Conformation Boxes
By Linda Ingraham









Suzanne Sheridan

The Radicant

More and more questions arise as I read through Bourriaur's writing, like why must we all systematically describe ourselves based upon circumstances we had no control over. Have you ever heard someone from NYC talk about where they are from? Whether or not you where born in the correct hospital matters on how "original" or "authentic" ones roots to the city are. And while I find this a bit nonsesical, considering the amount of people that are living and born in city everyday, I can also understand their need for identification of thier roots. Increasinly what is more intersesting isn't the fact that people need to tell their "story", but why we find it so hard to let it go. Without our identifying factors, who are we?

One can also see this sub-secting within every title given, or every place on the planet. We have a need to identify and catoragories things down to specific cells floating through ones blood stream. We must know how and why, where it is from and to where it is going. It is part of our "search".

Search for what? I find this identifying factor to be of little or no meaning when relating to my art, but of great significance when it comes to my personal understanding of myself, or others; which indirectly effects my artwork. So am I a rooted tree ? Or am I merely a vine that grows on the outside of a building ?

Either way does it matter... ? Does a root really have to be something tangible?

Could the root just be the way something is done?

Or is it an never ending quest of what preceded that, which was preceded by........ and so on?

More on Bourriaud, The Radicant

In these first few pages of The Radicant, Bourriard explores the fervent nature of the mass produced world we live in.He uncovers the unspoken truth about globalization in the world as well as in art, which has left me with these insights/ questions. How does one understand their true roots in this flattened world? If one can not identify the form from which it orginated, how can one tell whether it has altered from its original form? Have we replaced the sweet aromas, sentual flavors and visual pleasures of our world with "mass produced... Synthetic flavors" meant only for the eurocentric caucasion male? And in order to move away from this ideology, the Radicant must first identify and understand its exsisting ideology before it is able to "set its roots in motion" - pre-globalization, globalized and post-globalization identification needs to happen before we can transplant behaviors and move to someplace new.

BOURRIAUD's POSTPRODUCTION 5 (plus 1) Reflective questions

1: IN UNDERSTANDING THE LINK BETWEEN ARTIST AND ENVIRONMENT, WHAT IS THE CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM OF THE 21ST CENTURY ARTIST AND HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO CONSUMERISM?

BERNARD JOISTEN




2:WITHOUT HUMAN EXPERIENCE DOES "ART" EXIST?

DAN GRAHAM







3:WITH THE MULTITUDE OF CHARACTERS BEING USED IN THE PRODUCTION OF ART AND OUR UNDERSTANDING OF EACH OF THOSE CHARACTERS' IDEOLOGIES, DOES THE ARTIST WANT THE VIEWER TO CREATE A FABLELISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORK BEING PRODUCED? AND DOES THIS BECOME EFFECTED BY OUR OWN PERSONAL ANALYSIS OF THESE CHARACTERS IN THE FRAME WORK THEY ARE BEING DISPLAYED IN?

DOMINIQUE GONZALEZ-FOERSTER




4:HOW HAVE THE TOOLS WE USE TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD CHANGED? HOW HAS CHANGING THE TOOLS WE USED TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD CHANGE OUR WAY OF PRECIECING THE ART OF THE WORLD?

LIAM GILLICK



5:IN REFERENCE TO PARRENO, BOURRIAUD WRITES ABOUT EXPOSING THE "VENTRILOQUIST" AND SHOWING THE HUMANNESS WITHIN THE ORIGINS OF EVERDAY OBJECTS. BY EXPOSING WHO IS BEHIND THE CURTAIN WILL THAT EFFECT THE PRODUCTS MEANING OR CONSUMPTION? WILL IT GIVE MORE MEANING TO THESE EVERYDAY PRODUCTS OR WILL IT ALLOW FOR A DISTINCT SEPERATION BETWEEN ARTIST AND OBJECTS OF CONSUMPTION?

