James Clifford over the last 30 years has been a highly influential and controversial scholar working in field of anthropology. His work challenges the conventions of anthropology by offering new ways to understand interactions and exchanges that shape cultures.
Within his essay “On Collecting Art and Culture”, Clifford critically analyses Western methods of collecting and classifying exotic objects from non-Western cultures throughout history. An interesting point arises when Clifford uses the example of the American Museum of Natural History in regards to its ‘Boas Room’ containing Northwest Coast artifacts.
Clifford stresses the importance of why the Boas room should not be modernized and its display method renewed, as ‘a moment in the history of collecting’ (229) could be potentially lost. He emphasizes that the exhibition not only presents a ‘superb collection’ (229) but essentially captures how the Western culture collected and displayed non-Western artifacts during that era. Highlighting that inherently within the Boas Room collection it contains significant information about Western culture. A duality arises in that through the representation of one culture it can inversely reveal more about the other culture. One cultures representation of another culture’s artifacts also exposes a crucial issue that they have the power to misrepresent the foreign culture.
Charles Frederick Goldie’s portraiture paintings are an example of how the indigenous Maori culture were represented and misrepresented by Western culture. According to the ‘Tai Awatea/Knowledge Net’ website, ‘like many Pakeha in the early twentieth century, Goldie believed the Maori race would either die out or be assimilated’, and as a result he portrayed them in a ‘romanticised style because he believed he was recording a race in jeopardy’(Tai Awatea, par. 3). This preconception of the Maori race was externalized through his subject matter as he repeatedly chose to depict elderly Maori rather than youths, ‘even though at the beginning of the twentieth century the Maori population was increasing’. (Tai Awatea, par. 4) Further emphasised by his title descriptions which allude to Maori extinction such as The Last of the Cannibals and A Noble Relic of a Noble Race. In effect, many hold special significance for Goldie’s works as they are considered irreplaceable images depicting Maori ancestors, yet simultaneously they represent Goldie’s idealized view of their race, which can be seen as ‘documenting colonial attitudes of racism’. (Tai Awatea, par. 10)
References:
James Clifford, “On Collecting Art and Culture”, in The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998, pp. 215-251.
Tai Awatea / Knowledge Net, More of Te Papa online. Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. Retrieved 14 July 2009 http://tpo.tepapa.govt.nz/ViewTopicExhibitDetail.asp?ExhibitID=0x000a3db2&Language=English Paragraphs 1-11.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
James Meyer, “The Functional Site; or, The Transformation of Site-Specificity,” in Space, Site, Intervention: Situating Installation Art
James Meyer is a Professor of Art History. Meyer’s research interests involve American and European art since 1945, in particular Minimalism, Post-minimalism, and site-orientated installation.
Within the essay “The Functional Site; or, The Transformation of Site-Specificity”, James Meyer discusses the exploration of ‘site’ in art in the 1960s and 70s, and how the transformation of site specificity in turn critiqued institutional frameworks and commodities of the art gallery and museum. Meyer makes two distinctions of site; a literal site and a functional site. A literal site is a singular area in a precise location; it 'is thus a kind of monument, a public work commissioned for the site’.(24) On the contrary, a functional site ‘may not incorporate a physical place…it is a process, an operation occurring between sites’.(25)
Meyer uses Richard Serra’s artwork Tilted Arc as an example of the monumental literal site. What is interesting about this example of Tilted Arc as a literal site (a permanent work for a specific place), it undergoes a change and gains rather similar characteristics I would think to that of the functional site. In 1981, Tilted Arc was installed in Federal Plaza. Its sheer gigantic size caused much controversy which eventually to lead the sculptures abolishment. Through this process of its destruction, it becomes a temporary artwork, and an exchange between two sites. This is reminiscent of atttributes to the functional site. Unlike the functional site however, the sites destruction and absence pursued Serra to ask for money as compensation, becoming a commodity in itself. This undermines the main aim of site specific works suggested by Meyer, which by being site specific, was to critique and criticise the commodity of galleries ‘homeless’(25) artworks.
Another two examples of artworks that evoke neither literal site or functional, is Auguste Rodin’s Gates of Hell and his statue Balzac. Rodin was also commissioned to make site specific works which also became temporary and mobile. Rosalind Krauss suggests that the 'failure of these two works as monuments is signalled not only by the fact that multiple versions can be found in a variety of museums in various countries, while no version exists on the original sites'.(Krauss, 34) These examples suggest that maybe artworks can fluctuate between both the literal and functional site.
References:
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, 23-37.
Krauss, Rosalind, “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”, October, Vol.8 (Spring, 1979), pp.34.
