torymansfieldah-blog

[torymansfieldah-blog]

Contextualizing non-Western Artworks

I really don’t think I grasped this reading, so please excuse me if I completely butcher this.

What do etic and emic mean?

Etic and emic are two different approaches to trying to explain the social realities observed when doing fieldwork as an anthropologist. Etic is the perspective of the observer, while, emic is the perspective of the studied social group. The emic wants to enter as far as possible into their world. However, the etic knows that we can not do this, they believe we are only able to see things through our own point of view. 

What examples does Rex Butler give of emic and etic interpretations of Emily Kame Kngwarreye’s work?

When Butler is talking about the work of Kngwarreye, he brings up several critics names arguing that many were unwilling or not grasping the conflicts that arose in Kngwarrey’s pieces. He discusses how several critics have compared her work to that of Monet, Pollock, or Kline. The writer talks about Anne Marie Brody’s opinion in the article and how she has had close contact with the Utopian community. He also references Phill Morrissey’s essay which discusses just how irreconcilable these issues are.

Why does Butler think that attempts to make emic interpretations of Kngwarreye’s work, while valuable, must always “stand accused…of once again repeating European biases?” Do you think Butler’s believe is correct?

I do think Butler is correct in saying this. When he discusses this he is referring to Benjamin’s analysis. Basically, he is saying that by writing these emic interpretations of the work, you are doomed to repeat the same European biases as before. We don’t know the perspective of Kngwarreye and we don’t know the thoughts she went through to create these works of art. However, if we assume, if we assume we know their culture, their lifestyle, then we are doomed to come off arrogant. We will always stand accused if we truly believe we can understand another country’s way of living. 

Please include an image of Kngwarreye's work in your blog post and properly label it.

Emily Kame Kngwarreye, Earth’s Creation, 1994, synthetic polymer paint on linen mounted on canvas, four panels (private collection).

How do you think non-western, indigenous works should be curated?

I think non-western works need to be curated differently. I think it is the assumption that these works are speaking to or about us when they are not. Perhaps, more clarity is needed in non-western works. For example with Kngwarreye’s work, it was uncertain to what counties she was speaking to. Obviously, she was commenting on the issues in Australia, her home. However,  the viewpoint radically changes when the audience is not from Australia. I believe there needs to be more clarity, however, still it is open to interpretation and the audience will view it as they please. They will decide their own meaning to a piece.

Rex Butler, "Emily Kame Kngwarreye and the Undeconstructible Space of Justice", Art of the Twentieth Century: A Reader, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003, pp. 304-319.

[torymansfieldah-blog]

The Art of the Steal

Who was Albert C. Barnes?

Albert Barnes was a doctor, businessman, and a collector. He founded the Barnes Foundation in Merion, Philidelphia. Barnes collected the most valuable  Post-impressionist and early modern art in the world. Barnes created an intimate space arranged by aesthetic value. The collection was formed on the realization of a set of ideas. Albert Barnes also invented Argyrol, which was used as a preventative to treat gonorrheal blindness and other infections in the eyes of newborn infants. Barnes was hated by many in the Philadelphia area but especially Walter Annenberg, who ran the Philadelphia Inquirer. 

What is the Barnes collection?

The Barnes collection was created in 1922 by Albert Barnes. The collection contained some of the most valuable and important Post-impressionist and early modern art in the world. It contained works like Card Players by Cezanne and La danse by Matisse. The collection contained several great artists such as Matisse, Van Gogh, Cezanne, Renoir, etc. Barnes created an intimate space arranged by the aesthetic value of the work. He transformed the space into an educational foundation that was never to be sold or loaned, preserved for all time. Barnes’s collection brought together works from different times and movements to put them on a level playing field of aesthetics. It furthered the point that human existence is, all the same, we are all the same, no matter where we come from or what background. The art spoke to each other because of the meticulous way he hung and organized the work. “Art isn’t separate from life, it is life.” 

What happened to the Barnes collection after Albert Barnes passed away?

After Albert Barnes passed away in 1951, Violette de Mazia became President of the collection. She was Barne’s right-hand woman and also fell in love with her passion for education. When she passed, the foundation was assumed to be passed on to the Academy of Fine Arts, however, Barnes kept changing his will. The Barnes collection was actually passed onto Lincoln University, where Franklin Williams becomes President of the collection. Williams dies of cancer within the year of his presidency of the collection. This is when Richard Glanton becomes President of the foundation. Glanton wanted to make money off the collection, realizing the potential he had to make a profit. He works to argue in court that the Barnes building is falling apart and is in complete disrepair. He pleads to take the paintings on tour to make money for the renovations of the building. Glanton later proposes plans for a parking lot to accommodate more visitors. However, this goes south when neighbors get angry over the large buses shoveling people into the neighborhood to view the collection.  Richard proposes a lawsuit against the neighbors, arguing that they are motivated by racial concerns, even going as far to invoke the Ku Klux Klan Act. The whole case was eventually thrown out because there were no signs of racial hostility in any form. This is when Bernie Watson took over the presidency of the collection after the foundation was accused of pissing away all the money. Bernie Watson negotiated a deal with Philidelphia foundations that cut Lincoln out of all decision making. The foundations were willing to give money but only if they gained control. They allowed for more board members which took away Lincoln’s majority rule over the collection. This is when people like Rebecca Rimel and Ray Perelman began to argue for the move of the collection to Parkway. They held large parties celebrating proudly what they had done. Although it was never discussed who was able to convince them to put 100 million in the state budget, we know the handful of political forces responsible. For two years this debate was discussed in court and still, the judge decided not to investigate the matters brought up in the petition against moving the collection. The judge nor the public was never made aware of the money that suddenly appeared in the state budget for the move. However, in 2012, plans for the collection to be removed and moved to Parkway took place all because of the push of political powers such as the governor, PEW, etc.  

