art & Body/ art & Identity

This weeks chapters were very related. When reading the chapter about the body I found myself thinking about how much was missing. I included images below that are objects that are realized by being placed on the body.



For the chapter on art and the body, I spent a lot of time thinking about nudity and nakedness. What is the difference between the two? Is their a benefit in creating a distinction? If there is a difference, is it still relevant today? I think these defining characteristics will also change based on the medium that is being used. Photography inevitably exposes more truth when creating an image of the body than painting does.



I also felt unresolved regarding power relationships and nudity. While feminists in the 60s and 70s had clear logic for using their bodies to regain control, I am curious how power shifts when the body is used now. No matter the level of confidence someone has, being naked is an inevitably associated with being vulnerable. You have lost a protective barrier between yourself and the world. I am not sure who has the "upper hand" in these scenarios, or if it is this tension that makes nudity such a powerful tool.













Rebecca Horn, Finger Gloves






Jennifer Crupi, Guarded Gesture






Janine Antoni, Umbilical





Erica Duffy Voss, Untitled (Selenoid piece)

Chris Ofili

Criteria for a (critical/informative/engaging/responsible) Review

Responsible/Informative:

-Location/Opening information

-Length/Duration of exhibition

-Curators/Curatorial concept

Engaging/Critical:

-Describe the layout of the exhibition- create an image for the reader

-Describe specific pieces that were successful, both inside/outside the context of show

-Describe specific pieces that were unsuccessful, both inside/outside the context of the show

-Elaborate on the cohesiveness of the show

-Find themes throughout the show

-Describe how this exhibition relates to others of a similar vein, or others that are typical of the location.

-Be opinionated, but with justification.

Art & Nature and Technology/ Art & Deformation

Art & Nature and Technology

As somewhat of an environmentalist, I was moved by the examples of EcoArt listed in Art & Today. I admire their efforts to call attention to the destruction of nature that some technology/mass production has created. I still left this reading with a question I am sure many do... is this art? Is activism alone art? I suppose many would believe if the artist says it art, it's art, but I think it is still a valid question to discuss. What makes something a piece art- aesthetic choices? Medium? Location? Intent? While there is something beautiful about Mel Chin's gated gardens that suck up toxins, I don't know if it's the same type of beauty we refer to when we discuss visual arts. Even more extreme of an example would be Newton & Helen Mayer Harrison, who clean up bodies of water. They see the act of creating an initiative their art- not focusing on whether or not anything is accomplished. I was also surprised that their were no artists mentioned on the opposite extreme, more in the realm of the Futurists. While there are several who utilize new technologies, I didn't get the impression that their statement was, "the technology is here, we should use it as much as possible."


Art & Deformation

This chapter was very informative for me- as they discussed in the book, most people feel an impulse to look at the awful. This curiosity in the deformed is not ingrained in me the way it is for some. There is nothing interesting to me about witnessing violence, or the results of violence, or things that are ultimately made to disgust. I can't stand to watch horror/suspense movies, or even the same acts in video game format. It will disturb me for great lengths of time. So when Is see works of art like that of Mike Kelley and Paul McCarthy or Jake and Dinos Chapman, I have a difficult time assessing in the way I would other works of art- though I am not questioning their status as art. The question that comes to me whenever I view anything that extremely graphic, or pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable as art, is what the artist's justification is. Working with this type of subject matter should be treated delicately, and at this point in history, the world doesn't need to be shocked if that is the only goal.

I was confused about the inclusion of John Currin's painting Homemade Pasta in the context of the rest of the chapter. The heads of the two males are enlarged, which is stretched into the category of deformity. I suppose it is technically a deformation, but I consider it more a painting style of a strategic use of scale. The book's explanation: "the figures' oversized heads and slightly exaggerated features give them a child-like gentleness that seems dilberately at odds with heartland fears of homosexuality and gay marriage." While I understand this, I believe Currin's other work would more appropriately fit with any of the themes; grotesque, carnivalesque, abjection, informe.








John Currin



Joel Peter Witkin



Diane Arbus



Natalie Jeremijenko



Mel Chin

Art & Representation

In reference to The Guardian article, feat. David Hockney:

I think we all know that photography cannot go back to what it was. There is a generation within our midst that will not know what film cameras are, or how they operate. But I agree with Russell Roberts from the National Museum of Photography when he calls this argument simplistic. While the notion may have existed that photography exhibited reality, people have been manipulating images for a long time. For instance, take this photo by Man Ray from 1922, La Marquise Casati:



Man Ray

One could also argue that we are now more able than ever to represent truth. Although the possibilty of post production editing is always looming, technology is rapidly improving and cameras are much better equipt to replicate the real.

Also the notion that David Hockney would complain about photographic manipulation is somewhat laughable. Is is the involvement of the computer that has crossed the line for him? Or the possibility that someone could easily manufacture work resembling his own?



David Hockney, Merced River, Yosemite Valley, 1982





James Casebere

The Thing About Narrative...

The use of narrative has varied in intensity over history. While almost obsolete during Formalism's reign, it has returned with an avengence that at times feels very elusive. Tell the story- but don't give it away. Leave the story open for multiple interpretations. There is an overwhelming sense of mystery and ambiguity. Why is this? What has caused this lack of commitment?

I have been thinking about the use of ambiguity as a tactic, and I'm not sure if it creates general interest, or if it is a cheap trick. I am sure there is a continuum along which the percentage of these two qualities fluxuates, depending on the artist.

I appreciate the work of Kara Walker because she uses imagery with many prior associations, but the majority of associations are congruent with her concept. But her work is not obvious. It is open to interpretation, but these fluxuations make sense with her own inner struggles; does she want to be belle or kill her?

I am less keen on the artists who tape the same scene over and over from slightly different angles, or changing the voice overs. This seems more like a "Where's Waldo?" book.



Kara Walker




Eleanor Antin

Identity Based Group Shows

article here

Well Made Manifesto