The concept of both the infinite and the finite is present within Martin's works. While the grid is a representation of infinity, the grid itself is encased in a finite border. In terms of her art, is the aspect of infinity or finity more important?
In the text is the statement "Her drawing would not be concerned with the fragment but with completeness, a sense of completeleness she suggested by surrounding her grids with a border that [...] stopped them being seen as part of an extended continuum" (51). The purpose of the border seems to just be to make the drawing "complete", since simply depicting a grid might suggest that the part of the grid drawn is only a small section of the whole grid. Martin seems to be attempting to confine infinity. However, her goal is still the idea of infinity, the finite border is only used as a supplement to "complete" her works, although the purpose of this isn't as clear.
Martin's work, consisting mainly of grids, is highly repetitive, yet there are also a seemingly infinite number of discrepancies in the grid. What exactly was Martin trying to accomplish by drawing like this?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Gautama Buddha
Talismans - in "The Infinite Line" the use of the talisman is mentioned as a part of Agnes Martin's work. I can see that in her work and wonder how of much of that is attributed to being a symbol representing the spiritual - similar to a grid, the intersecting point of the natural and supernatural - or that the object itself is the spiritual.
Agnes describes her work using "infinite", "joy", "bliss" and "sublime". These words, in my experience are relegated to discussions of intense spirituality and described almost a final state of spiritual achievement, exemplified by the Siddhartha or the Dalai Llama. And that this state can be achieved by anyone. How does art provide that for us? Can this art provide universal "bliss" to its audience similar to how meditation claims to? A relationship can be that in observing these Untitled works, the viewer does get drawn in to the patches of infinitude that are shown. The perpendicular and parallel lines do in some fashion grip and take hold of the viewer, in a sense almost incarcerating rather than liberating.
In one piece, Martin placed a boundary around her grid to enable it "stopping from being an extended continuum". Is there such a thing as an "extended" continuum? Are not all continuum's extended. How can something that has boundaries be any kind of continuum? Further, what spirituality may we reach if there is a beginning and an end?
lastly, i had a question one what this meant: "as self contained things, the drawings embrace the infinite but resist becoming totalities"
Agnes describes her work using "infinite", "joy", "bliss" and "sublime". These words, in my experience are relegated to discussions of intense spirituality and described almost a final state of spiritual achievement, exemplified by the Siddhartha or the Dalai Llama. And that this state can be achieved by anyone. How does art provide that for us? Can this art provide universal "bliss" to its audience similar to how meditation claims to? A relationship can be that in observing these Untitled works, the viewer does get drawn in to the patches of infinitude that are shown. The perpendicular and parallel lines do in some fashion grip and take hold of the viewer, in a sense almost incarcerating rather than liberating.
In one piece, Martin placed a boundary around her grid to enable it "stopping from being an extended continuum". Is there such a thing as an "extended" continuum? Are not all continuum's extended. How can something that has boundaries be any kind of continuum? Further, what spirituality may we reach if there is a beginning and an end?
lastly, i had a question one what this meant: "as self contained things, the drawings embrace the infinite but resist becoming totalities"
The 'Margin of Freedom' within Repetition in Art
Fer states that "This trope of renunciation, of a retreat inward to spiritual essence [. . .] has come to dominate the way Martin is thought about as an artist." Applied to her art, such an inward retreat creates a series of internal frames of "meaning." Within these frames-- which further connects the concept to the art - we see that the literary device of interior monologue can be employed within the retreat. But is infinity and repetition used internally or externally? Or both? Or neither? What can be perceived by the observer and what can be perceived by the artist? Martin's art appears to challenge rigidity in conceptual and physical terms by pushing for hybridity and infinity within itself.
variety (difference) vs variation (self-similarity)
While reading Fer's article, I was reminded of something I was shown in one of my studios.
"Quantity is a precondition of fineness.
Repetition in multiple models is necessary to make selections.
Repetition within a single model is necessary to register differentiation.
Difference, or the possibility of difference, is produced as an answer to program."
- Atlas of Novel Tectonics, Reiser and Umemoto
In studio, we are almost always encouraged to produce reiterations of our ideas in order to refine and further progress our ideas. In light of Funes' story, if we lived in a world where we could not recognize recurrence because we recalled everything perfectly, architecture students would be very miserable. Fer claims that repetition is necessary to Martin's work, "to create maximum difference, but also to demonstrate the interminable work of the work" (456) and that "repetition ensures some regulating pattern of recognition." Was the purpose of repetition solely to conceptualize infinity? How exactly do you manage to put together abstraction and conceptualization? It's seems like the resulting word would be an oxy-moron.
