Module 1: initial prompt & response

24 Comments

1. One of the persistent themes in this week’s readings and web-materials is that the process of making art involves a host of interconnected participants such as critics, audience members, aestheticians, and others who are often not mentioned in classical definitions of “art-worlds.” In “Aesthetics, Aestheticians, and Critics,” Becker discusses how networks of aestheticians and critics jointly establish aesthetic principles and methods of resource dissemination, and this ties in nicely with his previous discussion of the participatory networks that constitute “art-worlds.” In transmedia contexts, the participatory nature of art worlds is all the more noticeable due to the advent of social media and Internet technology. As Jamie Walsh (a previous AAD student) states in her comments to this prompt, “The inherent idea of “transmedia” suggests a wider scope of resources and formats to express one or more ideas.” The 2008 NEA Survey of Public Participation in the Arts indicates that traditional arts participation (taking music lessons, going to see a play) is declining while new forms of online participation are increasing access to the arts for many people. However, it is important to recognize that Carlton Turner of Alternate ROOTS and a number of other cultural workers have stated that the Survey does not accurately reflect arts-participation among communities of color and low-income people.

   Improv Everywhere, which I have been enjoying ever since its inception, is the perfect example of how transmedia platforms are changing and increasing participation in the arts. Not only does the format eschew the traditional stage and incorporate the talents of everyday participants, but the short episodes are published online, allowing millions of viewers to engage with the material. It is also likely that the format perfected by Improv Everywhere has encouraged local and regional comedy groups to film their own improv episodes and upload them to the web.

   When discussing transmedia contexts, it has to be noted that they exist alongside (and often interact with) traditional arts worlds that have always been based on community participation and the acceptance of amateurs. As everyone who has purchased a ukelele or a banjo in the last decade knows, there appears to be a resurgence in the traditional arts. In fact, CBS News reported recently on the widespread popularity of traditional storytelling festivals where people of all ages come together to share folk tales, ghost stories, and other forms of oral literature (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7421122n). In addition, new forms of “traditional” arts participation are popping up everywhere, such as Story Mob venues, where hundreds of young adults come together tell their own stories to ever-increasing audiences. While some people have found that using multiple digital platforms increases their access to art-worlds, others are participating by re-engaging with age-old formats, or mixing traditional formats with new transmedia technologies.

   Finally, the notion of “transmedia participation” is not a new notion, and this week’s resources emphasize that it is a concept that intellectuals, artists, and media critics have been discussing for decades. As old issues of “Radical Software” illustrate, many groups have argued in the past for control over the tools to create and participate in arts and media worlds. What the Raindance collective referred to as “self-cybernation” (the process by which ordinary people directly address broadcast audiences) predicts the advent of YouTube and other participatory media. I am reminded of the Appalshop Media Collective which has been putting filmmaking and photographic technology in the hands of Appalachian people for decades (http://appalshop.org/).

2. It was a bit awkward to read a chapter of Becker (1982) without knowing how he defined the terms he was using.

   Ellen Dissanayake’s (2003) proposal that art throughout human history can be described as “making special” sounds cloying, but it’s stuck with me. I think it’s a good guideline to think that all art is deliberate specialmaking. Art inspires special attention or reaction, giving something mundane (whether that’s the art’s subject or constituent materials) a gravity it didn’t have before.This can be endowing an object with extra importance or making the importance of an object evident. I couldn’t find any Dissanayake talks online, but here’s a YouTuber talking some about “making special”
   http://youtu.be/HEVYKbFjfVM

   Besides the verbs you listed in the main post, I’d argue that the main participatory practices around art in transmedia contexts are copying, sampling, remixing—and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, or a new thing. Nearly every artist at least learns by copying and modifying existing work.

   I know I always share Johanna Blakley’s 2010 TED talk about fashion (in more than just clothing), but it has a lot of valuable discussion of utilitarianism vs art, innovation, trends, ephemerality, etc:
   http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

   Becker focuses on the literal production process as key to collective art worlds. I’d instead focus on the subtler collective cultural aesthetics and values and resources that influence both how artists perceive their subjects and materials, “riffing off of the Zeitgeist” as Blakley says, and how audiences—from the artist’s contemporary culture and other times and places—perceive their art. All art throughout history has built on the foundation of previous art, riffing off of not just the zeitgeist but the artist’s own cultural history, other cultures, or nature. That’s not to say that innovation doesn’t exist, but that it’s based on what already exists.

