Response to “Where is Ana Mendieta?”

Jane Blocker quoted Rudi Fuchs who said that “the time one can show contemporary art in makeshift spaces… is over. Art is a noble achievement and it should be handled with dignity and respect.” She goes on talking about how 1970’s art “is now difficult to find because its innovations have failed to meet the demands of profitability…” While I do agree that art installations in museums and the like need to draw patrons to help keep an institution in business, makeshift spaces are still more than capable of properly displaying various forms of art and are definitely capable of defining these works as art.

Moreover, modern artists no longer need these venues to display their arts. As we have discussed (and performed) all semester, the capabilities of the Internet and other forms modern communication have, more or less, erased the need for “profitability” in works of art. An artist can easily set up a free website to display their art. Used in conjunction with video sites like “YouTube” or multimedia applications like “Flash,” an artist can set up an intuitive and powerful digital installation of their artworks. Furthermore, the idea that art can only become “dignified” with the exclusion of makeshift spaces severely limits the definitions of art and, in a way, insults the audience. Life is art, art is life – Art is everywhere and it needn’t be housed to be recognized.

Response to "Picturing Whiteness: Nikki S. Lee's Yuppie Project"

Maurice Berger talks about how “we live in a culture in which whiteness is so much the norm that it does not have to be named. […] It is precisely this refusal to name whiteness, to assign it meaning, that frees white people from seeing their complicity in the social, cultural, and historical economy of racism.” I do agree with the author that most white people do not even realize their advantages or privileges in society; privileges not necessarily afforded to other minority groups. I do believe that, in my lifetime, there will be a shift in the profiling, current definition of “minority.” Census groups predict that by 2050 (and likely sooner), that whites will become the minority in America. That, however, does little to nothing to alleviate current and future concerns such as racial profiling and poverty.

The picture above is from an add for a L'Oreal/ Vichy skin-whitening cosmetic, "BI-White." The woman pictured is removing her dark, blemished skin revealing the healthier, clean, and beautifully white skin. There is still a deeply seeded notion, not only in America but throughout the world, that anything other than “white” or “whiteness” is unclean or something to be ashamed of. This perception comes from hundreds of years of patriarchal white privilege that has dominated American society and the world. Let us hope that we can make the choice to plant different seeds in society that are not governed by prejudice and hatred.

Response to: “Althea Thauberger: experimentalism is dead. Long live the Internet”

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=11211421

Emily Vey Duke talks about how “[u]biquitous computing and communications technologies have reconstituted us as subjects and will continue to do so.” To speak about this, I feel compelled to relate it to my own works I have created and hope to continue creating in the near future. In the work entitled The Power of the Zen-Chi, I quite literally attempted to split my personalities into multiple on-screen personas. While hardly a work of traditional experimentalism, it does seem to fit with Vey Duke’s observations of artists “position[ing] themselves explicitly as protagonists, thereby acknowledging the reciprocity of the author/audience relationship.”

Quality of my work aside, the internet has provided me, along with countless others, the opportunity to put one’s self “out there” for the masses to view or ignore at their leisure. The nature of the internet, viral videos in particular, allows a sort of narrative freedom that is not available to most people in the realms of television and film. I don’t think about movie productions and viral video productions in the same way. Ideas that I once thought were silly for film seem oddly appropriate for the internet. In this way, I absolutely agree with Vey Duke’s ideas of the internet breaking down the conventions of traditional narratives.

Response to “Identity, Social Networks, and Online Communication”

The issues of identity performance and interpersonal communication have faced some interesting challenges in this new digital age. Technology has provided us with the means to become more, or at least different, than who we are or how we perform ourselves in “the real world.” That doesn’t necessarily mean that an “online persona” is a false representation of self, but rather that the removal of social obstructions (or even social shortcomings) releases the self of real-world inhibitions, especially in text-based interactions. But like the author Guy Merchant states, performed identities “vary considerably with the environment (email, discussion board, blog, or online game)…”

I have worked with people in the past that leave work and lose themselves for the rest of the night in MMORPGs (not the mostly non-existent acronym “MMPOLGs” that the author used) when they get home. They would, in a way, shed their real-world persona and become a character in a digital environment. While this wouldn’t fit with the author’s descriptions of “identity threat[s],” I do believe that those games can possibly threaten a person’s social identity. The irony is that while shutting one’s self out from social interactions in the “real-world,” the gamer simultaneously connects with people across the world, interacts directly with others within digital spaces, and at times can create long-lasting digital relationships.