PHILIPPE PARRENO




6:DO YOU THINK THAT WHEN BOURRIAD WRITES, "IT IS UP TO US AS BEHOLDERS OF ART TO JUDGE ARTWORKS IN TERMS OF THE RELATIONS THEY PRODUCE IN THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT THEY INHABIT," THAT HE IS REFERENCING RE-ESTABLISHING THE "AURA" OF THE ART WORK?

In response to, A work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, by Walter Benjamin 1936

Walter Benjamin, a man of careful consideration and introspective thought displays throughout this essay, a highly detailed understanding of a paradigm shift that occurred within society and it's relation to the visual arts after the invention of the camera. With the cameras ability to "perceive more swiftly than the hand can draw," W. Benjamin, the art of being an artist shifted quickly with the vigor of an earthquake’s rattling aftershocks. It disrupted the elusive love affair between brush and canvas. It stole the effectiveness the artist had to capture the feeling within their brush stoke. The camera hatched a new breed of viewers and users, spreading a feverish virus throughout the art world as a whole.

Benjamin describes the act of creating art as ritualistic in form and sewn tightly to cult ideals. Thusly speaking, art was much more than a visible, tangible item; it had allure, it was sought after and admired. The viewer created a connection with the piece they connected to it as a living object. Benjamin describes what they where feeling as the "aura" of the piece.

What is the "Aura" of a work of art? It is the intrinsic potential between the work itself and the viewer. At the very moment that ones eyes gaze upon a new image, there is a chemical reaction. Energy starts to flow, memory cells are dividing, nerve endings reach a core temperature and they begin firing at a rapid pace. Your hypothalamus, a major part of the human brain, actually creates, with in this immediate response, poly-peptides that tell your cells in your body how to react. Right at this moment your mind starts to make correlations; is this good, bad, scary, happy, loving or am I indifferent?

This is happening for one reason and one reason only; you, as the viewer, are trying in every way possible to identify with the image, name it, pin it down; as if it could be only as you see it. Your personal interpretation of the colors, shapes, depth, angle and overall subject matter either draws you closer or pushes you away. Amazingly, it is different for each and every individual that takes the time to look at the image. The aura is the essence a work of art has to offer.

The best part of art, is that it does this all on it's own. No one has to tell it what to do, or how to act, what to say or how to turn a viewers attention to a specific detail. The ART has a voice, its aura, and it is able to reach different octaves to tune into your soul, and grab your attention; that is if you take the time to allow it in.

Film on the other hand, although an art within itself, does almost the exact opposite. Film hold your hand and whispers in your ear. It tells you what to look at and when, and even for how long. Film creates a set scenario from which you can only gain as much information as is given to you. Reading further into what something may or may not mean in film is different from a independent image, in that, there is dialogue, plot, scene changes, and characters with in a film. Again, thusly instructing the viewer, telling them, frame by frame, what is happening; using objects, language and scenarios most understandable to the audience viewing it.

Benjamin carefully investigated the relationship between the viewer and object and how that changed with the explosion of photography and film. In his inspection he uncovered the natural aesthetic achieved in viewing the original version of something. He noted that mechanical reproduction didn't carry over the originals "aura". He stated, "Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be." Here he is touching on the ritualistic effect of the placing, and there after viewing, of art wherever it was intended to go; a church, home, museum, street sidewalk or even a park. This is like seeing a picture of "Gates", by Christo and Jeanne-Claude; instead of having walked through them in Central Park. The aura is lost, the feeling one could have had was stolen away by a flat soundless bit of information known as a photograph.

Furthermore this ritualistic spirochete that had been attached to art for centuries, was single handedly being plucked from the nucleus it thrived off of. The act of going to view a piece of work had been summarized to flattened images in books and a multiplicity of reproductions, none of which could be denoted as the "original". In this Benjamin write, " for the first time in world, history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual." Like the statues in Greece, once though to hold magical powers, all artwork became readably available without journey or deliberation. With this lack of allure, all art was freed and ultimately became flat, ritualistically and other wise. The relationship between art, the churches, higher arching officials and the capitalist of the time, fell apart rather quickly and Modern Art was born.