Martin began with found objects and gradually entered the realm of drawing & painting, but retained the "ready-made" quality of her work (i.e., the grid). Could it be said that Martin's work is a reiteration of the work that Duchamp started in the sense that he exposed the ready-made quality of art? If we were to smash Duchamp and Martin into one person, would her work resemble anything that Duchamp would have made if he continued with his ready-mades?
"Quantity is a precondition of fineness.
Repetition in multiple models is necessary to make selections.
Repetition within a single model is necessary to register differentiation.
Difference, or the possibility of difference, is produced as an answer to program."
- Atlas of Novel Tectonics, Reiser and Umemoto
In studio, we are almost always encouraged to produce reiterations of our ideas in order to refine and further progress our ideas. In light of Funes' story, if we lived in a world where we could not recognize recurrence because we recalled everything perfectly, architecture students would be very miserable. Fer claims that repetition is necessary to Martin's work, "to create maximum difference, but also to demonstrate the interminable work of the work" (456) and that "repetition ensures some regulating pattern of recognition." Was the purpose of repetition solely to conceptualize infinity? How exactly do you manage to put together abstraction and conceptualization? It's seems like the resulting word would be an oxy-moron.
Martin began with found objects and gradually entered the realm of drawing & painting, but retained the "ready-made" quality of her work (i.e., the grid). Could it be said that Martin's work is a reiteration of the work that Duchamp started in the sense that he exposed the ready-made quality of art? If we were to smash Duchamp and Martin into one person, would her work resemble anything that Duchamp would have made if he continued with his ready-mades?
Monday, November 17, 2008
repetition questions
Fer states, “Repetition ensures some regulating patter of recognition.” In saying this, along with mentioning the story of Funes, Fer makes the point that repetition is essential to understanding and conceptualizing information. This suggests that one reason Martin uses repetition is so that her subject matter has the possibility of being conceptualized and understood. Why is Martin trying to conceptualize her abstract and meditative subject matter? Is it for her own (isolated) gain, or is she attempting to reach out and connect with the audience?
Fer also says that to Martin, “Repetition is understood as a means not of deadening but heightening experience.” We’re used to the idea that repetition and copies cheapen or deaden an original thought or idea. How is it that repetition can be used to enhance? What about a memory could make it more important than the original experience?
This part of the reading was definitely confusing for me. I guess a memory can become more meaningful when a person has had time to reflect and interpret the original experience. Also, after time has passed, the original experience can be placed in some sort of context with later events. The memory can be re-evaluated and re-interpreted with more information or a different point of view. For instance, someone could look back on their first meeting of a friend and say, “We have so much in common, no wonder we made such easy conversation when we were virtually strangers.” At the time, that easy conversation might have seemed like a coincidence. Only later developments of friendship and the discovery of common ground gave the original experience a more sophisticated interpretation. But in this instant, it is the extra information that adds importance to the memory, not the simple fact that the memory is a repetition. Is there something essential to the repetition itself that gives importance? Is it a number thing? For instance, if I think about X a hundred times, I’ve made X more important than if I’d only thought about X once. If that’s the case, is memory any different than anticipation? If we anticipate something over and over, the same way, and then it happens, does the event become very important because the event is a repetition of our anticipations? Or does the fact that memory occurs later in time have some special importance?
Fer also says that to Martin, “Repetition is understood as a means not of deadening but heightening experience.” We’re used to the idea that repetition and copies cheapen or deaden an original thought or idea. How is it that repetition can be used to enhance? What about a memory could make it more important than the original experience?
This part of the reading was definitely confusing for me. I guess a memory can become more meaningful when a person has had time to reflect and interpret the original experience. Also, after time has passed, the original experience can be placed in some sort of context with later events. The memory can be re-evaluated and re-interpreted with more information or a different point of view. For instance, someone could look back on their first meeting of a friend and say, “We have so much in common, no wonder we made such easy conversation when we were virtually strangers.” At the time, that easy conversation might have seemed like a coincidence. Only later developments of friendship and the discovery of common ground gave the original experience a more sophisticated interpretation. But in this instant, it is the extra information that adds importance to the memory, not the simple fact that the memory is a repetition. Is there something essential to the repetition itself that gives importance? Is it a number thing? For instance, if I think about X a hundred times, I’ve made X more important than if I’d only thought about X once. If that’s the case, is memory any different than anticipation? If we anticipate something over and over, the same way, and then it happens, does the event become very important because the event is a repetition of our anticipations? Or does the fact that memory occurs later in time have some special importance?
