Ruins and Fragmentation

In Wu Hung’s article, he uses how Chinese artists react to ruins of different periods as a thread to talk about several different decades of Chinese contemporary art.

Firstly, he talks about the representation of ruins in Chinese history was different with Europe in two respects.p310
The reason why the aestheticization of ruins took place mainly in poetry is that the In Chinese traditional culture, ruin means “a big pile of dirt” or “a big field”. Because most of the traditional buildings of China are wooden, the house that was demolished just left a pile of dirt. The ruin in Chinese cultures is not a physical thing, but a site which can arouse some reminiscences. These reminiscences can be expressed either in poems or in paintings.
Another concept that relates to ruin is “trace”. Compare trace with ruin, the former is more obvious and substantial. It can be used to create image systems.

Secondly, the article talks about what happened when Chinese traditional encountered European “ruin” culture. The most influenced area is the photography.

Thirdly is the ruin and fragmentation as the influences of the Cultural Revolution (1969-1979).
The Big Character posters are the real visualization of Cultural Revolution. During 80’, some political pop artworks that described ruins of Cultural Revolution showed up. Some of the artworks were influenced by Scar art from Europe; some are the avant-guard works which tried to abstract the Cultural Revolution.

Fourthly, Wu Hung describes the ruins in China around 2000. These ruins are the destruction of the old buildings. Because of the rapid growth of the city, increasingly new constructions need to be built. The artworks that shows these ruins are neither contain pain not represent past or future. It shows the symbol of “suspending” which is formed by the rapid change of the history. These feelings are uncertain, mysterious and lost.

How were these articles discussing aesthetics? Perhaps it is my addled brain, but I only found reference to aesthetics in the Richard Serra article and that article didn't seem to discuss the "public sense" of aesthetic as having value.
I mean, doesn't Thomas Kinkade fit into the discussion of aesthetics?

Responding to the question "Does the artist actually think of theory while making art?," I think it depends wholly on the artist and specifically what the subject matter is and how the artist works. I don't know if Warhol thought so much about art theory as he did sensationalism (spectacle) or other psychoanalytic stuff when he produced the Death and Disaster series. Often I have to wonder even if it appears as though an artist was thinking about or responding to art theory it could just as easily be a much less cerebral and more visceral response to what's happening around them. If someone, in retrospect, writes about the state of social, political, you-name-the-issue issues in art and then applied those theories to artist or their respective work, it would then seem like the artist thought about theory from the get-go. Aren't all movements or catagories named after the fact? For instance, did Helen Frankenthaler refer to herself as a "post-painterly abstract expressionist" or did Marsden Hartley refer to himself as "an early modernist?" Most, if not all movements are named after the fact, aren't they? So what's to say that someone looking back at the socio-political atmosphere (or you name your own issue) of the time wouldn't look at work and name a category or movement for it? And another question: is there a difference between an artist who is consciously refering to, responding to or considering art theory when working and an artist who is knowledgeable about art history?

I just looked over the blogspot and noticed that my post from earlier today never posted so I will try to reiterate what I originally wrote, But I will also post it again once I get to my home computer.

There is a quote in the Notes on Surface article on page 305 and the author is talking about Kara Walker's art, but I think it is relavent to all the artist referenced within all the articles. Joselit says that Kara's cutouts, "constitute an instance not of reiteration, but of rearticulation". The rearticualtion comes in with the context of the work. Where is this work seen, whom is veiwing it, and what place in history or contemporary history is this art now in context with? This I believe holds true not only to Kara Waler's cutouts but to Richter's paintings as well. His reappropriation of the the photographs is not only a reiteration of the subject matter, but it is a rearticulation of a time, place, viewer, history, etc. He is reappropriating contemporary history with a medium of association with historical history./representation (Did that make sense)
The Buchloh articles states, "The inhability of painting to represent contemporary history resulted first of all from the transformation of historical experience into an experience of collective catastrophe. It therefore seemed that only photography, in its putative access to factitiy and objectivity, could qualify as an instrument of historical representation".
The question was raised by Ginny about if the artist is aware of theory when creating the art? I think in this case of Richter and the Chinese Post Modern movement, the artist are very aware of the history and theory surrounding thier medium and modes of artistic rearticulation.