   Becker also makes great leaps from the individual artist with a skill and not just cooperative but industrialized artistic/performative processes. When you bring in Hollywood and large-scale commercial media, it becomes hard for me not to bring in discuss participatory practices, collective intelligences and transmedia contexts without jumping into the contemporary folklorist’s deep end of fan culture. When it comes to the current transmedia explosion, this variety is only possible because of the overlap of different communities, as Jenkins would say, “at the edges” of the thing. Bear in mind that the commercial sequels, spinoffs, and novelizations are just authorized fan fiction.

3. For me, one of the most interesting aspect of this topic is the shifting toward democratization facilitated by media advancements. This is apparent in many sectors, especially art. No longer do we rely solely on – as Becker calls them – aestheticians: gatekeepers who determine the rationale supporting whether or not an object is art. Individual stories create meaning (like in the NYTimes article we read). It seems these days anyone with a pinterest or blog can become a curator and editor, as long as they have some level of critical mass behind them. These changes, at least on some level, might support Dickie’s view that “Every person who sees himself as a member of the art world is thereby a member.” It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and how these changes affect institutions like museums and how artists produce art.

   A few of my favorite transmedia art projects utilize media to connect with previously un/under-represented participants. For instance, the International Museum of Women (http://www.imow.org/home/index) is an online museum using media and art to connect women around the world and promote community and social change. One of my very favorite arts non-profits is Reel Grrls (http://www.reelgrrls.org/), which teaches girls how to use videography skills to tell their own stories. It’s a window into the lives of girls who are often living at the fray, and who can truly benefit from not only from these new skills, but additionally from safety of art to tell hard truth. By using media this way, new ways of seeing the world emerge, and art worlds themselves expand.

4. As was pointed out by Rob Forbes in his TED talk, art serves “a social purpose.” Subsequently, the conception, execution, production, and distribution of art is entirely a participatory practice based on the cooperative activities and division of labor of many participants. Every step from the production of materials to the curation of the material artifacts, including the aesthetic critique and selection for exhibition, constitutes a participatory practice of collective activity and intelligence.

   While the readings point out that the task of creating art must contend with organizational constraints, social structures, and standard conventions, what must also be understood is that its standards of participation and possibilities for collective intelligence are undergoing a dramatic shift. With the advent of the Web 2.0 technologies, social, and mobile medias, the ability for more people to participate in the conception, execution, production, and distribution of art has altered the artistic landscape considerably. No longer are the technical skills, materials, and distribution networks of the traditional art field so high a barrier. Anyone with access to the Internet or certain computer programs can now create, contribute, re-appropriate, repurpose, share, or critique art. This inherently changes the standards for participation in art worlds at every level, including the division of labor, as anyone now has the capacity to involve themselves in every aspect of art practice. Similarly, the art world is no longer constrained to the physical locations of galleries and museums. The Internet allows for digital creation, distribution, and exhibition, which broadens how and where art can be viewed.

   At the same time, while the interactivity of new media forms broadens the scope of participation, some aspects of art remain intact in terms of participatory practice and collective intelligence, which is that the material artifacts of art have always been the embodiment of cultural values, constructs, beliefs, and systems of meaning and appreciation. In this way, art has always been and continues to be a participatory reflection of society and its social structures. Artists have never created art in a vacuum, bereft of others with the skills to help construct materials, or the “experts” who select their materials for exhibition, or even the ideas that reflect or dispute cultural values and standards. In other words, one must accept that art may be created by an individual, but that individual has already been participating in a larger culture that influences constraints, conventions, and norms as much as the value it applies to aesthetics.

   As such, the landscape of the art world has changed because it has opened up new levels of participation as a result of the new media, but it must also be recognized that art has always been participatory and served a social purpose since art practice has always been shaped by the social structures of culture.