Is it such that the cameras entrance into the world freed art from its former lifestyle, or is it possible the camera gave was to a new passage through fallow land? With the birthing of Modern, Post-Modern and Alter-Modern Art wouldn't one think it has given more than it has taken away? Notable we have lost arts intrinsic value, but gained free rein, or did we?

Today we live in a land where "far and wide" has become "near and close". Everything is merely a click away. From works of art to videos of your sisters new born baby, we have become accustom to a replica. With Youtube and picture texts, " Any man today can lay claim to being filmed," W. Benjamin. Unfortunately, now a days, that film can be altered to such a point that a video of you holding a baby kitten could be morphed into you killing that very same kitten. Proving the originality of this is becoming increasingly difficult and as Benjamin wrote, " The camera introduces us to unconscious optics as does psychoanalysis to unconscious impulses."

Take from this what you will, but be cautious with your five minute of fame. But remember this, originality stems from authenticity, which is only found within actual human interaction. Shift the paradigm again and help redefine the aura.

In Response to "What is Our Sputnik? by Tom Friedman

The unfortunate situation the USA has placed itself in, is like that of the worlds best Golf player Tiger Woods. We had built up a persona as the greatest untouchable super power of the world; and with this ego trip, we decided to lay in many beds with many different "women". Funny enough, all ego centric super powers are always shocked when the walls of their perfect world come crumbling down around them. We can see this not only in the popularity of the Woods scenario, but in all the latest bubble bursting chaos such as the ENRON crisis, the collapse of AIG, the lack of organization with in FEMA during hurricane Katrina, Madoff's Ponzi scheme and all the growing number of participants within our economic downfall. Information now travels faster than ever, and the aftermath of our actions are much more potent, living in such a flattened world.

This relationship has gone bad and has been publicly broadcasted as our walls crumble around us. This can only end in two ways. One being a breakup and the other is trying to save the marriage. Both with their consequences, and each needs to be looked at throughly before making a decision.

Trying to save the marriage?................ Is it for the kids?
Well lets be real, do the kids want to grow up in a hostile environment not knowing what car is safe and which one is loaded with explosives? This whole idea of holding out hardly ever works, no matter what the circumstances are. In most situations one partner becomes the doer of right, and subsequently the other, the doer of wrongs. A therapist and patient, but not in a willing manner; more like that of a psych-ward pairing. And sometimes the energy within this environment is so volatile, that the roles flip and reverse themselves like a WWE wrestling match, where, as outsiders, we question whether or not the whole thing was planned out to begin with.

Trying to keep it together is draining, hard work. There is never time to sleep or retreat, never time to sit still and regather oneself; but rather minutes filled with plotting and questioning. Creative thinking to manipulate the situation to get things back to the way they where or move past the betrayal. Hours crammed with thinking, only to realize, if you don't give up your stance, holding your ground could result in the break-up you are so carefully trying to avoid.

What this eventually boils down to is acceptance. The only clear way to "save the marriage", acceptance is like reaching the peak on Mt Everest. A brutal journey, with a triumphant end that last for a brief moment before having to traverse back down the ever deadly mountain side. Only to go back to a level ground and deal with everyday problems, all the while never forgetting the peak you climbed.

Second, the idea of breaking up; but with who? We have been playing "extra friendly neighbor" to too many places. Saying that we are devoted to one would be the equivalent to a child promising to never do something ever again.... ever. So within every breakup, we need to weigh the consequences of what might happen. Some breakups are done out of anger, others out of want and still others are done in the dark of the night to escape from the abusive partner. In any situation both parties begin to reel with anger, frustration, self-worth or self-worthlessness, the persistence of memories, and the question of how or why did this happen. That said, there could be a response or back-lash for the lose, or even a complete cutting of ties. Depending upon the type of person, their thought processes, their understanding of the world and their basic psychological homeostasis, the aftermath could look like newly tilled land or a nuclear waste site.

