Entry 7

Our guest lecturer this week was Anya Kivarkis, who spoke about art reproduction in many of its forms which brought up discussions of hierarchy, ownership and power (and how artists talk about it), commodification, and what makes an item precious.

Commodification is a subject that came up often in both lecture and our research on John Feodorov. It feels almost silly trying to write about commodification alone since we live in America and, at first glance, it seems there’s nothing I can say that any thinking American is not already acutely aware of. So, let’s start with something especially controversial: the commodification of spirituality. Feodorov magnifies this issue by creating art pieces that take everyday commodities and ‘spiritualizes’ them by adding on elements from the Navajo and Christian religions to create a confusing and slightly (or more if you’re religious) disturbing mesh of commodity and spirituality.

Take for example Feodorov’s Totem Teddy art series, in which he takes normal teddy bears, adds on totem masks, then resells the teddies. What makes these teddies attention-grabbing is the fact that adding the totem masks brings power back to the sacredness of the bear in the Navajo religion, yet at the same time is a slap in the face to that sacredness by turning the bear totem into nothing more than a mass-produced commodity. Feodorov clearly states his intentions when making this art piece:

Something that really comes out in my work, or I hope comes out in my work, is trying to infuse the intimidating back into the spiritual. Spirituality should be intimidating. It really should. Because people have no business being on a buddy-buddy basis with God. I think that's just really stupid.

Personal opinions on gods aside, I believe that Feodorov’s tactic definitely works for scaring people away from commodification of spirituality by showing them the extreme. It gives any audience, religious or not, an uneasy feeling at the realization that something meant to be personally precious and meaningful has been bastardized so artificially. And to the truly religious, I imagine it would repulse and shock them into thinking critically of the issue of commodification of religion, and how to avoid this in their personal lives. Yet, I cannot help but worry that too much poking fun at the concept of commodification of anything we deeply value by doing exactly that runs the risk of actually legitimizing its commodification in the future.

While it is important to think about how to protect the ideas and objects that we value, it is also important to question what we value and why we value it so as to make sure it truly holds the meaning we always thought it had. What makes something precious to us? Let’s start in terms of art. What comes to mind is Gijs Bakker’s art piece in which she took a photo of a diamond and glued a real diamond on that picture. The diamond itself is worth more than a picture of the diamond ever would, but if the art piece itself is made by a famous artist, the piece will be bought by some big spender for way more than the worth of both the diamond and the picture. This is reminiscent of the Colbert Show episode in which Colbert upped the value of his photograph by letting it get completely destroyed aesthetically... by famous artists. What does this tell us about what we value in the art community? I personally would not in a million years buy a mediocre art piece just because a famous artist made it, and I think the fact that some people would is a result of uber-rich people getting bored with their money and caring way too much about status. I believe this really takes away from the true appreciation of art purely in terms of its message, innovation, genius, and most of all its aesthetic beauty. If an art piece would not stand a day on the market without being backed by the label of a famous artist, it is in my opinion likely not good art.

Combine the issue of lack of appreciation for quality art with the issue of commodification of spirituality and it ultimately gives you a capitalistic society to blame. But delve deeper, and it seems that there is another way of looking at it: capitalism, while supported by laws, is a socioeconomic structure, not a completely determined lifestyle that must also control how we calculate value in terms of art. While a long ways from implementing a possibly better socioeconomic structure or countering the adverse effects of capitalism, being simply aware of capitalism's effects can at least grant us as artists one indispensable ability: to use this unique perspective to discuss and influence what the art community considers precious art.







Works Cited
Art 101 Lecture Series (Winter 2011): Anya Kivarkis
Art21: John Feodorov
[http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/feodorov/]
Right click on images for sources.

