Donna's question, "If dialogic art doesn't exactly produce an object, what market does it serve?" can be answered by Ethan when he notes that "Kwon. . . raises the question of the role of the artist as a coordinator of industries, or service provider." Andrea Fraser calls this 'critical-artistic,' services." We're in a service economy right? Don't you artists want to be service providers too? If not, why not?
As per Donna's other question: "[D]oes the concept of being compensated, therefore paid, by our one's own labor mean the work is still legitimate? If not, why does a curator get paid?" My answer has two parts:
a. because the curator is not legitimate; b. the curator is not paid. this is a multiple choice answer.
Dr. B
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Curator as artist
Considering the Brenson's discussion of the evolution of the curator, I’m struck by how much they have become the artist. I experienced that last year at the De Young Museum, with the Chicano exhibition curated by Daniel Cornell. This exhibition incorporated several gallery spaces throughout the museum. In one area, he installed sections of border fencing in ways that related to the sculptural qualities of the building’s architecture, and the views a visitor saw through the window. There was a political message, the intricacies of which I no longer remember – but I clearly remember his aesthetic presentation. So, the curator’s work is remembered, while the content of the objects is not.
Thoughts on context: Kwon’s discussion of site specificity contextualizes what I call art-as-science-project and Brenson’s essay gives context to a Context -- the installation.
Thoughts on context: Kwon’s discussion of site specificity contextualizes what I call art-as-science-project and Brenson’s essay gives context to a Context -- the installation.
I agree that the moving of site specific works destroys the work. “As Susan Hapgood has observed. “the once popular term ‘site specific” has come to mean movable under the right circumstances,” shattering the dictum that “to remove the work is to destroy the work.”.” When you remove a piece from it’s environment you not only change its context but it’s content. I recently viewed Richard Serras spash piece at the SF MoMa and was not excited, the piece felt diluted and forced into an environment where it did not belong.
Brenson's essay is about the rising importance of the role of curator, to not only put together interesting shows, but to educate the community, put work into context, and bring in work from other cultures, to increase the dialogue among artists and visitors to the exhibitions. The curator has responsibilities to the public, to educate and inform. Visitors want to not just experience an exhibition, they want to understand it. Curators have a new role of starting a dialogue between artists, cultures, and the general public. Brenson talks about how people are, in one sense, very disconnected from one another, but at the same time, have a need to communicate and understand one another.
This brings him to the rise of Biennial Exhibitions, and the roles these exhibitions have to each of their respective countries. Biennials use art as a means for curators and countries to "break the isolation of their peoples and regions and redefine national and international telationships." (p.61) They become a way to communicate with the art world at large, and bring respect for their local artists, and in turn, their nation.
Brenson quotes a curator from Brazil, saying "It's not for art's sake... It's for the sake of the education of society." (p.62) In this way, the role of art, and the curator to communicate that art to society, becomes very important. In this sense, I view the term Dialogic Art as art that communicates, in some way, beyond the art world sphere. Whether it is site-specific public art, or the attempts of curators to educate a society at large through art, it is, in the broader scheme of things, art that is trying to reach out beyond it historical capabilities.
This brings him to the rise of Biennial Exhibitions, and the roles these exhibitions have to each of their respective countries. Biennials use art as a means for curators and countries to "break the isolation of their peoples and regions and redefine national and international telationships." (p.61) They become a way to communicate with the art world at large, and bring respect for their local artists, and in turn, their nation.
Brenson quotes a curator from Brazil, saying "It's not for art's sake... It's for the sake of the education of society." (p.62) In this way, the role of art, and the curator to communicate that art to society, becomes very important. In this sense, I view the term Dialogic Art as art that communicates, in some way, beyond the art world sphere. Whether it is site-specific public art, or the attempts of curators to educate a society at large through art, it is, in the broader scheme of things, art that is trying to reach out beyond it historical capabilities.
