The notion of the other: a determination of biology or society?
This notion of the other signifies a power structure in which the other is considered subjugate to those that establish this structure. In general, we can think of the white male as the norm, the ones who are represented in history, while women and people of non-white or non-european races are considered the Other, those who are often misrepresented or omitted from the history books. While First Wave Feminism focused on elevated notions of "womanhood," Post-modern feminists argued that these concepts of "womanhood" are only based off of preconcieved notions that are set in place by the male-dominant culture. While pregnancy and menstruation are female experiences (although even that is now arguable as the world witnesses the first "male" pregnancies), the notions that woman are more emotional, nurturing, and less violent than men are most definitely. These ideas are only based in the way in which our society raises girls; it is not true of all girls and is most definitely not due to our biological differences. The truth is that all men and all women contain both the male and the female hormones, therefore to the extent that these hormones influence are behaviors, we are all psychologically both male and female. I think that it is unlikely however, that these hormones actually produce what we consider to be "femininity" or "masculinity." Most of these notions has to do with behaviors learned from living within a social structure.
In the past it has been argued that gender roles (and you could even extend it to beliefs on the roles of different races in a multicultural society) are based on biology. I believe that this argument was made only to try to prevent people from questioning these roles. Now that they have been questioned, I believe that we have the necessary evidence to show that biology does not dictate roles that we must play in society, it is only society itself that dictates them.
A better question is, where did the notion of white male supremacy come from? I think the answer here does have a link to biology. When you consider the male against the female, in terms of biology, the male is subjugate to the female. Males are not necessary for the survival of the species; they simply improve the odds by creating a more diverse gene pool. Considering this, not as many men as women are necessary to improve the survival of the species (and it has been suggested by medical studies that male babies are more likely to be miscarried than female babies, resulting in a slight female majority). Noting his inferiority in his inability to decide when and with whom to reproduce, men tend to compensate by making women believe they are the inferiors (although this differs between cultures), using the phallus as if it were a weapon.
There may be a similar truth behind white dominance when you consider black vs. white. Dark skins are more resistant against the elements, and it is often said that blacks can jump farther and run faster than whites(although this is a stereotype, it may be just as powerful). The point is that whites learned to fear people with dark skin, perhaps because they became subconsciously aware of their own inferiority. Thus, fear and insecurity become the reigning power in these social structures.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Commodity Critics
In opposition to the anti-aesthetes, commodity critics often based their art on the seductiveness of everyday commodities as they stand in a democratic market. These art objects are often based on a sort of hyperreality in which the commodity becomes an act of self-expression made by the consumer. With Warhol's creation of the Brillo Box, a carefully painted replication of a familiar household item, the question was raised: What is the difference between this work of 'art' and the commodity that it represents? For Danto this artwork represented the end of modernism, but for many it represented the beginning of post-modernism.
Many post-modern artworks are made to challenge the very nature of art. Allan McCollum's Surrgates are fake paintings made from cast plaster and then painted. However, they carry all the elements of real painting: they are framed, dated, and signed, and they sold very well during the 1980s. At the root of this "hyperreal" commodity critique is a distorted Marxist view. It refers to Marxist commodity fetishism, where the object divorced from the labor that created it becomes an independant entity. However, without the element of "reality," the Marxist structure collapses. Therefore, the commodities take on a life of their own, an expression of the consumer, yet the critique underlines the illusiveness of free will, self identity, and overall reality.
Many post-modern artworks are made to challenge the very nature of art. Allan McCollum's Surrgates are fake paintings made from cast plaster and then painted. However, they carry all the elements of real painting: they are framed, dated, and signed, and they sold very well during the 1980s. At the root of this "hyperreal" commodity critique is a distorted Marxist view. It refers to Marxist commodity fetishism, where the object divorced from the labor that created it becomes an independant entity. However, without the element of "reality," the Marxist structure collapses. Therefore, the commodities take on a life of their own, an expression of the consumer, yet the critique underlines the illusiveness of free will, self identity, and overall reality.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Anti-Aesthetes
What interests me most on the subject of the anti-aesthetes is the notion of anti-authorship, so I will make this the topic of my discussion today. The choice medium of the anti-aesthetic artists was often photography and typography. It is easy to see why these mediums tend to deny the artist of his or her authorship, but the use of such "unoriginal" objects in their work was also a statement against painting which, prior to this period, dominated the art world.