Entry 6

The focus of discussion this week was Roland Barthes’ ‘Death of the Artist’, in which Barthes posits the idea that the author must remove himself or herself from his writing in order for the reader to find their own interpretation of the stories the author relays. What I interpreted from the reading was that the reader is the mind that connects, interprets, and sees the final design of all the characters and views in the story; yet, classic criticism ignores the reader in favor of concentrating on what the author must be interpreting/thinking, when he is actually just the ‘dictionary’ which relays information to the reader. We must let go of the concept of the author being the force of meaning behind the writing, in order to let ourselves as viewers act as what we really are, the interpreters that find their own meaning and interpretations.

I can understand Barthes’ point of view as the author being the final destination that decides the meaning of the writing, and understand that Barthes presented a revolutionary concept for his time: giving power to the viewer rather than creator. Yet, I cannot help but disagree with several of his points. The first one being, that I believe the author is also an interpreter of the story, thus the story told by the author cannot be fully trusted to be an accurate ‘relay of stories’ due to bias. Take for example, a giant meteor shower that is seen by two people; one writes an article in the newspaper on it, the other reads that article. The author of the article is a scientologist who states, in what he considers scientific and realistic terms, that he saw a bunch of spaceships with alien DNA flying to the earth sent by the evil lord Xenu in attempts to conquer the human race. The second person who is not a scientologist who also saw the meteor shower reads this article. Is it wrong for the reader to believe the author has his own ulterior motives and/or biases that turns the author into just as much an interpreter of information?

My opinion sides more so with that of Kiki Smith, who believed that art is just a way to think; “Art is something that moves from your insides into the physical world and at the same time, it’s just a representation of your insides in a different form.” While it was noble of Barthes to honor the reader as the sole interpreter that find the meanings of the author’s story, considering the author as a simple ‘teller of stories and facts’ gives the author way too much power; it puts them in a position whose authority is hard to be questioned even though the presentation of information is greatly affected by the author’s personal opinions. In my view, considering the author as simply an interpreter above all brings the author down a notch of undeserved power, and onto the same level as the reader by recognizing the humanity of both author and reader.

Entry 5

Guest speaker John Park gave us a lecture on the pros and cons of digital media, making us ask ourselves if we had a responsibility to be conscious of the impact certain innovations had on our lives. On the positive side, technology allows us a whole new level of organization, communication, and information storage that would otherwise be unobtainable without the internet and telecommunications. On the negative side, digital media is making us less involved in essential face-to-face interaction, takes a toll on the environment from so much manufacturing upgrades in technology, and ultimately holds the risk of turning us into zombies in the sense that we will learn to not think for ourselves, but instead let technology rule our lives and make our decisions for us. From all of the above, my biggest concern is that this transition to digital media in our society is slowly turning us into zombies because it just gets too easy to rely on technology to not only replace our critical thinking skills, but also our independence of thought.

In the case of ‘zombie threat’: while I can see how some applications of digital media pose the threat of turning us into inactive button-pressing cogs in the machine of society, I do not see digital media as the direct cause of this trend. As stated in class discussion, art is a reflection of current social attitude – the same goes for every other form of communication, including digital media. But is digital media really an accurate portrayal? Like traditional art, digital media is simply a medium through which members of society can express their will, and naturally those with more control over this new medium will use it to impose their own will. Take a look in the history books and it is apparent that this concept of zombification is not new – those in power have always tried to find ways to sedate the general public into acceptance and even idolization of the ‘greater will’ – the bourgeois’ will.

Take Facebook’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, for example. When asked in January 2010 why he keeps on taking away privacy capabilities from Facebook users, he replied, “"People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. … We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are [Read Write Web].” While we may want to blame digital media for this trend towards zombification and tell ourselves we need to be aware of the dangers this new medium of communication poses, the real danger is and has always been the will of the people in control of the medium. We mistake digital media as the problem because it is now the most dominant and accessible tool through which those in power can impose their wills on us; what we need to do is take this tool away from them and use it to improve the living conditions of the whole. We do this by creating opportunities through digital media that promote personal initiative and involvement.