Why is there controversy surrounding this collection?

There’s huge controversy around the move of the collection because it completely disregards the will of Albert Barnes. The state of Philadelphia used political power to steal the collection to make money and draw in tourists. Political figures such as Richard Glanton and Rebecca Rimel followed their own greed and need of fame, getting a rush of what this collection could mean for them. The governor, Rendell, put pressure on Lincoln University to give up the Barnes collection, promising money to a school that was bad-off in terms of money. Bernie Watson negotiated the deal that cut Lincoln out of the decision-making process. Once foundations like PEW took over the majority role by adding more board members to the foundation, Lincoln no longer had a say in what happened to the collection. These issues caused uproars among neighbors and Friends of Barnes, arguing that this was unjust and blatantly stealing the work of Albert Barnes. People were outraged, so much so, that the controversy was discussed in court for more than two years. This case led to the realization, that art is not safe in the hands of political forces. It sacrifices the humanity of the work, the original intention of the work.

Do you think it is a good idea to move the collection? There are valid points for both keeping the collection where it was and for moving it – what are they? What do you think?

No, absolutely not. I recognize some of the possible benefits of moving the collection, however, you can’t. The court never should have allowed this to happen. They completely ignored Albert Barnes’s will and stole his collection. They sought the opportunity immediately after his death in 1951, already beginning to search for loopholes to completely undermine everything this man had worked for. If it was stated clearly in his will, that the work should not be removed, sold, or any moved from the building. Barnes said before death that it was to remain as an educational institution. Then it should and absolutely must remain that way. This was his work, he owned it, therefore, even after death, he should absolutely get to decide what happens to the work. What these political figures did was disrespectful and stealing the work of someone else. To put it bluntly, they stole the art from a dead man. However, one of the valid arguments they had was that moving the Barnes collection to Parkway would allow it to be seen by many. I suppose if they kept the same educational driven goal as Barnes it may have been alright, but their intentions were vastly different. Richard Glanton, who eventually took over as President of the Barnes collection said, “We’re gonna make a lot of money.” He even argued at one point that he, “brought Barnes out of the dark ages,” and that he couldn’t understand why people were angry with him. He got high from the fame the collection brought to him, speaking about meeting queens and how thrilling this new life was to him. Political powers also argued that the building that housed the collection was deteriorating and would destroy the paintings. Also arguing when neighbors were outraged by the influx of visitors, that they could not accommodate enough visitors if the collection were to remain in Merion. Later in the film, you see that Mongomery county works to change the zoning so more visitors could come, but the foundation said they were simply not interested. One of the best points brought up was: if they have all this money to move the building why not simply renovate the building that the collection was meant to be seen in. This just furthers the point, that these political forces wanted it moved no matter what. They wanted to profit off the beautiful collection a man sought everything to protect from commercial exploitation.

The Art of the Steal, directed by Don Argot, 2009.

[torymansfieldah-blog]

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

What is the National Memorial for Peace and Justice? What is its function?

The National Memorial for Peace and Justice is a memorial and reminder of the brutality of the lynching campaign that took place in the wake of the Civil War. This campaign terrorized African American communities. The monument is open to the public in Montgomery, Alabama.  The Equal Justice Initiative, a non-profit organization, pushed for the new museum and the memorial in hopes that the replicas would be claimed by the countries represented. 

Is it successful in carrying out this function?

After reading both articles, I’m very conflicted about the successfulness of the museum and the memorial spaces. I feel that it is important to have conversations like the one created by these two spaces in Alabama, however, I’m also aware of the pain re-lived by African American visitors. Especially after reading the second article, where the writer describes, “I walked faster than I had to in order to outpace any white people around me who might distract me from my grief...” I struggle with this, especially after he described white people walking around taking pictures on their phones of the monuments. I agree that social media should not be used to repost images of brutality and violence against African Americans. And while I do see the validity of his statements, by saying that these images are just being reposted by an already racist society is doing more harm than good. I’m not sure that creating a space where no conversation about these events is a good idea. I mean in the way he is wording it, it almost sounds as if no one should be allowed to mourn or understand the loss of these human beings. I think there should be a conversation, there needs to education on topics and events such as this taking place, because if we don’t we are doomed to repeat past mistakes. I’m not sure that completely eradicating all conversation just because something is difficult or not easily understood by white people is the answer to this layered issue. I’m not saying I don’t recognize the pain shared by the black community by saying this. I just worry that if we push away this tough discussion, we may be doomed to repeat past mistakes.   

Describe how people can use this space.

