nuoc-water - Tumblr blog

[nuoc-water]

what is the nature of aesthetic experience?

1.  The four major approaches are; affect-oriented, epistemic, axiological, and content-oriented. The affect-oriented approach investigates the nature of the work to evoke some sort of feeling or emotion. Specifically the “affect” in the name of the approach, it examines how the aesthetics in a work will make you feel depending on your personal or dogmatic relationship to said aesthetic. The epistemic approach values the relationship between view and object; it’s somewhat similar to the affect-oriented approach, where it values what the aesthetic does to the viewer, but it’s different because of what relationship is being emphasized. Affect-oriented draws on viewer’s relationship to aesthetic / what society’s relationship to the aesthetic is, while epistemic really heavily focuses on viewer and the work in front of them. Axiological approach seeks out the intrinsic value of the work. The previous two value how the work makes the viewer feel, while axiological sees it at face value and has no regard for the viewer. For example, let’s say a croissant costs 2$, the other two approaches value how the croissant makes you feel and how croissants are a French pastry - axiological just sees it and thinks “that object costs 2$.” Finally, content-oriented approach is the most technical of the approaches. It’s the one most commonly understood; going back to the croissant example, a content-oriented approach would look at the ingredients, how it was baked, if it was burned, and the shape of the form.

2. Carroll sees too much variance in the other three approaches, while content-oriented is the most neutral. The other three are very subjective and dependent on the viewer - even axiological, since the aesthetic value has to be determined by someone or some standard.

3. I see Carroll’s point - in the situation of two people from entirely different continents and class systems, they may look at the same piece and have incredibly different views and value systems. I don’t agree in terms of the initial three approaches being “too varied.” I think that’s the point of art, that what i see and value in a piece is simply that, my own point of view. In an egotistical way, I think the other three are more valuable than content-oriented approach, since you can only know your own aesthetic experience. Content-oriented is a lot more of a universal approach, and is definitely more important for translating the “value” of a work to other people, but at the end of the day I can only see work with my own eyes and my own history, so I like affect-oriented the most.

[nuoc-water]

should the barnes collection have been relocated?

1. Albert C. Barnes was a working class man who assisted in the development of argynol. He became an art collector after being introduced to the culture behind it.

2. The Barnes Collection is the most comprehensive collection of post-Impressionistic to Modern art. It’s more encompassing than most art institutions.

3. Barnes in his life worked hard to create a will for his collection to never fall into the hands of the state or any museum. As soon as he passed a politician attacked the foundation to open it to the public at times against Barnes’ wishes. Lincoln University later gets control of it and tries to sell some of the work to assist in funding of the school. The person in charge at the time played up the narrative that the building needs repairs in order to take the works on tour while the building was being fixed. 

4. There is a lot of controversy since Barnes made a point to make sure that his works never left the building they were in or were exploited to the public that once ridiculed his collection. At the end of the tour of the work, it was showed at the very place that initially ridiculed Barne’s collection, so it was essentially works that were taken around against the intent of the original owner.

5. I feel a lot for both halves of the argument. I don’t like the fact that people took the works of a man who went incredibly out of his way to make sure his works were never taken and shown against his wishes. But on the other hand, there is something to be said about works being hoarded and inaccessible to people. I don’t think I can come to a conclusion because there is just so much on both sides -- the works going on tour raised a lot of money and gave a ton of people the ability to see these never before seen works. But then the rise of popularity for the art being accessible now destroyed the neighborhood it resided in. Moving it would help the neighbors who lived there but also just furthered the damage done against Barnes’ will. It’s just a lot to consider, but in my mind if the works had never been taken out and gone on tour, none of the following symptoms would have happened.

[nuoc-water]

for whom do artists speak and when does memorializing pain become profitable and exploitative?

1. The National Memorial for Peace and Justice is a museum in  Montgomery, Alabama that specifically addresses the horrors of slavery, lynching, and systematic oppression of black peoples historically in America. It uses installation and art to speak on how wide-spread and violently black people have been killed and enslaved in the past century.

2. I believe it is successful in the way that it is the first of its kind. I wasn’t able to get a full read on it’s “success,” but from the article speaking on its different exhibits and art pieces I think it is incredibly long overdue and a necessary step in the right direction. I think a museum of its kind should come with certain limiters - these are real people who have been actually killed so violently by white Americans, so the fact that it has opportunities for pictures or Instagram-trap-like moments is inappropriate. It’s an important space of education, so I feel like white people kind of Have to have access to and be encouraged to go and be made aware of their own biases. At the same time, it’s an incredibly hard thing for a black person to go through in trying to heal from a history they live daily, and the presence of white people makes it feel ironic. I think a museum’s top priority is to educate and personally feel like public black-only spaces in the same vein of the museum should be made for black folks to heal, but the museum is kind of caught in a contradiction and seems to be doing its best. Any interactive “fun” activities sound kind of sick to me; these are real lives and there is no way that some 15 minute activity can make you feel anything like what they had to go through, and I would like to think the Memorial for Peace and Justice has fewer of these than more.