I do not believe creating art pieces and digital programs that allow the audience to be involved in the creative process is enough alone to foster a more engaged and conscientious community. I do, however, think it is a great start and one of the biggest ways to influence society through creative means. Janet Cardiff’s ‘Walks’ art series is an example of this. I really wish I could experience one of her Walks so I can give a more informed view, not to mention also because I love mind-bending experiences, but for now I can only make inferences. Participating in one of Janet Cardiff’s ‘Walks’ art pieces seems like it would be a fun experience, but what really makes it interesting to me is the fact that it creates an uncommon, alien point of view for the audience. Because the audience is the active participant that pushes the experience along through opening doors, actively walking through the art piece, et cetera, hearing the audio that at times directly contradicts what is seen forces the audience to not only question environmental factors beyond their control, but their own actions as well. This, in turn, provokes the audience to develop a sharper sense to probe for the hidden realities around them, and question the results of their own actions. While it may seem a stretch to imagine art installations even make a dent in the big picture of society, these smaller things count on the subconscious level; I imagine a child going through The Walk and having the experience resonate with them so profoundly in their formative years that they learn to critically question everything they do, and in general, use a higher level of thinking.

Delving even deeper in the area of the psyche, my pessimistic and cynical view of society may just be due to my own personal mindset and experiences. What comes to mind is Paul Pfeiffer’s Dutch Interior which is based on the Amityville Horror staircase. This work of art focuses on the meeting of gazes between the devil and a human from different perspectives: one at the top of the stairway looking down, the other at the bottom looking up. Unlike Cardiff’s art piece which adds audio that does not accurately portray real-time reality, Pfeiffer allows you to look at the same real object through two different views, literally and metaphorically giving you a completely different perspective on the same unaltered object. It makes me think: wouldn’t this mean that I can lead a happier life simply by looking at the real facts about society’s condition in a different, more positive light? I definitely believe a positive attitude is important to being happy, but in the sense that it is important to stay positive in your attempt to change the world for the better, despite all the crap in the world you know to be real. I value the medium of art because it is the easiest outlet through which I can express my will. I think it’s great that now with the prevalence of digital media, the potential for anyone to access an outlet for expression has greatly increased. Although digital media has the tendency to be mistaken as a replacement for critical thinking and interactivity, it eases my worries to know that there are artists willing to counter the trend towards zombification and use digital media for providing new perspectives, provoking thoughtfulness, and promoting creative expressions of will.

Entry 4

Craig Hickman was our guest speaker this week in Art 101, and he talked about a wide range of topics including different photographic styles, the ideas behind choosing them, and critique from the art community on those styles. A point of interest was the works of photographers that presented candid or ‘on-the-spot’ photography that was ‘unedited’, such as Diane Arbus’ portraits of strangers on the streets that she found interesting. What made Arbus’ portraits especially interesting was not only the fact that she spontaneously found subjects to photograph, but that these people were funny or amusing people to look at; to put it bluntly, like a mild freak show carefully selected by a good photographer. While the quality of her photography and choice of subjects were no doubt enough to grab the attention of the public, Hickman pointed out an issue surrounding Arbus’ work: Is she exploiting her subjects because some pictures are obviously taken for their humor value, poking fun at the subjects’ odd choice of garb (expression of personality) or physical features?

There is often a fine line between exploitation of photography subjects and art taken for the sake of art. But then again, sometimes the answer lies with just that: Did the artist take the photograph for the sake of art, or with the intention to exploit its subjects? With this interpretation, the answer becomes crystal clear in most cases. Take, for example, E.J. Bellocq. This 'mysterious' photographer’s works were discovered by fellow photographer Lee Friedlander in Bellocq’s desk after his death. They were pictures of prostitutes posing in the nude for him. While Bellocq was a professional photographer, those particular photographs were obviously taken purely for selfish personal pleasur(e/ing), which makes it exploitation. In stark contrast, Diane Arbus did not exploit her subjects if she intended to take the picture purely for its artistic value and appreciation its viewers had for the photograph.
Which brings me to this: Have we become so egotistical as artists that we only take into account whether or not the artist is exploiting the subject, ignoring the subject, viewer, or distributor's intent? What of fact that Friedlander exploited Bellocq by taking his private photographs and showcasing them for his own goals? Personally, I’d be rolling in my grave if I died then some sick guy found my porn stash and displayed it to the world as my personal ‘art’. And I’d be damned if those subjects of Arbus’ photographs were not willingly being photographed. Instead of dealing with complicated labels of ‘exploiting, ‘not exploiting’, ‘exploited’ or ‘not exploited’, I’ve finally reached the conclusion that some things must just be taken with all their facts and interpreted as a whole without labels. Labels in this case will do no good unless you’re a lawyer looking to defend a case, and they take away from the essential point of this debate: artists need to think about exploitation and be aware of the implications their photographs have on both their subjects and their audience.