One of the quotes that I began to think about in many ways is the quote “The once-popular term ‘site specific’ has come to mean movable under the right circumstances,” shattering the dictum that “to remove the work is to destroy the work”. I wonder how many artists changed their minds of re-creating or relocating their work for the sole purpose of making money and compromising their ethical beliefs of the work. On the flipside, how many artists took up the opportunity to re-create or relocate their work for the sole purpose to share the experience with an audience that otherwise could not have experienced the work? Maybe, when Serra made the statement “to remove the work is to destroy the work”, he may not have been aware of other sites where the work can be as powerful and fit perfect as in the original location?
Another sentence that stuck out from the reading was “…part of the responsibility of the curator is to say, This is what I am doing, and it is not the final word.” I think it is very important for a curator to keep in mind what the artist (whose work the curator is going to display) thinks is the best way to display his art. Being a curator can be a difficult job because he/she must juggle the work, the artist (if they are still alive) the audience who is going to come and see the work, and the “higher ups” that oversee the curator. Tough!
Maybe the introduction of a contract between an artist and the curator/institution would be a good idea as Fraser has wrote. It would be a good idea if there were some guidelines, or have some sort of “paved road” for artists.
Another sentence that stuck out from the reading was “…part of the responsibility of the curator is to say, This is what I am doing, and it is not the final word.” I think it is very important for a curator to keep in mind what the artist (whose work the curator is going to display) thinks is the best way to display his art. Being a curator can be a difficult job because he/she must juggle the work, the artist (if they are still alive) the audience who is going to come and see the work, and the “higher ups” that oversee the curator. Tough!
Maybe the introduction of a contract between an artist and the curator/institution would be a good idea as Fraser has wrote. It would be a good idea if there were some guidelines, or have some sort of “paved road” for artists.
...fraser and autonomy
What really caught my interest in the Fraser article (and which I will not have time to talk about tonight) was the relationship she proposed between autonomy and appropriating models from other professional fields. While there seems to be an obvious connection between the supposed liberation of "being an artist" versus following current "contract or fee structures," I was struck by the complication of providing service-based-art without falling into a non-autonomous relationship with the provider. Does the provision of services entitle the exacter of payments to hold an agenda and political power over the services? Obviously in the standard contract model which has been used favors this model.
However, as service providers, there must be alternative models to approach the creation of dialog between parties. While I see more artists moving to a corporate theory model, searching for protection behind the system instead of in front of it, is this the only relationship between "service providers" and the "money holders" available?
However, as service providers, there must be alternative models to approach the creation of dialog between parties. While I see more artists moving to a corporate theory model, searching for protection behind the system instead of in front of it, is this the only relationship between "service providers" and the "money holders" available?
Yeah, it’s true that to be an artist now is more and more complex. We have to deal with not only skills and markets but also political, economical, technological, and psychological issues. The curator in Brenson’s article also has to take multiple roles and functions. “They must be at once aestheticians, diplomats, economists, critics, historians, politicians, audience developers, and promoters. They must be able to communicate not only with artists but also with community leaders, business executives, and heads of state.”
While facing more and more issues, the artists also try to self-effacement. “…as the curators becomes a more and more visible player in the world of contemporary art, more artists are concealing their egos to prove to the art community, to the general public, and to themselves that they are worth of respect.”
Brenson also talks about the self-consciousness and openness and awareness of curators. How self-conscious and open a curator is decides how transparent the exhibition is. Here, making transparent and self-conscious brings identity to the fore. It’s not just about people’s relations to others and to the world around them but about the processes of everyone’s inner life. To an artist, I think it’s important to be self-aware and open.
My favorite line of text in all of this was from Fraser:
"The cynical, debased version of this kind of analysis is that the artistic field is no different from any other market in luxery goods."
With the next favorite also from Fraser:
"Because we are working for our own satisfaction, our labor is supposed to be its own compensation."