Gerard Richter was one of the anti-aesthetes, although unlike many of the others, he still practiced painting. However, Richter's abstract paintings are used to make a cliche of the expressionistic qualities of painting. He also worked with photography, utilizing images from pop culture, such as his photograph of Queen Elizabeth, on which he uses a soft blur so that the image disappears when viewed closely. Richter comments that using images from mass media removes him from his personal experience. It seems to play on the notion that art does not belong to the artist but to the spectator. Art is not meant to be only a personal experience. Once it is put in the gallery setting it becomes a collective experience, no matter how personal the subject matter.
Indeed, other anti-aesthetes left the act of constructing the meaning of art solely to the viewer. Sherrie Levine was an artist in the 1980s who came out with a series that was simply a collection of unretouched photographs by illustrious art photographers. From an earlier viewpoint, one would simply call this work plagiarism, but in postmodern terms it is the purest expression of appropriation. While she carefully included the names of the original artists in the titles, Levine insisted that these works became new by her act of claiming them. While the amount of authorship Levine could claim from this was controversial, by re-showing these images, the audience was given the responsibility of assigning a meaning to such an act of expression. I find anti-authorship an interesting thing to consider as an artist, because whether your work is personal or not, it is ultimately the spectator who decides what your work means and where it stands in the art world.
Gerard Richter was one of the anti-aesthetes, although unlike many of the others, he still practiced painting. However, Richter's abstract paintings are used to make a cliche of the expressionistic qualities of painting. He also worked with photography, utilizing images from pop culture, such as his photograph of Queen Elizabeth, on which he uses a soft blur so that the image disappears when viewed closely. Richter comments that using images from mass media removes him from his personal experience. It seems to play on the notion that art does not belong to the artist but to the spectator. Art is not meant to be only a personal experience. Once it is put in the gallery setting it becomes a collective experience, no matter how personal the subject matter.
Indeed, other anti-aesthetes left the act of constructing the meaning of art solely to the viewer. Sherrie Levine was an artist in the 1980s who came out with a series that was simply a collection of unretouched photographs by illustrious art photographers. From an earlier viewpoint, one would simply call this work plagiarism, but in postmodern terms it is the purest expression of appropriation. While she carefully included the names of the original artists in the titles, Levine insisted that these works became new by her act of claiming them. While the amount of authorship Levine could claim from this was controversial, by re-showing these images, the audience was given the responsibility of assigning a meaning to such an act of expression. I find anti-authorship an interesting thing to consider as an artist, because whether your work is personal or not, it is ultimately the spectator who decides what your work means and where it stands in the art world.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Neo-Expressionism
Why does Dantro say that we have reached the end of art when he talks about post modernism?
When Dantro talks about the end of art, he is talking about the end of art as a philosophical debate. Dantro was also a practicing philospher at the time when he made these statements (in the early 1980s). For Dantro, Andy Warhol's Brillo Box of 1964 marked the true end of art. Coming up with some "cutting edge" idea was no longer about coming up with a new philosophical pursuit, it was merely self-gratifying, manufactured to cater to the art market.
I agree with Dantro in this respect. Most of modern art is made to be something that is tangible to sell. The "philosophy" or justification that backs it up is merely a selling pitch. In the modern world, it seems that you can sell almost anything as art as long as it has a good selling point. Artists are rarely experimental merely for the sake of being experimental. So many modern artists are being experimental in order to discover some idea that will make them money. It is "art market research" rather than pure experimentation. As the art market becomes more and more important in the survival of the artists in the 1980s and 90s, the artworks become less of a philosophical conversation and more of a selling pitch. On one side this questions our common notions of art, but on the other it destroys "original" thinking in favor of popular icons.