I already mentioned above that some of the white members of the community decided to use the space in vile and disrespectful ways. Using cell phones to photograph the tragedies that occurred in the past. Not even using this space as a way to reflect and mourn the dead, it seems some have completely missed the point of the intended use of the space. Although, many probably more-so the African American community, use the space to reflect and mourn the loss of the dead. I would hope that this space is successful in making people more aware of the brutality that went on during the lynching campaign. However, unfortunately, I don’t believe everyone will use the space in good nature. They bring up the point that many used photographs as memorabilia of the lynchings that took place. This trend seems to continue even today amongst white people and it’s difficult not to be disgusted with my own race. However, I do believe that not all have such ill and grotesque intentions. I hope this space can be appreciated for its true intentions, which was to memorialize the dead but also to serve as a powerful reminder of our terrible and shameful past so that events like this would not take place again.

Brigit Katz, “Five Things to See at Alabama’s New Memorial to Lynching Victims”, Smithsonian.com.

William C. Anderson, “When a Lynching Memorial Becomes a Photo Opportunity”, Hyperallergic.

[torymansfieldah-blog]

“But Is It Art?” Constantin Brancusi vs. the United States

Who was Constantin Brancusi?

Constantin Brancusi is a Romanian sculptor who lived in Paris. He was really interested in birds and the theme of birds in his work. He created the piece, Bird in Space, which he later made 15 versions of in marble, bronze, and plaster. His goal was to convey the nature of a bird without using traditional and obvious representational forms. His sculptures created a huge conversation about how to define art and sculpture after they were refused by the Brummer Gallery.

Provide a formal analysis of Brancusi's Bird in Space (describe its material, shape, texture, size, etc.).

Bird in Space was made in 1926. There are 15 versions, but the one I will be talking about is the bronze casted version, measuring to be 8 1/2 by 6 1/2″. The piece is smooth in texture and has a nice shine to it. The sculpture has rounded edges and a slightly angled tip. The base of the sculpture starts off thinner but then gets thicker towards the middle of the sculpture. It starts to taper off towards the top of the sculpture like the brush stroke from a paint brush. It looks to be set or attached to some kind of concrete base. The sculpture is bronze in color and has a gold-ish gleam to it. This particular piece was made in 1928 by Brancusi.

How did Bird in Space come to define art?

Bird in Space was sent to New York City to be displayed in an exhibit at the Brummer Gallery. However, when Bird in Space arrived, officials refused to let it enter the gallery. Officials refused to let the sculpture enter as art, arguing that Birds in Space did not look like a bird at all. They even went as far as to classify the sculpture as a utilitarian object. Classifying it under “Kitchen Utensils and Hospital Supplies.” Officials levied against the work’s value 40%. In confusion and anger, Brancusi filed a complaint in court in the defense of Bird in Space. The question to the court was, did Brancusi’s sculpture adequately represent a bird in flight? However, it became much more than that. The question generally became how do we define “sculpture” and how do we define “art”? After hearing the testimony of several experts, the court realized the definition of what it meant to be art and/ or sculpture was clearly out of date. I think Frank Crowninshield described the piece best when saying, “It was the suggestion of flight, it suggests grace, aspiration, vigor, coupled with speed in the spirit of strength, potency, beauty, just as a bird does. But just the name, the title, of this work, why, really, it does not mean much.” Brancusi’s sculpture, Bird in Space, created a conversation and further developed our understanding of what is and is not art. It helped us realize that the art community is much broader and more inclusive than originally thought. As time continues, I’m sure we will realize it is even more open and broad than thought now. It is with important conversations like this that we can change and enrich the art community even more.

Finally, answer the questions posited at the end of the article: How do you recognize what is and is not a work of art? Does an artwork’s title help you interpret an artwork? Is a title necessary to give the artwork meaning?

I think the title of an artwork does help us interpret and find meaning within a piece, however, I don’t believe a title is necessary to find meaning. Works of art instill emotions and feelings all on their own. I think the title can add something more to a piece and further develop our understanding of the work, but it is not necessary. In the case of Bird in Space, the title is not necessary. As Crowninshield said it is the suggestion of flight, and you can visibly see that from the sculpture. Previously, we discussed the beauty of art, like a rose, not meant to be touched but admired. Bird in Space is truly beautiful, the colors and the grace felt by this piece. That’s why it is a work of art, it’s that understood feeling of beauty. 

Mary Kate Cleary, "'But Is It Art?' Constantin Brancusi vs. the United States", Inside/Out, MoMA PS2 Blog, Jul. 24th 2014, https://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2014/07/24/but-is-it-art-constantin-brancusi-vs-the-united-states/

[torymansfieldah-blog]

Censorship continued: Dana Shultz’s Open Casket

Who is Dana Schutz? What does she usually depict in her work and how does she go about creating her paintings?

Dana Schultz is a white American painter. Her work typically depicts people or real life. Schultz’s work is usually in the form of abstractions. She uses bright colors and humorous approaches to the human figure. She typically does not paint subject matter such as Open Casket, however, she felt it was necessary to call attention to the issues of police brutality and social injustice in America. This particular painting by Dana Schultz received lots of clash-back from African American viewers who were outraged that a white American was profiting off of black pain.

What does her painting Open Casket depict? How is the subject depicted?