3. It’s a place for empathy, education, and healing. Just its scale and spatial existence is incredibly important to black people trying to heal and understand the trauma and violence made against them historically and daily. At the same time, it is a place for oppressors to go and realize the weight of the violence they have historically cast against black peoples, and how they may still be perpetuating it without realizing it. It’s definitely a hard learning moment for oppressors that people should go through.

[nuoc-water]

modern art on trial

1.  Brancusi was the Parisian sculptor who created multiple abstract ideations of birds / their flight / their essence. 

2. Bird in Space is a bronze sculpture, almost human height in scale. It sits on a cylindrical pedestal atop another square one in installation. The work has some slim tether to the cylindrical form, tapers thin, then wafts out like the feather of a bird. It is smooth and spotless, almost like a blot of ink. Bird in Space uses soft organic curves to suggest a bird flying upward, wind blowing the body back. It has an athletic and aerodynamic form overall.

3. Bird in Space was a fuse that led to the conversation of the legality of abstract art - what its technical validity stood for in transport. Prior, only realistic sculptures were allowed through international customs in America, but Bird in Space’s abstract form didn’t have much resemblance to an actual bird.

4. I feel like my understanding of capital-a “Art” is so loose. An institution shouldn’t be able to qualify something as art vs not art since a lot of art works against structures and institutions. I think if something is made with the intent of art - then it is so. I rarely find myself titling art because I find that titles make it something to be categorized or defined, titles assume that art is “completed” when I personally feel like art is constantly in motion - all art is growing and rotting or being changed at some rate and “finished” works are just works that are left unbothered. Titles may help, but they aren’t necessary, and certainly do not define or contain the entire essence of a piece.

[nuoc-water]

Is the temporary art market good or bad for living artists?

1.  Art is marketed almost like stocks - certain works from certain artists almost come off as investment pieces versus artworks to own. In auction houses there are a ton of ways that art will be framed in order to up the chance of it being sold for a lot. In pamphlets, they might put certain works next to each other to elevate a certain piece or market it in relation to a different artist. Dealers will also advise collectors to buy certain works as pieces that will be sold for higher with time.

2. I feel like as art ages, it’s one of those things that does get more “expensive” with time. Age definitely adds value to work but the term “investment” implies that you are only buying the work to profit later in life. For that reason, I personally don’t see art as an investment. I don’t think I’ve ever bought a piece of art work with the intent to sell it for more money later - it’s moreso something that I intend to keep with myself until I die / some external force takes it away from me.

3. The contemporary art market seems to reflect living artists in a strange funhouse-mirror type of way. It finds artists that are “profitable,” or it deems certain artists as profitable, and elevates them. The contemporary art market seeks out the artists that can be most exploited and values them for that regard. Despite the actual “product” being something abstract with no commodifiable utility, art takes the form of a token with with a currency value that is constantly in flux. The market makes artists vessels to create tokens that work most similarly to stocks, and I personally think that for the artist that it does take a liking to, they definitely get paid - but at what cost? I think the market can either help / destroy an artist depending on how the artist wants their work to be seen and experienced. 

[nuoc-water]

Marxist critical theory: are we living in the “spectacle”?

1. The spectacle is a product of dogmatic values in a society, so it isn’t the society itself, but what the society represents / the bonds that make up the society. I feel like the spectacle is kind of a visual metaphor / summation of the relationships that warrant the society. For example, a taut rope is an image, that can represent a strained relationship between two people. The spectacle is a collection of images that represents and takes from the society.

2. The spectacle represents the society, but it isn’t The society. In being the accumulation of the society, there is a disconnect, where in emulating the meat and bones of the society, it can be mistaken for the society itself. Continuing off the rope example, we can say, the relationship between a mother and daughter isn’t a strained rope, however, the rope represents their relationship entirely. How can we say that the relationship between two people is a piece of rope? It isn’t, while at the same time, is summated by said rope. 

3. The spectacle exists as something “absolute,” something indisputable because a true spectacle is the complete representation of the society. Because of its “absolute-ness” it is something unquestionable, therefore, inaccessible. “The spectacle aims for nothing other than itself.” The spectacle is not accessible to us, as it doesn’t even concern itself with us. It is something untouchable, almost like an Ouroboros, it will only seek itself out which leaves no vessels or alleys for “us” to enter and converse with.

