Category Archives: Installations

Artistic Intervention vs. Cultural Production

Posted on by
Reply

The readings for the weeks discussed a question that has been on my mind for the entirety of the semester: namely what is the role of the artist in critiquing the structures of the institutions much of their art is housed in. I appreciated Fraser and Wilson’s interrogation of the museum as a site that reproduces discourses and the humor with which they both went about their critiques. Additionally as someone who doesn’t have a lot of background in art history or art critique it was exciting to read Taylor’s piece on performance art. Before this class I did not have a lot of exposure to what the possibilities for active artistic interventions could look like within the museum space.

In the introduction to Museum Highlights there is a quote from Fraser where she discusses the difference between artistic practice and cultural production. This difference is a helpful framework with which to engage the work of Wilson, Fraser, and the other performance artists that participated in the institutional critique art movement. The difference, Fraser states, is that “cultural production is inherently affirmative, upholding established conventions and conforming to (and reproducing the status quo)”, while artistic practice “challenges, reflects upon, and attempts to transform the structure of the artistic field” (Fraster xxiv). In other words, for Fraser art is about intervention.

Taking this idea of intervention and putting it in conversation with Fraser’s positionality as an artist, it become interesting to look at how her own participation within her performance shifts as she continues to question how best she can continue to move away from cultural production and towards artistic intervention.  In comparing the account of her performance in Museum Highlights to her performance in Welcome to the Wadsworth, one notices how constructing herself as a insider of this world (which she was already, her performative insider construction was simply an exaggeration of her own positionality) distances herself from her tour audience, while at the same time opening herself up for critique as a privileged participant/creator within these institutions. This self serves a different function than her alter-ego Jane Castleton who as a docent was positioned as being much closer to the public and, like the public she guided, constructed as mainly a participant.

Fraser’s work as a performance artist toes the line between participating in cultural production (given the real world feeling of her performance) and artistic intervention. I am curious to hear whether our class considers her interventions a successful balance or a well intentioned critique that falls short of a complete intervention. I am also excited to discuss what the drawbacks and advantages were to the persona of Castleton and her performance persona of herself.


(placing this image here because my favorite moment of all of her work was the moment where where she starts talking about naming the Museum Gift Shop Andrea)

Censorship and Power

Posted on by
Reply

I found myself surprisingly moved by Alma Lopez’s “Silencing Our Lady”. As a female Chicana artist, Lopez faces incredible obstacles to being recognized as an artist. The criticism of her work Our Lady, and the demands of those attempting to censor this work, truly exposes the inherently patriarchal nature of the art world. Her response to attempted censorship further illustrates the dangers of censorship in the art world.
Lopez was told again and again by protesters that she did not have the right to interpret this specific cultural icon in the way she is portrayed in Lopez’s print. I would like to ask: who gave these people the right to declare who can or cannot interpret something through art?
The fact that the main organizers of this protest were male is indeed significant. Because of their status as activists and religious leaders, these men (Jose Villegas, Deacon Anthony Trujillo, and New Mexico Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan) they believe they have the right to censor Lopez’s art. Their notion is patriarchal: they, as male leaders, know better than any woman.
If these men and their followers had succeeded, the installation would have been removed from the exhibit, effectively censoring the print. But, as Lopez questions, how would this affect the people who found inspiration and meaning in her work? What does it mean if people in positions of power are able to silence the expression of marginalized individuals?
For myself, I was glad to learn that Lopez was not censored and that the exhibit continued as planned.

Marina Abramovic: Yes, It Is Art

Posted on by
Reply

In “Conceptual Art and Feminism”, Jayne Wark explores the ways in which the works of four artists (Martha Rosler, Adrian Piper, Eleanor Antin, and Martha Wilson) have challenged the limitations and values of Conceptualism.

In “Why Have There Been No Great Artists?”, art historian Linda Nochlin illustrates that historically the process of creating art depended not on innate talent, but on the social conditions in which the artist lived.

