Surprisingly, I actually enjoyed Manovich. I hadn't really ever considered databases in the ways he wrote about them. Not to date myself, but I was "coming of age" during that transisiton when computers became more commonplace in the home (at least in Silicon Valley) and the encyclopedia salesman went the way of the Dodo.

The Gen-X Generation learned both the narrative and the database methodologies. Today's youth, however, accept the notion that the database and algorithm and their many benefits--on-demand TV, the Internet, Halo 3--have always been there and the data that come are able to be sorted in any manner. (Go ahead, ask a high school student what a card catalog is.) They are accustomed to this proliferation of borrowed and appropriated information that is availalable to them no waiting, 24/7, but without benefit of any narrative or trajectory.

It's creating interesting issues within society and, or course, art. Just as we construct our own algorithms to respond to entertainment like Halo 3 (which accesses data, creates new algorithms and produces more data to respond to the players), we are all constantly constructing our own simple algorithms to create order from the massive amount of information available to us on a day to day basis. We store this informaiton in our own personal databases--the three pounds gem. The best part is when we spit this masticated data out, there's no more white out, misplaced eraser ribbon or scrounging for one more piece of pristine paper when we realize we need to type the damned stuff out again due to the dreaded type-o.

Dore said there is no class today. She's ill
Hope you all get this message

I am out of my league in reading Manovich’s article – because I haven’t seen much digital media art. Manovich makes a case that the database takes precedence over the narrative – but I wonder whether his article is just dated. With my extremely limited exposure to Second Life, it seems narrative is sublimated there too – sublimated to wandering around the database. But if an avatar is on some mission, then does the narrative take precedence? In this link to one artists he mentioned, George Legrady, database trumps narrative – although, could a narrative can form in the theater of one’s mind?

http://www.mat.ucsb.edu/~g.legrady/

The whole notion of writing an article as impetus for sparking some kind of art theory revolution is moot. Taking the post-modern mentality and thinking that “there would be no new theory, only recombinations of what had already been thought” is a dead end. Times change, as do tastes and experiences; the progression of time in itself should be enough to spark the change Rajchman hopes for. I find his description of what contemporary art has become under the stagnation of post-modern theory on p.390 very informative, “[Art] became instead a set of stock formulas to be thrown together in the computer at will without regard for origin or rigor in an ever more arbitrary and entangled quotational patchwork.” This references his claim that “multiculturalism” may become “as ubiquitous a term as ‘post-modernism’ once was” which I feel is the most striking point of the article. Perhaps post-colonial theory and globalism in the form of “multiculturalism” will be the most informative keys in divining the future of art theory….

aaaaaaaaaggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

In regards to the Krauss article I am taking the side of it's all shit, shit, shit, detritus, excrement, shit.
these artists need to
1. read "Everybody Poops"
2. Wipe their asses and be done

After reading the article for the tird time I came to the conclusion that the only shit worth analysing is a turd in the bowl in the shape of the buddah.

pplluuuuptttt!

To me theory seems a way to understand the complex notion of art and artist. It is like the age old question, which came first the chicken or the egg??? Art seems always to be apart of the human psych and humasn expression. And so is rational and intellectual thought. I think these go hand in hand. It is very human to try to puut forth meaning or an intellectual interpretation for just about anything. In the Rajchman essay, he suggest in reinventing theory. That is like saying let's reinvent Freud's theory. We can argue, reinterpret, recontextualize, reintellectualize, but I do not think we can reinvent theory.
Perhaps some artist use theory, as Pantea states, and bring the ideas within specific thoery into the studio. And I think for all of us in this class, we cannot bring the ideas into our studio. Either consciously or subconsiously, it will be present in some form or another.
For me, I struggle with the ideas that are projected onto art works. Art is so open for interpretation, and sometimes an artist perhaps doesn't know what a certain piece may specifically be about. I guess, theory creates a dialogue and intrepretation. Theory is a reasoning and rationing of unrational thought and unreasoned process of thought; intending to illude to a distinct thought of approach or concept. For me my art is instictual, personal, and motivated my universal idealization. And if a theory fits my art, rather than my art fitting a theory, then so be it.

It seems John Rajchman suggests that theory has become some sort of reality. Is this the reason behind suggesting the “experiment!” then? But what he proposes is to get back to the first point by suggesting” Time has come to reinvent theory.” so that the question is: why not stay where we are and use what we have and move forward instead of spending time on reinventing. For me, reinvention and experimentation are two different things but seems as if Rjachman has used the terms interchangeably. I get help from theory to solve the uncertain and I have no idea what happens if I introduce the uncertainty as a mean to examine a new theory. Though I agree with the idea of lightness as a tool for a creative and open criticism.

