#freedoms2017
Cherry 민지 In response to/expansion of Priyanka's claim in class that "art cannot be grounded in sentiment" *by "DS" I refer to the woman and her painting that we discussed in class. I think it is important to recognize that cultural institutions and public spaces are always political spaces. And as political spaces, I completely agree that regarding museums in particular, those who call themselves "artists" and put "art" in these museums MUST be brought to bear social and public responsibility. Some practicing contemporary "artists" recognize this and introduce intentional, thought-provoking, and sensitive, kickass content that inspires awareness and dialogue (like Kerry James Marshall's 2016 exhibition at Met Breuer). We've already discussed some examples in class that certainly inspire conversation but more because it is a disappointment than it is kickass, so I wont get into that here. I will acknowledge that we struggled with the notion that in inspiring rage and controversy, that perhaps even crap "art" is of value. I've been putting "art" in quotation marks. While I think contemporary art can be exciting, and I love how it must be contextualized and therefore understood in a socio-political realm, I also recognize that this is one of the qualities that makes contemporary art inaccessible and elitist. Contemporary art is unable to speak for itself, and is often situated in spaces of limited accessibility for all. We spoke briefly of the paradox that is the function of philosophy. Something about (roughly paraphrased) "the function of philosophy being to critique language, but in critiquing language reinforces the very same structure of that language which it critiques." Contemporary art and its politically conscious agents are guilty of this ironic perpetuation of what it seeks to dismantle. It is an awkward cyclical loop in the game of capitalism. One model of such an awkward circle may look like this. : hip, politically conscious makes work critiquing something inherent to the institutional --> relies on institutional structures for publicity + profit/ funding --> relies on profit/funding gained from recognition through institutional structures to continue making activist art? Even as they critique the institution, they stand to benefit from it. To that end, there is a need for rupture. That rupture is Art as grounded in sentimentality. To be sure, I agree that at the Whitney Biennial, sentimentality cannot be given space. In our current sociopolitical context, and due to its presumably varied and large audience, sentimental art would be too personal, too self-centered, too much about someone's own personal journey which is frequently wrought with delusions and ignorance that other people with different experiences and more clarity might not have time for. To impose one's self unto a mass of strangers to whom this said self cannot listen to in turn, is rather unfair,crude, and when done apolitically, irresponsible. I agree that since "art" has become a cultural institution (profitable and political), in cultural institutions sentimentality and the like belong in the 20th century or way before that. Contemporary art and its audience must require that with great power of celebrity / microphone, one should bear the great responsibility to make work that further dissects public assumptions in order to arrive at truth of things. And because contemporary art is increasingly dictated by politics and audience, it cannot be given exclusive right to the use of the word "art." Sure, this is an opinion. I personally do not consider most contemporary works in museums today "art." I am sorry to say that while DS' work in the biennial is inappropriate and mediocre, if DS had truly been meditative, I would consider it art. Again, this is all just my opinion, but in stating my opinion I mean to highlight the importance of NOT relegating all that does not fit into contemporary art parameters by leftist standards as not-art or unbelonging in museum spaces. I think a rupture may look like a flooding of sentimentality in institutional spaces because institutions, bureaucracies, and the state notoriously have no space or time for such things. I admit my own bias and will say that if I were to curate this rupture in a museum space, I would leave out DS and let this rupture to be a flooding of sentimentality of the oppressed. The oppressed do not need to be merely "represented" in institutional spaces. We need to be heard, seen, and felt. How can this be if the art is not grounded in sentiment? KJM at Met Breuer was great because his work spoke of his love for black people. It was great because it was situated in the upper east side where a lot of rich white people live. It was great because it was free for anybody to come and admire, if they could find the time, if they had heard about it. A letter from a soldier to his mother on display at a small university history museum in Korea is great because it is an artifact, an art, that history textbooks filled with dates and anthropological notes on exactly how Korean people made kimchi could never tell you. It is universal and relatable because it is sentimental, even if you cannot understand the language, you might still be able to read the art. The humanity of the object makes it possible for its sentiment to be felt across cultures and identities. What is more political than an artwork capable of unifying people? or having people feel? A rupture of this sort in an institutional space would ultimately mean the demise of the institution and I don't see it happening anytime soon, but I do see it happening all the time in real life, on the streets, in private spaces, in interactions. And we must recognize it and elevate it as such. Encourage art in all forms. And most of all, encourage sentimentality, because I think our world is too unfeeling and to take sentimentality out of art is no art at all. Poor people are not going to suddenly start having time to go to museums. But we can encourage a culture where we make art all the time, for each other, in the form of letters, trinkets, paintings for the dishwashing room in the back of restaurants, to janitor’s closets, to hospital hallways, doctor’s office, dentist bathrooms, subway windows, laundromats, etc. And also to encourage a language that recognizes art as such where it exists. Art doesn’t have to mean studio space and a name card that says “artist” on it and an MFA to prove it. To buy into this singular narrative without acknowledging life as art is capitalist and entraps you in that unfortunate feedback loop. A rupture would mean an explosion of art from its elitist bubble into its practice as normalized and integrated and recognized as a naturally occurring part of all realms of life, and this happens when we emphasize the value of the private, the small, ephemeral, and sentimental. Things that might not receive publicity, and therefore make no money. Final word on *interventionist art *: Interventionist art is simply life activities that has been labeled and categorized but this is just a way of packaging of lived life for consumption and processing in the art world proper. Interventionist art plays with and depends on the specifics of time and space and interaction for impact. Its publicity beyond those agents involved in interactions has twofold intentions a) to spread awareness of the action as an idea to be proliferated so that the opportunity it provides can be offered elsewhere and b) give history, name, archive and credential to artist. A is great. B aligns itself with norms of contemporary art culture as situated in capitalism. It is the in-between of the two extreme ends of art I have described above, the first being contemporary art in institutions proper, and the second being art as lived, shared, and loved in all aspects of life, in human interactions and lonely moments of reflection. I think interventionist art shows us the seams at which rupture can occur but is not rupture itself. Rupture must be en masse, by the people for the people.