When Dantro talks about the end of art, he is talking about the end of art as a philosophical debate. Dantro was also a practicing philospher at the time when he made these statements (in the early 1980s). For Dantro, Andy Warhol's Brillo Box of 1964 marked the true end of art. Coming up with some "cutting edge" idea was no longer about coming up with a new philosophical pursuit, it was merely self-gratifying, manufactured to cater to the art market.
I agree with Dantro in this respect. Most of modern art is made to be something that is tangible to sell. The "philosophy" or justification that backs it up is merely a selling pitch. In the modern world, it seems that you can sell almost anything as art as long as it has a good selling point. Artists are rarely experimental merely for the sake of being experimental. So many modern artists are being experimental in order to discover some idea that will make them money. It is "art market research" rather than pure experimentation. As the art market becomes more and more important in the survival of the artists in the 1980s and 90s, the artworks become less of a philosophical conversation and more of a selling pitch. On one side this questions our common notions of art, but on the other it destroys "original" thinking in favor of popular icons.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Performance/Video Art
Guy Debord...About the Situationist game:
Situationists seem to be another one of those art movements that defies any one definition. The central idea of situationism, as the name suggests, revolves around the creations of situations, what Debord calls the ambiances of life. These situations are transformed then into an art form by giving them superior emotional quality.
In his writing, Debord describes the Situationist movement as a working hypothesis, rather than as a group with a concrete set of rules. The situationist game, he says, "is not distinct from a moral choice, the taking of one's stand in favor of what will ensure future reign of freedom and play." From this statement, I gather that the Situationists have a moral agenda in mind, perhaps an agenda to protect freedom within the arts and to promote the challenging of traditional systems. Debord also notes that the current American society that he lives in (1957) seems to be in somewhat of an anesthetized state. With the rising popularity of television and media, it is difficult for people to develop any sort of accurate political or social awareness.
Thus, the movement relies on rough experimentation, made to bring people toward a new mode of behavior, to bring them on a passional journey which will bring them out of the ordinary through rapid changing "ambiance." I believe that this construction of situations is not meant to "awaken" people from their tranquilized states of unconsciousness, but perhaps merely to underline the fact that we are unconscious. I think that the situations are exploring some truth that lies behind what people ordinarlily see. These creations are no more "real" than what we see on tv, that which is taken for truth. They merely ask us to explore what defines our perceptions of reality.
Situationists seem to be another one of those art movements that defies any one definition. The central idea of situationism, as the name suggests, revolves around the creations of situations, what Debord calls the ambiances of life. These situations are transformed then into an art form by giving them superior emotional quality.
In his writing, Debord describes the Situationist movement as a working hypothesis, rather than as a group with a concrete set of rules. The situationist game, he says, "is not distinct from a moral choice, the taking of one's stand in favor of what will ensure future reign of freedom and play." From this statement, I gather that the Situationists have a moral agenda in mind, perhaps an agenda to protect freedom within the arts and to promote the challenging of traditional systems. Debord also notes that the current American society that he lives in (1957) seems to be in somewhat of an anesthetized state. With the rising popularity of television and media, it is difficult for people to develop any sort of accurate political or social awareness.
Thus, the movement relies on rough experimentation, made to bring people toward a new mode of behavior, to bring them on a passional journey which will bring them out of the ordinary through rapid changing "ambiance." I believe that this construction of situations is not meant to "awaken" people from their tranquilized states of unconsciousness, but perhaps merely to underline the fact that we are unconscious. I think that the situations are exploring some truth that lies behind what people ordinarlily see. These creations are no more "real" than what we see on tv, that which is taken for truth. They merely ask us to explore what defines our perceptions of reality.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Eva Hesse
In her 1965 letter, Eva Hesse admits that it is difficult for women to be taken seriously as artists, because the woman is sidetracted by her feminine roles which prevent her from being totally dedicated to her work. It leaves open an interesting paradox. Either the woman rejects those feminine roles imposed on her and becomes essentially a "man," or she remains the house-wife who will never be truly taken seriously.