5. A participatory culture—the kind which may be spawned in a transmedia framework—has the revolutionary potential to demolish the culturally constructed barrier between creator and audience. As has been mentioned, this is by no means a new phenomenon, but what is important to note is that the tools to nourish and propel such a culture are accessible and user-friendly in way they haven’t necessarily always been. We can attribute this to the ubiquity of certain internet-based technologies—it’s much easier to create a fansite these days than to create a printed fanzine. Furthermore, critique of art and artists is no longer confined to the institutional arena and indeed isn’t fully expected to be, which ultimately undermines claims about the sanctity of the aesthetician’s viewpoint.

   Among my favorite of module links provided this week is just three things (http://justthreethings.wordpress.com). The blogger/curator has taken an intriguing, democratic approach to presenting the collection. The images in each post are devoid of context and can feasibly be considered devoid of aesthetic bias as well. Instead, the viewer is invited to participate in the creation of a narrative that links the three “things” (a word choice that also inspires analysis) whether it is through color, shape, or medium. If we are to apply Becker’s work to analyzing these posts, the juxtaposition of three unrelated objects also draws our attention to the collision of multiple art worlds—the art world that produces a painting is not the same that produces a dress or a cake, but we are obliged to consider the ways in which the aesthetics of a particular art world may be more arbitrary than initially thought.

6. One thing I kept thinking of while reading and viewing this week’s materials was how an art world is not, and should not, be limited to those involved with the production of art. It seems to me that some art and art worlds are shaped a lot by those who are consuming it, that is, those who aren’t actively involved in producing it, but who are present and see and listen and read. Perhaps this is because of my own interest in souvenir folk art and its focus not only on producing art, but producing it for a consumer and trying to sell it. Consumers participate in an art world by entering a physical place inside the world (a market or gallery, etc.), considering and viewing the art, and then perhaps buying it. They can engage in their own judgment of aesthetics and appreciation of the art. I particularly enjoyed the Komar and Melamid website for this reason. Depending on the goal of the artist, s/he may want to consider consumers and their preferences.

   I think Improv Everywhere is another example of consumer participation, though in a different sense. People on the street or in the subway or in Best Buy consume the performance, although they may not even know they are doing it. This type of art wouldn’t be the same if there were no audience to view it. I particularly enjoyed the “Say Something Nice” mission, where a lectern with a megaphone was placed in New York City and anyone walking by could say something nice into the megaphone for everyone nearby to hear. There was no performance by Improve Everywhere, but rather just by people on the street. The line between performer and audience was blurred and showed the power of a simple object to create art. This type of live media to inspire a performance from random people shows that art can exist everywhere and anywhere and anyone can participate, something that traditional aestheticians might not appreciate.

7. Becker touches on the creation of art as an active participation. Becker asks us to “think of all the activities that must be carried out for any work of art to appear as it finally does.” Cool things came out of participation. Case in point is a recent contest run on http://www.designsponge.com which involved projects that used painter’s tape in its design. Hundreds of individuals submitted projects that revolved around the use of the tape. Some created projects that were fully functional pieces while others created other variations of textiles, furniture, decorative objects, and art. One item in particular was a lamp which resembled a sea sponge all using painter‘s tape. Participants were also invited to document the process of creation therefore educating visitors to the website on its origin and process of creation. Though born out of one idea of creating something out of painter’s tape this project invited its audience to participate and created much more in content for the website and exposure for crafters. Creation has taken a participatory avenue with the everyday use of free platforms. Instead of going to a gallery to view art, the audience is invited to participate remotely, offering an alternative experience.

8. I found the interview with Harrell Fletcher to be particularly thought-provoking. As a classical musician, I work in the increasingly limited “art world” of classical performance, as well as the art world of university music performance study — a world that I am growing increasingly frustrated with. I empathized with Fletcher’s frustration with the M.F.A. situation, where only about 5% of graduates ended up creating commercial or regularly-viewed art, and how he felt that to perpetuate that situation by teaching in the traditional vein would be dishonest. Part of engaging in an art world needs to be a willingness to continually define it, and to allow it to evolve — something that has (for the most part) not happened in classical university music instruction. I was encouraged by the ideas of transmedia, and how expanding the tools for instruction and performance can allow for an expansion in the definition of the classical music art world. The idea of “ownership” of one’s artistic creation is also something that can change, another concept that Fletcher alluded to. By allowing our artistic process to become a more generous one, and by allowing its definition, participants, and audience to change — whilst retaining our own individual definition of artistic purpose — the art worlds we participate in can be enriched and expanded.

