In many ways I liken the Art Institution to Sport, in particular surfing and the division between its participants ranging from the enthusiast to the professional. Similar to art, surfing is a sport that people would participate in regardless of their ability to make a living out of it. The difference of course is that surfing requires physical ability that meets more rigid criteria. If you don’t have physical ability chances are very slim that you will make it in the business of conceptual surfing. Which is not to say that you can not be a surfer, nor not enjoy surfing as an activity or contribute to it’s framework.
Any activity where there is money to be made there is of course political infrastructure. The difference with surfing and other sport or business modules is that it is understood and accepted that there is boundaries, rules and restrictions. If you want to make it to the top, be the best, or merely make a living out of something you have to be aware your surrounding environment in order to flourish.
There are many artists who believe that to work commercially is to sell out or to display work in the institutional gallery is to be confined. The difference is the world is harsh, not everybody can be a professional surfer or the CEO of a bank or a brain surgeon. We have spent so long trying to define art, push its boundaries include everybody and everything that we now have a system that is extremely difficult to interpret. Surfing would continue without the pro tour as would Art without the institution. In my opinion having comodification within the surfing industry certainly strengthens the sport similarly I think the institution strengthens Art.
the SI way of living.
ReplyDeleteThis is a late entry for last week.
the quote from last week that got me thinking was
"we don't want a world where the guarantee of not dying of starvation brings the risk of dying of boredom."
I have thought about this concept of living for quite some time from the perspective an expanding industrial society. I remember watching 'Man verse Wild' and being constantly surprised at the level of knowledge that was necessary to survive that i did not know. once upon a time people learnt to kill and prepare meat, take only what they needed because it would not keep. I go to the supermarket, buy my packaged frozen meat and cook it at my own discretion. Now my point is through increased population and increased technology there are many jobs essential to living that i do not understand how they function.
There is a common saying, "learn everything, specialization is for ants." the problem with this is the more you know, the more you know you don't know, it is unavoidable. In someways it is the technology responsible for our reliability on the system of living. I found myself in an interesting position when i thought about technology killing my primal instincts, or at least making education within them redundant. I realized I was getting further from knowing how to live primitively but equidistant from understanding the inner working of modern day technology. I wonder if they will be a point where the system breaks down and people can't function primitively whilst also not being able to help themselves to reset their own technological independents.
the day that cash as a currency dies will be an interesting day for those with SI ideals about removing themselves from the systems way of life.
Conversational pieces
ReplyDeleteafter reading the introduction of Conversational Pieces i struggled to understand the importance of the Kester's text. Maybe i misunderstood it because i read it late at night but it strikes me that the paper is more concerned about the ever growing boundaries of art and not the subjects of the works it is critiquing. What i mean by this is the works used as examples are about making a change to specific areas within the community eg. the work evolving Zurich's sex workers. This work was deemed successful as there was a concrete response. the girls were then provided with a shelter that offered them protection comfort, safety etc. so why does it even come into question that this requires a label. was it art that created this or public intervention or what ever. the fact is they did what they set out to do so in my opinion that holds more weight then whether or not it is art.
Good for art for making a difference, and good for us that we felt it necessary to tell everyone about it...
Luke Turner
Who is art for?
ReplyDeleteThis year i have been working on my major project around the idea of graffiti 'cover ups'. This research has brought up many issues such as the obvious Vandalism vs Art, do you categorize these as either creative or destructive activities? In my many readings about these debates many anti graffiti followers will often resort to the argument, who are they to force their opinions, ideas and views on the public.
This lead me to a pair of melbourne (Miles allison and Dominic Allen) artists who have adopted the nature of Graffiti (or Street Art) to the forceful and imposing nature of advertisement. Their practice involves taking over old or unused billboards and hitting members of the public with their own often political views. The subtlety of this seemingly obvious and bold working method is that in general, the public has excepted billboards as an object within public space. If you drive down a freeway you expect to be bombarded with signage. it is an object that falls in that in between space that is the privacy of your own vehicle in peek hour traffic. but the change or alteration to the usual procedures that go into bringing messages to fruition is the works strength.
Luke Turner
The Unknown Known
ReplyDeleteThis concept added by Slavoj Zizek to Donald Rumsfeld's ideas about understanding our place within the universe and the societies in which we have constructed got me thinking about what category I fall under as a white Australian middle class male.
It is an inherent understanding within Australian culture that "Australian's" are unique for their unusual sense of humour. It is often the darker things in life, the tougher times or the pressure environments that perpetuate jokes, laughs and cynical sarcasm which act as a vent or release from the reality of ones actual situation. Of course this is not the sole purpose for telling jokes however if you look at the stereotypical Aussie larrikin its root stem from tough times such as the Convicts, WW1/2 ANZAC digger attitudes as well as the Great Depression.
