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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