The painting Open Casket depicts the dead body of Emmett Till, a fourteen-year-old boy. Dana Schultz, the artist, paints the boy in an abstracted style while still using her expressive mark-making to make the subject known. In the painting, his shirt is a bright white which makes the blood smear on his shirt even more prominent. While it is abstracted, it doesn’t make the imagery or the content any less horrific. She uses red very minimally to draw attention to the places she did use it. Schultz chooses to leave some areas of the painting built up with more detail while other areas are more abstracted and less clear. For example, in the face, certain areas such as the nose and lips are still left identifiable while other areas such as the eyes are smeared and more abstracted. While the content may be horrifying, technically it’s beautifully done. Her repetition of color and painterly style adds another element to the piece. I love her ability to move color around all over the canvas, for example with the yellows and reds. Her abstraction of the face further pushes the horrendous nature in which the boy was found. 

Why is this subject matter so controversial? Discuss both sides of this debate: a.) arguments from individuals who wish to take down (and for some, destroy - i.e. Hannah Black) Open Casket; b.) arguments for keeping the painting in the public eye (i.e. Coco Fusco).

This is such a controversial matter because she is a white artist choosing to depict the death of a young black boy. As a white artist, many feel that she cannot relate to this issue, nor does she have the right to. Hannah Black argues that the painting should be taken down because it is never acceptable for a white person to profit off of Black suffering. Black argues, “ those non-Black artists who sincerely wish to highlight the shameful nature of white violence should first of all stop treating Black pain as raw material.” Black also discusses the unnecessary hurt caused by this painting and argues for the removal of the painting all together. While Fusco, argues that to call for censorship or the destruction of a work simply because of the content or who made it leads us down an even darker path. She argues that “Hannah Black and company are placing themselves on the wrong side of history, together with Phalangists who burned books, authoritarian regimes that censor culture and imprison artists, and religious fundamentalists who ban artworks in the name of their god.” She also reiterates that while Black argues that Dana Schultz is using this painting to profit off of Black pain this simply isn’t true. Dana Schultz had no intention to sell the painting or make any money off of it. Fusco also addressed the area in Black’s letter that brings up Emmett Till’s mother and how she made her son’s dead body “available to Black people as an inspiration and warning”. An inspiration? This was a young boy’s dead body and she used the word inspiration. Fusco mentions that while she doesn’t agree with Black’s argument she still believes it should be addressed and analyzed rather than just recirculating the argument over social media and remaining silent.

How does Coco Fusco analyze history to back up her arguments?

Coco Fusco backs up her argument for Dana Schultz’s work by saying that Black does not consider the history of anti-racist art by white artists. These artists were often commissioned by Civil Rights activists. She also fails to recognize that suffering bodies are seen throughout the history of Western art. She also argues that numerous black artists have depicted imprisoned or enslaved bodies in the early stages of their careers in order to gain a larger following. She also discusses that many young black artists are harbor insecurities because they are told by art dealers that no one wants to hear about their issues. Young artists are hesitant to call themselves “black artists” because professionals warn them not to do so. I mentioned this previously, but she also discusses the history of the death of Emmett Till. She argues that Hannah Black lacks accuracy as to what happened. She says that Mamie Till wanted the world to see what those men had done to her son. There was no exclusion of race, the casket was donated to the national museum for all to see, there was no exclusion of non-black people. She argues that it is reductive to claim that all treatment of black suffering is driven by commercial interests and sadistic intentions. She specifically brings up works made by white artists like Paul Cadmus and John Steuart who painted blacks struggling against white oppression. However, she does mention that by using these artists as examples, she does not mean to suggest that all white artists are depicting black oppression with good intentions. There are better ways to arrive at cultural equality rather than policing the art community and forcing many into silence about these issues. 

Do both sides of this debate have valid points? Why?

This is a difficult topic because I do see valid points in both arguments. In Hannah Black’s letter argues that as a white woman, Schultz has no right to create work of raw Black pain. She argues that it is not our right as white people. I must admit, I do see the validity to her statements. I don’t think I could ever comprehend the tragedy and oppression that black people have had to face every day. However, I also can relate to some of the points Fusco makes in her argument. By censoring art and making it only for the black community, we are limiting ourselves and our ability to further understand and analyze the issues that happened in the past. Black also argues that on social media today the non-black community is constantly posting imagery of lynchings and death. I see her points in making these accusations but I also think again, she’s not really considering the whole picture at times. Fusco mentions that Black is considering things to narrow-mindedly. Not every white artist that creates work of black people or about the oppression of the black people is doing it to make a profit. Not every white artist has these ill intentions. Fusco brings up that many white artists were making impactful work for Civil Rights issues. She also mentions that some black artists have profited and even gotten a larger following because they did make work of their historical past. I, myself, can’t decide if this is wrong or not and personally I don’t think as a white woman I can comment. However, I do believe that by limiting the creation of art to only one race, is uninclusive and makes it even more difficult to have necessary conversations about race and oppression.

Coco Fusco, Censorship, Not the Painting, Must Go’, Hyperallergic, March 27, 2017.

Hannah Black, Please read and share Hannah Black’s open letter to the curators and staff of the Whitney Biennial, Black Contemporary Art, March 21, 2017. 