A lot of the problem has to do with the way girls are raised, and I still believe it is a problem today. Girls are raised in a way that teaches them to have low self-esteem. Instead of learning the "team player" mentality, they instead learn to attack each other in a vain struggle for a social hierarchy that only exists among women. So in keeping to the female role, even if you are alpha female, all that means is you get your pick of a good mate, to whom you will remain secondary to for the rest of your life. This, of course, does not apply to all women, neither today nor 35 years ago. There are women who are self-supporting and who are dominant in their relationships with men, but they also have to struggle to achieve this.
Hesse says in her letter that women are at a disadvantage from the start, that they lack conviction that they have the "right" to achievement. In a way she is right. However, it doesn't have to be that way. Gender roles are not biological, they are simply psychological "templates" that we are brainwashed into as children.
An interesting experiment for thought would be to raise a male child in the "feminine role" and a female child in the "masculine role." Let's say these individuals were home-schooled until young adulthood and then placed back into society. Which child would be better adapted and more likely to succeed? Which is superior, male or female?
A lot of the problem has to do with the way girls are raised, and I still believe it is a problem today. Girls are raised in a way that teaches them to have low self-esteem. Instead of learning the "team player" mentality, they instead learn to attack each other in a vain struggle for a social hierarchy that only exists among women. So in keeping to the female role, even if you are alpha female, all that means is you get your pick of a good mate, to whom you will remain secondary to for the rest of your life. This, of course, does not apply to all women, neither today nor 35 years ago. There are women who are self-supporting and who are dominant in their relationships with men, but they also have to struggle to achieve this.
Hesse says in her letter that women are at a disadvantage from the start, that they lack conviction that they have the "right" to achievement. In a way she is right. However, it doesn't have to be that way. Gender roles are not biological, they are simply psychological "templates" that we are brainwashed into as children.
An interesting experiment for thought would be to raise a male child in the "feminine role" and a female child in the "masculine role." Let's say these individuals were home-schooled until young adulthood and then placed back into society. Which child would be better adapted and more likely to succeed? Which is superior, male or female?
Donald Judd Specific Objects 1965
What is this new art form that Judd is speaking of and how does it challenge both the nature of painting and sculpture?
Judd is clearly talking about three-dimensional artwork in this excerpt, but it is difficult to understand exactly what this art is because, as Judd states, this work doesn't constitute a single movement, school, or style. He is talking neither about painting nor sculpture, but a type of three-dimensional work that evades the definition of both. It is a challenge to painting and sculpture.
The problem with conventional painting is that it is placed on a flat rectangular surface which is then put flat up against the wall. This rectangle is a shape that limits and defines what is contained in the painting. The end of the canvas is simply the end of the picture. This new "painting," being on a three-dimensional surface challenges the basis of painting itself. Abstract Expressionism was a move in this direction because it brought attention to the rectangular canvas instead of merely the picture contained within it. The new art that Judd is praising is meant to be looked at as a whole, not as a picture contained within a picture plane.
While this work may more closely resemble sculpture, Judd believes that it is actually closer to painting. He states this because the new art is composed as a whole, not part by part as most sculpture is. The act of composing a three-dimensional artwork as a whole and using much of the basic formal elements of painting, yet not limiting it by a flat rectangular surface, makes the new art that Judd is relating to, an art that challenges preconcieved ideas of both painting and sculpture.
Judd is clearly talking about three-dimensional artwork in this excerpt, but it is difficult to understand exactly what this art is because, as Judd states, this work doesn't constitute a single movement, school, or style. He is talking neither about painting nor sculpture, but a type of three-dimensional work that evades the definition of both. It is a challenge to painting and sculpture.
