Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
What does postproduction mean for my art?
Towards the beginning of Bourriaud's book, Postproduction, he outlines different types of postproduction:
Reprogramming existing works
Inhabiting historicized styles & forms
making use of images
using society as a catalog of forms
investing in fashion & media.
My work fits into a number of these categories, but I doubt that Bourriaud would categorize my work as falling under the realm of postproduction. I use computer aided design software (CAD), I reference historical jewelry forms, I use iconic imagery, and I also keep the fashion industry in mind (as it may be a source for future employment.) With all of this in mind, I also think my creations are pretty original- or at least I hope so.
The reason I don't think Bourriaud would consider my work "postproduction" is because he specifically states that the entire idea behind postproduction is conceptual art- a shift away from skill/craft towards ideas. I think there is a bias that if a work is made skillfully, then it is not focused on any ideas. The use of craft in my work is a way to reference my field's history, and an essential to successful functioning.
Reprogramming existing works
Inhabiting historicized styles & forms
making use of images
using society as a catalog of forms
investing in fashion & media.
My work fits into a number of these categories, but I doubt that Bourriaud would categorize my work as falling under the realm of postproduction. I use computer aided design software (CAD), I reference historical jewelry forms, I use iconic imagery, and I also keep the fashion industry in mind (as it may be a source for future employment.) With all of this in mind, I also think my creations are pretty original- or at least I hope so.
The reason I don't think Bourriaud would consider my work "postproduction" is because he specifically states that the entire idea behind postproduction is conceptual art- a shift away from skill/craft towards ideas. I think there is a bias that if a work is made skillfully, then it is not focused on any ideas. The use of craft in my work is a way to reference my field's history, and an essential to successful functioning.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The Radicant- p11-77
In the introduction, Bourriaud says, "For thirty years, the global cultural landscape has been shaped, on the one hand, by the pressure of the overproduction of objects and information, and, on the other, by the rampant standardization of cultures and languages." He goes on throughout the rest of the book to explain why, of course, this is not good. I am often overwhelmed at the lack of foresight created by greed. The homogenization of culture, product, and produce is often marketed as equality, but ends in the potato famine. Do people really not remember why the potato famine happened? Or do corporations pay so much to lobbyists that it is accidentally forgotten? I realize this is more a rant than a comment, but diversity is essential in a sustainable environment- whether it be cultural or botanical.
On page 27, Bourriaud says that, "the dissolution of postmodernism entails first of all inventing a theoretical tool with which to combat everything in postmodern thought that in practice supports the trend toward standardization inherent in globalization... It is a matter of opening up an aesthetic and intellectual region in which contemporary works might be judged according to the same criteria..." That is a lovely notion, but is it at all feasible? Perhaps he will answer this question at the end of the book. I am curious whether his suggestions on how to achieve this will be open ended, theoretical musings, or whether he plans to create a rubric on which to judge/evaluate artworks.
The term "aesthetic courtesy" refers to the unwillingness to pass judgement, as to avoid upsetting others. Bourriaud suggest that this only perpetuates the separation of non-Western artists, that we are treating them as guests rather than equals. This "quandary" made me think about Affirmative Action, and I wondered where he would stand on the matter. Are the two types of discrimination (as an artist, as a human being) really all that different?
I am unsure if I am understanding Bourraiud's views on the documentary correctly. On page 31 he says, "the increasing artistic legitimacy of the documentary genre indicate above all that this type of object is no longer commercially viable outside the art circuit, and also that the simple need for news of the world is today more often satisfied in art galleries than in movie theatres." Perhaps this is a cultural difference? I disagree that documentaries belong only in galleries, and that they aren't commercially viable (michael moore.)
Bourriaud seems to be championing things that can't be categorized. On page 54 he states, "Nothing could be more alien to it than a mode of thought based on disciplines, on the specificity of a medium- a sedentary notion if ever there was one, and one that amounts to cultivating one's field." I think making this generalization is very dismissive of the history of art. Just as people shouldn't be forced to work with certain materials, they also shouldn't be forced to not work with certain materials, or to work with multiple mediums just to be considered valid.
On page 27, Bourriaud says that, "the dissolution of postmodernism entails first of all inventing a theoretical tool with which to combat everything in postmodern thought that in practice supports the trend toward standardization inherent in globalization... It is a matter of opening up an aesthetic and intellectual region in which contemporary works might be judged according to the same criteria..." That is a lovely notion, but is it at all feasible? Perhaps he will answer this question at the end of the book. I am curious whether his suggestions on how to achieve this will be open ended, theoretical musings, or whether he plans to create a rubric on which to judge/evaluate artworks.
The term "aesthetic courtesy" refers to the unwillingness to pass judgement, as to avoid upsetting others. Bourriaud suggest that this only perpetuates the separation of non-Western artists, that we are treating them as guests rather than equals. This "quandary" made me think about Affirmative Action, and I wondered where he would stand on the matter. Are the two types of discrimination (as an artist, as a human being) really all that different?