Response to “Radical Gestures: …”

In the chapter “Roles and Transformations,” Jayne Wark quotes Simone de Beauvoir who said that “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” Wark then paraphrases Judith Butler saying “that there is no essential femininity (or masculinity). Rather, we ‘perform’ our subjectivities by means of stylized and repeated acts of speech and gesture that create the illusion of an abiding (gendered) self.” In other words, the female or male sex organs that a person is born with neither limit nor define that person’s gender identification. To support this, I have included an image of the recently pregnant Thomas Beatie who gave birth to a baby girl this last July. He was born a woman (or rather, born with female body parts), and around ten years ago, he underwent a gender-reassignment operation and since then has been personally and legally identified as a man.

The LGBT community has had to deal with many of the issues that have had and continue to have an impact on women and minorities throughout history – issues of belonging. The LGBT community seems to fit with Eleanor Antin’s ideas of being an “other” in society. Although Thomas has had to deal with much media criticism due to his pregnancy, he said that, “despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man that I am.”

Response to "A Piece of the Action..."

In the reading, Judith Williamson talks about how people interpret images of people, women specifically, in relation to appearance and presentation. In images specifically, how a person presents themselves - how he or she dresses, for example – can falsely determine the identity of the person pictured. In support of this argument, I give the above example of current vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Much of the campaigning by her, or for her benefit, has been specifically meant to create a pleasing “image” of her to potential voters. From her inception as a vice-presidential candidate, an image of her as a tough, everyday “Hockey Mom” has been presented to voters to appeal, in part, to their apparent need for a “real” candidate in tune with small-town values and ideals. Even the above picture had a caption reading, “Tough as nails. That’s Putin, the bear.”

However, that “image” has been threatened by the recent revelation of her arguably expensive, not-so-small-town wardrobe. Ed Rollins, a Republican political consultant who ran former President Ronald Reagan's re-election campaign in 1984 said, "It just undercuts Palin's whole image as a hockey mom, a 'one-of-us' kind of candidate." That coupled with recent misconceptions by Palin of actual vice-presidential duties seem to fit Williamson’s statements of exclusive image representation; what is pictured is not necessarily representative of who is pictured.

Response to "What is Performance?"

In Marvin Carlson’s essay, he describes three different concepts or categories of performance: a skilled or talented professional performing for an audience, the conscious way one acts or behaves socially, and how a person or object functions in contrast to a defined set of standards. A commonality that one could draw between these various definitions of performance is that they all invite critique because, as Carlson states, “performance is always performance for someone.” A musician is rated on his/her prowess with an instrument along with the quality of the performance. Someone who makes a conscious effort to act a certain way socially may judge him or herself on, for example, the successfulness of interpersonal communication (An external party may even draw critiquing comparisons of how that person acts collectively versus privately). Furthermore, a computer may be evaluated on its circuitry, features, and ease of use or even simply on aesthetics.

Take the dog food ad above as another example of the complexity of word “performance.” The ad implies the “powerful performance” of the food, contrasting the seemingly healthy dog and the bodybuilder. One could evaluate not only the quality of the dog food, but the models pictured and the effectiveness of the ad as well.

Response to "Composing with Images: Lynn Hershman’s Photography"

In Composing with Images: Lynn Hershman’s Photography, Glenn Kurtz speaks of how the “computer has rendered the old conflict between ‘straight’ photography and image manipulation moot.” I tend to agree with this statement because, with the worldwide adoption of digital photography and photographic editing, even “straight” photographs which are the “impartial representation of facts,” would cease to be ‘factual’ with even a simple modification such as red-eye removal. This fits in with his belief that “digital technology already treats photographs as raw material.” The readiness and ease of digital photograph manipulation has been, in my opinion, one of the leading draws of the digital medium – The ability to clean up or even add to an image instead of having to make due simply with what you captured.