The problem with conventional painting is that it is placed on a flat rectangular surface which is then put flat up against the wall. This rectangle is a shape that limits and defines what is contained in the painting. The end of the canvas is simply the end of the picture. This new "painting," being on a three-dimensional surface challenges the basis of painting itself. Abstract Expressionism was a move in this direction because it brought attention to the rectangular canvas instead of merely the picture contained within it. The new art that Judd is praising is meant to be looked at as a whole, not as a picture contained within a picture plane.
While this work may more closely resemble sculpture, Judd believes that it is actually closer to painting. He states this because the new art is composed as a whole, not part by part as most sculpture is. The act of composing a three-dimensional artwork as a whole and using much of the basic formal elements of painting, yet not limiting it by a flat rectangular surface, makes the new art that Judd is relating to, an art that challenges preconcieved ideas of both painting and sculpture.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Art 1960s
Why does the focus of art change in the 1960s?
In the 1960s, Abstract Expressionism begins to die out. The focus of art changes from consumerism to something that is somehow more "real" at the time. Some artists see the Ab-Ex artists as too decadent. Their art applies only to art itself, and in effect the essence of the painters. In the later 1960s, events such as the death of Kennedy, and the student riots against the Viet Nam War, cause artists to re-evaluate their place in society.
The subject of the Happenings of the early 1960s was often consumerism and waste. The events juxtaposed comedy and violence by creating a living painting, a performance with conceivable plot, characters, or plot. The materials of the Happening were often consumed or destroyed in the process. Unfortunately the events of 1968 became more violent than the Happening itself, and the art form suddenly seemed irrelevant.
Note: Please excuse this short and rather thoughtless blog. I am not yet finished having a nervous breakdown. I have better questions than this which I will be exploring on my own. I am amazed at having written something other than complete jibberish...that is enough of an accomplishment for now.
In the 1960s, Abstract Expressionism begins to die out. The focus of art changes from consumerism to something that is somehow more "real" at the time. Some artists see the Ab-Ex artists as too decadent. Their art applies only to art itself, and in effect the essence of the painters. In the later 1960s, events such as the death of Kennedy, and the student riots against the Viet Nam War, cause artists to re-evaluate their place in society.
The subject of the Happenings of the early 1960s was often consumerism and waste. The events juxtaposed comedy and violence by creating a living painting, a performance with conceivable plot, characters, or plot. The materials of the Happening were often consumed or destroyed in the process. Unfortunately the events of 1968 became more violent than the Happening itself, and the art form suddenly seemed irrelevant.
Note: Please excuse this short and rather thoughtless blog. I am not yet finished having a nervous breakdown. I have better questions than this which I will be exploring on my own. I am amazed at having written something other than complete jibberish...that is enough of an accomplishment for now.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
On Happenings and Camp
Question: How do Happenings relate to Camp?
Background: Ok, I'm going to start very simple here, by outlining the difference between a Happening and a performance. Please note that I am still by no means an authority on Camp, so please correct me if I get way off target.
Santag describes a Happening as painting brought to life, a radical juxtaposition in which we discard the common notions of character, set, and prop; all of these simply become part of the composition. Unlike a performance, as we commonly think of it, a Happening has no plot, no stage, and no set duration. The audience becomes a part of the Happening, and they are often treated in an abusive manner (in one such occasion, the audience was chased off by a power lawnmower at the end of the spectacle). It is also important to note that the participants in a Happening are treated as objects, not as characters, and that the materials of these events are often consumed or destroyed during the event, making them altogether impossible to reproduce, as a performance would be.
The notion of Camp is slightly more elusive than that of a Happening. Camp is a sensibility; it takes art objects and transforms them into "not art," but doing so lovingly. It is evident that Happenings are not always Camp, so making the relationship is difficult. So let's boil the Happening down to its base: radical juxtaposition. The Happening is a sort of continuation of the Surrealist movement, some of which Santag find, carries a camp sensibilty. There is something witty, playful, and unconcerned about the Surrealist work. Perhaps this is because of the general absurdity brought about by this radical juxtaposition. So, despite the violent nature of the Happening, the spectator enters light-hearted and comes out laughing (on a better thought, it is probably more often the participant who comes out laughing).