Within the essay “The Functional Site; or, The Transformation of Site-Specificity”, James Meyer discusses the exploration of ‘site’ in art in the 1960s and 70s, and how the transformation of site specificity in turn critiqued institutional frameworks and commodities of the art gallery and museum. Meyer makes two distinctions of site; a literal site and a functional site. A literal site is a singular area in a precise location; it 'is thus a kind of monument, a public work commissioned for the site’.(24) On the contrary, a functional site ‘may not incorporate a physical place…it is a process, an operation occurring between sites’.(25)
Meyer uses Richard Serra’s artwork Tilted Arc as an example of the monumental literal site. What is interesting about this example of Tilted Arc as a literal site (a permanent work for a specific place), it undergoes a change and gains rather similar characteristics I would think to that of the functional site. In 1981, Tilted Arc was installed in Federal Plaza. Its sheer gigantic size caused much controversy which eventually to lead the sculptures abolishment. Through this process of its destruction, it becomes a temporary artwork, and an exchange between two sites. This is reminiscent of atttributes to the functional site. Unlike the functional site however, the sites destruction and absence pursued Serra to ask for money as compensation, becoming a commodity in itself. This undermines the main aim of site specific works suggested by Meyer, which by being site specific, was to critique and criticise the commodity of galleries ‘homeless’(25) artworks.
Another two examples of artworks that evoke neither literal site or functional, is Auguste Rodin’s Gates of Hell and his statue Balzac. Rodin was also commissioned to make site specific works which also became temporary and mobile. Rosalind Krauss suggests that the 'failure of these two works as monuments is signalled not only by the fact that multiple versions can be found in a variety of museums in various countries, while no version exists on the original sites'.(Krauss, 34) These examples suggest that maybe artworks can fluctuate between both the literal and functional site.
References:
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, 23-37.
Krauss, Rosalind, “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”, October, Vol.8 (Spring, 1979), pp.34.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Jean-François Lyotard, “Answering The Question: What Is Postmodernism?"
Jean-François Lyotard born in 1924 was a French philosopher and literary theorist, best known for his highly influential writings on postmodernism and the analysis of the impact of postmodernity on the human condition.
Within ‘The Post Modern Condition’ Lyotard suggests that ‘photography did not appear as a challenge to painting... any more than industrial cinema did to narrative literature’(74). I share this opinion in that photography is not a threat to painting, alike cinema to creative writing, simply because they are different artistic mediums. One medium cannot ‘challenge’ another medium as each has different materials, processes, and techniques, and therefore produces an entirely different aesthetic, which can logically not be compared fairly against the other.
Lyotard continues to discuss this presupposed challenge in relation to time and efficiency, suggesting ‘the challenge lay essentially in that photographic and cinematographic processes can accomplish better, faster, and with a circulation a hundred times larger than narrative or pictorial realism’(74). I would also agree with Lyotard that photographic and cinematographic processes can produce faster results and can be dispersed more rapidly to an audience, because of their technically advanced quality in comparison to more traditional processes such as painting and literature. For example, a film can illustrate an entire narrative within minutes yet a book with the same narrative may take hours to conceive. However, when considering a work of art, ‘faster’ may not always be a positive attribute. Sometimes the awe and admiration of an artwork can be the length of time injected into a piece, its essence revealed in the countless hours dedicated to the artistic endeavour. Such as art works that have obsessive qualities and repetitive actions, although a machine could have achieved the same results and in half the time, it would produce entirely different readings and would not carry the same potency.
Furthermore Lyotard states ‘that the mechanical and industrial should appear as substitutes for hand or craft was not in itself a disaster – except if one believes that art is in its essence of an individuality of genius assisted by an elite craftsmanship’(74). This solely relies upon personal preference. Would one favour the hand-made product or the same industrial made product? Personally, there is something more persuasive in an artwork that exhibits human touch which is superior to me over mechanical processes.
However, I do not disregard professional assistance or the use of industrial processes to create an artwork if this is the aesthetic the artist wants to achieve, or perhaps the using of industrial processes is part of their concept. As ultimately the plans of the artwork are still created by the artist, despite the actual execution.
Walter Benjamin is his essay ‘The Work of Art in the Age of the Mechanical Production’ states ‘Around 1900 technical reproduction had reached a standard that not only permitted it to reproduce all transmitted works of art and thus to cause the most profound change in their impact upon the public; it also had captured a place of its own among the artistic processes’(Benjamin, 50). Artists began to make use of mechanical and industrial processes which became an integral part of their practice and concepts.