The break-up though usually results, overtime, in a redefinition of oneself no matter what side you where on. It forces you to regain a balance on your own and question your ethics, integrity, ideals and over all trajectory.

I agree with Friedman, that we need to break-up with our, once thought feeble, partners and let them stand on their own. We have been hindering them as well as ourselves in these lengthy relationships. Lets take sometime to reinvent ourselves, and learn from the progress made between China and Taiwan. We need to stop trying to make this toxic relationship with the Middle East and else where, work and instead just accept our losses, lick our wounds and maybe get some therapy. It is time for us to redefine our trajectory and stop, "building bridges to nowhere".

Art 2010

Art in 2010 is so loose; it could be over looked as a mistake, yet so detailed it becomes like the fine work of a spider in the early evening. I would name it the Brief Movement, in correlation to the creation and deterioration of a spider’s web. I feel that this movement began in the late 1980’s with the development of the personal home computer and the Internet. With the increased technological aspect of our world, art has become somewhat lost with in the chaos defined as, “The Flattened World”.
Auspiciously speaking though, I believe we are on the fringes of another huge art trend. The art that is being created today is like the wash for a future body of work. We need to separate and distinguish art from advertisement, in doing so; we will bring forth the “Movement” of our time. With programs such as Art 21 on PBS, educators and artists can utilize their understanding of what is being done and where art is headed.
Some of the most influential artist of the 80’s such as Keith Harring and Jean-Michel Basquait as well as David Hammon began the stepping-stones for the artist of today. In the 90’s artists such as Mariko Mori, Christian Schumann and Ebon Fisher dissected the area between art of yesterday and art of today even further.
Working artist today, such as Pierre Huyghe, who, “...probes the capacity of cinema to distort and ultimately shape memory,” PBS Art 21 magazine, work with such a vast array of materials that it becomes hard to say what type of artist he is. This is also true for artist such as Judy Pfaff, Alfredo Jarr, Jenny Holzer, Cao Fei, Paul McCarthy, Yinka Shonibare, Ida Applebroog and Arturo Herrera. Their work is so vast and multi-faceted; it is hard to predict what maybe next.
The critics of today are not limited to educated professionals, instead art has become incorporated into such a wide variety of objects that we have mangers in corporate offices giving their two cents of what is artistically sound and not. Along side these corporate advertises we still have the public bloggers, magazine writers and educated critics of our time. With that said some of the art critics of the 2010 movement are, John Canaday, Ben Davis, Elisabeth Kley, Richard Scarry and Rachel Wolff.
This multi media, multi-geniuses species of artist on a global level, is profound to even think about. There is so much work going on simultaneously that it is hard to pick the pieces out that will end up being influential. Thusly speaking this quickly moving, ever changing time period that we are standing in now, may seem as if it is producing the art of tomorrow; but I think it is only a small step forward to where art as a whole is going.