Conclusion: The Happening is radical juxtaposition to an obsurdity; it is a violent comedy. Absurdity often lends itself to Camp, often seen as "bad taste." Camp, in all of its many forms, reverses the hierarchy of art. It is "art," it is "not art," it is Camp.
Background: Ok, I'm going to start very simple here, by outlining the difference between a Happening and a performance. Please note that I am still by no means an authority on Camp, so please correct me if I get way off target.
Santag describes a Happening as painting brought to life, a radical juxtaposition in which we discard the common notions of character, set, and prop; all of these simply become part of the composition. Unlike a performance, as we commonly think of it, a Happening has no plot, no stage, and no set duration. The audience becomes a part of the Happening, and they are often treated in an abusive manner (in one such occasion, the audience was chased off by a power lawnmower at the end of the spectacle). It is also important to note that the participants in a Happening are treated as objects, not as characters, and that the materials of these events are often consumed or destroyed during the event, making them altogether impossible to reproduce, as a performance would be.
The notion of Camp is slightly more elusive than that of a Happening. Camp is a sensibility; it takes art objects and transforms them into "not art," but doing so lovingly. It is evident that Happenings are not always Camp, so making the relationship is difficult. So let's boil the Happening down to its base: radical juxtaposition. The Happening is a sort of continuation of the Surrealist movement, some of which Santag find, carries a camp sensibilty. There is something witty, playful, and unconcerned about the Surrealist work. Perhaps this is because of the general absurdity brought about by this radical juxtaposition. So, despite the violent nature of the Happening, the spectator enters light-hearted and comes out laughing (on a better thought, it is probably more often the participant who comes out laughing).
Conclusion: The Happening is radical juxtaposition to an obsurdity; it is a violent comedy. Absurdity often lends itself to Camp, often seen as "bad taste." Camp, in all of its many forms, reverses the hierarchy of art. It is "art," it is "not art," it is Camp.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Jasper Johns1958/59
A few questions from the reading from Art Since 1900 on 1958/1959:
1.) How do Jasper Johns' emblems "evoke a self that was divided by its own language?"
Background: Jasper Johns painted everyday symbols--a target, an American flag--in opposition to the Abstract Expressionists for whom representation (and worse popular emblems) was taboo. Having a subject, especially one so popularized, the Ab-Ex artists argue, depersonalizes the work, and painting is taken out of its pure state (painting which is simply about painting in and of itself).
The reading describes Jasper Johns work as a play with contradiction and paradox. First of all, the emblem of a flag or a target is both abstract and representational--abstract because they are composed of simple geometric shapes, a circle, a rectangle; representational because they are easily recognizable as a whole.
Encaustics also play a major role in Jasper Johns' style. The wax preserves the artist's brushstrokes, showing method and giving a gestural motion to the painting, (this quality would be desired by the Ab-Ex painter) and yet the strokes become repetitive, dead, lifeless; bringing us back to the impersonal aspect of the work.
The subject matter also has qualities of both the personal and the impersonal. Because the emblems are so easily recognizable, something society as a whole can relate to, they appear extremely impersonal at first glance. However, the flag also alludes to the story that the symbol first appeared to Johns in a dream. Thus, his paintings suggest allegory/alternated meanings/suggested memories. The complication of describing Johns in terms of a movement reiterates the fact that the artist feels divided within himself. His art reflects a paradoxical struggle.
2.)What sets Jasper Johns apart from the Dada movement (or any other movement)?
It is important to know that Jasper Johns was aquainted with Duchamp when considering his label as the "Neo-Dadaist." However, Johns' work does not carry the self-destructive, anarchic theory of Dada. He is more interested in the irony conveyed by Duchamp's work (again we're dealing with paradox here). Duchamp remain a point of reference for Johns, but only for this reason. Johns is not destroying the symbol, he is elevating it to high art by giving it multiple weighted (as well as contradicting) meanings.
