Politics
The author of the essay ‘The Language of Flowers’ Michael Taussig, approaches the issue of violence enacted by humans through the way we analyse visual information.
Taussig shares his experience of being overwhelmed by the beautiful and elaborate plant illustrations by Celestino Mutis from 18th Century Columbian expedition. Taussig recalls his memory of being thrilled when he first opened the book containing Mutis’ illustration, marvelling at the beauty of nature. But then moments later he tells us about being overwhelmed by the realisation that the illustration of flowers directly resembles the display of real human anatomy which had been ‘spread-eagled’ dissected as in medical textbooks fashion. (Taussig194) Here through re-telling of his own experience Taussig is ultimately articulating the concept of visual forms having powerful capacity to outsmart us. In this case within Taussig’s article the discourse surrounding flowers directly stand in for human body. It is interesting that at times visual forms that are so familiar to reality conceal and other times reveal information to us if we choose to pay attention.
However after being informed by Taussig about how Mutis’ flowers are signifying Columbia’s violent political history especially learning about our desire to humanise violence I experienced a strange phenomenon myself. I was drawn to the illustration even more so and simultaneously disgusted. Taussig articulates this oscillation from repulsion to attraction is also what lies behind the logic of mutilation (198). Just as what separates the subliminal beauty of the botanical renderings and violent connotation difficult to describe, ultimately pain and pleasure are not mutually exclusive either. This very phenomenon is what Jacques Lacan calls ‘jouissance’; the sensation of excessive pleasure leading to be overwhelmed and disgusted yet continuing to provide source of fascination (Fink 12). Slavoj Zizek, a cultural theorist with roots in Lacanian psychoanalysis, explains the reception of the September 11 spectacle as a manifestation of this jouissance (Zizek 11). As the disturbing image played repeatedly again and again at a global scale, we experienced satisfaction from being horrified and fascinated as we were transfixed before the television screens (17). So again the fine line between humour and violence operates just like the logic of jouissance does.
-Michael Taussig’s background as a medical doctor and an anthropologist produce a dialectical criticism involving human body and culture and this is done through his distinctive narrative style in essays.
Fink, Bruce. The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance, Princeton University, Princeton 1995.
Taussig, Michael. “The Language of Flowers”, Walter Benjamin’s Grave, The University of Chicago Press, 2006
Zizek, Slavoj. “Passions of the Real”, Welcome to the Desert of the Real. London: Verso, 2002
Monday, June 7, 2010
How does creative practice sit within the systems of power and exchange?
Economies/Systems of Power
Power and exchange that exist in the current art world is central to Gerald’s writings as an art critic. This article is published in his book, ‘Interviews’ where this concept is discussed extensively through interviews with many different artists.
The conductor of this interview with Amal Kenawy, Matt Gerald brings attention to the issue of the government in Egypt; the Ministry of Culture- monopolising art institutions. And he questions what the limitations within such system means for practising artists. Kenawy responds that this repressive system centralises not only the opportunities but ideas for artists as well (Gerald 137). But we should note this power struggle does not only deliver negative outcomes. As Kenawy elaborates the effect of counter-active force behind artistic community against Goliath figure of national art institute in Egypt had been positive and the credit is due.
Because private galleries usurping the authority of national institution catalyze artists to move beyond the confines of the national, (Meier 36) stopping the artists from falling back to outmoded narratives of cultural identity fixed by a specific sense of place and time.
Kenawy then identifies the problem that has risen from the issue discussed above. The issue is the monopoly of state art insitutuion had led to a lack of research for artists because some solely rely on the system (Gerald 138). I agree with Kenawy’s concern on this issue. I guess what the state of Egypt does not understand or not wanting to acknowledge is the strength of research-based art in itself. And what they are not seeing is that artistic practice should not be confined to finality of a product for the sake of exhibition. Sean Snyder who’s practice is heavily weighted by the amount of research he carries out tells, practice of art is about questioning rather than illustrating, being self-reflexive without guarantee. (Snyder 3) It is at this point which enables me to come to a conclusion perhaps the exertion of control in the cultural domain in Egypt is due to the anxiety of not wanting to lose control over their representation of national identity. Strictly in fear that new emerging research-based Egyptian artists will not bring something ‘final’ to their table that says something national, something patriotic.
