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
No comments:
Post a Comment