With regards to the first quote, how does that work with Kwon's discussion regarding site specificity especially in the public domain? On the second quote, does the concept of being compesated, therefore paid, by our one's own labor mean the work is still legitimate? If not, why does a curator get paid?
If dialogic art doesn't exactly produce an object, what market does it serve?
"The cynical, debased version of this kind of analysis is that the artistic field is no different from any other market in luxery goods."
With the next favorite also from Fraser:
"Because we are working for our own satisfaction, our labor is supposed to be its own compensation."
With regards to the first quote, how does that work with Kwon's discussion regarding site specificity especially in the public domain? On the second quote, does the concept of being compesated, therefore paid, by our one's own labor mean the work is still legitimate? If not, why does a curator get paid?
If dialogic art doesn't exactly produce an object, what market does it serve?
Kwon essay poses some interesting questions in regards to artistic production, art as commodity, art as process, art as tangible. She implies that site-specific art was a way for the artist to “resist the forces of the capitalist market economy”. But in the end of the essay it seems that the “capitalist market” found a way to make this kind of art practice beneficial for them. In reproducing the site-specific art and replacing it into a new environment I question the hierarchy of the varying levels of importance within the art. What is the most important aspect of the art? Is it the art piece itself, the artist’s hand, the limited time of existence, the context of the art and place, or the context of the place within the art?
There is a quote in Fraser’s essay that I see as relavent to Kwon and Brenson…”The demand for art addressed to artist is often also directly related to competition between institutions themselves: competition for funding, for press, for audience, and all the other indices of influences over the popular and professional perception of legitimate culture and legitimate cultural discourse”.
There is a quote in Fraser’s essay that I see as relavent to Kwon and Brenson…”The demand for art addressed to artist is often also directly related to competition between institutions themselves: competition for funding, for press, for audience, and all the other indices of influences over the popular and professional perception of legitimate culture and legitimate cultural discourse”.
Itinerant Artists
I had no idea being an artist was this complex! I think that is great though.
I think reading Miwon Kwon's text gives quite a good picture on how the art work is not just an art work but a commodity and something very vibrant, i would say.
In the end it is just like a business, the art has to suit the site and still remain quite authentic as well as the art has to fit in the regulations of the insitution. As if the artist's work wasn't enough already, he has to take on a lot of personalities and jobs, being an artist, coordinator and curator at the same time. And the traveling makes this a very "creative" job since he has to rethink the site, work with new people, different contracts etc. Very interesting and very different from the old times where artist did not have to deal with the "site" issues and " institutions" so much.
Gosh.. who said being an artist was easy?! ;)
-Jess.
I think reading Miwon Kwon's text gives quite a good picture on how the art work is not just an art work but a commodity and something very vibrant, i would say.
In the end it is just like a business, the art has to suit the site and still remain quite authentic as well as the art has to fit in the regulations of the insitution. As if the artist's work wasn't enough already, he has to take on a lot of personalities and jobs, being an artist, coordinator and curator at the same time. And the traveling makes this a very "creative" job since he has to rethink the site, work with new people, different contracts etc. Very interesting and very different from the old times where artist did not have to deal with the "site" issues and " institutions" so much.
Gosh.. who said being an artist was easy?! ;)
-Jess.
I like the idea of the artist being the commodity rather than the artwork. Kwon talks about the necessity of the artist's present in itenerant projects and thier present being "preformative". The art is not validated unless the artist is present. The artist is providing a service to the institution and in the view of Fraser, should be compensated for that act. I think this can only happen if the artist views the work as serving the community, like the Dialogic Art described by Kester. The artist must view themselves as the product and the producer to compete in this new globalized art community.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Terms
Kwon: Site-Specificity: “unfixed impermanence”
Brenson: Curators/Biennales: “cultural forces”
Fraser: Artistic Service: “cultural institutions” and “institutional critique”
Kester: Conversation Pieces: “empathetic identification”
Brenson: Curators/Biennales: “cultural forces”
Fraser: Artistic Service: “cultural institutions” and “institutional critique”
Kester: Conversation Pieces: “empathetic identification”
Dialogic
The question that "dialogic" sets off for me in relation to these texts is : is the artist involved in a dialog, if so, with whom?
