I LOVE ART....do you?

I have to admit that this course has challenged me.

The readings, the content and the connection to art has left me feeling estranged from many elements of my own art making.

I have difficulties accepting some parts of the course, and how we can accept void declarations of art.. whether we like it/dislike it/understand it/ or accept it wholly....

Although in saying this i have learnt a lot from the many readings and classes. i have been challenged in my own perspective of where art stands.

I guess my frustration lies in believing we are still creating art, writing about art and giving it to the world for a reason or purpose, if not to shock or comment. where does the talent lie if any at all.

Who can be the artist?

The dreaded question of "what is art?" something so unavoidable, it hurts my hands to type it, and hurts my ears to hear it... but there is truth in the matter, if we are all critiques to this world of art making, and believing, then we cant deny it.

I feel that we are all at uni, learning this stuff, maybe to take it on board, or maybe to reject it from our practice... i have questioned the importance of art college, where i stand as a student and what have you.... but in all honesty i still call myself an artist, whether the system tells me otherwise... and so we are ALL ARTISTS, in whatever we do...

whether its planting a garden, painting or photographing, building a sculpture or tearing one down while video documenting it... we all have our niche our own special talent.

thanks for the semester caleb!

box in a box in a box...

My blog this week is in relation to compartmentalization, and how this governs our life.

I was once explained to that. in this day and age us as human beings living on this earth we are categorized.

Giving the example that a lawyer will be a person who earns copious amounts of cash, drives the newest wheels, wears a suit (probably even to sleep in) and lives in an ultra modern/chic apartment.

Whereby and artist may live by a more alternate lifestyle, a hippie/ or eccentric, wears vintage or free flowing garments and will be or at least once have been a vegetarian in their lifetime.. i was given a few more examples of this, but it has had a lasting impression on me, wondering where i slot in to the scheme of things.

I found this idea came to me when reading the article and lecture abstract, how one can be so integrated into a world or their own realm of belonging that we tend to forget what is around us. i find this different to the way some artists approach their works, using that in the world around them to create their practice.

I read the blog about the JNF, and personally as a contributor to this cause, having been to israel and learnt of the importance of having this tree source and forest, i feel that its not necessarily the most important aspect to know if you can see the exact tree that was planted in your name (as i received this as a bat mitzvah present) more so, that you are helping to create something that benefits the land and the people.

I have heard the magnificent idea that if you want to teach children patience, you should grow a garden, or plant some herbs on your windowsill, obviously knowing it will never grow in a day, there is a humbling thought.

In this world of instant gratification (where we cant even wait for a message to send) that we can watch something develop.

This is what i feel artists can take in approach to local and global relationships in contemporary art as discussed in Papastergiadis’ reading, how we can utilize our surroundings and gain proper understanding for things, rather then categorize them into small boxes that are sealed shut because they have either been done or are misunderstood.

Use our understanding of change, and patience to create a real awareness of what is going on around us and how one can use this to help contribute to our practice in a positive manner!

happy planting!

shocking struggle of political agenda's

In terms of art as politics, which is what I gathered slightly from the article “art and/or revolution” by Marco Deseriis, where he quotes the idea of Mario Tronti in Operai e Capitale (1966), later restated by Hardt and Negri is ‘resistance is primary with respect to power’ or, as Raunig puts it, that there is a ‘relationship of dependency’ between the two. This is what I feel art has become, a power between the two inter-connected relationships of politics and imagination. The concatenation of these elements and the many other facets concerning the growth and dependance of art on its surroundings are a denial of reality. I know this may not may sense, but bare with me.

If we did not have the surrounding elements of art, politics, social change and structure, art never would ahve progressed to anything. From historical time through the ages when art was classified as a painting of religious subject matter, the commissioning of the church and what have you… this was the political status of art. Caravaggio was the trouble maker, using real life homeless people as his subjects, which were in tern portraying biblical figures. SHOCKING. But the power struggle was that the church needed him for “entertainment” (no t.v’s or iphones in those days fella’s!!)

So to, I feel the progression of art is just a new political approach. Nowadays we face the gallery and cultural setting as our political battleground. As artists we feel the need to fit into the gaps that our society and culture has left for us, otherwise we become the grappling artistic underground.