Gerald, Matt. “Amal Kenawy”, Gerald matt ed., Interviews 2, Vienna: Kunstalle Wein, 2008.
Meier, Prita. “Territorial Struggles: Cairo and Contemporary Art”. Journal of Contemporary African Art. Spring/Summer 2003: 34-39
Snyder, Sean. “Disobedience in Byelorussia: Self-Interrogation on ‘Research-Based Art’”, e-flux journal, #5, 04/2009, accessed from http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/57
Power and exchange that exist in the current art world is central to Gerald’s writings as an art critic. This article is published in his book, ‘Interviews’ where this concept is discussed extensively through interviews with many different artists.
The conductor of this interview with Amal Kenawy, Matt Gerald brings attention to the issue of the government in Egypt; the Ministry of Culture- monopolising art institutions. And he questions what the limitations within such system means for practising artists. Kenawy responds that this repressive system centralises not only the opportunities but ideas for artists as well (Gerald 137). But we should note this power struggle does not only deliver negative outcomes. As Kenawy elaborates the effect of counter-active force behind artistic community against Goliath figure of national art institute in Egypt had been positive and the credit is due.
Because private galleries usurping the authority of national institution catalyze artists to move beyond the confines of the national, (Meier 36) stopping the artists from falling back to outmoded narratives of cultural identity fixed by a specific sense of place and time.
Kenawy then identifies the problem that has risen from the issue discussed above. The issue is the monopoly of state art insitutuion had led to a lack of research for artists because some solely rely on the system (Gerald 138). I agree with Kenawy’s concern on this issue. I guess what the state of Egypt does not understand or not wanting to acknowledge is the strength of research-based art in itself. And what they are not seeing is that artistic practice should not be confined to finality of a product for the sake of exhibition. Sean Snyder who’s practice is heavily weighted by the amount of research he carries out tells, practice of art is about questioning rather than illustrating, being self-reflexive without guarantee. (Snyder 3) It is at this point which enables me to come to a conclusion perhaps the exertion of control in the cultural domain in Egypt is due to the anxiety of not wanting to lose control over their representation of national identity. Strictly in fear that new emerging research-based Egyptian artists will not bring something ‘final’ to their table that says something national, something patriotic.
Gerald, Matt. “Amal Kenawy”, Gerald matt ed., Interviews 2, Vienna: Kunstalle Wein, 2008.
Meier, Prita. “Territorial Struggles: Cairo and Contemporary Art”. Journal of Contemporary African Art. Spring/Summer 2003: 34-39
Snyder, Sean. “Disobedience in Byelorussia: Self-Interrogation on ‘Research-Based Art’”, e-flux journal, #5, 04/2009, accessed from http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/57
What does it mean to have a creative practice here in New Zealand?
Place
Response to Catherin David and Irit Rogoff's discussion from "From Studio to Situation".
In this article, Irit Rogoff raises an interesting issue from a curator’s perspective, the concept of site-specificity.
Rogoff shares there is a similarity in the way contemporary artists approach the site and the way cultural anthropologists work with sites. The methodology cultural anthropologists employ when approaching site is through a concept of fieldwork. (David and Rogoff 86) Often called as rapport in their terms, it is defined as ‘establishing a good trusting relationship with a subject of investigation through personal contact’ (Bernard 16) explicitly in the context of ethno-anthropology. According to Rogoff this model of engagement is embodied in Hans Haacke’s works on MOMA NY Real Estate (David and Rogoff 86). Haacke’s site-spefific artworks have directly engaged with ‘place’, a location. It seems like a faithful vow has been made to reveal and uncover the truth about the site by investing personal time to get to know the place as you would exactly in a inter-personal relationship.
This notion of engaging with site through art making cannot ignore a socio-culturally loaded factor. Rogoff supplies an example of Israeli artist Avital Geva successfully being able to fuse the national rhetoric yet still deliver a site-specific production that is not outdated. This made me think about what kind of position New Zealand is up against. As Robert Leonard from the Round Table discussion tells us the dominant master-narrative of decolonisation heavily presides over New Zealand art criticism (Barton 24) if you are involved with addressing the site, the land. So this automatically embedded socio-cultural theory obscures where the real attention to be paid towards. (24) This is a difficult position for site-specific artist in New Zealand to be in. I guess extra caution is needed to take heed because there is nothing like unwanted interpretations of your work hijacking audience and critics away from the actual discussion you intended to open up.
