http://www.vdb.org/smackn.acgi$artistdetail?ACCONCIV
Vito Acconci video page

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/living/2009/06/23/glass.us.jeff.koons.itn.html
Jeff Koons

http://blog.art21.org/2008/12/11/mark-dion-methodology/
Mark Dion (Methodology behind his work)

http://popup.lala.com/popup/360569449467838170
My Bloody Valentine Loveless

http://www.artnet.com/artist/2179/bernd-and-hilla-becher.html
Bernd and Hilla Becher

Its all over and up to us!

As for the book as a whole… all I can really say is whoa. There are a great deal of ideas, opinions, haste conclusions, things I agree with and things I do not. As a creative mind I see its value. Though, as he said in the beginning this is only a sketch of the contemporary issues at hand. I suppose the main thing I have gotten from the reading of this book is that these times are not only socially and economically difficult but also difficult to define as a critic of art. The questions raise revolve around what is valuable. If everything is accessible from home where is its value? As the next generation of artist how will we choose to shape the world around us? Do we engage it? Do we retreat? Do we throw in the towel and grab a beer? I suppose it is for me to decide. It is for you to decide

Lost in translation

Bourriaud brings to light translation in his book a lot. We have discussed it in class and I am still not fully onboard. For not only the social sciences but art as well; we must understand the cultural nuances in order to not separate ourselves from the meaning for another cultures message. However, if you go around translating everything does it lose some of its meaning? Take for example the English word Okay. We all understand this word and many other nations whose language is not English, also have adopted this word because it is so expressive. Another example is Doch, a German word that cannot be translated into a single word. Sometimes we simply do not have the vocabulary to understand the full meaning.

Journey to the center of the adventure

Bourriaud asks a question in regards to the journey. How does one explore when the world has already been discovered? In response to this I must say that exploring is something we all fascinated with. Why do college kids take road trips? Why do some go backpacking around the world? Why are some fascinated with the seas or space? It is because there are doers and there are dreamers. The answer lies in not the exploration but in the adventure. Experiencing something new is a personal journey that allows the individuals spirit to grow. I find this to be a wonderful section of the book. I can relate to this section more than most of the other sections of the book.

Oh puppet master

What do you, who follow my ramblings, think of the idea of a master narrative? I hate to admit it but I think Bourriaud is correct. There is no room for a single stream anymore. There are far too many things occurring all at the same time for there to be a single story teller. I am skeptical that there ever was. There is very little way of telling what the rest of the world was thinking about prior to just recently unless it was written down somewhere. Not so strangely history books are now being written so that they include the rest of the world as oppose to just a western European perspective. Even still these books are hard to come by and marginalized greatly. Just for an example, there is very little history of the Native American written down from a non Eurocentric point of view. The massacre at little big horn, The Boston Massacre… To the “other” they were victories, triumphs, successful engagements. The Eurocentric perspective is now having contention and it is now finally coming out in the art world.

What am I to do?

What is an artist to discuss? I have been saying that art is uniquely personal to both artist and viewer. But now see that isn’t a good enough answer anymore. It doesn’t provide a sound response to anything nor give direction to the art world itself. The small paragraph regarding Hirst, Koons, and Cattelan raised these particular question. Has the artist become a cynic, a critic, on commentator? The philosopher Bourriaud suggests on page 91? If nothing is off limits and no one can say “HEY! Don’t go there!” and no clear defined rules as to what art is or can be where are we? Where does the value of the artist lay? Or is there any value at all? Has the art world finally hit a point of overload?

Some images of Artists discussed

http://www.cmprocess.com/works/other_works
Tsuyoshi Ozawa installation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SE06lHXsBo
Nam June Paik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP03QNPvs80&feature=fvw
Nam Jun Paik :Venus

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8965426400791308088&ei=646BS5imJ4T6lQet5qCkBQ&q=anri+sala&hl=en#
Anri Sala: Purchase not by Moonlight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXtyu4qIsZk
Anri Sala: Spurious Emission

Postproduction me?