In Kwon the site of a work has become a given topical dialog in many cases. She also suggests that the dialog need not be some external pre-existing conversation, but may actually be initiated by the work. This seems to basically fit the notion of art that Mikhail Bakhtin advanced (as sited by Kester) "... the work of art can be viewed as a kind of conversation."
Kwon also raises the question of the role of the artist as a coordinator of industries, or service provider, "what [artists] provide now, rather than produce, are aesthetic, often 'critical-artistic,' services." This connects very directly to the Fraser piece, and further seems linked to the role of the curator in the Brenson essay.
These all challenge the nature of art (object making vs. service) - but approach dialog differently. I tend to see the Brenson piece as possibly addressing dialog among the artists in an exhibition (in this sense the curator is parallel to the artists used as examples in the Kester essay - facilitators of a dialog), but also addressing dialog between the curator and the audience.
I was most forcefully struck by a question that Fraser raises, when he asks if we, as artists, are to be in conversation with ourselves (in a sense); if we produce work consistent only with it's own internal logic. He then follows it with "... but in so doing we forfeit the right to regulate the social an economic conditions of our activity..." and thereby "...forefeit the ability to determine the meaning and effects of our activity according to our interests as social subjects..." Seems so clearly stated and important to be aware of!
In Kwon the site of a work has become a given topical dialog in many cases. She also suggests that the dialog need not be some external pre-existing conversation, but may actually be initiated by the work. This seems to basically fit the notion of art that Mikhail Bakhtin advanced (as sited by Kester) "... the work of art can be viewed as a kind of conversation."
Kwon also raises the question of the role of the artist as a coordinator of industries, or service provider, "what [artists] provide now, rather than produce, are aesthetic, often 'critical-artistic,' services." This connects very directly to the Fraser piece, and further seems linked to the role of the curator in the Brenson essay.
These all challenge the nature of art (object making vs. service) - but approach dialog differently. I tend to see the Brenson piece as possibly addressing dialog among the artists in an exhibition (in this sense the curator is parallel to the artists used as examples in the Kester essay - facilitators of a dialog), but also addressing dialog between the curator and the audience.
I was most forcefully struck by a question that Fraser raises, when he asks if we, as artists, are to be in conversation with ourselves (in a sense); if we produce work consistent only with it's own internal logic. He then follows it with "... but in so doing we forfeit the right to regulate the social an economic conditions of our activity..." and thereby "...forefeit the ability to determine the meaning and effects of our activity according to our interests as social subjects..." Seems so clearly stated and important to be aware of!
9.6.07 CLUI at City Hall
Reminder: We will meet at 5:30 at 4th Street Pizza, just across the street from the San Jose City Hall. The talk starts at 7pm. Also, you can find information about the Center for Land Use Interpretation by clicking the link above. Remember to post your comments on the blog. See y'all soon.
Dr. B
Dr. B
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Looking Forward
I can’t yet coherently speak about Bourdieu.
On the other hand, de Duve’s ideas have helped me better understand my art school experience. I started out as an experiential painter, taught by a local artist who studied at the Art Student’s League in the 50’s. My memory of her words now has a context, as does what I have learned at SJSU with its strongly Bauhaus curriculum.
I find art theory helps me make choices in my studio work. For example, I’m remembering a discussion of genius by Kant, and its requirement for originality – which I apply according to my own definition. Is this work integrally of my own origin? There are outside influences which I may or may not be able to identify – but I still seek internal coherence.
In this class, I hope to find the appropriate academic theory bucket in which to place my attitude, practice and work.