Agnes Martin and Her Grids
While describing Martin’s transition from material ready-made objects to the grid, Briony Fer conjectures, “maybe the template of the grid, once she found it, was ready-made enough.” How can something that is no more material than a drawing be considered a ready-made object?
One of the connections between traditional material ready-mades and the gird is the notion of utility. When artists integrate ready-made objects into their work they are essentially taking an object made for some purpose, placing it into the context of art and are thereby stripping it of its original utility. Grids are definitely utilitarian in that they were invented as tools to help organize, plan, draw, etc. Grids are used to make sure that all of the small details fit into an organized whole, such as houses into a gridded neighborhood, or points on a graph. So what does it mean to put a grid with nothing in it onto a canvas and call it art? Is its utility transformed to fit into the context of art, or it is just lost altogether? I would say that it still has utility in that it can be used for purposes such as juxtaposing infinity with the infinitesimal, or highlighting difference through repetition.
Throughout the article, Fer references Martin’s own writings about her work and makes comparisons between her writing and her work. Does writing about ones art detract from its ability to stand alone as a work of art, or does it enhance its meaning since the concept behind the work is what makes conceptual art?
One of the connections between traditional material ready-mades and the gird is the notion of utility. When artists integrate ready-made objects into their work they are essentially taking an object made for some purpose, placing it into the context of art and are thereby stripping it of its original utility. Grids are definitely utilitarian in that they were invented as tools to help organize, plan, draw, etc. Grids are used to make sure that all of the small details fit into an organized whole, such as houses into a gridded neighborhood, or points on a graph. So what does it mean to put a grid with nothing in it onto a canvas and call it art? Is its utility transformed to fit into the context of art, or it is just lost altogether? I would say that it still has utility in that it can be used for purposes such as juxtaposing infinity with the infinitesimal, or highlighting difference through repetition.
Throughout the article, Fer references Martin’s own writings about her work and makes comparisons between her writing and her work. Does writing about ones art detract from its ability to stand alone as a work of art, or does it enhance its meaning since the concept behind the work is what makes conceptual art?
There were a few questions about how a grid of lines could be considered art, because Martin's work seems more mathematical than artistic. But couldn't any painting be broken down into lines and shapes? Some Cubist and Futurist paintings are blatantly composed of geometric shapes, but any painting is on some level nothing more than a collection of shapes of color. Being visually simple shouldn't disqualify Martin's work as art. Could her work even be considered "representational" in some ways, where she is representing the imaginary concept of infinity?
Something that surprised me in the reading was Fer's mentioning of gender: "To Martin, there was nothing particularly feminine about her metaphysics [...] On the contrary, she identified with that most serious masculine tradition of metaphysics"(456). It seemed out of place, in writing about infinity, to even mention femininity, and especially pointless to say that her metaphysics isn't feminine. This statement raises all kinds of questions about the difference between feminine and masculine metaphysics, and what that has to do with anything. Fey doesn't explain that statement, but brings gender up again in the conclusion: "I am not suggesting [...] that we should establish an exclusive lineage of women artists"(462). Why bother to make that statement? If she had written about men artists influencing each other, would she have made a disclaimer about establishing an exclusive lineage of men artists?
Something that surprised me in the reading was Fer's mentioning of gender: "To Martin, there was nothing particularly feminine about her metaphysics [...] On the contrary, she identified with that most serious masculine tradition of metaphysics"(456). It seemed out of place, in writing about infinity, to even mention femininity, and especially pointless to say that her metaphysics isn't feminine. This statement raises all kinds of questions about the difference between feminine and masculine metaphysics, and what that has to do with anything. Fey doesn't explain that statement, but brings gender up again in the conclusion: "I am not suggesting [...] that we should establish an exclusive lineage of women artists"(462). Why bother to make that statement? If she had written about men artists influencing each other, would she have made a disclaimer about establishing an exclusive lineage of men artists?
To Infinity... and Beyond!
1. What is the point of mentioning femininity of Agnes Martin's metaphysics, or her identifying with the "masculine tradition of metaphysics in Rothko and Newman?" How does this relate to the idea of infinity? What WERE Agnes Martin's metaphysics?
2. How is repetition exactly related to infinity, as demonstrated by Martin's grids? How does this pertain to art and what was so appealing about it? As a math/science person, it's difficult to think of "infinity" as something other than a numerically mind-boggling concept.