0 Comments
Cherry 민지
Re: Focault's What is an Author and Barthes' Death of the Author #freedoms2017 What is the significance of the author's death in art education praxis? (Other than its implicating Ranciere and the perpetuation of the notion of authorship in academia vis-a-vis constant footnoting and referencing of the likes of him as being a clear demonstration of what Foucault posits is "author as principle of thrift in the proliferation of meaning" (Foucault in Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology translation of "what is an author") which in turn makes real and palpable the inaccessibility and elitism of academic discourse that often have to do with people on the outside such as "urban youth" (code word for colored students by [white]* people on the outside afraid to talk about race) and artists, activists, and politicians. [*I'm referring to internalized 'whiteness' as well.. evident in the language choices of even POC academics.] There are a lot of fun things to pull from both articles and I will do so in the next weeks to come as I intend to reread the two articles to better articulate/respond to all that came up. But immediately, I am able to talk about what struck me most, which is the gap between philosophy/theory and real-life context and application. I value the "death of author" concept for its exaltation of The Idea. It's not the who, the self-made person, the romanticized artist, the stand-alone, the immortalized hero / tragic figure, that is important, but the words, the ideas they signify in and of themselves. When applying "death of author" concept to even our bodies/birth , ie the author of my body being two parents (or a sperm and egg), it may do two things: 1) decontextualize our bodies from its ancestral origins. 2) rupture the notion of exclusive nuclear family (structurally enforced by capitalism) and provide potential for an embrace of a specie-al-family, or even inter-special family. The Body, to me, is an Idea, as it was God's when God first thought human and created human. Bodies are living embodiments of ideas, just as words are, and when the Body lacks an author (specific mom, dad), the Body then begins to represent itself as itself (as with words without author). And what that Body is as an idea is anybody's guess, but the most prevalent Idea of Body (given the most popular world religions) is the Body as Holy, Body as Dirt, Body as Idea of God, Body as Image of God. In this respect, Body without author(s) become God. If we begin to view our Bodies as such, Body is embodiment of Love (for God is Love) and this postulates the notion of universal compassion, which ruptures the modern notion of nuclear family in all its competitiveness, preferential status, compartmentalization, etc (for nuclear family unit rose in within the capitalist economic model that promotes survival of the fittest). The flip-side of Body as God is Body-with-no-God, or godlessness. This is effectively the same as number 1, in that body-without-author de-contextualizes our bodies from its ancestral origins. This decontextualization of our bodies in this age of post-colonial diaspora is violent. In the same way to kill the author when it comes to recognizing voices of POC, womyn, LGBTQi, immigrants, non-colonial language speaking worlds and other marginalized peoples is violence. "death of author" is an ideology useful for metaphorical application and to propose as end goal in the revolution, particularly in America where "independence" means having a giant Ego, which enacts forms of violence we do unto others and ourselves. The romanticization of the writer in isolation and artist alone in suffering is not inspiring but dangerous in an era where communication, collaboration, and sharing resources are the only ways to build resistance. The "death of author" renders the current status and position of 'writer' and 'artist' obsolete and makes possible for everyone to act a writer and artist. Killing the author makes possible greater interconnectivity on the basis of ideas alone, and because no Author means no principle authority thrifting the proliferation of meaning. However, in practice we're not there yet. Making visible marginalized communities and their stories relies on the existing principles of authorship. What ultimately looks like a fair practice towards social justice in Education and otherwise TO ME is selectively murdering certain authors AND SIMULTANEOUSLY selectively making visible certain authors. This means: a) making typical canonical white-male "authors" of literature and philosophy invisible by emphasizing the idea content of their writing. This does not mean excluding or ignoring white man's contributions but instead of emphasizing importance of the who, emphasizing whatever important idea is being extrapolated for understanding and analysis. b) reading and re-contextualizing these ideas as re-imagined and responded-to by victims of the British empire. EXAMPLE: The Japanese took western philosophy and ran with it. By that I mean in less than 100 years, Japan transformed itself COMPLETELY into a formidable enemy of Western imperial forces, and her intellectuals accomplished phenomenal work: not only was everything possible translated from german, french, italian, etc to learn from, but much was contributed in addition to and because of this exchange. How come no one is reading the perspectives of the colonized on colonizer's ideas? My favorite is Keiji Nishitani's Religion and Nothingness , an original piece that incorporates / responds to western ideas/concepts of nihilism, existentialism, religion, etc. c) exploring non-white* authors. (non-white here means anything beyond the scope of white, hetero-patriarchal, capitalist privilege). Related to media literacy is the imperative for every citizen (of earth) to educate themselves on media, consumerism, and resulting Big Data algorithms that systemize and self-justify injustices in large-scale implementations. Re: Weapons of Math Destruction. Even more enlightening is the debate it spurs (re: Amazon reviews on Weapons of Math Destruction)...
I'm thinking about: perspective and personal experience vs. collective patterns not necessarily correlating to personal experience/perspective. |
Blogged responses to 'Media Literacy' course Spring NYU 2017Archives
March 2017
Categories |