The simple answer to this question: Jasper Johns eludes definition because his work carries aspects of many modern movements. Although against the Ab-Ex generation, encaustic gives us a sense of the artist's "autograph," even if John strives to keep it "impersonal." He plays with dreams and the picture-puzzle (like that of Surrealist Rene Magritte, see: "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"). Ambiguity lies at the very heart of the work of Jasper Johns, making it very hard to pin down to one movement.
Fun Fact: This is a bit off topic, but while we are looking at Sartre's existentialist theories, we will find artist's reacting to his concept of nonbeing in different ways, both positively and negatively. It is important to note that the word that is translated as "nonbeing" is actually "neant" in french (excuse my lack of accents, i only know how to type them on a Mac), which carries a more loaded meaning, difficult to translate. Some translations in english actually still hold on to the word neant because of this. Note that within the word "aneantir" to annihilate is "neant". Aneantir, to annihilate, to make to waste, to nothing. Moral: Sartre is best said in French.
1.) How do Jasper Johns' emblems "evoke a self that was divided by its own language?"
Background: Jasper Johns painted everyday symbols--a target, an American flag--in opposition to the Abstract Expressionists for whom representation (and worse popular emblems) was taboo. Having a subject, especially one so popularized, the Ab-Ex artists argue, depersonalizes the work, and painting is taken out of its pure state (painting which is simply about painting in and of itself).
The reading describes Jasper Johns work as a play with contradiction and paradox. First of all, the emblem of a flag or a target is both abstract and representational--abstract because they are composed of simple geometric shapes, a circle, a rectangle; representational because they are easily recognizable as a whole.
Encaustics also play a major role in Jasper Johns' style. The wax preserves the artist's brushstrokes, showing method and giving a gestural motion to the painting, (this quality would be desired by the Ab-Ex painter) and yet the strokes become repetitive, dead, lifeless; bringing us back to the impersonal aspect of the work.
The subject matter also has qualities of both the personal and the impersonal. Because the emblems are so easily recognizable, something society as a whole can relate to, they appear extremely impersonal at first glance. However, the flag also alludes to the story that the symbol first appeared to Johns in a dream. Thus, his paintings suggest allegory/alternated meanings/suggested memories. The complication of describing Johns in terms of a movement reiterates the fact that the artist feels divided within himself. His art reflects a paradoxical struggle.
2.)What sets Jasper Johns apart from the Dada movement (or any other movement)?
It is important to know that Jasper Johns was aquainted with Duchamp when considering his label as the "Neo-Dadaist." However, Johns' work does not carry the self-destructive, anarchic theory of Dada. He is more interested in the irony conveyed by Duchamp's work (again we're dealing with paradox here). Duchamp remain a point of reference for Johns, but only for this reason. Johns is not destroying the symbol, he is elevating it to high art by giving it multiple weighted (as well as contradicting) meanings.
The simple answer to this question: Jasper Johns eludes definition because his work carries aspects of many modern movements. Although against the Ab-Ex generation, encaustic gives us a sense of the artist's "autograph," even if John strives to keep it "impersonal." He plays with dreams and the picture-puzzle (like that of Surrealist Rene Magritte, see: "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"). Ambiguity lies at the very heart of the work of Jasper Johns, making it very hard to pin down to one movement.
Fun Fact: This is a bit off topic, but while we are looking at Sartre's existentialist theories, we will find artist's reacting to his concept of nonbeing in different ways, both positively and negatively. It is important to note that the word that is translated as "nonbeing" is actually "neant" in french (excuse my lack of accents, i only know how to type them on a Mac), which carries a more loaded meaning, difficult to translate. Some translations in english actually still hold on to the word neant because of this. Note that within the word "aneantir" to annihilate is "neant". Aneantir, to annihilate, to make to waste, to nothing. Moral: Sartre is best said in French.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