I am unsure if I am understanding Bourraiud's views on the documentary correctly. On page 31 he says, "the increasing artistic legitimacy of the documentary genre indicate above all that this type of object is no longer commercially viable outside the art circuit, and also that the simple need for news of the world is today more often satisfied in art galleries than in movie theatres." Perhaps this is a cultural difference? I disagree that documentaries belong only in galleries, and that they aren't commercially viable (michael moore.)
Bourriaud seems to be championing things that can't be categorized. On page 54 he states, "Nothing could be more alien to it than a mode of thought based on disciplines, on the specificity of a medium- a sedentary notion if ever there was one, and one that amounts to cultivating one's field." I think making this generalization is very dismissive of the history of art. Just as people shouldn't be forced to work with certain materials, they also shouldn't be forced to not work with certain materials, or to work with multiple mediums just to be considered valid.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Postproduction Thoughts/Questions
In Bourriaud's introduction to Postproduction (p 17), he states, "The artistic question is no longer: 'what can we make that is new?' but 'how can we make do with what we have?'" This made me think about the artist striving for originality. Many times, most noticably in my own field of metalsmithing, artists can be praised for groundbreaking work that is not that groundbreaking. Basically, they are utilizing a new technological process, or a new industrial material in their work. The idea behind their work is not usually very coherent, but the application of a new medium is "revolutionary." This seems to me like an example of desperate artists, grasping for a unique idea in a world where it seems like everything already exists.
On page 25, Bourriaud talks a little bit about the history of appropriation. He brings up Duchamp's readymade, and the emphasis on the "artist's gaze" rather than manual skill as the artistic process. He says that Duchamp, "asserts that the act of choosing is enough to establish the artistic process, just as the act of fabricating, painting, or sculpting does: to give a new idea to an object is already production." As someone working in the craft field, this made me think about the devaluing of skill. While Duchamp was making a point about the definition of art, today it seems that concept is often the only thing of importance. People seem to forget that how they assemble their expression makes an impact on how it is interpreted.
On page 32, Bourriaud states that, "Art tends to give shape and weight to the most invisible processes. When entire sections of our existence spiral into abstraction as a result of economic globalization...artists might seek to rematerialize these functions and processes, to give shape to what is disappearing before our eyes." This page was very interesting to me, and I re-read it several times. After that sentence, he says that this process can not be done in the form of objects, but by making experience. I am not exactly sure what why he makes this distinction, and if he thinks it is only possible to achieve this goal through experience, not tangible objects.
My next question might seem somewhat trite, but with the movie we watched and reading this book, I definitely thought a lot about copyright laws. I have always accepted copyright laws in the arts as what they are, and it made me think about the fate of the visual arts in particular if there was an age without these laws.
At the very end of Postproduction, Bourriaud talks about the responsibility of the artist. I think this point is very important- to understand the imagery/materials you use and their implications. These implications might be environmental, historical, political, etc. He also begins to skim the surface of semiotics, which I think is important to note in our icon based/symbolic society.
On page 25, Bourriaud talks a little bit about the history of appropriation. He brings up Duchamp's readymade, and the emphasis on the "artist's gaze" rather than manual skill as the artistic process. He says that Duchamp, "asserts that the act of choosing is enough to establish the artistic process, just as the act of fabricating, painting, or sculpting does: to give a new idea to an object is already production." As someone working in the craft field, this made me think about the devaluing of skill. While Duchamp was making a point about the definition of art, today it seems that concept is often the only thing of importance. People seem to forget that how they assemble their expression makes an impact on how it is interpreted.
On page 32, Bourriaud states that, "Art tends to give shape and weight to the most invisible processes. When entire sections of our existence spiral into abstraction as a result of economic globalization...artists might seek to rematerialize these functions and processes, to give shape to what is disappearing before our eyes." This page was very interesting to me, and I re-read it several times. After that sentence, he says that this process can not be done in the form of objects, but by making experience. I am not exactly sure what why he makes this distinction, and if he thinks it is only possible to achieve this goal through experience, not tangible objects.
My next question might seem somewhat trite, but with the movie we watched and reading this book, I definitely thought a lot about copyright laws. I have always accepted copyright laws in the arts as what they are, and it made me think about the fate of the visual arts in particular if there was an age without these laws.
At the very end of Postproduction, Bourriaud talks about the responsibility of the artist. I think this point is very important- to understand the imagery/materials you use and their implications. These implications might be environmental, historical, political, etc. He also begins to skim the surface of semiotics, which I think is important to note in our icon based/symbolic society.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
A Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
a) What is the aura of a work of art?
While Benjamin never explicitly defines aura, he does give examples of aura, and conditional requirements for art to contain aura. He first mentions aura when describing that the term might suggest what is missing in reproduced artworks. This includes authenticity and historical testimony. With both of these things jeopordized the "quality of its presence is always depreciated," or it loses its aura. Later on he also mentions that aura is linked to a ritual function.
"that which withers in the age of mechanical production is the aura of the work of art."
b) In Benjamin's mind, what effects did the mechanical reproduction, such as film and the camera/photography, have on the viewer's perception of art?
