Week 10 - Politics, Required Reading:
1. A Critique of the Activist Scene, Nato Thompson, 2007.
2. JFK: Remarks at Amherst College, Sept., 26, 1963.
3. The Social Turn: Collaboration and Its Discontents, Claire Bishop, Artforum, 2006.
Optional additional readings / video on the topic:
1. Culture Wars, Richard Bolton, 1992.
2. Sculpture is a Dying Art Form. Let’s Put it Out of its Misery, Stephen Bayley, The Independent, 2005.
3. Arts and Economy Report from the News Hour (2009)
(video clip above)
4. The Art of Politics, Robert Atkins, Art in America, 2006.
5. Trevor Paglen, an artist, writer, and experimental geographer whose work deliberately blurs lines between social science, contemporary art, journalism, and other disciplines to construct unfamiliar, yet meticulously researched ways to see and interpret the world around us. In the last few years, Paglen's experimental, interdisciplinary work has uniquely managed to capture the attention of the art world, academia, and mainstream media simultaneously.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Trevor Paglen | ||||
| ||||
Brianna Barton
ReplyDeleteArt and Politics
Nato Thompson’s A Critique of the Activist Scene is a critical and informative look at our society’s obsession with cultural identities and “outsiderness.” It is nothing we haven’t heard before, but Thompson presents it in such a smart, accessible way. The main argument posed its that, despite what they might think, most artists involved in activism are doing so only for a cultural identity, proven by how much of their persona is defined by what they aren’t, as opposed to what they are. It is disheartening, but it’s true. And because attention is called to it, we can consciously try to be more than just another person trying to stand apart from the masses. It stems from the desperate desire to be unique, I think. So often in conversations about music, art, culture, people feel the need to inform everyone how much longer they were listening said band before they got popular. Even if they genuinely enjoy that band, in this moment they are using the band as a defining characteristic of who they are—it no longer becomes about the music or the effort.
People who don’t like something because it’s popular, are just as easily persuaded by our consumer culture as someone who won’t like something because it’s not popular. Both groups are attempting to be cool in some way or another, the only difference being that their peers have different standards of cool.
Claire Bishop is a prolific art historian who focuses on a new wave art practices—namely those of participation, collaboration, social engagement and relational theories. The idea of relational aesthetics is relatively new, the term only being coined my Nicholas Burrioud in the 1990s. A quote that stuck out to me was, “good intentions shouldn't render art immune to critical analysis.” I read an article on the same lines as this a little while ago, and I still agree. Just because there are moral ideas behind the work, doesn’t mean the work can’t be smart, provocative, challenging, beautiful, whatever.
If I ever write to a federal grant program (if any of them are still around), I will be using a quote from John F. Kennedy’s speech at Amherst College, “If sometimes our great artist have been the most critical of our society, it is because their sensitivity and their concern for justice, which must motivate any true artist, makes him aware that our Nation falls short of its highest potential.” Perhaps I am under the spell of this famous orator, but whether anyone in politics actually believes this, I find this statement full of truth. From Joseph Beuys, to Group Material, to Reverend Billy and the Yes Men, there have been and are artists who see the world as it could be. Overturning an entire planet full of greed and corruption may not be possible for one person, I am proud to know that my work as an artist could be a part of a large push for social change and justice.
Sophie Strachan
ReplyDeleteI think this is a wonderful group of articles. I’m glad that there are people outside of the art world who can appreciate art in such a way. Collaboration and community-based arts are definitely a step forward in art. I just hope it doesn’t overshadow more traditional arts to the point that people feel they are obsolete. But I’m sure there will always be two sides to that story. I really like Carsten Holler’s Baudouin Experiment. I really enjoyed the collaboration article because it helped me to clearly think about art in another way. The article by Nato Thompson was extremely well written and I think he hit a lot of good points in relation to contemporary culture and society. I like the fact that he did not once say the word binary yet he was talking about binaries through the entire article. I think our culture’s obsession with binaries has a lot to do with what he is talking about.
I've been reading a lot of Claire Bishop and Nato Thompson as I conduct horizontal research for my Art History thesis on three (coincidentally female) artists that work (often or exclusively) outside the institutionalized art world. (I actually read the Bishop article early in the semester, but got even more out of it in this reread and new context.) I think the two articles compliment each other in an interesting way. Bishop's description of trends in contemporary art away from commercial objectives in favor of community/social awareness makes me happy to be working and learning in this artistic milieu. Thompson's article reminds me not to allow my fervor for the territory that Bishop explores to turn into blind idealism. The community-oriented art happening now is certainly a scene, and to subscribe to it uncritically is to doom it to be a fad or style choice. What I take from Thompson's discussion of "the activist scene" is a warning--I think he is cautioning activists to remain critical of their scene lest it be too easily appropriated by the popular culture machine, right from under our noses.