Such as Minimalist artists who employed industrial processes to remove the hand of the artist in order to create more immediacy; they challenged this conception that an artist must personally manufacture a work of art.
References:
Jean-François Lyotard, “Answering The Question: What Is Postmodernism?”, trans. Régis Durand, in The Post Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press, 1984, pp.71-82.
Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, reprinted in Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas Kellner ed.s, Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001, pp.48-70.
Within ‘The Post Modern Condition’ Lyotard suggests that ‘photography did not appear as a challenge to painting... any more than industrial cinema did to narrative literature’(74). I share this opinion in that photography is not a threat to painting, alike cinema to creative writing, simply because they are different artistic mediums. One medium cannot ‘challenge’ another medium as each has different materials, processes, and techniques, and therefore produces an entirely different aesthetic, which can logically not be compared fairly against the other.
Lyotard continues to discuss this presupposed challenge in relation to time and efficiency, suggesting ‘the challenge lay essentially in that photographic and cinematographic processes can accomplish better, faster, and with a circulation a hundred times larger than narrative or pictorial realism’(74). I would also agree with Lyotard that photographic and cinematographic processes can produce faster results and can be dispersed more rapidly to an audience, because of their technically advanced quality in comparison to more traditional processes such as painting and literature. For example, a film can illustrate an entire narrative within minutes yet a book with the same narrative may take hours to conceive. However, when considering a work of art, ‘faster’ may not always be a positive attribute. Sometimes the awe and admiration of an artwork can be the length of time injected into a piece, its essence revealed in the countless hours dedicated to the artistic endeavour. Such as art works that have obsessive qualities and repetitive actions, although a machine could have achieved the same results and in half the time, it would produce entirely different readings and would not carry the same potency.
Furthermore Lyotard states ‘that the mechanical and industrial should appear as substitutes for hand or craft was not in itself a disaster – except if one believes that art is in its essence of an individuality of genius assisted by an elite craftsmanship’(74). This solely relies upon personal preference. Would one favour the hand-made product or the same industrial made product? Personally, there is something more persuasive in an artwork that exhibits human touch which is superior to me over mechanical processes.
However, I do not disregard professional assistance or the use of industrial processes to create an artwork if this is the aesthetic the artist wants to achieve, or perhaps the using of industrial processes is part of their concept. As ultimately the plans of the artwork are still created by the artist, despite the actual execution.
Walter Benjamin is his essay ‘The Work of Art in the Age of the Mechanical Production’ states ‘Around 1900 technical reproduction had reached a standard that not only permitted it to reproduce all transmitted works of art and thus to cause the most profound change in their impact upon the public; it also had captured a place of its own among the artistic processes’(Benjamin, 50). Artists began to make use of mechanical and industrial processes which became an integral part of their practice and concepts.
Such as Minimalist artists who employed industrial processes to remove the hand of the artist in order to create more immediacy; they challenged this conception that an artist must personally manufacture a work of art.
References:
Jean-François Lyotard, “Answering The Question: What Is Postmodernism?”, trans. Régis Durand, in The Post Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press, 1984, pp.71-82.
Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, reprinted in Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas Kellner ed.s, Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001, pp.48-70.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Krauss, Rosalind, “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”, October, Vol.8 (Spring, 1979), pp.30-44.
Rosalind Krauss is an American art critic, professor, and theorist. Krauss explores the historical, theoretical, and formal contexts concerning modernism art.
The online dictionary Answers.com defines ‘historicism’ as ‘a theory that stresses the significant influence of history as a criterion of value’. Within the essay ‘Sculpture in the Expanded Field’, Krauss addresses this concept of ‘historicism’ with consideration to the context of art.
Krauss suggests that historicism ‘works on the new and different to diminish newness and mitigate difference’(30). Furthermore, we ‘are comforted by this perception of sameness, this strategy for reducing anything foreign in either time or space, to what we already know and are’(30).
I am interested in the word ‘strategy’ that is used to describe this process of historicism for ‘reducing anything foreign…to what we already know and are’, and would like to suppose that to ‘historicise’ is almost like human nature.
When confronted with a new art-object, whether it be an image, sculpture or a painting. Initially one tries to immediately decipher and decode this new object, in order for one to make sense of this new experience and interpret it on some level. Wonder and awe provoke questions about the new foreign object we are confronted with, and we construct our own answers upon the object for the want and need to understand. This will be primarily based on what ‘what we already know and are’, for example what we have seen before, and what we have previously experienced, using this strategic tool of historicising. Memory is triggered and we naturally familiarize art objects than contain characteristics reminiscent of other objects in accordance with our visual library of past experiences as a strategy for us to identify. I can think of uncountable times people have used the phrase ‘This work reminds me of……(example)’ in an art critique. Simply trying to make sense of the new object by drawing relationships and making connections to comprehend and organize our thoughts in a way that is comfortable and rational. Although we can see these connections of the new object and history, we can still distinguish individuality and the ‘newness’ of the contemporary art object.
