethnicity has bearing on who you are and how you form your identity. While as NZ pakeha , it is a fact of being that here in New Zealand, colour-blindness is alive and well. It seems colour is only considered colour when it is not white.
Site Specific and stuff..
James Meyer, "The Functional Site; Or, the Transformation of Site Specificity" in 'Space,Site, Intervention: Situating Installation Art, ed. Erika Suderberg, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press 2000, pp.20-23.
Geoff Park " Theatre Country", in 'Theatre Country : Essays on Landscape and whenua', Wellington : Victoria University Press,2006, pp.113-127
Geoff Park discussed some ideas and issues in his writing "Theatre Country", particularly in regard to colonialisation and the picturesque. Something of interest to me was his idea about the beauty of scenery being something Western, something forced upon the physical land and the Maori essence and psyche that existed before the creation of the Western colony.
Park's idea that 'What Maori lost when English taste for scenery took their most beautiful coast or lakeshore was not just a tradeable commodity.. the greatest impact of taking a people's native country can be on their psychic, spiritual landscape." (127) really caught my imagination in a sense that few of the other readings did. Perhaps this is because of my experiences with Maori Land claims and grievances in my lifetime, or maybe it was just because it is an idea that seems so disconnected from my life and where I live.
From my outlook of history, I look at this and can see the relationship between land and community differs greatly between Maori and Pakeha. Even with initial colonization, Pakeha settlers dealt with land as they always had- a tradeable commodity,to use Park's title. The unruly and wild New Zealand land held no special value for the newcomers, and had no connection with the land in any more sense than ownership. It seems maybe something hard to modern people, especially Pakeha, to have any spiritual connection with land, especially in a city like Auckland.
Maybe nowadays its less more about a spiritual connection with physical land and more about a sense of attachment and a sentimentalization to a place?
Creative practice in NZ seems to be both inhibited and influenced by our history, culture ( or lack of ) and geographic position - and a way of questioning these things that make us NZ and New Zealanders.
Geoff Park " Theatre Country", in 'Theatre Country : Essays on Landscape and whenua', Wellington : Victoria University Press,2006, pp.113-127
Geoff Park discussed some ideas and issues in his writing "Theatre Country", particularly in regard to colonialisation and the picturesque. Something of interest to me was his idea about the beauty of scenery being something Western, something forced upon the physical land and the Maori essence and psyche that existed before the creation of the Western colony.
Park's idea that 'What Maori lost when English taste for scenery took their most beautiful coast or lakeshore was not just a tradeable commodity.. the greatest impact of taking a people's native country can be on their psychic, spiritual landscape." (127) really caught my imagination in a sense that few of the other readings did. Perhaps this is because of my experiences with Maori Land claims and grievances in my lifetime, or maybe it was just because it is an idea that seems so disconnected from my life and where I live.
From my outlook of history, I look at this and can see the relationship between land and community differs greatly between Maori and Pakeha. Even with initial colonization, Pakeha settlers dealt with land as they always had- a tradeable commodity,to use Park's title. The unruly and wild New Zealand land held no special value for the newcomers, and had no connection with the land in any more sense than ownership. It seems maybe something hard to modern people, especially Pakeha, to have any spiritual connection with land, especially in a city like Auckland.
Maybe nowadays its less more about a spiritual connection with physical land and more about a sense of attachment and a sentimentalization to a place?
Creative practice in NZ seems to be both inhibited and influenced by our history, culture ( or lack of ) and geographic position - and a way of questioning these things that make us NZ and New Zealanders.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Jean-Francois Lyotard - the man can talk.
Jean-Francois Lyotard, "Answering The Question: What is Post-Modernism?",' The Post-Modern COndition: A Report On Knowledge', Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1984, pp.71-82
Bruce Barber, "Found Situations 1970-1972" ZX#4 Situationa, ed.Paul Cullen and Grant Thompson, Auckland ; Maukau School of Visual Arts, 2008, pp.10-14
While Lyotard eventually makes for interesting reading, I’m not going to pretend it was an easy read. The dude could talk the hind leg off a donkey. Bruce Barber is somewhat easier to digest - but then again, his text wasn’t translated from French.