ReplyDeleteAnd Kennedy's words on Frost? If only that (yes, idealistic and, certainly, generalized) were the opinion of our timid political machine today. I'm sure Kennedy was speaking in the name of our American propensity for free expression for all the world to hear, and I'm sure he was catering a bit to the political climate at a school like Amherst, but wouldn't it be nice if politicians weren't so scared to support those who have the capacity to keep them in check?
I thought nato thompson’s essay was very well written and brought up a lot of good points. I used to be involved in the “activist scene;” it changed everything about me. My mindset, my clothes, my diet, my actions, my conversations, my art – everything. This was an extremely overwhelming thing because after a while I became confused; am I really making any change, or did I just find a really awesome, open-minded group of friends that like to have fun with politics and eat good food together? I did a lot of thinking about contradiction and honesty, as thompson points out, and realized pretty much everything he said. I think activism is really important, but I don’t know how to make it not just another scene.
ReplyDeleteJFK’s words are quite profound, I think he has some good insights into the role/function of an artist.
I like the idea of art being more than visual or object-like, but rather interactive and conversational. At this point, we have made so many things that are similar to things in the past, I feel like it’s more important to talk about what is going on now – mostly things that people don’t want to talk about – in ways that are less overbearing. Why not make art the outlet for this?
Remarks at Amherst College
ReplyDeletePresident John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963
Pablo Picasso once said “Art is a lie, that makes us realize the truth.” This article talks about the affect that artists have on a society. Its interesting to read a presidential speech that talks about a positive outlook of the arts that speaks about society.
The Flip Side to the Commodification of Revolution:
A Critique of the Activist Scene
By nato Thompson
Ok, so at first I thought this person was a little nuts, because so something that Thompson said about we are our economy or our identity is our economy ... something that I have a hard time agree with (sure, some people could be, but you can’t speak in absolutes). However on the topic of “scenes” and how most things in life are in categories of scenes. I could agree with that. Now, its not something that you start off as a young child thinking about the kind of scene you wish to be in. Though when one reached high school the whole “scene” concept comes into full effect.
The social turn:
collaboration and its discontents
Claire bishop
Under the topic of “What serious criticism” brought up an interesting point; in a collaboration who takes the credit in the work and the process. Some could say every because it is a collaboration. However in all ground works there are levels of effort to bring a project together. Everyone does not put in the same time and effort into the project. From there one might think how should credit be acknowledged? Should it be on some level as an individual or just move on from this project knowing that its group work and it’ll stay group work.
Laurel Patterson
ReplyDeleteCD Reading Response 11-17
The “Sculpture is Dying” article really upset me. If sculpture is dying then why are there still so many people practicing this form with such intense drive, desire, and addiction? If it is dead then there would be no reason and no motivation. I hate to hear that something I planned on devoting my life to is dead. Yes, a Caro piece may not be as powerful as a $300,000 car, but how can those two things even be compared? Abstract sculpture has its own power and its own muscle, it’s all how you look at it. I think that its pretty powerful when an 80 year old man can find a way to assemble a piece of sculpture that is 4 times his size and weighs about a ton. People can go ahead and say sculpture is dead, if anything it will give us sculptors the motivation to find ways to breathe in new life.
The Sculpture is dying? WOW.. Now this here is an article probably written by someone with no comprehension of what art is. I believe this is the mentality that separates 3D & 2D artists. I know the terms 2D & 3D is important in the art world to clarify what kind of art is being made, but does that limit what kinds of art we can make? Can 2D artists only create 2D work or can they explore 3D as well?
ReplyDeleteI know there are people here @ Moore who look their noses down at us 3D artists. That goes for students as well as faculty. That is why I believe there is a shortage of students who enroll in the 3D programs.
I do not agree with people who think Sculpture is dying at all. I feel that if sculpture is dying, then what about painting makes it alive? Sculpture is a living form of art in my opinion, and as a 3D artist, I see myself and my peers making it come more alive each day. It's sad that there are many people out here who think this way and the only way to prove them wrong is to continue creating and working hard! Instead of criticizing it, there should be a solution to reviving it if that's the way they feel.
Mallory Lawson
ReplyDeleteA Critique of the Activist Scene:
For me, this article really posed a few interesting points, things that I have surprisingly never really thought about or questioned. Going to art school, I constantly surrounded by people who would consider themselves on “the outside” of mainstream culture. The first time I ever remember wanting to not be apart of the mainstream popular culture was as a teenager, ironically enough, Rancid was one of the first bands I really got into and I felt like I was apart of some special subculture, not even realizing that I was actually buying into our capitalist economy. Because naturally, whatever subculture or scene you decide to join, you have to look the part, because that is what it’s about right?