4. I agree, the spectacle directly references and encapsulates the society while completely rejecting access to itself. I believe it is the negation in terms of the contradiction, it directly references the society, which implies it “cares for” the society, then turns around and only addresses itself, without allowing a membrane for the society to permeate the spectacle. It is a floating snake that grew from the land and is devouring itself whole.

[nuoc-water]

does contemporary art need to be transgressive? (#3)

1. The Sacklers were originally 3 siblings who were born in New York and worked as physicians, they contributed great monetary significance to the arts. After their deaths their children continued being involved in the arts both in leadership, organization, and funding. Purdue Pharma is the actual source of income for the Sacklers, which created one of the most addictive prescription drugs on the market that often leads to heroin addictions.

2. Mortimer Sackler got his start in advertising and marketing as a high schooler, which carried on in the way Oxycotin was marketed for Purdue Pharma. The ads were mostly placed in medical magazines, creating the idea that physicians use and trust this medicine, which gained people’s trust. Arthur Sackler was later given an award in medical advertising, and most advertising campaigns for prescriptions are based after his practices.

3. This is relevant in the recent uprising at the Whiteney--one of the big financial supporters was found to also be donating a large sum to the production of the tear gas used at the border, and supporting ICE. The Whitney is a monolith in terms of art institutions, so most people argued that you can’t tear down such a museum with that level of reverence. On the flip side, the Whitney is a well known and respected institution, and I can confidently say that if they declined the funding of someone who supports ICE, it’s little skin off their back. Understanding where money comes from is important, because if it is for your profit, you have to understand that if dirty money is funding your projects, you directly contribute to the exploitation utilized to get that money. (@decolonizethisplace is the Instagram leading the Whiteney conversation if you haven’t been made aware of it Margaret I think you’d really enjoy their profile and the information they work to make public)

4. In some cases, you just need money. I definitely understand the cons of my opinion. For example, if someone comes up to me and offers me an incredible sum to start a gallery / business, I may not question it, and it can be hard to turn down money even if it’s dirty. However, the Whitney and the MMA is doing fine and will continue to be fine considering their history. If I saw the MMA / any major art institution reject money from distasteful funders, it would only raise my support. We’re living in the age of the Internet and accessibility, so dirt rises to the surface. And with that we as a community need to address and grow beyond the support of people like the Sacklers.

[nuoc-water]

does contemporary art need to be transgressive?

1. Freeland brings up the actual skill it took to manifest Piss Christ, the scale and nature of the photo is incredibly difficult and there was a lot of care in choosing the right medium to portray Serrano’s intentions. Freeland also brings up Serrano’s rationale for Piss Christ. I think these are all legitimate reasons - Piss Christ could have very easily just been someone throwing a crucifix in a jar of urine for shock value but Serrano is using Piss Christ as a critique on the commerciality of the Christian religion.

2. Although Serrano had clear intent with the creation of Piss Christ, some may still see it as pure “shock factor” art, Freeland combats that by bringing up more canonically revered artists, in specific, Goya. One of Goya’s most well known works, Saturn Devouring His Son, depicts cannibal infanticide, another very shocking depiction of a deity. She compares the two, and it helps in elevating Piss Christ since Serrano is making a commentary and not just depicting an event like Goya.

[nuoc-water]

does “beauty” in art matter anymore?

1. Hickey sees beauty as a subjective aspect of art, that can either incite pleasure in the viewer or not - so by creating rhetoric / theory around things that are not subjectively enjoyed, it only gives it importance through the act of speaking about it. Hickey thinks art should be inherently meaningful / important.

2. I think that it should be, subjectively. If art needs to be criticized or perverted with external thought / critique then it’s not about the art existing independently anymore. The art then becomes supplemental to something else.

3. They saw “beauty” as corruption of the art market, or perversion from a profitable norm. Hickey mostly had an issue with their standard of beauty being measurable to a standard versus subjective.

4. Hickey believes that beauty is something a part of the art, versus something measurable, like a relation or deviation to a profitable norm like the market.

5. The commercial art market doesn’t care about Hickey’s beauty, and because of that, truly beautiful art is what dominates. It’s ironic how the market doesn’t value beauty / pleasure given by art, but when something is truly beautiful, it completely dominates.

6. I think that beauty, in terms of having a personal attraction to something, is important. I won’t look at something that doesn’t bring me some sort of joy, and I agree that art that needs critique to be relevant isn’t impressive - art should be its own entity and not a supplemental image to a different conversation.