Take the above picture, for example. The image is of Korean actress Song Hye Kyo – While this picture appears to be, in every way, a factual depiction of this actress, in reality it is a completely fabricated, constructed image. Indonesian CG artist Max Edwin Wahyudi took numerous existing photographs of the actual actress and made a stunningly accurate three-dimensional digital rendering. In a way, it is similar to how Hershman created the character of ‘Roberta Breitmore’ by photographing real staged scenes and accompanying them with false documentation of her existence, except in the case of Song Hye Kyo, her existence is real but the image is forged. Examples like this make audiences question what is truly definable as “real.”

Response to "The Performativity of Performance Documentation"

In the essay “The Performativity of Performance Documentation,” Philip Auslander makes distinctions between the authenticity of an artist’s performance in front of a live audience which is documented for further evaluation and an artist’s performance with a lack of a “significant audience” which is documented for initial and future evaluation. In other words, to some critics, a performance in front of a live audience is more real and substantial than a performance in front of a camera. I tend to agree with Auslander’s assessment that, “…the act of documenting an event as performance is what constitutes it as such.” Such could be said of most genres. While the works of filmmakers Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg (Epic Movie, Disaster Movie) are, in my opinion, some of the most un-amusing comedies I have ever seen, but do they cease to be comedies? I argue that they were intended to be comedies; therefore they are categorized as such.

On the flipside, one could argue that the interpretation of an event as performance art does not require the event be conceived as such, but rather to be perceived as such. To support this, I refer to Auslander’s notes where he talks of Vito Acconci’s Photo-Piece: “Some might take exception to my categorizing of Acconci’s work as performance. […] I make no apology for claiming it for performance. I am hardly the only one to do so.” One could say that a specific starting date for performance art cannot be pinpointed because the term performance art can be retroactively applied to many works of art throughout history. Perhaps most artistic works could be under the realm of performance art with enough persistent argumentation and subsequent agreements from the audience.

Research on a Performance Artist - Gilbert and George

Gilbert and George are highly regarded today as one of the art world’s most famous living sculptures. George Passmore was born in Devon, England in 1942 and studied art at the Dartington Hall College of Art and the Oxford School of Art. Gilbert Prousch was born San Martin, Italy in 1943 and studied art at the Wolkenstein School of Art, the Hallein School of Art in Austria, along with the Akademie der Kunst in Munich before moving to England. They met in 1967 while studying sculpture at St. Martins School of Art in London. George was the only one who could understand Gilbert's poor spoken English, and, as they explained it, it was “love at first sight.” (Ayers, 2007) The two started exhibiting art together and soon began creating art together. They do not identify themselves as individual artists, but rather as one complete artist.

Gilbert & George have lived together in East London’s Spitalfields area since 1968 where they have absorbed the culture and the imagery of the area and have incorporated it into almost every aspect of their works. According to George, "There is nothing that happens in the world that doesn't happen in the East End," (Higgins, 2005) Although the area’s 18^th Century architecture has been restored much since their arrival roughly 40 years ago, much of the seediness remains. "’We still have squatters, robbers, prostitutes, and crows eating dead rats in the middle of the street every morning,’ says George with pride. And how do they feel about that? ‘We're thrilled. It's inspiring!’" (Bombshell, 2007)

While still in school, they established their reputation as artists and as pioneers in the blossoming field of performance art, with The Singing Sculpture in 1969. In this piece, they painted themselves in a gold metallic paint, wore business suits (which is now their trademark attire), stood on a table, and mimed to a recording of Flanagan and Allen's song "Underneath the Arches." The pair was invited to recreate the performance all over the world, with the performance sometimes lasting for up to eight hours. However, they soon realized that they could reach only a handful of people at a time so they “began to create… pictures that could extend the idea of living sculpture without requiring their physical presence.” (Debbaut, Borthwick, 2007)

Before photography, however, they did dabble a bit with drawing, or more specifically charcoal-on-paper sculptures, as they prefer to view it. The imposing size of the sculptures creates the same kind of physical presence as an actual sculpture, while the aged appearance of the artificially discolored paper suggests the aura of an ancient document. Soon after, though, “they decided that the process of making marks on paper by hand was too [individualized], leading viewers to try to guess who had drawn which bit. People also paid too much attention to the medium. ‘They weren’t listening to our messages at all. They were looking at the surface and the technique’, they later said. ‘We stopped making charcoal-on-paper sculptures because people liked them so much.’” (Debbaut, Borthwick, 2007)