Lyotard discusses the idea of Eclecticism and (to me ) kind of took the standpoint that cultural eclecticism ( as displayed in the example of one who listens to reggae and eats McDonalds, wears French perfume in Tokyo) as a negative. He brings up the idea of an ‘anything goes’ culture, something which struck me as kind of interesting when read today, now, in a contemporary situation. How can we not be a culture that is summative of a collection of cultures? What is so darn wrong about eating Japanese and while watching a Bollywood movie? As if it wasn’t obvious, it’s kind of hard to exist (unless maybe you are in rural New Zealand) without being exposed to one other, if not many other cultures. Why is it that a collection of ideas/Images from other cult4res is considered “kitsch”? It is true that allowing such endeavors blurs lines of taste and perhaps creates a cycle more of monetary transactions, but what is said culturalism is indeed to your taste?
“Anything goes” doesn’t necessarily mean a lack of or slackening of taste, it’s kind of more about liberality and the idea that art doesn’t fall within the strict boundaries of portrait painting only. Because, lord, how boring would art school be with only this.
And even if many people don’t necessarily understand art (in the sense of a common language), it doesn’t mean that they don’t appreciate it. To use a little Bruce anecdote – my older sister, who is a stay at home mum with little education in art, came to the Elam open day at the end of 2008. While wandering through the spaces where students were showing, she pointed at a cardboard box taped to the wall (no offense intended to the artist) and whispered to me, “Is that art or a joke?”
Aforementioned box on the wall was in fact art, and while my sister didn’t have the slightest idea what is what about, she appreciated that someone had obviously thought long and hard about that box.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Krauss and Price -march 26
Rosalind Krauss , "Sculpture in the Expanded Field" "october' Vol.8 (Spring 1979) pp/30-44
Seth Price, "Dispersion" (2001-2002)
I'm not really one for sculpture, personally, and the readings were both new to me so it really was the first time I had read into sculpture writings.
For me, Krauss bought up some interesting points that I have thought about in relation to sculpture before - how far can we take the medium? When does art stop being art and start being a cardboard box in an empty room? And this article, written in 1979 hadn’t even seen the extent of the art boundary.
I guess the reading was slightly outdated and was quite "formal" eg. Diagrams, which confused me more.
I definitely found the Seth Price reading much more relevant and interesting. His argument about the validity of art (can something be considered art unless it is being distributed and viewed?) struck me, especially in consideration of my own work. Being an art student means we are practicing art (ists), but are we artists in ‘the real world’?? Can something be considered art without people knowing about it physically or conceptually? Everybody wants their fifteen minutes of fame in displaying their work and making it available for people to critique and discuss.
The digitalization of art is also something interesting to me – I guess, ideally, it reaches a far larger audience that a lot of galleries, but it leaves the personal side of viewing art in the dust. Even if understanding the work comes after discussing and research outside the gallery, sometimes just seeing the piece can change your perspective or your understanding of others views.
The last sentence of the Price article made me laugh, but also kind of made sense.. “Production... is the excretory phase in...Appropriation”. How funny that the form of production determines the way in which the work is recognized and related to other art, yet Price argues that art without distribution and production may not be art at all.
Seth Price, "Dispersion" (2001-2002)
I'm not really one for sculpture, personally, and the readings were both new to me so it really was the first time I had read into sculpture writings.
For me, Krauss bought up some interesting points that I have thought about in relation to sculpture before - how far can we take the medium? When does art stop being art and start being a cardboard box in an empty room? And this article, written in 1979 hadn’t even seen the extent of the art boundary.
I guess the reading was slightly outdated and was quite "formal" eg. Diagrams, which confused me more.
