more Radicant questions

1) Is it possible to interpret something the way an originator intended? How or does this interact with the "cultural rain" we experience?

2) Is the found object a readymade or an appropriated object or its own object? How or this play into Bourriaud's distinction between the two?

3) Can an object be indifferent? If we are constantly experiencing cultural rain, then isn't everything we encounter loaded?

4) Do forms always lead to greater understanding or are they a way for us to cope with understanding to a point?

5) In a capitalist system will it ever be possible, even through appropriation, to completely abolish ownership?

6) If economic development is the primary fracture in the global art world then can a well financed or independently wealthy individual from an industrialized or an under-industrialized nation represent that environment? Wouldn't that person represent a minority that more closely resembles an artist from a informationalist nation?

7) Can an archipelago exist without multiculturalism?

8) If signs are the culture of sharing forms, how do/can they change in different cultures? Will a difference be eradicated in a true archipelago?

9) If a continued exchange of goods creates a constant state of merchandise does the idea of property/ownership become transitory?

10) Is it possible to use a sign the way it was originally used?

Radicant Images

Mario Garcia Torres: A Fascination with Nothingness

Cameron Jamie, Spook House (Hangman), 2003. C-print

Paul Chan, 2nd Light, 2005

Richard Long Berlin Circle 1996 [detail of installation in the Hamburger Bahnhof]

Simon Starling, Autoxylopyrocycloboros, 2006, (detail)

Radicant Questions

1) How does Richard Long's legacy play into the historical background of the journey aesthetics?

2) Is our current state realized (as described as Cota: Revocable Aesthetics, p.104) by all? Does this matter? Is it generational?

3) Bourriaud seems to support his theory through examples of art, and references/descriptions of social and political theory. Is it relevant to question his lack of reliance on describing how our world is acting this way through real life examples, like events, the prevalence/impact of how we experience media, etc.?

4) If people view and believe that history as presented is true then doesn't that make them connected to/rooted to a past that is not as transient as Bourriaud describes? Is their link to history real even if it is fictional? On page 107 Bourriaud qwotes Pierre Hughe who said, "fiction is a means of capturing the real."

5) Are items "informed" by their journey if we do not know what their journey was? (p.127)

5 Postproduction Images (click on image for full size b/c some are cut off)

Urs Fischer, Untitled, 1993.

Mike Brown

Olaf Breuning, still from Home 2

http://www.olafbreuning.com/

Sui Jianguo, Legacy Mantle (Group of Five Works)

David Hammons, In the Hood, 1993.

5 Postproduction Questions

1) "...in order to show the functioning of the whole of society, they explored the specific site which their activities unfolded..." (p. 70)

This quote seems to describe how Bourraiaud has tried to prove his point throughout the book. Is it possible to make assumptions based on specifics within a larger population? Does making this observation (about someone else’s work) help or hinder the argument Bourraiaud is making?

2) Is ownership truly antiquated in world that largely values capitalist ideologies (esp. the USA)? Do collective ideas created by aspects of contemporary culture (like the internet and DJs) feed into capitalism? Authorship? Ownership?

3) “…one must first inhabit the form of what one wants to criticize.” (p. 74)

Assuming the collective is currently paramount and artists are becoming part of a history (oppose to creating a finite product with a beginning and ending), is it possible to understand something to the point where one can be critical?

4) “…all the works of the past must be “reinvested” or disappear.” (p.37)

At what point does the work of the past disappear? Is this still a possibility in the age of information?

5) If choosing is equal to fabrication what is the point of creation?

Explain these key elements of Benjamin's Essay (from Spring 2009)

a) What is the “Aura” of a work of art?

Benjamin seems to be describing the “Aura” a sense or a feeling of an object from far away generated by its uniqueness. Thorough mechanical reproduction an object is taken stripped of its sense of originality and its uniqueness is extracted.



b) In Benjamin’s mind, what effects did mechanical reproduction, such as film and the camera/photography, have on the viewer’s perception of art?

Mechanical reproduction has sharpened our perceptions by allowing us to see what we could not have seen before either by capturing something unique or by giving us a chance to review and analyze what we could not before.


c) What is meant by the passage: “for the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual.”

By creating art that is no longer based on being unique art is no longer about the ritual. Art becomes about the political as it is designed around the reproducible therefore breaking its dependence on the ritual.



d) What mechanically or otherwise reproductive processes are changing the face of art today?

We use process that are far more reproductive, but mechanical in different ways. From the perspective of Benjamin, I would note with stars computers and the Internet. The Internet in particular has enabled anyone to be and do anything including acting, directing, writing, etc. In terms of politicizing art there is no equal, even when considering the technology that Benjamin describes.