Briony Fer says that repetition in Martin's artworks, such as that on page 451 in CR, give a sense of continuum. And maybe that sense of continuum is what the concept of "infinity" is in art. The regularity of her rectangular grids stretching across seems to imply that the pattern just goes on forever even past the boundaries of the paper. This idea of regularity and repetition seems to be a big change from the gesture paintings that Pollock, and other abstract expressionism ideas which valued randomness and experimentation etc. I don't really know what about Martin's work makes it aesthetic, though, and I don't understand Fer's claim that "the grids are repetitive but never mechanical" (450). What about it makes it NOT mechanical?
2. How is repetition exactly related to infinity, as demonstrated by Martin's grids? How does this pertain to art and what was so appealing about it? As a math/science person, it's difficult to think of "infinity" as something other than a numerically mind-boggling concept.
Briony Fer says that repetition in Martin's artworks, such as that on page 451 in CR, give a sense of continuum. And maybe that sense of continuum is what the concept of "infinity" is in art. The regularity of her rectangular grids stretching across seems to imply that the pattern just goes on forever even past the boundaries of the paper. This idea of regularity and repetition seems to be a big change from the gesture paintings that Pollock, and other abstract expressionism ideas which valued randomness and experimentation etc. I don't really know what about Martin's work makes it aesthetic, though, and I don't understand Fer's claim that "the grids are repetitive but never mechanical" (450). What about it makes it NOT mechanical?
Where does it all end?
1. Why did Martin choose grids as an aesthetic representation of the infinite when grids have holes between them? Yes, mathematically grids go on “forever,” but in art, a grid is just lines with even space between them.
2. While I do appreciate Agnes Martin’s quest to express infinity art, I have no idea why the grids are considered art. Aren’t grids just math? I realize that it is the ideology behind the artwork that makes it art, but shouldn’t the finished product be taken into consideration?
2. While I do appreciate Agnes Martin’s quest to express infinity art, I have no idea why the grids are considered art. Aren’t grids just math? I realize that it is the ideology behind the artwork that makes it art, but shouldn’t the finished product be taken into consideration?
Lines
Agnes Martin said “‘I don’t like circles—too expanding?’ This is not the kind of expansion she wanted.” (Fer 61). What is the difference between circles expanding and the grid creating an infinite plane? What is the technical difference in terms of expanding and infinite?
While expanding circles create an endless continuous cycle, the grids create an ever extending field. Circles form a sense of repetition, but everyone knows where the circle is heading. Martin does not want theses constraints on her work, the grids show the possibility that the lines can go on into infinity but the course is not necessarily pre-determined. Circles have meaning behind them to people, suggesting ‘life and eternity’ but Martin did not want this message associated with her work. Her work was something new and unique, that she wanted to stand alone.
Martin created grids with wire and later abandoned it, creating a sort of ready-made. These ready-mades can be seen in connection to Duchamp’s ready-mades. Besides the obvious use of everyday things in artwork, how do Duchamp and Martin try to create a similar message? How is Martin’s artwork different from Duchamp’s artwork?
the infinite line
What about the concept of "infinity" was appealing to post-modern artists and how was this concept depicted through various artworks?
How can "artworks" by Agnes Martin be considered to be art when they are simply lines of grids on a paper, with various alterations?
While I understand that there is some underlying significance on Martin's work, I fail to see the connection to art. How can a page of lines be compared to some of the great artworks on the Renaissance? Obviously the times have changed and the notion of art has evolved, but to equate grids to something like the Mona Lisa, or other renowned pieces, seems to slight the very definition of art
The Infinite Line
1) Briony Fer's "The Infinite Line" often discussed the function of repetition and described Agnes Martin's grids as "repetitive but never mechanical." (450) However, where do you draw the line between the mechanical and the repetitive? Machines can also create "endless differences"; mass produced Levi jeans have differences in the stitching, or factory made electronics will always have minute differences, but they are things that we would consider mechanical reproductions. When I first saw Martin's work, it reminded me of a large sheet of wallpaper, or something created in a mechanical fashion. So what makes her work a repetitive work of art and not a mechanical one?
2) Continuing on the notion of the function of repetition, Fer also talked about repetition's ability to maximize difference. By limiting herself to the constraining grid technique, Agnes Martin was more able to explore the difference within the uniformity. This concept is also prevalent in other forms of art. For example in classical ballet, the rigid technique and repetitive nature of the form is used to enable creativity, to force the dancers to find difference within the strict constraints of the technique. The same movements may be performed thousands of times in a dancer's career, however the beauty of those movements is not in the dancer's ability to perform them accurately, but in the dancer's ability to manipulate the movements within the given technique. Similarly Fer discusses the constant presence of the artist's hand within the geometric, confines of the grid. The artistic touch is magnified through repetition. Is the sole function of repetition to find difference? And was Agnes Martin too limiting in the use of her grid technique?