The quote that Raunig follows of Holloway to “cultivate ‘our own garden’ and ‘our own world of loving relations’ may naturally lead to a radically different world”, to me only symbolizes the power struggle of the artist. We are living a real life revolution… NOW, to be recognized for who and what we are, not how we can perform to suit the desires of others in a contextualization of artistic practice. More so to reiterate how a concatenation of artistic practices can cause a real social and political change by being and doing what they want, not to shock or please the viewer. How great it would be for people to realize that what we are representing, what we are trying to make noticeable is life, living as we do, not for any other then oneself.

I do understand the element though that everything has to link. The art is life and life is political, in any way you look at it.

Taking the irony "art" and making it seriously look at itself, NOW?

Is this what Laibach wanted us to perceive of their work..

Take the conventions of art and the structure on which it is built…

Then dismantle it by making an ironic appropriation/approach/representation to satirize the concept…

Make a new concept that pushes the boundaries on the old concept…

This is what Laibach also known by “Neue Slowenische Kunsta” a German phrase meaning "New Slovenian Art" do…

They take art and look at it seriously again…

Not only do they look at it through the artistic eye, but more figuratively they look at art as a series of transgressions that have been hidden in-amongst societies…. They want to bring these transgressions to the surface through art, music and any visual subjects, risky art, but seemingly political in their approach!

They have completely categorized “concept in art”, how we in todays society “HAVE” to perceive art through particular contexts, concept and meaning…

They have brought to the surface the internal aspects of art. Showing their audience what was/is actually going on right now, more politically speaking.

This is what I draw from this group, plus Zizeks idea of the ‘unknown knowns’ and the danger they cause when grappled by Laibach, to make everything known!

Look at me... Or not?

When considering the article by Miwon Kwon “One place after another- Sitings of public art : integration versus intervention”, a quote from Henry Moore struck my attention.

“I dont like doing commissions in the sense that I go and look at a site and then think of something. Once I have been asked to consider a certain place where one of my sculptures might possibly be placed, I try to choose something suitable from what I’ve done or from what I’m about to do. But I don’t sit down and try to create something special for it”

This idea that the sculpture may be something that is already been worked on or not site specific reminded me of the works of Christo and Jeanne-Claude, especially that of his wrappings, but more recently in the same idea expressed by Moore, to use your existing practice, making it fit into the space not the space fit into you by creating something completely new. This is exemplified through The Gates, Central Park New York City, 1979-2005.

From their previous works, they were able to accumulate an idea for a site specific work in the heart of New York, Central Park. That being said they are not commissioned for their works either, they were presented with a space to express themselves, but the need for their works to be completely free and true to art, means that they fund the projects from their own wallets, selling previous documentation of their works or up and coming proposals, so that the work not be infiltrated by the social art scene and critiqued to a point of ridicule. The idea that a place can be transformed via intervention of an artwork gives the artist tools to expand the minds of the audience and in the case the general public (which we discuss frequently in class, how art is being created not necessarily to be understood, but to be shown for appreciation). Giving the permission to generate the idea that art can stand for something and also breaking the barriers of the gallery context.

The idea that a work can be for a specific place, or ‘outside art’ brought me to think about the artist Bansky, whose graffiti art, commenting on war and peace, have taken site specific art to a deeper meaning or objectifying subject matter to manipulate our own emotional stance toward images. The ideals behind the work make us re-examine images that visually saturate our world, and how harmful this can be to the well being of society, a comment that art works, specifically site related works, can make, in being somewhat of a propaganda or “posing formal compositional challenges”says Kwon, to art in a contemporary setting, placing and environment.

Here are a few examples that im sure we are all aware of Banksy’s work, and the statements that they make.

Are we the works?

Has the gallery itself become the context for situationism and political agenda concerning art and the art world, how we relate to works, whether they be painted, performed, documented or projected/participated in?

From the beginning Dadaists, and their performance pieces together, transforming the possibilities of art, and acting out towards the War. To the activism piece of Francis Alys, “when faith moves a mountain”, I find this sense of unity to impact our political views on societal belief systems, but working together to create a sense of harmony.

Art speaks out, its everywhere around us, mentally stimulating our senses in different directions. Are we our own fixed art movement.

