Flex Credit Entry #2: Week 10

Our guest speaker this week was Brian Gillis, who spoke mainly of themes of mass production, editions, and how the art community debates whether or not a copy is mass produced/at what point is an edition defined as simply mass produced. I have to mention, Gillis’ lecture had to be my favorite and most interesting of the Art 101 Artist Lecture Series, what with his introducing me to the works of Vito Acconci, Alisha Shvarts, and Charles Ray, among others. They’re so sick, extreme, and controversial that it is fascinating; I must do more research on all of them!

The example of editions used by Gillis that really encompasses my idea of mass production rather than actual editions is Jeff Koons’ Puppy, edition of 1,000 in porcelain. While I see how each edition can be valued as an individual work of art since, theoretically, each piece would be owned and made personally precious to 1,000 unique people, the fact of the matter is that every single one is aesthetically an exact copy of the next. I do not agree in all cases with Duchamp’s opinion that “one was unique, two was a pair, and three is many (mass-produced).” As long as each edition has some element of change from every other, I am okay with labeling each piece as an edition that is part of a whole series. Koons didn’t have to call his 1,000 porcelain puppies ‘mass produced cheapo moneymaking ploy’, but calling each individual piece an ‘edition’ almost seems dishonest to me, since edition implies (or ought to imply) some form or uniqueness. If it is an exact copy, it should be called simply that: a copy.

I do not think the Eva and Franco second-life rendition of Vito Acconoci’s Seedbed would fall under the category of a copy. It is not a copy because it is far from an exact rendition of Acconoci’s performance, and never can be due to the dimensional and situational barriers that surround the performances. It also cannot be considered an edition from Acconoci’s series, since it is not form his own body of work and I believe a series should be a label exclusively used to describe works by a single artists or group of artists working in collaboration with one another. Eva and Franco’s performance is best labeled as homage to Acconci’s performance and a unique enough one to be also considered an independent work, much of this uniqueness due to the aspect of it being performed in another ‘world’.

Eva and Franco are not the only artists we examined this week that take pleasure in creating art that brings the viewer to another world. Gabriel Orozco is a big fan of creating game-based (such as chess) sculptures because they allow the viewer to immerse themselves in the exclusive world of the game to leave their normal, everyday awareness behind. I believe Orozco’s want for immersion in the game world in his art stems from his enthusiasm for stimulating the viewer’s imagination to alter their view on conventional notions of reality. He does this by using normal, everyday items such as a four-way table tennis board and putting a twist on it such as adding a pond in the middle.

The disfigurines and 21st Century Bunny of Justinn Novak’s sculpture series seem to also embody this idea of taking a normal image and altering it slightly in order to create disturbance in the viewer’s perception in order to provoke new thought. I am a big fan of self-motivation and reaching the right conclusion using one’s own judgment rather than doing the right thing through being told ‘this is the way things should be’, and these are valuable qualities I would like to instill in my children if I ever adopt, or god forbid, pop one out myself. How does this relate to the techniques utilized by Orozco and Novak? I believe their technique is one of the most effective ways to provoke new thought in the viewer, rather than telling the viewer what to think (for example, painting Sarah Palin’s head with lipstick on a bulldog’s body). I do sometimes appreciate taking the straight-forward approach to creating art with a message behind it, but the technique of subtly presenting an idea in a way that provokes thought is absolutely invaluable as a way to expose people to new possibilities. This is a place that cannot be reached by simple opinion-spewing, because sometimes people are only going to see that it does not agree with their previous calculations; I appreciate that artists like Orozco and Novak seize the opportunity to use art in order to subtly provoke the viewer to use their own judgment to discover completely new ways of looking at old ideas.

Flex Credit Entry #1: Andrea Zittel

I wasn’t sure what to expect from the UO visiting artist lecture by Andrea Zittel since I had never heard of her before. However, I was pleasantly surprised and entertained by her engaging demeanor and aesthetically pleasing furniture installations. Zittel talked about many of her art pieces which revolved around themes of autonomy from society, experiments in industrialization, experience in order to embody an idea through art, and personalization.

Out of all of Zittel’s works she introduced at the lecture, the piece I would most want to own would be one of her A-Z Pit Beds. She created this out of a curiosity of what it would be like to personalize a bed by having it below ground level rather than the typical bed which protrudes above the ground. I cannot help but keep on thinking of how much dirt and dust the bed would attract, but I absolutely love the concept of personalizing furniture in order to unify the layout keeping in mind the individual needs and desires. Yet, it provokes thought on questioning the concept of personalization; if someone else comes up with the idea, and I adopt the exact concept, can it really be called personalization? I suppose this is where we can examine the differences between personalization and originality.