*Sorry for the late post my wifi has been completely down and I had to wait to get to the school to post this.*

[torymansfieldah-blog]

The Price of Everything

How is art marketed? What techniques are used by dealers and auction houses?

They use different kinds of tactics. It seems very much related to graphic design techniques. They talked about having well thought out layouts and using big colorful images of the pieces. Pictures with the artist standing next to the work were especially pleasing to the dealers. They also use a comparison picture to elevate the work. However, you also need a tie-in, a narrative for the piece. This connection to the piece gives the potential buyers “something more.” It adds a little bit more interest to the piece and can help clarify the context of the work. Dealers befriend investors and almost get under their skin to learn their interests. They’re trying to sell, so they learn what their clients like, what they appreciate in a piece. They get close and have your phone numbers and they bring work they know they can sell to you. It was so interesting watching this interaction between dealer and investor. In the film, someone said, “to be an effective collector you have to be shallow.” But I wonder if this is also true of art dealers?

Should art be considered an investment?

I think art should be considered an investment. However, the way they talked about it throughout the film was really slimy and kind of disgusting. Throughout the film, there was just this overwhelming sense of money and expense. It was more about having a material item than actually admiring the beauty of the piece. It became about the brand, the name of the artist. If you have a ‘Dega’ you’re of this class. I even heard one woman saying, “I just want to buy more!” The mindset of these people just felt so separate from my own. It was kind of mind-blowing for me. I’m not the only one thinking it, clearly, because in the film one man said, “it’s another ecosystem up here.” These art buyers also consider themselves different from the majority. It seems a major issue with this market is that many of the artists don’t even truly become recognized until after their death. Or worse, they go completely unrecognized and still people make thousands of dollars off their work. I think art should be considered an investment, however, currently, the work is being taken for granted and not truly appreciated as it should be. It seems that this art market is, unfortunately, more concerned with “financial interests”. There are major flaws in this system. Artists are not truly being compensated, while others, sit on stacks of cash for something that is not even their own work. I hope that with change maybe the art market will become more fair-minded and better understand what kind of investment they’re making when purchasing a masterpiece.

How does the contemporary art market impact artists?

I touched on this previously above in my second response. The biggest issue with the contemporary art market is that so many artists are not truly being compensated for their work. Meaning that I may buy a piece from an artist for three-hundred dollars and later sell that same piece for twenty-six thousand. Is this fair? Absolutely not, why should anyone be allowed to profit off another person’s work? Not to mention, that many of these artists go completely unnoticed until after death. One artist said, “I don’t know that the art market is a place for artists but without it, there is no me. In contrast, we see artists like Jerry Koons using this contemporary art market to make ‘his’ brand. With the help of his assembled team, he can mass produce images and slap his name on them. Then flip them for ridiculous amounts of money. Of course, not all of the money goes to Koons but what about the real artists? One of the women in the film said her paintings may take her anywhere up to twelve months to make. She chooses, however, not to sacrifice the integrity of her work. It seems the contemporary art market is encouraging artists to mass produce work. I also believe that the contemporary art market is not a place for real passionate artists. Artists like Larry Poons are not worried about the art market side of things and would rather have their work seen by all. I think this contrast in character also determines just how large or a role they play with the art market. The art market is almost separating artists from their own work simply because it is another ecosystem.  

The Price of Everything, Directed by Nathaniel Kahn, HBO Films, 2018.

[torymansfieldah-blog]

Blog Post 5

How does Lessing argue that aesthetics (how a work looks/technique) have nothing to do with what is "wrong with a forgery"?

Lessing argues that forgery has nothing to do with the aesthetics of a work of art. Aesthetic appreciation comes from observation of the work so forgery should not lessen the beauty of a piece. While I do agree, that this might take away from your own perception of the piece, it doesn’t change the visual content. It doesn’t change the beauty originally seen in the image. Forgery must be seen separate from the way a piece looks. Lessing argues that “...it makes no difference whether a work of art is authentic or forgery,” and “The fact of forgery is important historically, biographically, perhaps legally, or ...financially; but not, strictly speaking, aesthetically.” Lessing gives a great example of this in the beginning, telling the story of a small pencil drawing which was thought to be by Paul Klee. However, it turns out the drawing is a fraud. Does that change the drawing or change your opinion of the piece you love so much? It doesn’t change the aesthetic beauty of the piece. Anyone without the knowledge that the piece was a fraud may grow to appreciate the piece for its aesthetic value. And what is wrong with that? Can we not separate the art from the act? Things like the name of the artist, material, date, etc. are all great pieces of information but they do not make a work beautiful. It does not change the observable beauty of a piece, it may sway your view or give you a more impactful message from the piece but it does not change the observable beauty. A work of art may be considered beautiful because of the lighting, repetition, rhythm, etc. but lack originality in every since. Does this take away from the beautiful lighting and technique of the artist? Not to mention, that many of these ‘copycat’ paintings were actually not meant to be fake but were just accredited to the wrong artists. This clearly was not intentional nor done by the artist so that cannot take away from the beauty of the piece. The difference is the way the deception is carried out. Many of these paintings in previous centuries were done by artists studying under big-name artists. Master painting studies are done all the time, this is a way of learning. A lot of the works from previous centuries were not meant to be viewed in such a setting they were meant to study from another great artist. This is not a forgery. 