9. I found the article on Henry Jenkin’s blog, by Evelyn McDonnell “Never Mind The Bollocks: Shepard Fairey’s Fight for Appropriation, Fair Use and Free Culture (Part One)” very interesting because it talks about a daily, commonplace issue in our modern, technological society: copyright infringement. Today, in a world where media is constantly in our line of sight, and over a lifetime we watch more commercials than read pages in books (I’m not even sure if this is an exaggeration), every person probably commits copyright infringement more often than he or she knows. Take the community of Tumblr, for example: Tumblr is a blog site where bloggers gain “followers” by the content they post/repost to their personal pages. Millions of photos from all kinds of sources are uploaded, reblogged, and viewed without any sources or artists credited. Shepard Fairey did this exactly: he took a photo from the internet, and essentially reblogged it in his own way. Andy Warhol did not get in trouble for doing this fifty years ago. A sixteen year old girl who posts an uncredited photograph on her blog, her own museum that she curates for the internet community, also does not get in trouble for this.

   The idea of “owning” art is interesting. Does the photographer who took the original photograph of Obama “own” the piece of art that Shepard Fairey created? Do those who blog own the content on their site, although it is open to view by anyone who stumbles upon it? I’m sure the person who ran the “Just Three Things” blog felt ownership of that blog, and the way the posts, consisting of different pieces of art, were assembled felt owned as well. The internet provides a space for unabashed anonymity, where art can be posted, shared, and altered, and always in some form of existence. Transmedia storytelling makes art immortal in a very ephemeral way. The internet is not a tangible “thing” that exists. If the internet suddenly disappeared, with no way to bring it back, trillions of digital pixels would disappear. The interesting thing is, though, that these pixels make up the new art objects of the 21st century. Take Flickr, for example. There are millions of pictures on Flickr that have probably never been printed on paper, and for some this website may be the only place their photographs live. If Flickr goes down, so does that art. The internet provides a venue for actively participating in something that does not actually exist.

10. I think that the participating practices such as critiquing and collecting have a huge influence on what artists create. Money and therefore likeability can manipulate what is artwork is popular or what artists strive to create.
    Becker’s ideas seem to only be relevant if the artists conform to the idea of aesthetics being a big part of what artists create. I think artists can create art without the intent of it being pretty or likable. Perhaps the goal is merely the hope that the viewer will remember it. In terms of a transmedia context, I think that to get work exposed or for it to end up in a gallery/museum is not as desirable now that we have all of these other web based faucets for exhibition. So unless an artist’s aim is to be in a gallery or museum, those limitations are not as binding as they once were.

    The most and least wanted paintings project was interesting, but I feel like it encourages a sort of “paint by numbers” attempt at painting. Participants can help create something they would like or would not like. But to me that seems counterintuitive as something created as a piece of art. It doesn’t seem truly authentic to me. In that case I think that a viewer should like the paintings because they like what they see, not because it is what they wanted to see.

11. What stood out most to me for this week’s readings was the fluidity of art worlds. I find the difficulty that Becker iterates in defining art worlds allows for their definition to fluctuate to cover a whole range of “arts”. Coming from a more cultural museum background, I was surprised to discover that after the reading, media such as improv videos became art in my eyes. The ability to instantly share work through the internet (ie Facebook, Vimeo) and receive critical feedback instantly is a defining feature of art worlds in a quickly evolving technological society where to exist without any social media connection acts as a hurdle for professional growth. Which in turn makes “sharing” of products through transmedia outlets one stable defining feature of an art world, in my opinion.

    I thoroughly enjoyed the “Car Alarm Symphony” video which compiled community participation with humor and innovation to create a video that engages audiences and encourages them to do the same in their own communities. Becker mentions that an art world is not only comprised of the actual product of that world but also all those participants that are even remotely involved in production. Video art, like “Car Alarm Symphony”, has so many participants that its art world is huge. Think on it. There are the car owners, the director, the camera man, the video editor, the platform on which they share the video…the list goes on. Immediately, though, after sharing the video through a transmedia outlet like YouTube, Improv Everywhere can accurately asses their audiences and better tailor their product to their wants.