2) Continuing on the notion of the function of repetition, Fer also talked about repetition's ability to maximize difference. By limiting herself to the constraining grid technique, Agnes Martin was more able to explore the difference within the uniformity. This concept is also prevalent in other forms of art. For example in classical ballet, the rigid technique and repetitive nature of the form is used to enable creativity, to force the dancers to find difference within the strict constraints of the technique. The same movements may be performed thousands of times in a dancer's career, however the beauty of those movements is not in the dancer's ability to perform them accurately, but in the dancer's ability to manipulate the movements within the given technique. Similarly Fer discusses the constant presence of the artist's hand within the geometric, confines of the grid. The artistic touch is magnified through repetition. Is the sole function of repetition to find difference? And was Agnes Martin too limiting in the use of her grid technique?
1. Agnes Martin once said, "It is not the role of the artist to worry about life--to feel responsible for creating a better world." How are Martin’s works different from those of her contemporaries, i.e. Do they convey any hidden statements about society or the lifestyles of the modern world?
The 1960s in
2.In Hanne Darboven’s Untitled, 1976. Ink, paper and envelope, the 27 lines consisting of short, handwritten statements is considered art because of the fact that, “Writing in this labour of love, becomes a form of drawing.” Can this letter really be labeled as art or does it fall more into the category of poetry and writing?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Updated Research Paper Draft Assignment
The draft of your research paper is still due on the 20th, as per the syllabus. However, I have shortened the assignment to 4-5 pages. Here are the guidelines for what I want you to include in the draft (not necessarily in this order). I am now treating the draft as an extended proposal which includes evidence of collection and examination of research materials.
Research Paper Draft—5 pages due Thurs, Nov 20th
1. Proposal of your topic:
a. What is the subject of your paper?
b. In your thinking about this subject you realized that it raises a interesting problem, question, or network of relations between one or more other subjects.
c. So, what is the problem and how are you are addressing it?
2. What are the specific objects are that you will be using? Briefly review them and explain how they relate to your topic
a. Literary texts (written sources)
b. Artworks
3. What is the conclusion you think you might arrive at? What is your working hypothesis about what you will discover in your research? What are some potential challenges to this hypothesis? How do you think your hypothesis might change? What are some of the most difficult/sticky areas of your hypothesis, or the likeliest weak link? How do you propose to find more information that will help you think through these points of instability in your hypothesis?
For more pointers I suggest you browse Unit 3 of Writing Analytically. In particular, there are 9 brief guidelines listed on p 238 that are very general but good reminders to follow as you review and integrate sources into your writing.
Research Paper Draft—5 pages due Thurs, Nov 20th
1. Proposal of your topic:
a. What is the subject of your paper?
b. In your thinking about this subject you realized that it raises a interesting problem, question, or network of relations between one or more other subjects.
c. So, what is the problem and how are you are addressing it?
2. What are the specific objects are that you will be using? Briefly review them and explain how they relate to your topic
a. Literary texts (written sources)
b. Artworks
3. What is the conclusion you think you might arrive at? What is your working hypothesis about what you will discover in your research? What are some potential challenges to this hypothesis? How do you think your hypothesis might change? What are some of the most difficult/sticky areas of your hypothesis, or the likeliest weak link? How do you propose to find more information that will help you think through these points of instability in your hypothesis?
For more pointers I suggest you browse Unit 3 of Writing Analytically. In particular, there are 9 brief guidelines listed on p 238 that are very general but good reminders to follow as you review and integrate sources into your writing.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
When Broodthaers and Haake criticzed museums, were they only trying to be “professional noncomformists,” or did they have something valuable to say about the interaction of museum and art? Were their goals the same as Duchamp’s, or were they saying something new?
- I think this was already done by Duchamp, only through different methods.
- Also, this “confrontation” the artists had with the museum is similar to Duchamp in that it seems to be more probing for a reaction than saying something specific. Maybe, then, Broodthaers and Haake were creating something new in that they were continuing to question and probe, thus learning and redefining the relationship between museum and artist and artwork.