I definitely found the Seth Price reading much more relevant and interesting. His argument about the validity of art (can something be considered art unless it is being distributed and viewed?) struck me, especially in consideration of my own work. Being an art student means we are practicing art (ists), but are we artists in ‘the real world’?? Can something be considered art without people knowing about it physically or conceptually? Everybody wants their fifteen minutes of fame in displaying their work and making it available for people to critique and discuss.
The digitalization of art is also something interesting to me – I guess, ideally, it reaches a far larger audience that a lot of galleries, but it leaves the personal side of viewing art in the dust. Even if understanding the work comes after discussing and research outside the gallery, sometimes just seeing the piece can change your perspective or your understanding of others views.
The last sentence of the Price article made me laugh, but also kind of made sense.. “Production... is the excretory phase in...Appropriation”. How funny that the form of production determines the way in which the work is recognized and related to other art, yet Price argues that art without distribution and production may not be art at all.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
reading 1 - March 12
re : Meg Cranston w/ Nico Israel and W.J.T Mitchell.
Meg Cranston with Nico Israel, "Running on Light Feet", From 'Hot Pants in a Cold Cold World' : work 1987-2007, Auckland: Artspace and Clouds 2008,pp.6-21
WW.J.T Mitchell , excerpt from chapter "What is an Image?" 'Iconology:Image, Text, Ideology' Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1986, pp.40-46
The two texts were so different its hard to draw parallels - maybe that’s the point. The interview with Cranston is obviously created with a much more accessible audience in mind - Mitchell’s text took several attempts to negotiate, but came up more interesting for me.
I found the ideas about motif/ symbol vs. expression/ meaning interesting, I guess I think about things like that sometimes - it seems like most people can never seem to express things in a pure form of expression that isn’t words? Pictorial representation seems to be much easier to "read" than an abstract symbol of expression. There isn’t really any way in which we can read any form of pictorial representation without prior knowledge affected the way in which we read it, so the ability to not draw any similarities / references between the image and verbal connections seems almost inhuman. How can we argue with something that is as old as the Egyptians?
Isn’t it a much more simplistic way of seeing to simply draw our own ideas from such images?? The Mark Twain example (“ Young girl with her head in a bag”) struck me as infinitely more amusing than the reality of the subject matter –the way we read the image is determined by the title (words) allocated to the image or the word associations we draw from an image. An expressionist image can only be explained in words; unless we are free to draw our own interpretation from it – otherwise we are just hearing the words that the artist believes embody the expression to them specifically. The idea, while interesting to consider, seems rather idealistic..
Meg Cranston with Nico Israel, "Running on Light Feet", From 'Hot Pants in a Cold Cold World' : work 1987-2007, Auckland: Artspace and Clouds 2008,pp.6-21
WW.J.T Mitchell , excerpt from chapter "What is an Image?" 'Iconology:Image, Text, Ideology' Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1986, pp.40-46
The two texts were so different its hard to draw parallels - maybe that’s the point. The interview with Cranston is obviously created with a much more accessible audience in mind - Mitchell’s text took several attempts to negotiate, but came up more interesting for me.
I found the ideas about motif/ symbol vs. expression/ meaning interesting, I guess I think about things like that sometimes - it seems like most people can never seem to express things in a pure form of expression that isn’t words? Pictorial representation seems to be much easier to "read" than an abstract symbol of expression. There isn’t really any way in which we can read any form of pictorial representation without prior knowledge affected the way in which we read it, so the ability to not draw any similarities / references between the image and verbal connections seems almost inhuman. How can we argue with something that is as old as the Egyptians?
Isn’t it a much more simplistic way of seeing to simply draw our own ideas from such images?? The Mark Twain example (“ Young girl with her head in a bag”) struck me as infinitely more amusing than the reality of the subject matter –the way we read the image is determined by the title (words) allocated to the image or the word associations we draw from an image. An expressionist image can only be explained in words; unless we are free to draw our own interpretation from it – otherwise we are just hearing the words that the artist believes embody the expression to them specifically. The idea, while interesting to consider, seems rather idealistic..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)