Which makes me question whether to historicise is sufficient to understand meaning? According to Wikipedia it states ‘a large number of thinkers have embraced the need for historical context, not because culture is self-referential, but because there is no more compressed means of conveying all of the relevant information except through history’. This view is said to be rooted in the work of a recent historian Benedetto Croce in the context of 20th Century philosophy.
In this case I believe that historicism should be embraced as the need for historical context, background and culture are essential for the need to make sense of the world around us.
References:
Krauss, Rosalind, “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”, October, Vol.8 (Spring, 1979), pp.30-44.
Anwers.com, The world’s leading Q & A site. 7 April 2009. Answers Corporation. Retrieved 7 April 2009 http://www.answers.com/topic/historicism
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 7 April 2009. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 7 April 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism
The online dictionary Answers.com defines ‘historicism’ as ‘a theory that stresses the significant influence of history as a criterion of value’. Within the essay ‘Sculpture in the Expanded Field’, Krauss addresses this concept of ‘historicism’ with consideration to the context of art.
Krauss suggests that historicism ‘works on the new and different to diminish newness and mitigate difference’(30). Furthermore, we ‘are comforted by this perception of sameness, this strategy for reducing anything foreign in either time or space, to what we already know and are’(30).
I am interested in the word ‘strategy’ that is used to describe this process of historicism for ‘reducing anything foreign…to what we already know and are’, and would like to suppose that to ‘historicise’ is almost like human nature.
When confronted with a new art-object, whether it be an image, sculpture or a painting. Initially one tries to immediately decipher and decode this new object, in order for one to make sense of this new experience and interpret it on some level. Wonder and awe provoke questions about the new foreign object we are confronted with, and we construct our own answers upon the object for the want and need to understand. This will be primarily based on what ‘what we already know and are’, for example what we have seen before, and what we have previously experienced, using this strategic tool of historicising. Memory is triggered and we naturally familiarize art objects than contain characteristics reminiscent of other objects in accordance with our visual library of past experiences as a strategy for us to identify. I can think of uncountable times people have used the phrase ‘This work reminds me of……(example)’ in an art critique. Simply trying to make sense of the new object by drawing relationships and making connections to comprehend and organize our thoughts in a way that is comfortable and rational. Although we can see these connections of the new object and history, we can still distinguish individuality and the ‘newness’ of the contemporary art object.
Which makes me question whether to historicise is sufficient to understand meaning? According to Wikipedia it states ‘a large number of thinkers have embraced the need for historical context, not because culture is self-referential, but because there is no more compressed means of conveying all of the relevant information except through history’. This view is said to be rooted in the work of a recent historian Benedetto Croce in the context of 20th Century philosophy.
In this case I believe that historicism should be embraced as the need for historical context, background and culture are essential for the need to make sense of the world around us.
References:
Krauss, Rosalind, “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”, October, Vol.8 (Spring, 1979), pp.30-44.
Anwers.com, The world’s leading Q & A site. 7 April 2009. Answers Corporation. Retrieved 7 April 2009 http://www.answers.com/topic/historicism
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 7 April 2009. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 7 April 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism
Meg Cranston with Nico Israel,“Running On Light Feet”,from Hot Pants In A Cold Cold World: Works 1987-200,Acukland: Artspace and Clouds,2008, pp.6-21.
Meg Cranston born 1960 is a practicising Californian artist who has exhibited internationally since 1990. She is currently a professor at Fine Arts at Otis College of Art and Design.
In an interview between Meg Cranston and Nico Israel in 2008, Cranston rejects the idea that artists should develop a signature style what she calls a ‘trademark image’, describing it as ‘unethical to brand yourself’(7). Cranston’s diverse artistic practice which ‘encompasses object making, writing, performance, theatre, and even curating’(7), promotes an artistic career that is full of diversity and to some extent a bit generalist, is just as credible as those who are specialists in one field. Detailing that she found ‘having a particular style seemed hokey in a way and doing the same thing over and over, which had been considered a virtue’(7) became highly suspicious to her. Cranston’s explicit disinterest in establishing a recognisable style gives confidence to artists who also engage in various processes, and mediums like myself.