In Smithson’s “non-sites,” Smithson makes his work “at a midway point between ‘presence’ and ‘absence’. As information was given, so it was drained away.” This is because he brought a sample from some landscape into the museum for the audience to see, and then notice that they are missing the whole of the landscape. Does this characteristic of information being given while being drained away apply to other art we’ve seen? Isn’t all art incomplete in its representation of reality, so that we’re always being reminded of something that’s not totally there in the museum with us?
- I think this was already done by Duchamp, only through different methods.
- Also, this “confrontation” the artists had with the museum is similar to Duchamp in that it seems to be more probing for a reaction than saying something specific. Maybe, then, Broodthaers and Haake were creating something new in that they were continuing to question and probe, thus learning and redefining the relationship between museum and artist and artwork.
In Smithson’s “non-sites,” Smithson makes his work “at a midway point between ‘presence’ and ‘absence’. As information was given, so it was drained away.” This is because he brought a sample from some landscape into the museum for the audience to see, and then notice that they are missing the whole of the landscape. Does this characteristic of information being given while being drained away apply to other art we’ve seen? Isn’t all art incomplete in its representation of reality, so that we’re always being reminded of something that’s not totally there in the museum with us?
Conceptualism
1. What qualities validate conceptualism as art, more so than as ideology or philosophy? Is it the visual element (photography, for example) that makes it art? If the whole idea is to focus on the idea and the concept, why does it need its label as "art"?
2. What are some of the consequences of art's new intimate relationship with politics and social issues such as feminism? For the society? For art itself?
- Because of the rapidly changing world, with its technological advances, art's role in our society evolved. Not only was it a vehicle for purely artistic practice, but it was also melding into everything else in the society. It did somewhat "taint" art as a purely creative domain, but I don't think this is necessarily a negative consequence because it has adapted to serve other functions. Art is constantly undergoing change and I think it's old-fashioned and stubborn to hold onto a narrow idea of what art is.
2. What are some of the consequences of art's new intimate relationship with politics and social issues such as feminism? For the society? For art itself?
- Because of the rapidly changing world, with its technological advances, art's role in our society evolved. Not only was it a vehicle for purely artistic practice, but it was also melding into everything else in the society. It did somewhat "taint" art as a purely creative domain, but I don't think this is necessarily a negative consequence because it has adapted to serve other functions. Art is constantly undergoing change and I think it's old-fashioned and stubborn to hold onto a narrow idea of what art is.
Conceptual Art and Theories
1. On page 169, Hopkins writes, “In line with the thought of French post-Marxist thinkers such as Louis Althusser and Michael Foucault, ideology increasingly came to be seen as all-pervasive, at work in the very institutions in which humans beings are socialized.” In what ways did these new theories about ideology shape the thinking of conceptual artists and thus their work?
First, a quick definition of ideology is “a system of ideas, beliefs, or concepts that organize and structure reality.” In other words, we have systems of beliefs, etc. that cause us to see the world in a certain ways, and since we can’t perceive and represent reality without preconceived ideas, we can’t experience reality outside of ideologies. For example, a common ideology in the U.S. is a two-party system ideology that assumes that two political parties represent all positions, and thus by talking to someone on the “left” and someone on the “right” you will have covered all views. The implication of this theory that resonated with artists is that their own assumptions about areas such as gender, politics, race, and ecology come from ideological apparatuses such as the government or the media (Althusser) rather than themselves. This led many artists to directly question not only mainstream societies ideologies about gender, race, and the environment, but also to question their own assumptions For example, Burgin “explored his own gender position in works which double back on their dominant ‘masculinist’ cultural viewpoint.” Feminist artists, meanwhile, focused more on society’s gender ideologies as a whole.
2. The British Art & Language group argued, “theory about art could in itself be considered art.” Is this position on art a total departure from traditional art, or is it actually a continuation of a fundamental idea that has existed for much of art history since often artworks are judged by their dialogue with previous works and their embedded “theories” about art?
First, a quick definition of ideology is “a system of ideas, beliefs, or concepts that organize and structure reality.” In other words, we have systems of beliefs, etc. that cause us to see the world in a certain ways, and since we can’t perceive and represent reality without preconceived ideas, we can’t experience reality outside of ideologies. For example, a common ideology in the U.S. is a two-party system ideology that assumes that two political parties represent all positions, and thus by talking to someone on the “left” and someone on the “right” you will have covered all views. The implication of this theory that resonated with artists is that their own assumptions about areas such as gender, politics, race, and ecology come from ideological apparatuses such as the government or the media (Althusser) rather than themselves. This led many artists to directly question not only mainstream societies ideologies about gender, race, and the environment, but also to question their own assumptions For example, Burgin “explored his own gender position in works which double back on their dominant ‘masculinist’ cultural viewpoint.” Feminist artists, meanwhile, focused more on society’s gender ideologies as a whole.