Ida Applebroog

















Cao Fei












Huyghe


















Holzer















Pfaff

Post-Modern Art

The Post-Modern Art Movement began around 1930-1950, and still shows face today, time and again; used the modernist movement like a trampoline to project themselves further away from reality/realistic renderings and further into the depths of the subconscious, emotional entanglement of the act that is art. Thrusting itself forward from two major world wars, Post-Modern Art took aim for New York and its liberal democracy, ideas and freedoms.
Art became an action rather than an object; a way of doing something as opposed to the item that displayed something being done, i.e. dancing. Art became a tool, such that of a microscope, to expose humanistic reaction, emotion, aggression, sexuality, social status, and religious orientations of the culture from which the artist was amerced in. It even went as far as having, pop culture/icons hung on walls and denoted as property of the artist.
From action painting to recoding videos, art was vigorous during this time. Exposing the underbelly of society as well as defying its once very well laid out boundaries, the Post Modern era ran ramped like ivy vines on Brooklyn building sides, and its evidence is not only still visible as living vegetation, but marked by the sun bleached satins of the past.
The artist of this time such as; Brenton, Dali and Picasso; all whom I view as overlapping artist from Modern to Post- Modern, Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Alexander Calder, Hans Hofman, William de Kooning, David Smith, Jasper Johns and Andy Warhol; just to name a few, all went through many expansive process throughout their time. The list of important characters of Post-Modern Art is way to long to sieve through to find the larger particles that left lasting impressions upon the rest of the arts community. Any one of the hundreds of artist during this movement that had their work hung, published or cited as reference could be used as an effective means to define the Post-Modern Art Movement.
The materials being used to create art changed drastically during this time too. Artist began experimenting with different mediums such as silk screening, rubber, found objects and house paint. Sculpture opened new doors into its ability to transfer ideas through its use of the leftover scrap metals and rubbers from the booming industrialized market place. Using the use of these new materials became a way for artist like Louise Nevelson, to create a three-dimensional interpretation of what she felt, such as in City on the High Mountain.
Huge shifts happen during this time that opened a lot of doors for individuals on a larger scale to witness and have a say in the art world. Art magazines began being published and publicized while communicating became easier with the popularization of the telephone and the television; information about art and the art world became better well known. Education and communication on a global had changed drastically too, which allowed more people into the art arena. Art was becoming itemized and more useful to everyday people.
Critiques became increasingly bias as well as popularized and spoke about. Critics of this time argued in great length about the very definition of art and the act of creating art. Some of the most notable of these art critics where, Lawrence Alloway, early on; Clive Bell, John Berger, John Canady, Robert Coates, Clement Greenberg and Arlene Raven who all help define this period.
The Post-Modern era is still haunting us today with in the advertisement industry and will surely not be heading to its grave anytime soon. Its effects on the art of today are well known on a global level and seen on a panoramic level when visiting any industrialized city. The Post- Modern Art Movement has become part of our everyday lives, and with out a question or reflection, most people just accept it as a way of life.

Pollock











de Kooning













Rothko



















Kahlo












Johns

Modern Art

The Modern Art Movement began around the middle of the 19th century and carried on up though the middle of the 20th. Stirred up from the post-war and industrial dust flying around Europe, Modern Art grew its roots and began to flourish. In the rest of what were becoming industrialized parts of the world; there had been an increased understanding in philosophical thought as well as technology. With the invention of the camera, Modern Art focused less on preserving historical images and became more focused on “capturing a fleeting moment”, Gardner’s Art Through the Ages 11th Edition.
The main principles associated with this movement are; the depiction life during that time; the jobs, social scenes, industrial accomplishments and cultural aesthetic. Artist also focused on gaining a better understanding of light and color, movement in sketches, emotional conviction, as well as, revealing the underlying structure of forms with in their work. Later the principles of modernism changed again to include more architecture itself, sculpture, sensuality, and expressionistic energy; incongruence with the use of flatter forms, most often seen in aboriginal art; which thusly turned into cubism.
Some of the many artist associated with the Modern Art Movement include, but not limited to, Edouard Manet, Vincent Van Gogh, John Singer Sargent, Claude Monet, Edgar Degas, Mary Cassatt, Paul Gauguin and Paul Cezanne in the earlier years. It later included such arts as, William Morris, Antonio Gaudi, Gustav Klimt, Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso and Marcel Duchamp. Finally, on the cusp of the Post-Modern Era, it included artist such as Max Ernst, Rene Magrite, Thomas Hart Benton and Diego Rivera.
With regard to all the work being created during this time, there were also a fair amount of art historians and critics. Some of the most well known are John Ruskin, whom, “defended Turners landscapes...” based on, “ on the grounds of their empirical accuracy,” Encyclopedia Britannica. Edmond and Jules Goncourt, Albert Aurier and Roger Fry; who’s most notable work was focused on Paul Gauguin’s inability as an accomplished artist, previous to Paul’s death.
Overall the aesthetic character of Modern Art was one of movement and feeling. Whether that was through brush stroke, color use, or the artist use of form to dictate importance; each artist worked carefully to create images that told more than a fact. They conveyed the humanistic element of emotion.



Demuth















Guaguin












Degas















Cezanne












VanGogh