12. Asking this question is like asking if ready made is art. It’s such a subjective question that anything and everything is going to just be a theoretical tangent.

    With that being said: Art is found in the basic idea of communication, so really, anything in a transmedia context be art, as long as the question is being asked in the correct way. Is literature art? What constitutes literature? Is Wikipedia literature? Does the mass communication of language and education not constitute literature? Does the mass communication of language and education not constitute art? A venue where millions around the world can congregate to share ideas and freely edit the information from another person without limitation? Is this not art?

    Who is the writer for the Jenkins post? Is it Jenkins, or his student? Or Fairey? Is the idea of journalism art? You can have two people who both write the same story, but one writer has an eloquent style, and the other is a greener student. If the two authors say the same thing, but in a different way, is one of the articles lesser than the other? Is copyright infringement limited to the things that people are eager to sue for? or does it actually count for all things with a ©? As McDonell brings up the issue of Andy Warhol and the obviously patented Campbell’s soup design, was it not illegal if Campbell’s didn’t sue? Obviously not, as I currently have four anniversary Campbell’s tomato soup cans in my cupboard at the moment with the Andy Warhol design.

    I really loved the ‘Just Three Things’ blog. The art wasn’t necessarily found in the re-blogged pictures, but in the way they were presented together. Each set of images follows a certain form and flow, which allows them to work together as a triptych. Brilliant; taking other works and giving them completely different meanings and making them your own. Wait, is that copyright infringement?

13. ART IS A LIE THAT MAKES US REALIZE TRUTH.-PABLO PICASSO

    I think what stuck with me the most, out of all the reading and media outlets, was the Harrell Fletcher interview. I think the role of artist and audience is irrelevant when art is approached as something that surrounds us daily. We all participate in the arts, whether directly or indirectly. Creative intuition is something every human being is born with. It is the presentation of it that defines us and defines and describes our perception of what art is in our society. I think Harrell Fletcher’s approach to changing MFA programs and putting them to “practical” use in a constantly changing technologically advanced society, is forward thinking and shows how the art world is constantly in flux right alongside with rapidly changing technology. I think that being a painter, for example, used to have a place in the job market in Renaissance Italy, lets say. Portraits and academia supplied this practical demand for reproducing the beauty of the world around us before the use of cameras and the immediate and exact gratification of the photograph. The interview we read, grasps the importance of the modern world’s need to communicate in all kinds of new, immediate ways. Instead of an artist using traditional methods of artistic expression, like paints, pencils, metals, chalks, paper, canvas etc., creative expression can be displayed on the web in thoughtful new ways and reach a global audience. The modern artists have to learn to communicate with this new world, or their voices will never be heard. I also really liked how Fletcher talks about the forums he holds to introduce people on the outside of the artistic communities to interact with the people within them and how, more than ever, we all have the opportunity to learn about worlds that had previously seemed so out of reach. Would it not be utterly amazing and fulfilling if we could all realize the artist and creativity within ourselves as well as the capacity to be logical, practical and left brained? With new forms of communication and accessibility, perhaps we can create a world where there are no assigned categories of creation. We can all teach and learn effectively, and embrace our left and right brained tendencies with equality.

14. The interview with Harrell Fletcher, “Teaching Public Art in the 21st Century” shows his entrepreneurial ideology in changing the art world by redefining how artist practices his/her craft. It is an obvious challenge in this economy to land a job, no matter what major. Yet, as Fletcher describes only 5% of those who earn a BFA are successful in their training as studio artists to achieve recognition in galleries or museums. Instead, he instructs art students to take to the streets and create a conversation with the space and the people around them. The new location and peers inspire the artist in new ways and help draw in new audiences to help participate in the process.

    Like Beckner described last week, in an art world it is impossible to do anything by yourself as a division of labor is almost always present in some form. Cooperation with other people and in new places does not stunt creative growth, but gives a new venue to create and explore. Beckner also describes an art world as “people whose activities are necessary to the production of characteristic works that define art.”

    By having new ports of entry into an art world, transmedia has opened up new forms of communication in which the audience can help create the art and inform a new idea.