I heard an interesting idea, that we are what we are categorized as. A lawyer buys in to all the new technology, has the fancy car and what not. The same goes by an artist, for the most part, we challenge and surround ourselves with stimulating things, ideas, other art people and ideals that create what our artworks are about. Could this be the age old question of what our art is projecting to others? What are we trying to say? Whether it be political, social, aesthetics, ideals or just plain ‘Let me be heard.’

When faith moves a mountain

Situationism,

A brief understanding of what something in its place means, by an affliction to its meaning or the specific content by which it exists within. For myself, situationism challenges the core of my understanding of art. I agree that without a context a work of art may seize to exist, yet still my affinity with art, and what is considered to be art involves a deeper understanding or judgement of the artists own practice.

Today, almost everything can be considered art, in a gallery context... or can it?

I pose the question:

Why is it challenging to imagine art as life, or life as art?

We take pictures of the sky, trees, the sea, city landscapes and horizons etc etc... but only when properly mounted and placed in a gallery context do we understand it as our own critiques, to be works of art.

Imagine the possibility that the world is an artwork and the potential to live within it, creates no boundaries as to what we perceive to be art.

If what it happening in the world today that anyone with a simple handy cam can create fantastic photographs (with some help of photoshop) then why are we trying to fit everything into galleries, white cubes or the like...

By trying to think outside of ourselves, we limit ourselves to what can fit into the gallery context.

Situationism, creates these barriers, juxtaposing the likeliness to create from everything, as thats where art is headed.. into the known of the unknown!

Art- What are you?

When viewing an artwork what are the characteristics we look for:

Skill

Colour

Dimensions

Thinking outside of the box

Focusing on the last characteristic, how much out of the box are we allowing ourselves to conform to?

In an institutional relation setting, a gallery poses as the catalyst for exhibiting works that push ones limits, creating an endless opportunity for creative endeavors. But have we taken for granted this specific element?

Can anything, in this day, and age become art? Where are our limitations and boundaries as to what we can categorize into an art context? Have we lowered our standards in defining art, and neglected talent, concept and basic instincts of subjective opinions?

Living in a contemporary world where we are visually saturated, how does an institution create the boundaries of artworks? Does it elevate or lower our own standards of viewing artworks? Are we viewing artworks and “understanding their intentions” only because of the gallery? Are we transfixed on the artwork because we like or understand it?

Finally, is there room for us to dislike an artwork?

Why or Why not?

Would you walk through?

When we live in a time of self righteousness, gratification and possession, to create an artwork that uses all three to exude the representation of themselves divulges an audience into participation. When we are invited into a space, we immediately feel accepted, wanted and needed. An artist can play on these emotions that in turn create for an artwork of relational aesthetics, creating an apathy toward the space. Some spaces challenge the boundaries of these emotions, for instance the relational space of Ulay (Uwe laysiepen) and Marina Abramovic, whose performative gallery work Imponderabilia, (1977, reenacted in 2010), which consisted of the two, standing naked in the entrance doorway of their exhibition. This tested the audience’s dedication to viewing artworks, and the lengths they would go through to be part of the bigger picture (the gallery itself). Contemporary exhibitions have an element of play that transgresses the limitations of National Galleries, but can be more inviting to their target audience, hence having more participation and acknowledgment in the contemporary art/artist scene.

Food in art context

Food as art

Food preparation as performance art

Food presentation as art

Food in a gallery context as art

The art of food

There are many different aspects of looking at art through the means of food. This can be considered art by different forums, but namely that of a conceptual manner helps to create the perspective of the audience.

Cooking food for others in a art gallery context brings recognition to the fact that the food is being prepared for an audience, not necessarily in any means for its practicality, or taste, but to identify the act of cooking as an art form.

Daniel Spoerri let people eat off plates on tables and used those tables later to be his artwork. The presence of eating, dining, inhabiting a place.

Its interesting to say the least that we can only understand this happening in contemporary art spaces once we look back to the times when art was changing and the concept of “what is art?” came around. This statement being the catalyst for the progression of art, finding new means of expression through varied materials. Can food fall into this category, in the many ways that food can be considered art.

I find it fascinating that the article “Relational Aesthetics” by Nicolas Bourriaud, brings the idea that these public forums are indeed artworks themselves, the performative qualities in “monumental” time frames, and the audience summoned. There is a time and place of “art making” that can only be completely experienced then and there!