Theory is an essential part of my studio work and helps me understand it better; therefore, I am trying to bring theory to my studio too.

I agree with Victor. Rajchman's article also reminded me about last class's question about how we approach our work. I think it is very difficult to find a straight answer because I believe it depends a lot on the circumstances and on each person. Some people are very spontaneous and empirical rather than pure logical and conciously driven. Also, in some areas we we do not have an option due to a client where we are given a certain theme.

The article talks about the fact that theory has become too heavy. That is a good point. I believe theory can become more of a restraint, if we let it, it can easily knot up in itself and hide an idea. Rajchman mentions the word "parallax vision" where it is important to get out of the "knot" and watch the work etc from a different angle, from a distance. I believe we all do that to be able to continue with anything, in our works, life, relationships. We need to step aside from things every once in a while.

In abolishing the "death of art" and finding back to the "art of the real", we need to come back to experimenting and become more empirical again. I think that is such an important point. I personally find it important to work cognitively to be able to work/create freely. I find that our mind can restrict us enormously if we let it overtake our natural responses. The reason I say this comes from my experience in golf because the mind is definetley in the way! (that's news! ;) )There is only a certain way to use the mind and it has to be kept at a distance. An example: being "in the flow"- as soon as one realizes one is out of it again.

However, I believe theory is very important and is definetely very helpful if we use it at the right time. So, as I said in the beginning there is no straight answer for me. An equilibrium of both is good, but again it depends on the person.

By the way, If anyone is interested in how Nietsche sees the unconcious, I found this online:

There is no simple theory of the unconscious in Nietzsche’s work. This is because the unconscious is complex, a site for transformation and not a singular ‘object’ of analysis. The unconscious would be everything which accounts for image-object-thought associations, and therefore that by which we could explain relations between thoughts and activities. However, Nietzsche clearly recognized that we cannot simply analyze the unconscious as a thing in-itself: it was very important for him that we should not be taken in by the idea that our explanations for things are adequate expressions of an underlying reality. Because in fact there is no necessary relation between human beings and reality; rather, we artistically create the mode in which we confront and understand the world.

(http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.skull-lab.com/images/identity1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/author/joeofthestars/&h=390&w=300&sz=42&hl=en&start=7&sig2=sg2kbxK5stqot7lk0eBeBA&um=1&tbnid=MPaAE1Sa7WMIHM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=95&ei=fGkvR7PNK6nKiwGy9e2_Cg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsartre%2Bidentity%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DG)

Theory in the studio, part 3

OK, I am bringing theory into the studio – I hope. In thinking more about Buchloh’s article on Gerhart Richter’s contemporary history paintings, and looking back thorough some of my own, which I’ll show today – I was trying to do the same thing and didn’t realize it. The updating of the history painting as a way for an artist to make a political statement, or a way chronicle an event that mass media ignores I find exciting.

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?

Theory in the studio

Listening to Whitney Chadwick’s lecture underscored a question that has been forming in my mind all semester. How does an artist connect with theory WHILE they are making art? Does theory play a role in the creative process of some (or many) artists? I can appreciate that intellectual analysis separate from the artist can make a broader contextual sense of an artist’s work.

I don’t know Ghada Amer’s work, or what she’s said about it. Ms. Chadwick’s elaborate discussion of all of the symbols, metaphors, and meanings of her work may have come straight from the artist, but I kept wondering, does the artist ever cry “Sounds good, but I never even thought of that!”?

too much binary

The Tuesday night lecturer (sorry I can't find the name!) I thought was emphasizing binaries too much. Similar to the criticism of Kara Walker that Joselit sites - I felt like the reiteration of old oppositional categories is not really helping anymore. She used the term "destabilizing" a lot in reference to, for example, art that addresses gender roles through "hybrid" pieces. Some of the work she discussed was a couple of decades old - and I think gender roles are still pretty stable. I think we need to get over our fascination with the hybrid and consider that what we call "hybrid" is just the actual state of things (not some crazy grafting of two naturally opposed categories).

I liked the Carson article a lot - I need to read Derrida. The issue of inscription is one that hits home for me because I practice code as art. The complication of inscription in her article centered around *representation* ... which is not what code based art is necessarily about. Still - questions of abstraction and forms (as in Plato's theory of) are present.