 If it isn't diminished aesthetic value, what IS wrong with a forgery?

I touched on this slightly above. Forgery is a complex subject because I’m not sure it’s as black and white as we would like it to be. There seems to be a lot of grey area on how much is okay before it’s considered stealing. There’s also the question of is anything original anymore? We choose to condemn forgery because it’s morally wrong and extremely offensive to steal someone else’s work and it always involves deception. However, problems start to arise when we see superior artwork being passed off as another artist’s superior work. This hardly seems like an intentional deception. So what makes forgery wrong exactly? Lessing argues that technique is something that cannot be forged. Technique is public and can be had by anyone who is willing and able to learn it. A piece may be aesthetically pleasing but lack all originality. “By originality in art we may mean the kind of imaginative novelty or spontaneity which is a mark of every good work of art.” Lessing explains that sometimes originality is confused with artistic achievement however that is not the case. Lessing gave a good example of this previously. If Lessing were to draw a portrait that would be considered an original because there’s absolutely no indication of forgery. Lessing also discusses the importance of historical context in the cases of forgery. We must also take into consideration the idea of historical originality. In order for a piece or movement to have originality, it must be painted or created in a certain time in history. I liked this particular quote, “A forgery par excellence represents the perfection of technique with the absence of all originality.” Art must have a history or there would be artists concerned only with making beautiful images and our efforts would be exhausted. Forgery is kind of a grey area but the ways of deception and lack of originality make it apparent that it’s morally wrong. However, things like aesthetic beauty and appreciation for a piece are not what is wrong with forgery. 

Alfred Lessing, “What is wrong with a forgery?”, Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (London and New York: Routledge, 2008), 89-101.

[torymansfieldah-blog]

Blog Post 4

According to Debord, how is the spectacle produced (i.e., what is it a product of)?

According to Debord, the spectacle is produced in modern societies where production prevails. I liked where he said, “Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation.” I thought this was interesting but very accurate to the way we live our lives now. We, as humans, are striving for human interaction and connections with other people. As our society progresses and strives for further human interaction, we continue to advance our technology and social media platforms in order to accommodate these needs. However, in the long run, our infatuation with technology became a way to replicate ‘real’ life. Social media became a way to portray yourself as someone you’re not and more of a time-drainer than anything else. Debord believed that the spectacle was a product of all our societal advancement.

How does the spectacle bring about separation, and what is the effect of this separation?

The spectacle brings about separation by pulling you away from real life and controlling your life. Any electronics you use are time wasters and you can’t get that time back. The spectacle works to suck you down a rabbit hole of, “Why isn’t my life like this?” Social media bombards you with replications of what a good life should look like. So many, spend countless hours mindlessly scrolling through images. Many also allow the spectacle to consume hours that would normally be dedicated to sleeping. The spectacle represents itself as superior to real life, however, the spectacle works to bond people through isolation. I particularly liked when Debord said, “What binds the spectators together is no more than an irreversible relation at the very center which maintains their isolation. The spectacle reunites the separate, but reunites it as separate.” Debord essentially is saying that technology was/is promoted as a device to connect people together from all over the world. However, many are stuck glued to their phones and not fully taking advantage of the life around them. This leads to connection through isolation.  

What is the relationship between the spectacle and commodity?

Society depends on the economy to run but the economy also relies on society. Meaning that: society depends on the economy because we need wealth to sustain the marketr but the economy relies on society to keep it continuing to run and earn that wealth. It’a cycle, much like the relationship between spectacle and commodity. The spectacle makes the dominating world of commodities present and public to everyone. There’s this instinctive “I want” when mindlessly scrolling through the spectacle. The tangible, very real world, was replaced by images of “the intangible”. Commodities take over consuming lives with unrealistic images displayed on the spectacle. Now utilizing, something already unhealthy, to further promote more feelings of inadequacy. Spectacle and commodity go hand in hand because they used/use the spectacle to promote commodities in order to keep the economy thriving. I thought this was extremely interesting and relevant to today. Reading this particular section made me think of all the ads that pop on the Internet, social media, etc. and how they utilize technology to persuade people into buying certain products. A lot of the times companies will even go so far as to disregard customer rights by accessing your phone calls, Google searches, text messages, etc. to manipulate you into buying certain products or services.

Do you agree that the spectacle is the "visible negation of life”?

Yes, I do agree that the spectacle is the “visible negation of life”. I touched on this previously in the first question. The spectacle is challenging everything about real life. No longer can you just sit and enjoy a meal without posting a photo, a replication, onto a social media platform. This way of life, this obsession with technology has proven to make liars out of all of us. Now there’s an obligation in your life to gain followers and earn likes. There’s a need to be wanted not just in your own collective circle in real life but by random people on the Internet. This creates a lot of false identities, a lot of people feeling the need to be something that they are not for attention from others. The spectacle has become a way to completely deny real life and ignore all reality. Obviously, it’s not all negative, I do continue to see the many benefits of the spectacle. However, I do think it can be much more harmful than good at times and I do think it is a way to lead to separation. It’s just ironic that something that is supposed to be used as a way to make connections and bring us together, is actually doing the complete opposite. Many people in the younger generations now have difficulty communicating face-to-face because they spend so much time on their phones texting. Not to mention that all of that phone time, scrolling through Instagram, is taking you away from reality, your real life with all the people that really matter.

Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle (1967 repr., trans. Greg Adargo, Black & Red, 1977)

[torymansfieldah-blog]

Blog Post 3

1. Who are the Sacklers and what is Purdue Pharma? 

The Sacklers are an American family of philanthropists. Arthur, Mortimer, and Raymond Sackler were all doctors who donated largely to several institutions. Although the brothers have passed now, the brothers gave their fortunes to their children. The Sacklers are one of America’s wealthiest families with a net worth of thirteen billion dollars. Although they are very outspoken about their donations, they choose not to speak out about how they acquired the wealth. Purdue Pharma, the family business, is a privately owned company in Stamford, Connecticut. They developed the prescription painkiller, Oxycontin. The drug was released in 1995 to help patients with severe pain. Purdue made about thirty-five billion dollars in revenue for the drug Oxycontin. Oxycontin is extremely controversial because of the addictive factors. Doctors don’t really prescribe it because the sole ingredient is the cousin of heroin and is extremely dangerous.

2. What marketing tactics did Purdue Pharma use to sell Oxycontin?

Purdue launched a marketing campaign to misinform the medical community about the risks of Oxycontin. Purdue worked to change the prescribing habits of doctors and even paid doctors to say that opioid addiction was not as serious as people were making it out to be. Sackler devised campaigns that appealed to doctors, placing ads in medical offices and distributing medical literature. Purdue asked prominent physicians to endorse the drug and cited underwritten literature that they wrote. In the article, John Kallir said, “Sackler’s ads had a very serious, clinical look––a physician talking to a physician. But it was advertising.” Kallir worked under Sackler for ten years. Sackler’s advertising techniques were extremely deceptive. The company assembled a sales team with about a thousand representatives giving them charts showing the benefits of the drug. They even attended three-week training sessions at Purdue’s headquarters. Many doctors assumed that oxycodone was less potent than morphine, realizing this, Purdue chose to exploit the misconception. Representatives of the company received training in “overcoming objections” from doctors. Purdue offered doctors all-expense-paid trips to pain management seminars and produced promotional videos of pain-free patients. In the article it says, “Purdue instructed sales representatives to assure doctors—repeatedly and without evidence—that “fewer than one per cent” of patients who took OxyContin became addicted.” Many found the drug to be lifesaving until they started to experience withdrawal symptoms. Since Purdue launched the campaign, opioids really started to take off. Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that a hundred and forty-five Americans die every day from opioid overdoses. When asked how much blame Purdue takes for the current health crisis they responded, “The lion’s share.” 

3. Do you think museums should vet and reject their sources of income on the basis of how their patrons accrue wealth? Why or why not?

I do think museums, hospitals, schools, etc. should vet their sources of income. This scandal is not the only one, people create scandalous business models all the time and often are doing some kind of fraudulent activity. Whether that me embezzling or killing off hundreds for the payoff. Why would you not want to know where your money is coming from? Not only that, why would you want your buildings named after such terrible people? Perhaps, as stated in the article, people are unaware of the Sackler’s convictions but this kind of thing goes on everywhere. I don’t believe it is fair to use dirty money to invest in society. What does that say about us? What does that say about what we believe in and our own morals? We go through a vetting process for a lot of things like getting a house or applying for a job. I don’t think it would be unreasonable to ask donors how they earned their wealth. It may seem foolish to some, but I feel that we have a moral responsibility to reject money from those who have hurt not only the United States but the nation as a whole in such a tremendous way. Money is not everything and I don’t think it is a good idea to use money that was obtained illegitimately to invest in our future. 

4. What are the implications and consequences of your opinion? Why might there be valid points to be made on both sides? What do you think is taking museums and universities so long to reevaluate their donations from the Sacklers?

I think the consequences could be that some patrons may be offended by this idea. A donation is almost a gift so I feel that donors may be annoyed and think, “Well, I’m giving you money so why does it matter?” I worry that it is rude to ask and in doing so we may turn off many potential donations. However, I think we must do so in order to keep our own integrity as a society. I think museums and universities are taking so long to reevaluate their donations from the Sacklers because it’s controversial. On one side, you have this extremely deceptive family who has contributed to the killing of people all over the country. On the other side, you have green, powerful money. I think it may be hard for the museums and universities to part with the money because it bought them building additions among other things. I see valid points on both sides and that’s what makes this so controversial. If we don’t ask people to account for how they acquired their money, I worry that this type of thing could happen again. I think by asking them to account for how they got the money, we are creating another way of catching people doing these types of scams. This was much more than a scam, this was murder. We need to be aware of these types of things going on which is why we need to ask these types of questions. 

Patrick Radden Keefe, “The Family That Built an Empire of Pain”, The New Yorker, Oct. 30th 2017.

[torymansfieldah-blog]

Blog Post 2

1. What reasons does Cynthia Freeland give for thinking that Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ has value as a work of art? Do you think they are good reasons?