With their developing skill in photography, they began to organize their photos in a grid-like fashion, a style which the pair continues to utilize and improve upon to this day. The compositions were usually quite grand in scale, much like their charcoal-on-paper sculptures. Because they were trained as sculptors, their lack of experience with color led them to initially shoot in black and white, only adding red on some of their arrangements for strength or emphasis. In the 1980’s, however, they began to experiment more with color, which made the “pictures [become] bigger, brighter and bolder, using images as a mere starting point for their elaborate compositions.” (Debbaut, Borthwick, 2007)

Much, if not most, of their work throughout their careers is visually scathing and iconoclastic. This is a direct result of their unique perspective as gay men living in the predominately gay-bashing East End of London. “Although they take issue with many aspects of various religions, the issue of homosexuality seems to determine their revulsion.” (Quite, 2006) Another reason is that, as Gilbert put it, "[a]ll religion is superstition, it is no more than a good luck sign," (Quite, 2006) Much of their recent work is filled with iconic religious symbols “from a Jewish candelabra to religious Islamic text to the artists praying like stiff saints on a stained-glass window.” (Higgins, 2005).

The image above is entitled “Naked,” from Gilbert and George’s Shitty Naked Human World exhibit in 1994. This image juxtaposes the beautiful, bushy countryside with the dark, upsetting visuals of feces and nudity. The image can be viewed as two separate, mirror images separated by a phallic fence of feces, in where Gilbert and George switch roles or positions on either side. As one lies on the ground in an almost painful resemblance of a fetal position, the other stands on top of them, removing their underwear. On either side of the fence, Gilbert and George, picking at their underwear, glance at the giant, dirtied heads of their counterparts sticking their respective red tongues out in disgust or defiance. On opposite sides of the image, little pieces of feces poke their way into the frame, disrupting the bright blue sky. In this image, the pair is questioning people’s revulsion of something as real and everyday as nudity and feces. Every creature on earth is born naked and, as the now famous book explains, “everybody poops.”

Since 2003, the pair has begun creating their works exclusively in digital formats. Their painstakingly handmade works of the past have appropriately translated into this new medium. Their successful transition to this newer medium has proven that the team can and has changed with the times while still remaining culturally relevant. In February, 2007, Gilbert and George were featured at the Tate Modern gallery in London. They had roughly 200 images covering the entire first floor of the gallery, the largest exhibition ever devoted to a living artist to date. (Quite, 2006)

Works Cited:

-Ayers, Robert; Gilbert & George Are Workaholics; 2007.

-Higgins, Charlotte; “Gilbert and George unveil new works at Venice Biennale;” The Guardian; 2005.

-“A bombshell from Gilbert & George;” The Telegraph; 2007.

-Debbaut, Jan and Borthwick, Ben (Curators); “Gilbert & George Major Exhibition;” Tate Modern; 2007.

-“Quite cross;” The Telegraph; 2006.

Response to "A Life More Photographic"

While I'm tempted to say that a cell phone camera is no substitute for the real thing, in actuallity it is precicely a substitute for the real thing. Buy having a means to take a photograph at any given time, as Rubinstein and Sluis explain, "[removes] a barrier to spontaneous image capture." It allowed me to catch my friend off guard and take another of my many suprise ringtone photos.

The digital photography medium on a whole allows one to arbitrarily take photographs with little to no worry about setup or cost. And while Rubinstein and Sluis explain how many critics and professionals like to shun or avoid digital photography altogether, digital photography is just another metamorphosis of the art of photography in general and, before we know it, will be the accepted norm by all. In the way that point-and-shoot cameras challenged the definition of a photographer, the digital medium challenges the definition of a photograph. And while I agree that digital photography removes the surprise and anticipation of seeing a newly developed photo, and even how the ability to immediately delete a photo can deliver a "death blow to the traditional role of the photograph as memento and keepsake," change leads to new ideas and fresh perspectives. I look forward to the ways that technology will transform photography and all of the many ways that we capture and share life and the world around us, and I am grateful to be a part of it.