-This article was published in From Studio to Situation, a book looking at artistic criticism and practice of context and site-specificity in the production of contemporary art.
Both David and Rogoff are writers, critics and curators actively involved in contemporary art world internationally. Robert Leonard is the director of the Institute of Modern Art in Brisbane, Australia.
Bernard, Alan. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge, UK :Cambridge University Press, 2000
Barton, Christina. “Round Table: The State of Art and Discourse in New Zealand” Reading Room: A Journal of Art and Culture. Issue 03 (2009): 6-29. Print
Catherine David and Irit Rogoff. “In Conversation”, in Claire Doherty ed., From Studio to Situation, London: Black Dog Publishing, 2004
Response to Catherin David and Irit Rogoff's discussion from "From Studio to Situation".
In this article, Irit Rogoff raises an interesting issue from a curator’s perspective, the concept of site-specificity.
Rogoff shares there is a similarity in the way contemporary artists approach the site and the way cultural anthropologists work with sites. The methodology cultural anthropologists employ when approaching site is through a concept of fieldwork. (David and Rogoff 86) Often called as rapport in their terms, it is defined as ‘establishing a good trusting relationship with a subject of investigation through personal contact’ (Bernard 16) explicitly in the context of ethno-anthropology. According to Rogoff this model of engagement is embodied in Hans Haacke’s works on MOMA NY Real Estate (David and Rogoff 86). Haacke’s site-spefific artworks have directly engaged with ‘place’, a location. It seems like a faithful vow has been made to reveal and uncover the truth about the site by investing personal time to get to know the place as you would exactly in a inter-personal relationship.
This notion of engaging with site through art making cannot ignore a socio-culturally loaded factor. Rogoff supplies an example of Israeli artist Avital Geva successfully being able to fuse the national rhetoric yet still deliver a site-specific production that is not outdated. This made me think about what kind of position New Zealand is up against. As Robert Leonard from the Round Table discussion tells us the dominant master-narrative of decolonisation heavily presides over New Zealand art criticism (Barton 24) if you are involved with addressing the site, the land. So this automatically embedded socio-cultural theory obscures where the real attention to be paid towards. (24) This is a difficult position for site-specific artist in New Zealand to be in. I guess extra caution is needed to take heed because there is nothing like unwanted interpretations of your work hijacking audience and critics away from the actual discussion you intended to open up.
-This article was published in From Studio to Situation, a book looking at artistic criticism and practice of context and site-specificity in the production of contemporary art.
Both David and Rogoff are writers, critics and curators actively involved in contemporary art world internationally. Robert Leonard is the director of the Institute of Modern Art in Brisbane, Australia.
Bernard, Alan. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge, UK :Cambridge University Press, 2000
Barton, Christina. “Round Table: The State of Art and Discourse in New Zealand” Reading Room: A Journal of Art and Culture. Issue 03 (2009): 6-29. Print
Catherine David and Irit Rogoff. “In Conversation”, in Claire Doherty ed., From Studio to Situation, London: Black Dog Publishing, 2004
Sunday, April 11, 2010
What is the theoretical horizon within which contemporary practice is understood?
Art Now
Cuahtemoc Medina's "Contemp(t)orary: Eleven Theses"
Note the comment made below refers to the post made previous to this updated version
In ‘Contemp(t)orary: Eleven Theses’, Cuahtemoc Medina questions where contemporary art sits within the society now. He articulates a concept that contemporary art has become the last refuge for political and intellectual radicalism (Medina 6). He convincingly argues for this position and in the end I am made aware contemporary art is not only a physical shell but a nurturing physical shell, that harbours ‘leftist thought to circulate as a major pubic debate’ (6). This is interesting when we think about different artists engaging with what could be defined as the left leaning theories of post-Marxism and deconstruction critique as a drive force and a touchstone behind their practice. The so-called radical discourses still exist within the framework of academic journals and such but struggles to stretch beyond this context. Whereas in contemporary art, the capacity to open these discourses up had been proven. The models of participatory form of exhibitions, artist talks and discussion panels initiated by art institutions powerfully bring intellectual radicalism together.