15. There is an allure in utilizing transmedia as a vehicle for your artwork. Transmedia is about riffing on an idea, sometimes taking an original concept to an extreme by adding new elements in order to create a miniature world—a new art world. It’s a new way to create your own domain. Becker speaks about the freedom that an artist has to make their own art world if they cannot fit their artistic vision or style of work into existing, accepted structures. However, in order for your art to be taken seriously, you must be thorough in its conceptualization, you must be able to convince people of its worth, and you must be able to scare up resources to create it without help from the traditional support systems. In contemporary times, the Internet makes information and resources readily available, and is the perfect platform to gain support or start a new trend. In fact, Jenkins talks about using transmedia to build “a world which always expands beyond our grasp”—much like the Internet itself.

    Becker briefly alluded to “maverick” artists, which I understand to mean those artists who buck social convention, but perhaps adhere closely enough to tradition that they successfully straddle the line between provocative and palatable. One tactic may be to riff on classics. I don’t know that what Dorothee Golz does is in the realm of transmedia, but her modernized take on classic paintings is affecting. Her work creates an entry point (Jenkins’ language) for a contemporary viewer by putting classic figures in modern dress and settings (http://www.dorothee-golz.com/english/index_engl.html). Golz’s work makes me think of the “culture jamming” craze of the ‘80s and ‘90s, the manipulation of available conventions through satire, Though culture jamming artwork usually has an overt political or anti-consumerist bent and Golz’s work doesn’t appear to, she uses identifiable, what the traditional art world would hold as “sacred,” works and turns them on their head.

    Finally, one organization that I think has used multiple media platforms as well as pastiche really effectively is the record label Illegal Art, home to the mashup artist Girl Talk (http://illegalart.tumblr.com/). The label, which primarily puts out work that relies heavily on samples (the source music and the issue of its legal/illegal use is up for debate), seems to take advantage of a resulting freedom from the strictures of traditional record label. A quick trip to Illegal Art’s blog reveals, for example, a project called The Keystone Cutups, which combines a video collage and musical score, and which is available for purchase in multiple formats—vinyl record, DVD, and download. Another great music example is Bjork’s recent offering, Biophilia, which was initially only offered as a series of iPad apps and whose miniature art world included educational workshops, bespoke instruments, and a documentary film (http://pitchfork.com/news/43032-bjork-reveals-full-scope-of-biophilia/).
    There’s an inconceivable range of possibilities out there for the delivery of art, and transmedia options help artists to push their own boundaries.

16. I, like Katie, really enjoyed the interview with Harrell Fletcher. In particular, I was drawn to the story of Corentine’s Turtle sculpture. Fletcher, commissioned to create a sculpture for a public park, chose a design by a young boy named Corentine. Fletcher helped Corentine develop his idea of a gold turtle painted green, “this kind of decision is the complication you hope for in an art project. This kind of anti-logic that generally cuts out of a rational person’s thinking”. The turtle sculpture became a reality without Fletcher stifling the young boy’s creative vision. Fletcher’s emphasis on teaching Corentine the artistic process and helping him develop his turtle sculpture proposal into a real public sculpture is what makes this piece art. The focus on process and teaching is something that we as emerging professionals in the arts need to fight for, like Fletcher did with Corentine, “Normally kids are only given clay, crayons, and paper — what happens if you give them bronze foundry? What are they going to make?”. How can we in our respective fields inspire more collective intellegences like this collaboration?

17. I really connected with the Ted Talk with Rob Forbes about seeing design and art in urban setting where others may not think to look. This concept can easily be interpreted into finding the art in things beyond urban settings. I think it’s so easy for us to all get into a routine and by pass the world around us with taking real notice. On a similar note I find very interesting how a piece of art speaks to one specific person versus another. In other words, how two people can view the same piece of art and take away two completely different interpretations. Which brings me to this photo; it seems like a photo of a perfectly ordinary occurance at first glance–someone reading a newspaper. But then maybe the headline jumps out at you. To me, I think it makes good sense why a young girl would be reading the newspaper for a headline like that, but the thought of a young girl willingly picking up a newspaper to read it and JUST to read it, still rings a little strange to me. Yet there’s that idea again, of looking where we don’t usually look. How many young children read the paper? So maybe it is not the paper that is interesting, but the girl.