2. The British Art & Language group argued, “theory about art could in itself be considered art.” Is this position on art a total departure from traditional art, or is it actually a continuation of a fundamental idea that has existed for much of art history since often artworks are judged by their dialogue with previous works and their embedded “theories” about art?
questions on The Death of the Object
How was avant-garde a useful vehicle for the radicalism of the late 60's art?
The newly emerged ideas of society and radicalism could utilize the avant-gard as a medium to express sentiments freely, without contrains of tradition or the past. But Futurism and Cubism, looking at one object or idea at many angles and instances, could also have been useful in expressing activism towards the establishment. So I wonder if it was just a product of the times.
How did patriotism and radicalism come together in Magrittes depiction of two femur bones painted with the Belgian Flag? And why was there such a move to depict radical juxtapositions of objects or ideas in single pieces of art?
I think to place things in their social context, artists such as Magrittes, violence and pessimism of WWII influenced painters, as well as the minimalist pop and conceptual artists. This could be seen to have led to simple representations of unrelated and disjointed objects. This may not have been simply for shock value, but to exemplify that radical change could seem eerily normal.
The newly emerged ideas of society and radicalism could utilize the avant-gard as a medium to express sentiments freely, without contrains of tradition or the past. But Futurism and Cubism, looking at one object or idea at many angles and instances, could also have been useful in expressing activism towards the establishment. So I wonder if it was just a product of the times.
How did patriotism and radicalism come together in Magrittes depiction of two femur bones painted with the Belgian Flag? And why was there such a move to depict radical juxtapositions of objects or ideas in single pieces of art?
I think to place things in their social context, artists such as Magrittes, violence and pessimism of WWII influenced painters, as well as the minimalist pop and conceptual artists. This could be seen to have led to simple representations of unrelated and disjointed objects. This may not have been simply for shock value, but to exemplify that radical change could seem eerily normal.
Questions
What was the appeal of "conceptual art" that connected the "verbal concept and artistic form"?
The reading states that modern art is defined by context. Without the safehaven of a museum to harbor these art objects, they become "vulnerable, invisible even". Can we appreciate modern art out of context or do we need to be able to first see an object as art for it to hold artistic value?
I feel that a decent amount of modern art cannot be understand with the context of a museum, notably Duchamp's readymades. Outside of a museum, I would not see the value of a signed toilet or a snowshovel. However, the artistic value of these objects doesn't lie in the physical appearance but the intellectual process behind it. The placement in a museum is the catalyst that provides the initial thinking about the object at a higher level, in terms of its intellectual merit and significance.
The Death of the Object
How do the art pieces of Pop art compare to the modern art that came out during the 1970’s? How are the portrayals of women similar or different within both these times? Is this mostly a product of the time and the world around?
In the topic of Pop art the subject was women was mostly through a male perspective. The female body was objectified and made very important to the collages. In the 1970’s because of the times and the women’s movement, there was a platform to portray women in a different light with The Dinner Party, “consisted of a triangular table with places set with ceramic vulvas and embroidered ‘runners’ for 39 imaginary female guest” (Hopkins 183). The female perspective was a challenge to the domineering ‘masculinist’ cultural viewpoint of the time.
David Hopkins “After Modern Art 1945-2000” beings discussing minimalism on page 169. So for clarification, what is Minimalism? Where did it branch out of? Was it a reaction to something?
The Move to Conceptualism
1. The philosophy of Conceptual art was to remove it from the confines of canvases and sculptures and free art by only defining it by the idea of its design. As a result, art no longer relies on viewer interpretation, but on the knowledge of the idea responsible for its creation. Isn’t this paradoxical considering the viewer is once again confined to their interpretation by what the artist tells them their artwork means?
2. Why do Marcel Duchamp’s “readymades” represent the beginning of Conceptual art?
Duchamp’s “readymades” redefined the medium used to portray art. Duchamp’s art was a rebellion against the confines of traditional art and consumerism.
2. Why do Marcel Duchamp’s “readymades” represent the beginning of Conceptual art?
Duchamp’s “readymades” redefined the medium used to portray art. Duchamp’s art was a rebellion against the confines of traditional art and consumerism.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
What role do museums and the context of artwork play in determining what is considered art?
Is there artwork that would still be considered art when taken out of context? Where is the line drawn between art and not art, when taken out of context?