However when Medina mentions the concept contemporary art is the new aristocratic populism (Medina 2) I disagree with this position. It sounds like Medina is trying to stuff ‘contemporary art’ into a suitcase of existing political form; populism. This term populism could be understood as an affect created by a discourse that promises unrealistic solutions to a problematic democratic procedure. (Blom 28)
This position is rather naïve in trying to view art as an expressive realm expecting an affect to be created ‘for’ the people, seems passive. Medina’s notion of art as populism is what the Russian avant-garde artists of the past such as Dziga Vertov had envisioned; making art that exists for people. Instead in the context of contemporary art, public exists for art to happen. As evident in artist Superflex’s engagement, the social within real and economic time triggers artistic production to be materialised. (Blom 35)
-Cuahtemoc Medina’s article was published in online journal e-flux, famous for being autonomous from other art institutional affiliations,
Medina’s background as art historian and a critic of Latin American art adds socialist insight, meets e-flux’s format, resulting in Elven Theses.
Medina, Cuahtemoc. “Contemp(t)orary: Eleven Theses”, e-flux journal, #12, 01/2010, accessed from http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/103
Blom, Ina. “‘Until the Principles of Form are applied to Democracy…’, Avant-garde Art and Populist Imagination”. The Populism Reader New York: Lukas & Sternberg, 2005
Cuahtemoc Medina's "Contemp(t)orary: Eleven Theses"
Note the comment made below refers to the post made previous to this updated version
In ‘Contemp(t)orary: Eleven Theses’, Cuahtemoc Medina questions where contemporary art sits within the society now. He articulates a concept that contemporary art has become the last refuge for political and intellectual radicalism (Medina 6). He convincingly argues for this position and in the end I am made aware contemporary art is not only a physical shell but a nurturing physical shell, that harbours ‘leftist thought to circulate as a major pubic debate’ (6). This is interesting when we think about different artists engaging with what could be defined as the left leaning theories of post-Marxism and deconstruction critique as a drive force and a touchstone behind their practice. The so-called radical discourses still exist within the framework of academic journals and such but struggles to stretch beyond this context. Whereas in contemporary art, the capacity to open these discourses up had been proven. The models of participatory form of exhibitions, artist talks and discussion panels initiated by art institutions powerfully bring intellectual radicalism together.
However when Medina mentions the concept contemporary art is the new aristocratic populism (Medina 2) I disagree with this position. It sounds like Medina is trying to stuff ‘contemporary art’ into a suitcase of existing political form; populism. This term populism could be understood as an affect created by a discourse that promises unrealistic solutions to a problematic democratic procedure. (Blom 28)
This position is rather naïve in trying to view art as an expressive realm expecting an affect to be created ‘for’ the people, seems passive. Medina’s notion of art as populism is what the Russian avant-garde artists of the past such as Dziga Vertov had envisioned; making art that exists for people. Instead in the context of contemporary art, public exists for art to happen. As evident in artist Superflex’s engagement, the social within real and economic time triggers artistic production to be materialised. (Blom 35)
-Cuahtemoc Medina’s article was published in online journal e-flux, famous for being autonomous from other art institutional affiliations,
Medina’s background as art historian and a critic of Latin American art adds socialist insight, meets e-flux’s format, resulting in Elven Theses.
Medina, Cuahtemoc. “Contemp(t)orary: Eleven Theses”, e-flux journal, #12, 01/2010, accessed from http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/103
Blom, Ina. “‘Until the Principles of Form are applied to Democracy…’, Avant-garde Art and Populist Imagination”. The Populism Reader New York: Lukas & Sternberg, 2005
Saturday, March 27, 2010
What does it mean to work with theoretical material as a creative practitioner?
On Theory & Practice- Response to'Thomas Hirschhorn: Philosophical Battery' by Craig Garrett
In the interview article on Thomas Hirschhorn the rather unusual method of artistic practice is revealed. The concept of risking transgression (Garrett 90) for creative production to take place is what is central to understanding his practice.
After reading this article I noticed there is a double layer of this concept transgression at play. Interviewing Hirschhorn is Craig Garrett who brings up this gesture of transgression and labels it‘an act of supreme irreverence’ (90). The philosophical theory is used much like duct tapes, plastered all over Hirschhorn’s objects. This decisive act could be seen almost as a criminal offence to some audiences at first glance. But I realised the way Hirschhorn really engages in with this concept is through questioning philosophy’s place within society. Theorists in the past have called philosophy as ‘the germ of life and the point of departure for the Revolution’ (Marx quoted in Merleau-Ponty 57). So because of the regal position philosophy had claimed over other pedagogical fields, we put so much belief and faith in philosophical theories. And Hirschhorn critiques and challenges this position. Precisely the theories of Bataille and Faucault have been ‘dragged out from the gold standard vaults’ (Garrett 90) and mixed up with what we see as ‘junk’ in the exhibition display.