How does postproduction affect me?
Up until the moment of this class the ideas of postproduction spent very little time wandering the halls of my mind. Although there was always some inkling of the greater meaning it wasn’t until I actually tried to digest and process these arguments to produce some of my own thoughts. I am still working on understanding the higher meanings. As a creative person not necessarily an artist, I have to consider the issues of copyrights, and “Intellectual property” that comes into play in my own work. Up until now I have always created my own pieces; however, currently I am attempting to use more ready-mades exploring a more conceptual process of creativity. It has been a difficult transition and still ongoing but it plays falls largely in this realm of grey-ness that is the arguments that surround post-production. There is a great deal more processing and reading that needs to be done on my part to see a clearer image of where I fall in this alien realm. I am positive that this class will aid me in this intellectual journey I am undertaking.

John Mackenrow is awesome

The devitalization of history transformed into merchandise and style. Is this how capitalism has absorbed the anti-system?
I feel as though art has always been the voice that yells at society through a long and dark hallway. I think that if art were personified it would similar to John Mackenrow, talented but exceptionally angry and defiant. Just as John Mackenrow was a talented tennis player he marketed as the bad boy of the sport with a heated temper. I think this is very similar to how capitalism treats the creative. Capitalism has taken a high energy subject with what I would consider to be intellectuals and transformed them into mainstream or hot item like merchandise or style.

To a screaming halt

On page 47 the quotation “Aesthetic postmodernism is distinguished by the creation of an imaginary universe of flotation and fluidity that reflects this vast process of deterritorialization by means of which capitalism accomplishes its goal.” I feel as though Bourriaud lost me here. What imaginary universe is he referring to? I re-read this part several times and still was unsure of how he came to this conclusion. Can we discuss this?

Yum Apple Pie

Is art moving away from the symbol in order to confront the real as Bourriaud suggests?
I don’t know if I have the breadth of knowledge to begin to answer my own question, but, I am skeptical at this notion. All images are symbols. Simply from my understanding of language, we as humans must think symbolically. We associate “things” (in the broadest of terms) with meaning. For instance, apple pie, apple, thanksgiving, the harvest, holiday, family, feasting, plenty, ritual, and so on and this may or may not be different for all people. To say that art has or is moving away from symbol or meaning seems to me a horribly generalized statement. I disagree respectfully I suppose. What about you all?

Oh Faith how crazy you are

I was really taken by Alain Badiou quotation “To what are we faithful? To what historical fact are we binding our action?
It is enjoyed taking a moment of reprieve from the dense reading to contemplate this quotation in context to the rest of the reading. My thought process started by looking at the word faith and I began to process. What a loaded word to use. I thought of religion then to our cultural value system, (which I figured was more appropriate) where art fell on this list. I feel as though art falls just short of making the list for the majority of people. I am not entertaining the idea that is not valued; it just merely falls behind kids, food, the mortgage, car payments, school loans, ect. It is a luxury after all, especially in this chaotic time of economic hardship for many. So it seems we are faithful or we value the comforts of peace of mind. We have faith that our material and slavishness will give us some sort of peace or happiness. Perhaps this is why art is so complicated to understand, the value system, it seems to me, is askew.

Stand close stand far

Is it possible to view and appreciate a piece of art without understanding its cultural context?
For a fair portion of the reading Bourriaud discusses this notion of the “other”. I am not sure if I can say clearly one way or another on the matter. I feel as though it is possible to appreciate an object without understanding where it comes from. However, as Bourriaud suggests meaning can be lost in translation “The irreducible remainder”. After doing some thinking about this particular statement, I am not sure how much of anything is fully understood. We all have our own interpretations based on historical, environmental, and social influences. Most things are highly contextual. I feel as though this idea is highly westernized and highly imperialistic. As we discussed in class, the artist is rarely present to delve into the meaning behind his artwork. The viewer is the one that places meaning on the piece in relation to her or himself.

Where to find some super cool images of Rirkrit Tiravanija's work.

www.foodcrypt.com/2009/06/rirkrit-tiravanija/

http://www.artnet.com/artwork/425999301/425932097/rirkrit-tiravanija-cooking-corner.html

http://blogs.walkerart.org/visualarts/2006/08/04/open-ended-interview-doryun-chong/

http://www.artnet.com/artwork/425968837/424237546/untitled-2008-the-future-will-be-chromeping-pong-table.html

http://www.artnet.com/Artists/LotDetailPage.aspx?lot_id=EA75CCB7EC8CA8A4

http://www.artnet.com/Artists/LotDetailPage.aspx?lot_id=96CBA15F7E34018C0930BA7F70BDA106

A "where did you come from question?"