Can art be created by a non-artist? can it be created accidentally? by non-humans, or by some natural process? I imagine a painting could be found, the artist unknown, and considered artwork. But what if the painting resembled an abstract impressionist's work, conveying the depths of the artist's emotions, and it had only been the result of a paint can spilling or exploding spontaneously? What about paintings created by babies, or created by elephants? Is the elephant the artist in this case? or is the elephant the medium used by the trainer to create the art? What's the point in even trying to define art? I'm just feeling more and more unsure that there's even the start of an answer.
At what point did artistic revolution become so... dramatic? Maybe I am just underestimating the reaction of artists around the time perspective was invented but I mean... Some guys paint some lines, and I guess that's it. I hope you enjoyed painting while it lasted because now it is DEAD.
Is there artwork that would still be considered art when taken out of context? Where is the line drawn between art and not art, when taken out of context?
Can art be created by a non-artist? can it be created accidentally? by non-humans, or by some natural process? I imagine a painting could be found, the artist unknown, and considered artwork. But what if the painting resembled an abstract impressionist's work, conveying the depths of the artist's emotions, and it had only been the result of a paint can spilling or exploding spontaneously? What about paintings created by babies, or created by elephants? Is the elephant the artist in this case? or is the elephant the medium used by the trainer to create the art? What's the point in even trying to define art? I'm just feeling more and more unsure that there's even the start of an answer.
At what point did artistic revolution become so... dramatic? Maybe I am just underestimating the reaction of artists around the time perspective was invented but I mean... Some guys paint some lines, and I guess that's it. I hope you enjoyed painting while it lasted because now it is DEAD.
Questions
1. Ever since the beginnings of art, males were depicted as the more dominant gender. However, the 1970s gave rise to a new way of thinking; females had found the courage to make their voices heard. In what ways was Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party a bold statement as to where women stood in the modern era?
The table installation meant for 39 imaginary female guests (along with 999 invitees) known as The Dinner Party serves as a tribute to the many women who played a significant role in the world's history. Back then, it was common to just brush aside the accomplishments of females and highlight anything achieved by a male, simply because men were considered the superior gender. By acting as a sort of reminder of the works of these female writers and artists, Judy Chicago sort of presents an "in your face" work of art to society.
2. Chris Burden's Shoot was an example of Body Art and Performance where he basically asked one of this friends to literally shoot him in the arm , causing a deep wound to his body. As shocking and revolutionary as it seems, when is enough, enough in terms of art?
The table installation meant for 39 imaginary female guests (along with 999 invitees) known as The Dinner Party serves as a tribute to the many women who played a significant role in the world's history. Back then, it was common to just brush aside the accomplishments of females and highlight anything achieved by a male, simply because men were considered the superior gender. By acting as a sort of reminder of the works of these female writers and artists, Judy Chicago sort of presents an "in your face" work of art to society.
2. Chris Burden's Shoot was an example of Body Art and Performance where he basically asked one of this friends to literally shoot him in the arm , causing a deep wound to his body. As shocking and revolutionary as it seems, when is enough, enough in terms of art?
Questions
The article mentions declarations placed in museums that “implied that museums obscure the ideological functioning of images via the imposition of spurious value judgments or taxonomies” (165).
While this dematerialization as a resistance to galleries, museums, and the market was an attempt to reject capitalist notions within the art realm, it became a part of the market itself. As Hopkins states, the work actually underwent a “rematerialization”, which through its efforts was not truly effective in its goals. Perhaps this points to the way that the market is an armature of art, and even though it may be novel to point out the reliance on commercialism, it is nearly impossible to escape it.
In body art or performance art, how is it possible to express an idea about femininity without eh female becoming an object or a symbol of oppressive use as Kelly noted? Is a strategy to avoid objectification at all costs beneficial, or is a direct representation of gender inequalities effective in itself by exposing the condition?
While this dematerialization as a resistance to galleries, museums, and the market was an attempt to reject capitalist notions within the art realm, it became a part of the market itself. As Hopkins states, the work actually underwent a “rematerialization”, which through its efforts was not truly effective in its goals. Perhaps this points to the way that the market is an armature of art, and even though it may be novel to point out the reliance on commercialism, it is nearly impossible to escape it.
In body art or performance art, how is it possible to express an idea about femininity without eh female becoming an object or a symbol of oppressive use as Kelly noted? Is a strategy to avoid objectification at all costs beneficial, or is a direct representation of gender inequalities effective in itself by exposing the condition?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)