Explain these key elements of Benjamin's Essay (from spring 2010)

a) What is the “Aura” of a work of art?

The “Aura” is the “unique existence” or presence of an object that moves us farther from reality using a “unique phenomenon of a distance.” Benjamin asserts that an object gains authority because of the way it is experienced. Traditionally this is enhanced with that object’s connection to the ritual or rituals (i.e. religion). There is no replica of a presence. If an object is mechanically reproduced you are not really experiencing that object in a quality way (according to my reading of Benjamin).

b) In Benjamin’s mind, what effects did mechanical reproduction, such as film and the camera/photography, have on the viewer’s perception of art?

The camera/photography create a non-quality viewpoint of an object because it is a directed one and it often distorts or changes a real experience. For example, with a camera one can zoom in on an object, or slow down or speed up time. An experience or performance could also be viewed from multiple viewpoints. These distortions are different from how one would encounter a stage performance. There is also a loss of interaction or play between the audience and the object or performance because the performer could not play off of the audience and the audience could not change their experience.

c) What is meant by the passage: “for the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual.”

There is no original so there is no unique work with an aura, and, therefore, artwork is no longer connected with the ritual. As art’s function becomes reproduction, it becomes connected to politics instead.

d) What mechanically or otherwise reproductive processes are changing the face of art today?

Computer software, cell phones, the Internet, digital fabrication (rapid prototyping, laser cutting, etc.), T.V. (portable T.V. is making a comeback), etc.

Art Movement Chart (work in progress)

5) Define the art of this time_2010

What name would you give it?

Nicolas Bourriaud would call it “Altermodernism.” This is the closest title that I have come across that I would ascribe to, assuming that there is a new movement afoot.

When did it begin? How did it begin?

This movement, if it exists, began in 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell and the world began to experience greater communication between its largest entities, both nations and trade. There was also a show (whose name I will insert when remembered/found) that featured contemporary artists from both industrialized nations and non-industrialized nations. This is important because traditional art (often considered craft) was displayed with “high” art. In a way this act symbolized the end of defined movements, which would be a current trend. The 1990’s were also important in the spread of this movement by creating greater information/communication channels.

What are the main principles associated with this Movement?

This movement is largely postmodernism from a global perspective. It is the acceptance of anything as art and the merging of different fields of study. Any person’s experience and background is authentic and each is a product of their environment. Borders are becoming more vague and cultures are merging to create a global view, oppose to a localized one.

Who are the main artists/critics associated with it nd what is the aesthetic character of the Art of today?

Three of the main critics/theorists are Nicolas Bourriud, Hal Foster, and Eleanor Heartney. Some artists include: Mel Chin, Andrea Zittel, Tara Donovan, Walead Beshty, Marcus Coates, Olivia Plender, Seth Price, Yes Men, Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, Rirkrit Tiravanij, Olaf Breuning, and (again) many more. The aesthetic character is, like post-modernism, vague. There is less of a coherent link to the past and more of a vague understanding of the world now. There is a connection to culture, but not an understanding of its history. It is also generally characterized by the mixing of media to the point that there is only a loose connection to a traditional label. This could include breaking the barriers to the extent that a label could be changed to one outside of art (for example science or design).

4) Define the Post-Modern Art Movement

When did the Post-Modern Art Movement Begin? How did it begin?
Post-Modernism began in the 1960’s with the emergence of philosophies that supported a shift in ideals. The first real Post-Modern artwork would have been Andy Warhol’s first Campbell’s Soup can paintings in 1962.


When did it end? Did it end?
It is uncertain if it has ended. There are still ideas supported by Post-Modernism that are relevant. It is a possibility that it is just being updated or that it is the movement attached to Modernism and signifies that movement’s death.


What are the main principles associated with the Post-Modern Art Movement?
Post-Modernism is essentially the rejection of everything that Modernism promoted. There is no utopia and no ideal. There is no longer a hierarchy, we are all essentially the same and we all consume the same products. There is no originality.


Who are the main artists/critics associated with it and what is the aesthetic character of Post-Modern Art?
There are many critics and philosophers associated with Post-Modernism, but two significant ones are Arthur Danto and Jean Baudrillard. Some artists associated with the movement include: Marcel Duchamp (way before his time), Bruce Nauman, Richard Tuttle, Eva Hesse, Yoko Ono, John Cage, Robert Rauschenberg, Andy Warhol, Claes Oldenburg, Jim Dine, Jasper Johns, Sol LeWitt, Robert Smithson, Christo and Jeanne-Claude, and many more. The aesthetic character is more vague in this movement. Because Postmodernism is linked to the rejection of Modernist ideals any material/medium goes. This means that the traditional was often mixed with new media or completely discarded.