I've had the same thought as Ginney, does the artist really consider all these theoretical outcomes when they are making the work? A lot of times I think that it is easy for an outside critic to read into much larger contexts than the artist actually intended to participate in. I also feel that in hindsight, it is much easier to place a work within a certain theoretical context, modernism, post- modernism, etc. than it is to place a more current work in a time period that is till undefined (post-PostModernism).

For example, looking back at Serra's Tilted Arc in the Carson article, one is able to see the ways in which his piece conversed directly between modernism and minimalism by challenging the Modernist notions about site. And then it further moves into post-modernism with the discussion and numerous writings about the work after the fact.

But on the other side, I think Robert Morris' work is very aware of the theoretical moment, especially in the time that he's making it. His "Corner Piece" and "Four Mirrored Cubes" directly deal with the rejection of Greenberg's "transcendent experience". Instead of wanting the art-viewing experience to stop time, his work intends to make the viewer much more aware of time and space, and their physical relationship to that space, as well as the object's relationship to the environment.

Both of these artists are aware of the theories they are trying to break while they are making the piece. I believe that is the overall point of the work, to change the perspectives of previous standards of how art (particularly sculpture) can function. But I am not sure that artists today are in such a direct conversation with previous ideologies. I guess that's why it's called post-postModernism.

Theory in the Studio, Part 2

I seem to remember (although I haven’t been able to find it again) that Richter said of his "Candle" paintings that he made them because they were commercially successful -- an admission that has stuck with me (although maybe I made it up). I’m looking to verify that reference. Because, if my memory is correct, again I wonder about Buchloh’s comment about them... serving so convincingly as grotesques: brilliantly performing the technical availability of such pictorial types while at the same time publicly invalidating any actual experience once conveyed by the genre…. Buchloh has every right to make such a case – but it may not relate at all to the artist’s experience or intent --, and as the artist rather than the academic, I remain curious about whether and where such an intersection might exist.

Two llinks for Chinese political pop artworks:
http://www.longmarchspace.com/images/capital%20exhibition/e-season1.htm
http://www.longmarchspace.com/images/o-site2/czhd/hgz/zp/index.htm

links for some contemporary artworks:
http://www.chinesecontemporary.com/artists.htm
http://www.artscenechina.com/

articles:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/inside.china/art.overview/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HMU/is_12_30/ai_111164129

site specific

Last night I watched the film Born into a Brothel and couldn't help but realize connections that covered what we have been discussing in class such as the other, the exotic, site specificity, identity, authenticity, spectatorship, etc. Not knowing anything about photography made me question the photographs that were taken by those children and I wonder if this film has made its way into discussions in photography classes? It seemed to me that the photographs shown were good photographs I mean they felt artsy but also makes me question why? Were these children taught the aesthetics of what a good photograph should look like or certain elements it should contain? Were they taught a western perspective of photography? Are they appealing because they signify the exotic or in relation to the Carson article is there an element of site specificity which only would have been possible because the artist lived in the village with them and was able to nurture and guide her students through the photographic process? And through that guidance were the students more prone to take photos that their teacher would like? Which then brings up questions of ownership, fuck i don't know maybe we'll talk about it in class.

That is an interesting question, Ginney. Does the artist actually think of theory while making art? I wonder about that too. That might be a good question to start the next class with, what do people think?

Honestly, I found Juli Carson's article quite hard to understand.
I liked Buchloh's topic and the Artists he mentioned. I looked up some of the pictures (Richter, Warhol, Kiefer) and I found them very good and honest- just because they demonstrate and express (through the artist's eyes of course) a situation in time that people do not want to be reminded of. They are not embellished, they do not take away thre truth and for sure it is not very easy to look at them.
I am wondering, do any of you think that they are provocative? It would be interesting to know what people actually think about those kind of pictures, painings etc that show a lot of emotion, detail and truth in a harsh way.
I compare it to the media where one does not find a lot of pictures showing details that present the reality of events. But, isn't that exaclty that what people need to know?