The HBO documentary “Marina Abramovic: The Artist is Present” follows the compilation and execution of Abramovic’s exhibit “The Artist is Present” at the MoMA; simultaneously, the film explores the controversial and emotional world of performance art and the performance artist.

In the documentary “Marina Abramovic: The Artist is Present”, Marina speaks with an interviewer about her artwork. She has always been asked about her performances: “Why is this art?” In thinking about performance, conceptualism, and feminism, the link between contemporary conceptual art and feminism must first be explored.
To begin, what is feminist art? Marina Abramovic is generally considered a feminist artist; she is even called “the grandmother of performance art.” Female identifying artists have largely been absent from art history, as discussed by Linda Nochlin in “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?”. Nochlin concludes, and I agree, that art history as a profession is from the white, Western male viewpoint, and that social conditions rather than lack of talent prevented women from becoming artists throughout history. When considered in this way, feminist art is any art created by a woman.
But in addressing contemporary art specifically, why is conceptual art feminist art? Jayne Wark discusses how artists Martha Rosler, Adrian Piper, Eleanor Antin, and Martha Wilson used conceptualism to critically address the social and political movements of the 1970’s, especially the feminist movements. Their art carried political clout: they were not only creating art for aesthetic value, they were engaging with audiences to make people think. In order to do this, they moved outside the bounds of conceptual art, a move made necessary by the patriarchal nature of the art world.
In the same way, Marina Abramovic’s work is contemporary, conceptual, feminist art. She is a female artist who has gained international recognition (and notoriety) for her performance art. In her performance art, she criticizes: the conceptions of women, the body, society, love, relationships, family, and the individual. Thus her work has political and cultural resonance. So, returning to the original question “Why is this art?”: Abramovic uses performance to engage her audience and evoke thought. Like the women of the conceptual feminist art movement, she must step outside the ‘normal’ and ‘accepted’ views of art (the white Western male view) to gain recognition and acceptance as an artist.

The Negation of Black Artists, Exemplified by Ken Johnson

Posted on by
Reply

In her piece, Kellie Jones introduces us to “Now Dig This! Art and Black Los Angeles 1960-1980”, which focuses on the art of African-Americans in southern California. According to the MoMA PS1 website, the exhibit will be on view from October 21, 2012 to March 11, 2013. The African-American artists of southern California, along with artists of other ethnic backgrounds, helped to further develop and expand the styles and types of American Art, while also expressing the tension of the Civil Rights Movement and the history of black oppression.
However, New York Times art critic Ken Johnson claimed just days after the opening that the exhibit contained an inherent paradox: the style of these artists, particularly the assemblage style, was “appropriated by the artists in “Now Dig This!”. Rather than being expressions of style, Johnson interprets the majority of the exhibit as promoting solidarity among black Americans who experienced (and, in my view, continue to experience) the harsh struggles of race relation in the US. He essentially argues that this divides viewers, as only black Americans will be able to relate.
In all fairness, I am only a student and I have never seen this exhibit, but I cannot believe that Johnson’s critique is correct. To claim that only people of certain backgrounds and races can “feel” art, can appreciate art is inherently wrong. In my opinion, the purpose of art is very well expressed by Ruth Waddy’s idea of “social value”, as Jones describes. Art has the power to make people think, interpret, reflect, and appreciate.
As Jones demonstrates, black artists did often draw inspiration from the Civil Rights Movement, racial tensions and identity, and the violence and oppression of black Americans. But Johnson claims that the only value of this art is in its depiction of these inspirations. At best, this claim reflects a serious misunderstanding of American art, and at worst, this reflects the still-ingrained racist belief in the inferiority of black artists. The art of “Now Dig This” has definite historical value as the work of artists who were marginalized by their race. But it also reflects emerging styles of modern art, including assemblage, photography, and sculpture. To limit “Now Dig This!” as strictly historical in value negates the work of black women and men as artists.