“We castigate the band we liked under the veneer of a capitalist critique, but secretly, we just hate that they became famous. This is the kicker. And what could capitalism want more than for us to burrow down and begin our supposed underground quest for new cultural products? Nothing could be more complicit than our constant obsession with cultural niche markets and affinities for the supposed “underground.”” I think these sentences are a really good summary of the article, I feel like it completely describes our generation. The drive to be different, to find something new and sacred is the motivation of our generation because everyone feels that they are such a unique individual. We are all products of our consumer-based culture, and what can we do?
I thought the point about the “activist” scene was pretty on point. “What makes activism completely unpalatable for others is that activists are completely unaware of how transparent their disdain for the people they are trying to save is. That is, if activism, like all scenes, is built on the premise of defining who you are not verses who you are, then the contradiction reaches its most painfully obvious form in a scene dedicated to helping those in other “scenes.”” I thought this was kind of funny. It’s amusing this think about one scene trying to save other scenes. It’s not that I don’t think some activists are fighting for a good cause, it’s just that reasons for wanting to do it are probably just as selfish anyone else’s reason for wanting to be apart of a scene.
Although I found this article informative and even enlightening, I doubt it change anything I will ever do, it just make me more aware of what I’m buying into.
Week 11-Politics
ReplyDeleteIs it out to be in or in to be out? …Who cares?
In response to Nato Thompson, Claire Bishop, JFK articles
I often wonder about if the environment I grew up in would change the way I paint and draw. I am a contemporary abstract expressionist. When I create paintings, usually I do not plan them out, I just paint with one idea or image in mind. With my drawings, it is completely intuitive. I wonder would I still draw the same if I grew up in a different time period or place. I’ve heard that some of my work looks like “outsider” art. In part, I believe this is true because I have such a child like amusement when it comes to creating. Its like I haven’t even been at school. A professor I had even once asked me, “why are you here” because I separated my “outsider” work from my schoolwork. I felt I had to live up to some identity and do things my professors said. My boyfriend is an “outsider” artist because he has not had any formal training. (We also do collaborative work, which is always fun and challenging.) And is that what it really means? So can anyone who hasn’t been to art school be an outsider artist?
As for “scenes”, I think that a lot of people are pretending to be artist because it’s “in” right now.
Modern day hipsters are being compared to hippies but I feel emptiness in my contemporaries, like what are you stand for, consumerism and capitalism how it has affected our society and the way Americans seem to be so materialistic, arrogant and selfish? Hipsters are a mod podge of “scenes” from the past.
How do you create something “new” when it feels like everything has been done?
Having raw talent as an artist is great but what do you to do when you realize art should have a greater meaning within our society and have a responsibility? It can speak louder than words and can be read by many people. Also, I feel as though since we are is this modern technology driven day, we have time to just create, as opposed to working to survive, or making art that had purpose, political/informative, pottery, garments.
This is an interesting comparison between the science week 12 articles.
Blame it on the bugs,
The West epitomizes individualistic, do-your-own thing cultures, ones where the rights of the individual equal and often trump those of the group and where differences are valued. East Asian societies exalt the larger society: behavior is constrained by social roles, conformity is prized, outsiders shunned. "The individualist-collectivist split is one of the most powerful differences among cultures," says Nisbett. But the reason a society falls where it does on the individualism- collectivism spectrum has been pretty much a mystery.
I thought the article written by Nato Thompson was so poorly written I actually googled him to see how old he was. I agree that cultural identity is mass-produced and that radicalism is a commodity that can only be temporarily alleviated due to the co-dependent relationship between the center and its periphery. However, I felt like he presented no evidence to back his convictions, and the relevance of his quotes seemed so disconnected to his point it made his accusations seem subjective and elementary.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, I realized that I am located at the most ideal point on the “hip” spectrum – I must be on some other spectrum. I believe that I am culturally retarded. I blame this on the fact that I never had cable growing up and so all the celebrity gossip and reality TV show hype is lost on me. I went outside and played with other kids growing up and based my identity completely on my own imagination. Everything I need to know in life I learned playing Barbies. I was raised to be open-minded and I find myself unfamiliar with and fascinated by everything. I have never read The Bible or a newspaper from front to back and I really don’t care to. I learn about life through experience, not statistics. And if anyone ever judged me for not being “hip” I probably wouldn’t notice anyway.
Another thing that bothered me about his article is that he was not specific about whom he was referring, using vague pronouns like the all encompassing “they” and “them”. He wrote, “if not ourselves, we know many folks who get into the game of activism out of a deep down resentment for all humanity.” Who is he talking about? I think he is more focused on the point that it certainly isn’t him. “We learn who we are, in large part, by declaring specifically who we are not.” This is maybe the only sentence he constructed that makes sense to me.