    I think it would be very intriguing to find how people from different age groups and cultural backgrounds would interpret this photo as a work of art. Again, maybe it would not be strange to them to see a young girl reading the paper? Also what I find interesting is the spark of conversation this girl has ignited just by executing this simple act. I doubt this was a goal of hers–but was it a goal of the photographers? Or was the photographer simply trying to document a monumental achievement with a more domestic tone?

18. Fantastic responses/ideas/insights/extensions to this post…Note that a few students have posted their comments in a different place: on the page for the Module 1 readings/resources. Should be the last four or five comments in the list (obviously, others have done this in past years…).

19. While reading Becker’s Aesthetics, Aestheticians, and Critics, I was interested in the role of criticism and critics in various art worlds. Art is subjective by its very nature. My first question was what makes a critic the arbiter of ‘good taste’ in any given art world? In other words, why does the population give that particular critic the power to decide what is ‘good’ and what is not. I think that the most successful critics have experience in a particular field and this lends them credibility. To use a very pedestrian example, when I watched American Idol a few years ago, I was much more likely to listen to Simon Cowell’s critiques as he was a respected music producer, than Ellen DeGeneres, an actress/tv host with no particular music experience.

    I had never really thought about the purpose of the critic before reading this article. As Becker stated, critics “…produce reputations…(which) affects the resources available to artists to continue their work” (131). On page 137, Becker discusses the exclusionary approach of the critic. A critic’s job is to exclude certain art so that the population can focus on what they (the critic) deem to be ‘the best’ and worthy of attention. Critics are necessary because people cannot experience everything—there’s too much art available. He goes on to discuss the finite space, attention, and funding that all art is fighting for and that critics bestow on those they judge to be worthy.

    I thought Becker made some interesting points about how many developing art worlds have difficulty being recognized because reliable critics and metrics don’t yet exist. “You cannot fulfill your plan if the current aesthetic system and those who explicate and apply it deny you the title” (133). It seems that emerging art forms require an incubation period during which they become recognized and judged enough to have a critical system in place. This reminded me of certain art forms, such as rock and roll, hip hop, and graffiti, just to name a few, that were not initially considered art but are now well-respected and established (or become so) among artists, critics, and users.

    On page 134, Becker argues that a jazz musician would “…need a defensible explanation of why” a non-traditional choice might be made. I disagree with this statement. I think that in many cases, what is now considered art was a bold choice of an artist who wreaked havoc on traditional formats for no better reason than try something new. One could point at almost any style of music or painting, to name but two art worlds, and find examples where an artist flouted the prevailing method of composing or creating without a ‘defensible’ explanation other than she or he wanted to do so. Obviously, such bold choices produced extreme failures, but they also produced new and exciting art forms that eventually were accepted and feted in the art community.

    Finally, I enjoyed thinking about how in this digital age, the role of critics has become much less influential when anyone can publish their (usually in-)expert opinion online. Right now, it can be difficult to find experienced and thoughtful critics. On the flip side, it can be interesting to live in a world where participatory criticism happens on a daily basis by the general population/users of the art world. For example, youtube videos become popular and go viral based on how many hits and comments they receive. Something can become a cultural phenomenon (for example, Psy’s ‘Gangnam Style’ or Rebecca Black’s ‘Friday,’ receiving 351M hits/month and 41M hits/year, respectively), regardless of whether established music critics deem it worthy to be titled ‘art.’ To illustrate just how powerful this media age is, I researched that the Louvre, arguably the most famous art museum in the world, gets 12,000 visitors per day (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/On_average_how_many_tourists_visit_the_Louvre_per_day). It would take 80 YEARS of daily Louvre visitors to experience the exposure ‘Gangnam Style’ generated in one month. While that can be frightening, it is also quite exciting that those levels of participation and engagement are available and often are occurring without the aid of established critics.

20. I think one of the most interesting collective art modes of expression is the art that comes out of the political campaigns and the manner in which it is treated and how it becomes propaganda. Clearly, each party embodies they’re message in the posters, commercials, and media that they present to the public. Traditionally, blue and red are used, and sometimes they even become popular media images; such as Obama’s symbol and the “Yes We Can” campaign. The public puts Obama’s stickers on their laptop computers, on the bumper of their, on the bicycle, on their journal etc. It is possible that they are slappin’ the sticker on without the faintest idea of why they are supporting the presidential candidate, only concerned with the stylistic aspects of the campaign! This websites chronicles the American Presidential campaign posters over the last 200 years, and shows the process through which they have become popular media today: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/06/04/presidential-campaign-posters/.