I am unsure of the origins of this particular question; however it came to me after digesting the reading. So I figured that I should share it with those that are following along. With the ever burgeoning technology to explore in context with visual arts is it possible that in the near future physical galleries will start to disappear and digital galleries where all are welcome, provided they pay a small fee via credit card? If these galleries already exist or do exist in the future how will impact the way we view art? If the view is not in actual contact with the art how will art change?

Thanks Bob... these times are a changin

I was surprised at my reaction during particular parts of the reading. One in particular in the beginning of the reading was when he suggested there has been a shift from the ideology of “What can we make that is new?” to the “How can we make do with what we have?” I feel as though there has never been a shift from one to the other. Both have always been in play throughout history. Art, which in my opinion is a combination of forces that impact the artist and the direct results of the time and place that they originated from. The political struggles of the age come out in the work, the atrocities of war appear as well, and because we are in a time when new doors are being opened by technology, do not mean that there has been a shift. It simply means that there is only more information, more impacts, more influences to be internalized. In times of chaos and confusion, things break apart. I see this as one of those times.

The Pondering Wanderer

I could really relate to the work of Tiravanija. I found the “Universally exotic Nomad” exceptional. In my experience while traveling, searching for intangibles, allowing myself to give in to the moment wholly, his conceptual process is very similar to my own. I often feel as though I might be one of these “exotic nomads” that is brought to light in the reading. I also feel that art is an essential part of everyday life and should be encouraged.

Ha, DO IT... yourself?

What do you suppose will happen if the “Do it yourself” paradigm seeps into every layer of cultural production?”

Will Capitalism destroy it or absorb the paradigm to forge a stronger system? If this “Do it yourself” attitude does become a dominant ideology could it be the death of the artist? How does it change the value (both monetary and cultural) of art?

I don’t know if it is possible for this particular attitude to penetrate into every layer of cultural production. There will always be those that prefer the handmade or homemade, however, the majority will prefer the convenience of products supplied for them. If it were possible for this attitude to become the dominate paradigm I believe that it would have the potential to seriously challenge the current social system in which we live. Those that can provide for themselves have no need for the institutions that provide the purpose for the masses. I feel as though art will always hold some value, both cultural and monetarily in all systems. It is our intrinsic nature to be creative and express our own personalities through our actions and façade.

Whoa Copyright

“Are we heading towards a culture that will do away with copyright in favor of free access to work?”

I don’t believe this will be the case. As long as there is any monetary value to be had in products, copyright will always play a part in the process. The issue of copyright is ever evolving especially in the world of art. As more and more art is produced in the digital realm the grey area will continually grow. How many pixels must be changed from its original to meet criteria for a new work? How much can be borrowed? Where do these issues end when dealing with the conceptual?

Grad Art Benjamin assignment

What is the aura of a work of art?

The aura of a work of art is found in its authenticity, timeliness, socio-political stance, historical references, artistic medium, cultural context, personal artistic nuances, and all things that make it a genuinely personal creation. A piece of art is not unlike us; it also carries emotional ties, has its own body language, and can and will be affected by its surroundings deeply and personally. The aura of a work of art can also be found in the interaction between the viewer and itself for the brief moment in time that is shared in some transcendental psychological dialog.

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 not damaged the intrinsic value of art nor has it degraded its cultural significance merely changed specific aspects of the art world and how these changes directly correlate to everyday life. Mechanical reproduction has made artwork more accessible to the commoner and has lessened the sense of the “purity of art” that was predominating in Modernism. With photography and film the artist can keep up with cultural trends, speech, idioms, and their interactions with other cultures. These new technologies enable art to retain more of its authenticity.

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.”

Art’s shift from art of ceremonial objects to those that encompassing the artist’s views and from “private reverence” to “public common place” shows a swing away from the ritualization of art. The reproductive nature of work being done in this day and age has in part destroyed the ideas of the “original”. In some cases there is no “original” (like photographic prints) which is a direct contribution from the age of mechanical reproduction. The arguments that encircle the values of authenticity cease to exist and new issues come into the lime light regarding artistic value, cultural content, and socio-political economics.

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

The vast cornucopia of technological innovations has changed the face of the world. With Globalization the world has become figuratively smaller and the use of technology has opened up new avenues for communication. This communication enables artists to be influenced by an ever burgeoning artistic community. New CAD programs allow for complex model making, new digital technology allows for films and other videos to be taken and edited faster than ever. Projectors, lazers, Micro and Macro lenses, and computers have and will continue to add their influences to new and personal art movements and styles.