One may consider it to be unoriginal to have a copy of Picasso’s starry night hanging in their living room, since countless other home owners likely hang that same exact picture on their walls. However, we can say the same thing for people who have flood lamps, white leather couches, and dark wood coffee tables in their living rooms. Would you say that anyone who contains one of these elements is being ‘unoriginal’? Maybe so, but these furniture items are popular for the sole reason of them being useful to the person that owns the living room. This catering to the individual’s needs makes any furniture piece in the room a result of personalization. While some people may believe that going against the grain and filling their houses with odd furniture pieces is the definition of personalization (and sometimes it is), what really makes anything, especially art, personalized is the fact that it is created and arranged in a way that reflects the creator’s needs and expression. As with most people, this expression and needs will vary from person to person even if just slightly in the form of different arrangements of the same household items, in the same way that two artists may utilize the same type of circles and squares in their paintings but arranging them differently to make those paintings uniquely their own.

Although only some portion in the beginning of Zittel’s lecture was committed to talking about her manmade island, it seems to be one of her works that she is most famous for creating. She has created several ‘island’ pieces, but the one spotlighted during the lecture was her Pocket Property funded by the Indianapolis Museum of Art. This structure was a personal island specifically designed to house only a few people. She created this piece then lived on it with some of her friends to make a documentary on what life was like on the island. What inspired Zittel to create this piece was her idea of islands representing autonomy and independence, mitigating and disempowering the influence and control of the larger social system beyond the occupants of the island.

I was raised in Hawaii, which is what made this concept of islands being autonomous and independent particularly interesting to me. The concept also reminds me of an idea that got me thinking during high school when my religion teacher emphasized to us that there is no such thing as independence; no matter how much we try, we will all be subject to interdependence because we are all relying on the resources of others. It is well-known in Hawaii that we desperately rely on the mainland (that’s what we call the rest of the U.S.) for fuel, which is what makes gas prices sky-high in Hawaii. We also rely on the mainland for all sorts of shipments such as particular foods, furniture, and especially tourism to keep our economy afloat. Clearly, we are very interdependent and would lose the necessities we enjoy now if we were to cut ourselves off from the mainland. But how much of it is really necessary? Zittel’s experiment with the island seems to me an example of Hawaii pre-colonization from ‘foreigners’. I see Pocket Property as proof that autonomous life is possible without the larger social system of the United States as a whole controlling the island (if Pocket Property grew its own food).

Yet, I think a big issue is not being addressed here: it doesn’t matter how independent a community or person is, because no matter how little interdependency there is, over time, influence through direct or indirect interaction is unavoidable. Personally, a fantasy I always retreat to when I can’t stop thinking of all the crap in the world is this idea of a completely secluded island in which there is no war, no violence, no prejudices and everyone is intelligent and kind. Even if this dream were achieved on some island, it doesn’t change the fact that others will affect our community. What if all the other countries of the world are in a war and one leader decides they want to nuclear bomb the rest of the world? What if a peaceful, independent island makes us an easy target for takeover (I mean, hey, it’s happened before)? On the global scale, beyond the individual, beyond Pocket Property and beyond Hawaii, there are so many other communities filled with people who have or will have a vested interest in what we do in our own little corner of the world; for our own sake, we cannot forget this. By this perspective, no matter what, we are interdependent in the sense that our way of life depends on the choices of others.

As admirable as it may seem, instead of trying to seclude ourselves to the autonomous life, we should opt to be kept in the loop and interact in order to have an influence in the decisions the larger community makes. But not to fear: personalization and individuality does not need to be burdened by the existence of our interdependency. Through expression, including artistic expression as practiced by Andrea Zittel, it is possible to maintain our unique personalities despite our dependence on others.

Entry 8

Our guest lecturer this week was Amanda Wojick, who mainly discussed the works of many influential female sculptors of the 20th century, including successful sculptor Louise Bourgeois. The focus of our class discussion was abstraction versus representation, the effect of space on a work (sculptures), and the comparison between Richard Serra and Louise Bourgeois’ attitudes and approaches in sculpting.

On our class field trip, we visited several sculptures on the University of Oregon campus, including Wind Fence by Ned Kahn behind the Lillis Business Complex and Flying Ducks by Tom Hardy outside of Lawrence Hall. An objective was to compare the experience of simply viewing pictures of the sculptures on a computer, versus walking around and seeing the sculptures in person. After this field trip, I realized that the difference between the two dimensions of viewing is space. Space allows interaction in the form of walking (sometimes touching) to allow the experience of so many new aspects that are not obtainable through an image, including aspects such as point of view, weather, environment/context, and shadows. This in-person experience of space gives new life to the sculpture and presents to the viewer so many more things to appreciate (or critique) about the sculpture.