On the other hand, de Duve’s ideas have helped me better understand my art school experience. I started out as an experiential painter, taught by a local artist who studied at the Art Student’s League in the 50’s. My memory of her words now has a context, as does what I have learned at SJSU with its strongly Bauhaus curriculum.
I find art theory helps me make choices in my studio work. For example, I’m remembering a discussion of genius by Kant, and its requirement for originality – which I apply according to my own definition. Is this work integrally of my own origin? There are outside influences which I may or may not be able to identify – but I still seek internal coherence.
In this class, I hope to find the appropriate academic theory bucket in which to place my attitude, practice and work.
I am leaving a comment here, because for some reason my link is leading me to Dore's other class Arth 277.
I think the two essays are similar in the fact that they are both addressing a heirarchy. Bourdieu is addressing the inevitable heirarchy of human nature-cultural field of production, and de Duve is addressing a heirarchy of learning.
I believe social dynamics are at play in any cultural field, whether it is art, literature, politics, etc. While De Duve is examining which field of learning should be nourished, Bourdieu is addressing the dynamics and the social "cultural field of production".
"The notion of field of cultural production...allows one to break away from vague references to the social world...with which the social history of art and literature usually contents itself."-Bourdieu
The two authors are both questioning a model of progression.
I think the two essays are similar in the fact that they are both addressing a heirarchy. Bourdieu is addressing the inevitable heirarchy of human nature-cultural field of production, and de Duve is addressing a heirarchy of learning.
I believe social dynamics are at play in any cultural field, whether it is art, literature, politics, etc. While De Duve is examining which field of learning should be nourished, Bourdieu is addressing the dynamics and the social "cultural field of production".
"The notion of field of cultural production...allows one to break away from vague references to the social world...with which the social history of art and literature usually contents itself."-Bourdieu
The two authors are both questioning a model of progression.
Whew
So the first time I read through Bourdieu it was more like seeing the words sequentially rather than actually reading. I, like Xiaoqing, found it difficult to absorb. De Duve was easier to grasp.
With both articles I found my mind drifting to fashion of all things especially with the statement by Bourdieu "Cultural producers hold a specific power, the properly symbolic power of showing things and making people believe in them, ...". In much of society, from the trailer parks to the high-end Manhattan condos, there are few things more influential than fashion and people blindly following trends because someone has made them "believe." Then I thought about traditional fashion/design schools that churn out the fashion BFA/MFA equivalents who learned by imitation prior to utilizing innovation--if they ever got that far--and comparing them with the upstarts in the fashion world who rely mainly on the notion of raw creativity and attitude to get their work out there and also with those who learned it as a trade (just translating "métier"). (In order I think about Stella McCartney, Zac Posen and Poupie Cadolle.)
Looking at the spreadsheet from last week detailing specifics about "Modern," "Post-Modern" and the ridiculously named "Post-Post-Modern" I focused on the bits that revolve around money and wondered which of these movements/thoughts/transitions/principles would garner the most admiration or success from the standpoint of de Duve.
I think this made more sense in my head before I began typing it out. I suppose what I want to say is that art, like fashion, is cyclical as I assume the methodology for categorizing, criticizing and teaching art is/will be.
With both articles I found my mind drifting to fashion of all things especially with the statement by Bourdieu "Cultural producers hold a specific power, the properly symbolic power of showing things and making people believe in them, ...". In much of society, from the trailer parks to the high-end Manhattan condos, there are few things more influential than fashion and people blindly following trends because someone has made them "believe." Then I thought about traditional fashion/design schools that churn out the fashion BFA/MFA equivalents who learned by imitation prior to utilizing innovation--if they ever got that far--and comparing them with the upstarts in the fashion world who rely mainly on the notion of raw creativity and attitude to get their work out there and also with those who learned it as a trade (just translating "métier"). (In order I think about Stella McCartney, Zac Posen and Poupie Cadolle.)