2. In what ways might these reasons fail Freeland? How does she battle these detractions?

1. In Freeland’s conclusion, she says, “ Art includes not just works of formal beauty to be enjoyed by people with ‘taste’... but also works that are ugly and disturbing, with a shatteringly negative moral content.” She also argues that at times it is difficult to look at art with disinterest because of the content, for example in Goya’s work. Perhaps, Serrano’s work is getting so much backlash because of the difficulty of separating one’s self from the content. However, as Freeland says in an art gallery we aren’t calling to the gods, there are no ritualistic aspects, so taking a step back to view difficult content is crucial to better understanding ourselves and others. Critics were unable to find beauty or morality in the photograph “Piss Christ”. However, Freeland continues to argue for the value of the work by including Lippard’s defense of Serrano’s work. First arguing that without the title, you would never know it is, in fact, urine. “The crucifix looks large and mysterious, bathed in golden fluid.” The title is obviously intentionally shocking and meant to cause attention. However, Serrano claims that his work was never meant to denounce religion but the institutions.  The final point Lippard makes discusses Spanish traditions in art, which can be both violent and beautiful. She relates Serrano’s work to Goya’s drawing ties to the disturbing and difficult nature of the content. 

I do think these are good reasons for the work to be considered to have value. I think at times Lippard’s choice of words is really persuasive and smart. She says things like, “...in a deep golden, rosy glow that is both ominous and glorious.”  Her choice of diction is smart and I think it will call on others to reconsider their distaste for Serrano’s work. When considering what urine actually is, it’s waste. When I took this into consideration along with what Serrano said about his own views towards religion, it changed my own perception of the piece. 

2. Freeland mentions that some may say that Goya is different than Serrano because his artistic ability is not only better but also because he depicted horrific scenes not to shock but to shame the human existence. Goya was a master and it’s hard to compare a master to Serrano. Goya may also not be doing this for the uplifting moral message. She battles these detractions by saying that maybe Serrano meant to insult established religion. He may also be trying to show sympathy for the dead. She raises doubts when discussing art being a communal ritual. However, she also argues that recent art doesn’t seem to fit Kant or Hume’s ideals of taste either because not all work is to be considered beautiful or aesthetic. By discussing the works of Goya, Serrano, and Hirst she points out that work doesn’t need to be considered beautiful to be enjoyed. Some work is going to be ugly and negative and may have no uplifting message, but we still have to be able to take these works into consideration without disgust. Taking a step back to view difficult content is important to not only recognize the issues in ourselves but in our society as a whole. 

Cynthia Freeland's "Blood and Beauty", Art in Theory: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2001), 1-19

[torymansfieldah-blog]

Blog Post 1

“[B]eauty is the agency that causes visual pleasure in the beholder”, says Hickey, “and any theory of images that is not grounded in pleasure of the beholder begs the question of their efficacy and dooms itself to inconsequence.” Why does Hickey think this is so?

Do you agree with Hickey’s statement that pleasure is necessary for successful artwork? Why or why not?

According to Hickey, what did the people he ‘informally surveyed’ think was ‘wrong’ with beauty?

How does Hickey answer their criticisms?

What does Hickey like about the commercial market for art?

Do you agree with Hickey that beauty in art is a good thing?

1. When Hickey is saying this, he’s basically saying that if the artist isn’t giving consideration to the beauty of an image then they aren't considering the intention of the image. I think Hickey is challenging artists to take into consideration not only what they are saying but how they are saying it. Is the image visually compelling alone? I think he thinks this way because art is subjective and as an audience, you would want to look at something visually pleasing. So as an artist, there is in some way a responsibility to create something visually pleasing for the target audience.

2. I feel that in some ways yes, I do agree. Unfortunately, art is very subjective. I think the majority of people today do seek some kind of pleasure from the artwork whether that be that it’s visually stimulating or gives off some kind of emotion. I don’t agree that it necessarily has to be pleasure. I think in order for an artwork to be successful it must evoke something. Your audience must walk away truly impacted by what they saw visually. If they remember your painting, I would consider it a successful piece of work. 

3. According to Hickey, people thought the issue with beauty was corruption of the market. I’m not quite sure I understood this area of the reading. 

4. He argues that “...venues for contemporary art in the United States evolved from a tiny network of private galleries in New York into this vast transcontinental sprawl of publicly funded, postmodern iceboxes?” He continues his argument by saying that many professionals have PhDs and MFAs. His whole argument comes off really sarcastic and I don’t think he’s really taking the other side into consideration in this argument. 

5. Hickey likes the power of images. He says, “Bad graphics topple good governments and occlude good ideas. Good graphics sustain bad ideas and worse governments.” He uses words like “dazzling” and “nuancing.” Hickey is fascinated by the power that the commercial art market holds. 

6. I do agree with Hickey that beauty in art is a good thing, I think it adds another layer of visual interest. If something is visually pleasing or ‘beautiful’ it would immediately attract my attention to it. It would also be more memorable to me because of this. I think obviously the concept and other things play a role in a successful work of art. However, beauty is a nice element for a piece to have as a whole. But, we must also take into consideration the intentions of the artist as well. I mean, what really is beauty anyway? Is there truly any way to define it unanimously?  

Dave Hickey, “Enter the Dragon: On the Vernacular of Beauty”, The Invisible Dragon: Essays on Beauty (University of Chicago Press, 1993), 1-18.