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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)