During these times it is easier to get through them if you can have a laugh at your own expense (take the Mickey out of yourself). This has become apart of Australian culture, it is not necessarily taught, but there is an underlining social pressure to not be offended by a joke at your own expense. It is un-Australian and therefore it is expected that within Australia others coming to live here must live by the same unwritten laws of humour.
My feeling is that there are a number of problems that arise from these social pressures of the Aussie Larrikin. It poses a problem particularly within racist jokes or slants. Often Australian’s are in denial about being a racist nation because many opt to hide behind the banner of being funny, just pulling your leg, good-natured banter etc. In edition if somebody is offended by a joke at their own expense they are also Accused of being Un-Australian, which further ostracises them from our society.
In my opinion you can categorise this kind of racism in the same way as Rumsfeld.
• Those who know they are being racist (and it is their intension)
• Those who are aware that there are potentially boundaries between humour and racism but gage it based upon their own perspective (meaning if they are white middle class Australians they gage whether or not they would take offence and perhaps don’t fully consider the culture they are targeting)
• And those who are completely ignorant to the fact that the understanding of humour as a social pressure can perpetuate racial problems even know they are aware that there is such a thing as a racist joke.
In many ways this inherent clash between our culture and others that is not unspoken but must remain under the safe banner of good Aussie humour which is tied up in Australian identity. It potentially this attitude that condones small doses of racism, and if challenged humour would not be the problem it would be deemed as something else in order to preserve and maintain our Larrikin heritage.
Luke Turner
Transversal Concatenation
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking about this phrase during class this morning I was completely stumped. after thinking about what Caleb then went onto say about in the lecture I slowly began to understand what we were discussing.
There are very few things in this world that exists purely independent and within there own walls. When you break things down the sum of there parts can be traced back to all kinds of things. take a house for example. A house is the end product of many different parties exercising their skills and knowledge. You can break it down into suppliers, Builders, Plumbers, Electricians, Architects, Laborers Etc. and nobody really cares who built what and takes credit for the final product because its just a house and they all got paid. But what happens when the house falls down because of an electrical problem that started a fire that burnt through a wall that was supposed to be made of brick. the blame can be spread over two or three different fields and the boundaries regarding labour are disbursed to reduce fault.
What i am trying to say is everything that happens in life can be categorised, but those walls are only as retardant to other groups as long as someone doesn't mind if parties don't mix. NIKOS PAPASTERGIADIS paper where he talks about post 9/11 and Guantánamo Bay got me thinking about what are the links between politics, art and war and i immediately thought about the media.
Who is the media? obviously the media is the big named papers, and Television news programs but who are their journalists? if everybody who witnessed 9/11 filmed it on their phones do they become journalists? if a solider films something behind the front lines are they a journalist or a soldier with a camera? I think that people can find themselves in situations where there "title" can change momentarily and then change back without any real effort or even understanding of where they belong. in these examples it is the technology that is blurring the lines between these fields and in a sense the role reversal of some of these parties is subverting the media. the media seems to be all powerful when it comes to any story being told. the media is what it is until we become more apart of it than itself.
Luke Turner
Bunning's DIY
ReplyDeleteI have recently returned to my high school part-time job at Bunnings Warehouse and after reading the MCA article that talked about hypocrisy it made me think about Bunnings DIY clinics that they put on free for the community teahing them about grey water, herb gardens composting etc.
Why do Bunnings do this?
probably because by providing services for their local communities they establish good will, good reputation, and extra service for their customers at a relatively low cost. if One member of staff can take give advice to 20 - 30 customers then there are 20 - 30 interactions on the floor that don't need to occur.
I would also think that there are significant pressures from the public when a company heavily dominates the market. Bunnings would be continually under scrutiny about how green they are? how much they support Australian products etc.? i'm sure that these activities are as much about holding up an image as they are about keeping criticism off their front door. Kudos to Bunnings for figuring out a way to display an image that is benefiting their wallet.
My feeling on this is simple, Bunnings purpose is to provide retail products to the community in a way that they profit. they are a business thats what they do. every little bit extra they do like the DIY clinics is a bonus... if a couple of people get inspired to start composting and recycling rain water then its a small win for the environment.
i guess the difference between Bunnings and environmnetal art is their ultimate goals are not the same. by Bunnings falling under the category of "Business" not art they manage to skip criticism of hypocrisy and money grabbing. Informing the public about the environment becomes byproduct of making money where as an Artist might hope to make money or a name out of aiding the environment.
Luke Turner