Also this interview is a very document of transgression taking place and I realise that it must be the initial moment of transgression which fascinates and attracts Hirschhorn. So how does Hirschhorn himself view philosophy? He says philosophy is art, philosophy is material, philosophy is the engine to his practice. But as I have found out he contradicts by saying that he does not have to understand philosophy. (Garrett 92) Through contradictions, the boundary has been crossed over and this is how Hirschhorn activates Bataille and Foucault’s original concept of transgression. However this is not necessarily a negative thing. As Foucault has stated ‘transgression is not about a victory over limits…and does not seek to oppose one thing over the other’ (Foucault 35). This is exactly how Hirschhorn stays as a fan of philosophical theory yet makes transgressive gestures without being a pedagogical failure.
- This interview was published in Flash Art on the eve of Hirschhorn’s opening of ‘24hr Foucault’. Craig Garrett the writer and conductor of the interview who was also the editor of magazine at the time, I assume the focus was not to criticise but to promote.
Garrett, Craig. "Thomas Hirschhorn: Philosophical Battery". Flash Art. No.238 Oct 2004
Foucault, Michel . Language, Counter-memory, Practice: Selected essays and Interviews. by Michel Foucault Ed. Donald F. Bouchard. New York : Cornell University. 1977
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. “Philosophy and Non-philosophy since Hegel”. Philosophy and Non-Philosophy since Merleau-Ponty. Ed. Hugh J. Silverman. New York: Routledge, 1988
In the interview article on Thomas Hirschhorn the rather unusual method of artistic practice is revealed. The concept of risking transgression (Garrett 90) for creative production to take place is what is central to understanding his practice.
After reading this article I noticed there is a double layer of this concept transgression at play. Interviewing Hirschhorn is Craig Garrett who brings up this gesture of transgression and labels it‘an act of supreme irreverence’ (90). The philosophical theory is used much like duct tapes, plastered all over Hirschhorn’s objects. This decisive act could be seen almost as a criminal offence to some audiences at first glance. But I realised the way Hirschhorn really engages in with this concept is through questioning philosophy’s place within society. Theorists in the past have called philosophy as ‘the germ of life and the point of departure for the Revolution’ (Marx quoted in Merleau-Ponty 57). So because of the regal position philosophy had claimed over other pedagogical fields, we put so much belief and faith in philosophical theories. And Hirschhorn critiques and challenges this position. Precisely the theories of Bataille and Faucault have been ‘dragged out from the gold standard vaults’ (Garrett 90) and mixed up with what we see as ‘junk’ in the exhibition display.
Also this interview is a very document of transgression taking place and I realise that it must be the initial moment of transgression which fascinates and attracts Hirschhorn. So how does Hirschhorn himself view philosophy? He says philosophy is art, philosophy is material, philosophy is the engine to his practice. But as I have found out he contradicts by saying that he does not have to understand philosophy. (Garrett 92) Through contradictions, the boundary has been crossed over and this is how Hirschhorn activates Bataille and Foucault’s original concept of transgression. However this is not necessarily a negative thing. As Foucault has stated ‘transgression is not about a victory over limits…and does not seek to oppose one thing over the other’ (Foucault 35). This is exactly how Hirschhorn stays as a fan of philosophical theory yet makes transgressive gestures without being a pedagogical failure.
- This interview was published in Flash Art on the eve of Hirschhorn’s opening of ‘24hr Foucault’. Craig Garrett the writer and conductor of the interview who was also the editor of magazine at the time, I assume the focus was not to criticise but to promote.
Garrett, Craig. "Thomas Hirschhorn: Philosophical Battery". Flash Art. No.238 Oct 2004
Foucault, Michel . Language, Counter-memory, Practice: Selected essays and Interviews. by Michel Foucault Ed. Donald F. Bouchard. New York : Cornell University. 1977
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. “Philosophy and Non-philosophy since Hegel”. Philosophy and Non-Philosophy since Merleau-Ponty. Ed. Hugh J. Silverman. New York: Routledge, 1988
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)