Richard Serra, minimalist sculptor, argues that there is actually no such thing as just looking; in fact, the viewer is aggressively hunting for meaning and certain qualities in an art piece. Not only this, but the art piece looks back at the viewer. I agree that no matter what, the viewer is hunting for meaning in a painting, even if it is just subconsciously. A psychology teacher once told me that it is impossible for any normally functioning person to think of absolutely nothing at any waking time, which makes me believe that as long as someone is visually processing information, they are also making connections from the art to emotions and past experiences. Especially in the case where the art piece is presented in a setting clearly meant to imply the work is exactly that (an art piece), such as in a gallery, the viewer already feels as if they should be looking for meaning.

Richard Serra’s opinion on the viewer’s aggressive hunt for meaning and the concept of the object looking back at the viewer is reflective of his tendency to exude raw aggression and physicality in his art, as compared to deep psychological reflection. He does this through utilizing giant, cold slabs of metal to create his minimalist sculptures. Something in his art technique that I can relate to and really appreciate is the way he very precisely places the slabs of metal while thinking of how it will affect the viewer’s perception. But to be completely honest, it is very hard for me to appreciate his art aesthetically because no matter how well thought-out his placement, material choice, et cetera are (which are fun to discuss), in the end… they are just a few giant slabs of metal. To be fair, I haven’t seen Serra’s sculptures in person to experience the space and context surrounding the sculptures, so who knows; maybe I’d be surprisingly impressed. Until then, I have to say I much prefer Louise Bourgeois’ sculptures, which offer more elements and shapes to admire (I just realized how incredibly awkward my photo placement under this sentence is).

A part of what makes Louise Bourgeois’ art more dynamic, delicate and detailed is the fact that she created the pieces based on her feelings based on her psychological childhood trauma (feelings of loneliness and betrayal) of finding out her governess was her father’s mistress. I wonder if her attention to her own feelings is also what makes her sensitive to the idea of making art pieces that work with its surroundings’ occupants. Bourgeois on her art piece A Touch of Jane Addams which was placed next to an office building: “Instead of trying to rival the building, I have made a structure which is so discreet and so sensitive that my structure doesn’t have a bone of contention with the building.” Compare this to Serra’s disregard to the art piece’s surrounding occupants when his sculpture Tiled Arc, placed in front of an office building, got many complaints from the building occupants that it was obstructing view and he retorted that art is not for the public.

Louise Bourgeois and Richard Serra clearly have different styles, approaches, and opinions on art, which brings to mind the concept of each being defined by opposites. Would the extreme of Serra’s cold minimalism even exist without the extreme of Bourgeois’ emotion-filled sculptures? I believe so. While the existence of an idea’s extreme opposite may magnify the idea, it still exists as exactly what it is. In a less vague example: if most art were of the same style as minimalism, its label may not be called ‘minimalism’ because it would be the norm, not an extreme such as ‘minimal’; the content of the art still remains the same. The aspect of art that changes is how we perceive it, not the content itself.

A recurring theme we’ve touched upon seems to be how our perception affects art; in fact, art holds no meaning without our perception. Take a new twist on your perception and you’ll find that Bourgeois and Serra may not be so opposite in some respect, such as in the area of deciding whether their art is abstraction or representational. Traditionally, any art based on an idea rather than physical object is an abstraction, while art based on an object can be representational or abstraction (keyword: based on). At first glance, it seems clear that Serra’s work is abstraction (based on idea) and Bourgeois’ work is representational of real objects. While an idea is abstract, in the sense that it is simply intangible, that is exactly what makes me wonder if Serra’s work is in fact abstract – is it not possible to represent an idea unique to the artist, something only he knows, very accurately? Would Serra not be the most fit to represent his own idea in the most accurate tangible form possible, through creative means? How is it so much different from a representational art piece, such as the Flying Ducks sculpture outside of UO Lawrence Hall? Every representational art piece, including Flying Ducks, will be interpreted differently. What the viewer gets from them will always sway away from the intended message due to completely subjective situational contexts surrounding the piece and the viewer, just as Serra’s idea may not be accurately understood by the audience; that happens in all art.

While Serra describes his Torqued Eclipses art piece as having “nothing to do with feelings,” he describes how he angles the metal plates in great precision in order to convey a certain feeling to the viewer, turning his art piece into a direct representation of the concept behind his art. I, as a viewer, can analyze those small details and arrive at a conclusion as to what the artist intended to make me feel. Though ideas themselves are abstract (intangible), I can understand his idea through his tangible representation of it. Let’s not forget that at the core of every representational artwork is an idea; there is always an idea or feeling expressed through it. The only essential difference between representational art and Serra's abstract art is that Serra's abstract art is based on an idea that doesn't have an established symbol to represent it, due to the idea’s uniqueness and complexity.

Works Cited
Art 101 Lecture Series (Winter 2011): Amanda Wojick
Art21: Louise Bourgeois
[http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/bourgeois/index.html]
Art21: Richard Serra
[http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/serra/index.html#]
Right click on images for sources.