Artists must be concerned about exploitation not only in the sense of 'taking advantage' or degrading the human worth, but also in the sense of misleading the viewer to believe falsified information. Errol Morris discusses in his article Photography as a Weapon the photoshopped Iranian missiles controversy where an Iranian news company, Sepah, edited a photograph of Iranian test missiles to add in an extra missile. It is already a shame that we are lied to every day by advertisements of models who have been heavily photoshopped; that’s business for you. But editing pictures in the news just for a better story or to lie to the public about incredibly important issues? This trend in photo-editing for the sake of misleading its viewers is a great danger to the credibility and integrity of all formal news sources and while we cannot control what another country does as far as digital editing goes, I at least want a solution to this in the United States. I can imagine putting a sort of fine on heavily misleading newspaper photographs, but then there are too many loopholes: large news companies doing it anyways because they can afford the fine, comedy news being unjustly fined, and more than anything just the very issue of it being a restriction of freedom of expression and art. But as much as I value freedom of expression and art, there has to be a line drawn somewhere when it interferes with the general public’s perception of reality and facts! I can think of a dozen ideas for solving this issue, but none are likely to be a lasting method to fix this problem. As Albert Einstein said, “The world we have is a product of thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” Our most ideal path would be to change the ethics and purpose behind photojournalism altogether. Oh, but that's just idealism; Wouldn’t it be swell to be able to simply change others’ perspectives and values to fix all of our problems?

Alas, a more moral and sensitive public doesn’t have to remain a far-fetched fairytale that philosophy majors sit around and fantasize about while sipping lattes. Some people take the initiative to effectively work towards making it a reality through art; Alfredo Jaar (A.J.) is a perfect example. In his Rwanda project, he traveled to Rwanda to take as many photographs as he possibly could to send back to the U.S. and inform us about the horrors being experienced in Rwanda while genocide is taking place. His technique of using zoom-ins of the eyes and face of victims emphasize their humanity and emotionally influence the viewer to be conscientious and help out. An argument against this goes, “Well, isn’t that still a form of manipulation, thus exploitation, even if it is used for good?”

Manipulation has such a bad connotation stuck to it because the knee-jerk reaction is to assume it means a misleading of others in order to achieve an ulterior, selfish motive. Clearly, A.J.’s work fits none of this negative definition of manipulation. That definition is far different from the broad definition that his art may fall under: doing something with the intent of influencing (something or someone) cleverly and skilfully. This means any good communicator, including artist, can be described as a manipulator.

A.J. said of his art, “My imagination starts working based on the real life event [Art21: Protest].” In other words, he keeps his facts straight and doesn’t try to photoshop dynamites and lions into his photos in order to influence the thoughts and feelings of others. A.J. is not only taking steps to make the world a better place, but also to make the world of photojournalism a more honest one in his own way. I admire him because he is an inspiration to any artist aspiring to positively change the attitudes and actions of others around the world, without exploitation, through art.

Works Cited
Art 101 Lecture Series (Winter 2011): Craig Hickman
Photography as a Weapon by Errol Morris
[http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/photography-as-a-weapon/]
Art21: Protest
[http://video.pbs.org/video/1239788836]
Art21: Alfredo Jaar
[http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/jaar/]
Right click on images for sources.