Looking at the spreadsheet from last week detailing specifics about "Modern," "Post-Modern" and the ridiculously named "Post-Post-Modern" I focused on the bits that revolve around money and wondered which of these movements/thoughts/transitions/principles would garner the most admiration or success from the standpoint of de Duve.
I think this made more sense in my head before I began typing it out. I suppose what I want to say is that art, like fashion, is cyclical as I assume the methodology for categorizing, criticizing and teaching art is/will be.
The characteristics of the "cultural field of production" that Bourdieu defines in this reading (Power struggles, capital, symbolic exlusion/dominant definition, class structure) are evident in any field. I think that even if you decide to completely remove yourself from the commercial art world and do strictly anonymous Guerilla type art, you would probably allign yourself with other like-minded artists and eventually divide into dominant players with capital and the dominated rest. Its kinda human-nature, or at least democratic-nature. I wish Thierry de Duve would have talked more about his Paris art school and what teaching philosophies were to be implicated there. I think if you first taught in the Academic style, then Bauhaus, then the new-triad it would be a well-rounded art education. I see value in all three.
Bourdieu‘s writing is hard for me to understand. :(
Bourdieu talked about the homologies among all kinds of fields which relate to each other. Literary field is a site of struggles. The other fields are similar to it. The author talked about reducing the strategies, interests or struggles in literature world. He also pointed out that poetry is more and more completely reduced to its “essence”. Is this reduction influenced by Modernism?
De Duve, in my view, is a conscientious educator. He was trying to find the problems of the fine art education. With the change from Academism to Modernism (Bauhaus) then to Post Modernism (like Conceptual art and Deconstruction), the education form changed from imitation to invention to practice. I think all the changes in art world are inevitable because the art world is strongly influenced by the changes in the other fields. However some changes are negative as they make art school things a lot more complex, more subtle, and more ambiguous.
As the author said:”…rather misunderstood and badly assimilated, deconstruction is merely the symptom of the disarray of a generation of art teacher who have lived through the crisis of invention and have never themselves been submitted to the discipline of imitation. The result is that students who haven’t had the time to construct an artistic culture of any kind are being tutored in the deconstructive suspicion proper to our time.”
For me, my undergraduate is in the architecture department. I think we followed the way of imitation-invention-practice. I believe it would be better if teachers had encouraged us to do more thinking on art genres. It often limits the students’ creativity to over-emphasize memorizing the knowledge.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The notion of "creativity" of the artist is what seems to be of major concern for both Duve and Bourdieu. Bourdieu believes that artists (or what he calls "cultural producers") are granted "limited autonomy" and because of that they are able to create models of resistance against dominant social and political institutions. In this sense, artist can thus be "creative" due to the fact that they are not institutionalized. Institutions come into play in Duve's article too. He thinks that through institutionalization of art (namely limiting it to certain organizations of education such as art schools and museums), artists lose their sense of creativity. Instead they adopt a position in regard to certain ideological stand points that entered these (perhaps more French) institutions of education. In this sense, according to Duve, the "creativity" of the artist is gone and is replaced by mere "attitude."
One thing that remains vague for me is this: Bourdieu sees the artist as a "producer of culture." If that is the case, how can an artist be granted "limited autonomy"? In what sense is s/he granted a limited autonomy?
After reading these two articles, I have started thinking about my own "creativity" in art. Is it a natural talent, an interest, and an instinct? Or rather is it a mere "attitude" that I developed within the institutions I was educated at or the socio-political circumstances that I grew up with?
One thing that remains vague for me is this: Bourdieu sees the artist as a "producer of culture." If that is the case, how can an artist be granted "limited autonomy"? In what sense is s/he granted a limited autonomy?
After reading these two articles, I have started thinking about my own "creativity" in art. Is it a natural talent, an interest, and an instinct? Or rather is it a mere "attitude" that I developed within the institutions I was educated at or the socio-political circumstances that I grew up with?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)