Often when considering my own artistic practice I frequently have this concern to develop a signature style, or that my works needed to develop coherently or logically. Cranston’s thought-provoking attitude challenged my former way of thinking that erratic variation from artwork to artwork and delving between varieties of mediums shouldn’t be perceived as amateur as it is commonly considered. Cranston reveals her ‘unclassifiable’ freedom, stating ‘I don’t discredit artists who go deep, but I go broad’(7), making me realise that essentially sticking to one style or medium is limiting and restrictive. Another multi-disciplinary artist who enjoys employing and utilizing a number of mediums, methods and ideas is German artist Gerhard Richter. Richter delves in between painting, photography, sculpture, writing and performance. Linda Weintraub in her essay “Inconsistency”, describes Richter as an example of an artist who “engages in a multitude of formats and mediums, thus rejecting the assertion that exalted artists to originate a distinctive style”. (Weintraub, 7)
Cranston’s lack of concern in asserting her uniqueness was also inspiring, claiming ‘I’ve tended to use myself as the subject not because I feel I’m unique, but because I’m similar to others’ (7). In regards to my own practice time, and again I would strive for uniqueness within my artworks having this want and need to produce an original work of art, whereas Cranston enjoys the relationship of being similar to others and exploits her similarities and differences as a subject for making art.
This interview encourages artists to step out of their comfort zones and exceed their boundaries. Cranston’s advice being that ‘someone once taught me that you should take the worst comment about your work and base your next show on that idea’(17). With her example of writing a play, something she had never done, suggests that inexperience of mediums can also be a positive methodology for making art.
References:
Meg Cranston with Nico Israel,“Running On Light Feet”,from Hot Pants In A Cold Cold World: Works 1987-200,Acukland: Artspace and Clouds,2008, pp.6-21.
Weintraub, Linda, Athur Danto and Thomas McEvilley. “Art on the edge and over: searching for art’s meaning in contemporary society, 1970s-1990s” Litchfield, CT : Art Insights, 1996.
In an interview between Meg Cranston and Nico Israel in 2008, Cranston rejects the idea that artists should develop a signature style what she calls a ‘trademark image’, describing it as ‘unethical to brand yourself’(7). Cranston’s diverse artistic practice which ‘encompasses object making, writing, performance, theatre, and even curating’(7), promotes an artistic career that is full of diversity and to some extent a bit generalist, is just as credible as those who are specialists in one field. Detailing that she found ‘having a particular style seemed hokey in a way and doing the same thing over and over, which had been considered a virtue’(7) became highly suspicious to her. Cranston’s explicit disinterest in establishing a recognisable style gives confidence to artists who also engage in various processes, and mediums like myself.
Often when considering my own artistic practice I frequently have this concern to develop a signature style, or that my works needed to develop coherently or logically. Cranston’s thought-provoking attitude challenged my former way of thinking that erratic variation from artwork to artwork and delving between varieties of mediums shouldn’t be perceived as amateur as it is commonly considered. Cranston reveals her ‘unclassifiable’ freedom, stating ‘I don’t discredit artists who go deep, but I go broad’(7), making me realise that essentially sticking to one style or medium is limiting and restrictive. Another multi-disciplinary artist who enjoys employing and utilizing a number of mediums, methods and ideas is German artist Gerhard Richter. Richter delves in between painting, photography, sculpture, writing and performance. Linda Weintraub in her essay “Inconsistency”, describes Richter as an example of an artist who “engages in a multitude of formats and mediums, thus rejecting the assertion that exalted artists to originate a distinctive style”. (Weintraub, 7)
Cranston’s lack of concern in asserting her uniqueness was also inspiring, claiming ‘I’ve tended to use myself as the subject not because I feel I’m unique, but because I’m similar to others’ (7). In regards to my own practice time, and again I would strive for uniqueness within my artworks having this want and need to produce an original work of art, whereas Cranston enjoys the relationship of being similar to others and exploits her similarities and differences as a subject for making art.
This interview encourages artists to step out of their comfort zones and exceed their boundaries. Cranston’s advice being that ‘someone once taught me that you should take the worst comment about your work and base your next show on that idea’(17). With her example of writing a play, something she had never done, suggests that inexperience of mediums can also be a positive methodology for making art.
References:
Meg Cranston with Nico Israel,“Running On Light Feet”,from Hot Pants In A Cold Cold World: Works 1987-200,Acukland: Artspace and Clouds,2008, pp.6-21.
Weintraub, Linda, Athur Danto and Thomas McEvilley. “Art on the edge and over: searching for art’s meaning in contemporary society, 1970s-1990s” Litchfield, CT : Art Insights, 1996.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)