    In this case, the young public is the main target and therefore the most powerful critic. Becker talks about choosing a powerful aesthetic as one of the most important parts of popularizing your media. Without a POWERFUL and CONVINCING visual aesthetic, would a presidential campaign be as successful?

21. I guess I shall repost my comment here since I posted it in the wrong place:

    According to Becker, the value of art is based on its relationship to an art world and so we first must understand the context in order to define art. The problem with this argument is that the art world is constantly changing. Consider an artist like Van Gogh who was not valued when he was alive but who is now considered a master painter. Thus, even the aesthetics of the past can change with revaluation. You cannot determine what does or doesn’t constitute as art without a stable framework for critique. So, how can we look at today’s transmedia practices and determine what is art?

    I believe the answer will lie in reputation. What transmedia practices will have a lasting reputation? Today’s art world is more accessible than ever. Anyone can take a picture with Instagram and call it artistic or post their writing to the internet or make a video on YouTube. This broadens both the participants in the art world and the audience reviewing this art. However, this also results in an art world so heavily inundated with transmedia that few art pieces have a lasting reputation. And with a meme driven internet, it is often the work‘s reputation that lives on past the original artist. So, who is to say who will remembered, who is worthy of collecting or critiquing?

    This conversation reminds the movie Exit Through the Gift Shop. If you haven’t seen it, it is the story of man who somewhat accidentally ends up involved in the street art scene and through this connection to famous artists becomes a widely successful street artist without ever developing his craft. In this way, his reputation did not necessarily reflect the quality of his work. People bought it because they were told to, not because he deserved it. And this brings up a whole new discussion: what deserves to be called art?

    The readings also reminded me of another TED Talk by the writer Elizabeth Gilbert. She discusses the idea of the creative genius and how the definition of creativity has changed over history from having a genius to being a genius. She talks of ancient Greece where creativity was embodied in a separate spirit or daemon that would reach out to artists (like when you have an epiphany). This idea saves the artists from having to hold onto his or her reputation as a creative genius and allows creativity to be something that is accessible to all. I think that this idea of creativity as a conversation better fits with today’s “art by the people” world than the conventional method of referring to the geniuses of the art world to determine value. Regardless if you agree, you should watch the video!!

    http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius.html

22. The art worlds today are more complicated and convoluted than ever, especially by means of a transmedia context. Because of this complexity it is important that critics and teachers are seen as valuable and useful. In the artistic process, one aspect does not exist with out the other. Now this process has had to adapt to new forms of social presentation. There is an ever changing and growing way in which art forms are produced and presented. I found the reading by Becker to be most interesting because it reminded me of the importance of aestheticians and critics. Without them we cannot “arrive at a clear cut definition of the categories of art and non art.” I relate closely to dance when it comes to art forms. In this context people ask what makes something “dance.” Where does a dance begin and where does it end? What makes good dance vs. bad dance? With so many media outlets now dance is everywhere! Because of this it also more accessible to view via new media outlets and “existing aesthetic need to be kept up to date.” When these aesthetics are kept up to date it is important that they are taught and also continue to be updated.

23. Morden technology has made a new invention of artists. Now one can say that all men (people) are artists, because transmedia has brought together art makers and consumers into one globe. They are both participants in the process of art, but this raises new questions as far as art is concerned. As Anthony Trollope sums up; all artwork isn’t done by one individual, but it’s a joint effort involving a number of people. There is routine cooperation that produces a pattern he referred to as Art World. Having that in mind, I am bothered that the new Art World would not spare the reputation of the genius artists. As a result of this, value based on reputation of an artist might be lost.

24. A Rothko was recently defaced at the Tate Modern….I thought the article brings up interesting issues for our class…maybe not for this past module but reading it I was thinking of issues like authorship, what an ‘Artist’ is allowed to do vs. a ‘regular’ person, intention…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mark-rothko-painting-defaced-at-the-tate-modern-8201199.html