Due to the invention of photography, he believed that it changed the viewers perception by fueling a desire to have things close, or a likeness of things within their possession. He also believes that mechanical reproduction created a desire to destroy aura. He states, "a perception whose 'sense of the universal equality of things' has increased to such a degree that it extracts it even from a unique object by means of reproduction." These are not neutral observations; he feels like they cheapen the experience.
When he moves onto dicuss what happens when there is a shift from theatre to film, he also contests that the experience is less genuine, and mostly changed for the worse. He identifies a disconnect between the actor and the audience that is present in theatre. In a live performance, the audience identifies with the actor, but in a film, they are unable to and instead they identify with the camera. The actor is also influenced by this shift. He claims both the character and the actor "lose their aura," or in other words, they don't perform as well. He also contests that while a painting invites the viewer in to contemplate, the movie moves too quickly and they have no time to think about what is happening creating a "shock effect."
He does point out a positive consequence of the more maleable film. Referencing psycholanalytical concepts, he specifically sites that the behaviors shown in film can be analyzed more accurately and from many vantage points. He also personifies film into a force that has "burst the prison-factories" meaning our offices and domesticated spaces, and allow us to travel, albeit virtually.
c) What was meant by the passage: "for the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual."?
Benjamin writes that art work was originally made for magical or religious reasons. When making this point he cites cave paintings, which we now consider to be art, but they were not originally meant for the masses to see. Cult, or ritual value relies to a certain extent on imagery being hidden. With the wide distribution of imagery, there is less authenticity, and more opportunities to exhibit. He argues thatbecause of this change the function of art shifts. It no longer needs to be based on ritual, but it instead focuses on politics.
d) What mechanically or otherwise reproductive processes are changing the face of art today?
The amount of new technologies utilized by artists are growing exponentially. One of the earlier issues with technological advancement and artwork was the advent of digital photography and the use of photoshop. As time has passed, there are still divided camps, but in general people accept digital photography as a valid means to produce artwork.
In the field of metalsmithing, the controversies have unfolded from the use of CAD software, 3D scanning machienes, 3D printing machienes, and milling machienes. Like most crafts, metalsmithing has a deep history of apprenticeship, and a pride in personal skill and craftsmanship. Using these different technologies, a piece that would be literally impossible to make is now possible, without even getting your hands dirty.
While Benjamin never explicitly defines aura, he does give examples of aura, and conditional requirements for art to contain aura. He first mentions aura when describing that the term might suggest what is missing in reproduced artworks. This includes authenticity and historical testimony. With both of these things jeopordized the "quality of its presence is always depreciated," or it loses its aura. Later on he also mentions that aura is linked to a ritual function.
"that which withers in the age of mechanical production is the aura of the work of art."
b) In Benjamin's mind, what effects did the mechanical reproduction, such as film and the camera/photography, have on the viewer's perception of art?
Due to the invention of photography, he believed that it changed the viewers perception by fueling a desire to have things close, or a likeness of things within their possession. He also believes that mechanical reproduction created a desire to destroy aura. He states, "a perception whose 'sense of the universal equality of things' has increased to such a degree that it extracts it even from a unique object by means of reproduction." These are not neutral observations; he feels like they cheapen the experience.
When he moves onto dicuss what happens when there is a shift from theatre to film, he also contests that the experience is less genuine, and mostly changed for the worse. He identifies a disconnect between the actor and the audience that is present in theatre. In a live performance, the audience identifies with the actor, but in a film, they are unable to and instead they identify with the camera. The actor is also influenced by this shift. He claims both the character and the actor "lose their aura," or in other words, they don't perform as well. He also contests that while a painting invites the viewer in to contemplate, the movie moves too quickly and they have no time to think about what is happening creating a "shock effect."
He does point out a positive consequence of the more maleable film. Referencing psycholanalytical concepts, he specifically sites that the behaviors shown in film can be analyzed more accurately and from many vantage points. He also personifies film into a force that has "burst the prison-factories" meaning our offices and domesticated spaces, and allow us to travel, albeit virtually.
c) What was meant by the passage: "for the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual."?
Benjamin writes that art work was originally made for magical or religious reasons. When making this point he cites cave paintings, which we now consider to be art, but they were not originally meant for the masses to see. Cult, or ritual value relies to a certain extent on imagery being hidden. With the wide distribution of imagery, there is less authenticity, and more opportunities to exhibit. He argues thatbecause of this change the function of art shifts. It no longer needs to be based on ritual, but it instead focuses on politics.
d) What mechanically or otherwise reproductive processes are changing the face of art today?
The amount of new technologies utilized by artists are growing exponentially. One of the earlier issues with technological advancement and artwork was the advent of digital photography and the use of photoshop. As time has passed, there are still divided camps, but in general people accept digital photography as a valid means to produce artwork.
In the field of metalsmithing, the controversies have unfolded from the use of CAD software, 3D scanning machienes, 3D printing machienes, and milling machienes. Like most crafts, metalsmithing has a deep history of apprenticeship, and a pride in personal skill and craftsmanship. Using these different technologies, a piece that would be literally impossible to make is now possible, without even getting your hands dirty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)