A Vacuum tube module from early 700 series IBM computers (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Comments on this post should address the initial/primary questions for Module 2:
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
What are the politics of participation—in curating, collecting, critiquing,etc?
How do power and social practice intersect?
How do power and social practice intesect in transmedia environments?
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
In your comment, include any subquestions/extensions/responses that the above questions push you toward. Address Module 2 reading/viewing assignments as relevant, and point us toward any other resources or examples that you may find (be sure to add these to the Diigo group as well!).
Comments should be posted by midnight on Monday, Oct 15.
Despite the public purpose and collective participation inherent to the social practice of art, the art world itself has always been defined by power. This is not to say that the agency involved in the envisioning or creating of art is necessarily constrained by the powers that be, as many forms of artistic creation are acts of resistance to prevailing political, legal, or cultural power structures. However, artists do not create within a vacuum. As we discussed briefly last week, they must operate within the accepted conventions of art practice, the cultural milieu, the legal frameworks, the financial viability, and the aesthetic standards dictated by those deemed by society to be the experts in the selection, exhibition, and critique of art. As such, the structures of power influence what art is created, where it is shown, if it is legally protected or allowed, if it is rated as high or low art, or even if it is even considered good. Beyond these frameworks, there are also other considerations of power that play a significant role, such as access to materials, training, and legal qualifications for ownership. The audience also holds some power over the artist as to whether or not it is popular or socially acceptable.
While these structures of power have always influenced and constrained the social practice of art, their boundaries seem to be shifting in the transmedia contexts. Now that anyone can produce, distribute, and self-publish their own art, many of the previous constraints of the art world are starting to be transformed. Even ownership and duplication of art is less certain in a digital landscape. However, in my opinion, one of the biggest shifts in the intersection of art and power is regarding the role of the audience. Because of our increasingly networked society, the digital and transmedia landscape now allows for greater accessibility, greater sharing, and new standards for aesthetic critique. For example, instead of an art critic or museum deeming a piece of art as being worthwhile, a video going viral, being liked, or shared now allows for broader consideration based on crowdsourcing. Thus, an artist can create a digital piece of art and display it with the only intermediary being the network. Then, if enough people see it, like it, share it, or link to it, it has the potential to become just as widely viewed, and possibly as valuable, as a masterpiece once selected by museums. While maybe not an exact comparison, the point is that digital art is simply restructuring the power structures of the art world. Digital artists will still need to have the skill to use the digital media, the financial ability to connect to the Internet, and the network to spread their visions. Laws will still dictate if its ownership is protected or if it can even be published. But it is the audience who now holds more sway over an art piece’s popularity, acceptability, and even success. Whether that is good or bad, depending on the tastes of masses, it still shifts the power structure away from an elite class of gallery owners, museum curators, collectors, and critics, who once determined good art from bad or what was even seen as being worth seeing. In this way, the power of art is now in the social practice of participation.
As Brant articulately explains in his comments, art and systems of political power are inseparable. In “Art and the State,” Becker points out that the political implications of art are complex and that art can be used to encourage collective action for or against political leaders and policies. Furthermore, art can become a force that encourages social participation and engagement (for example, the development of social capital as advocated for by The Saguaro Seminar) or it can be part of a social structure where a specialized group of artists create and perform works and everyone else sits quietly in the audience.
Much of the intellectual buzz concerning transmedia environments centers around the notion that digital media opens up many spheres of communication that were previously controlled by gatekeepers such as critics, wealthy patrons, publishers, record company executives, and gallery owners. Anybody can make an album or produce a piece of art and share it with a worldwide audience. Transmedia activists, with their tendency to mix, sample, borrow, and share, have also sparked challenges to copyright laws and notions of fixed ownership. At the same time, it is important to remember that transmedia environments exist within larger systems of power and inequality. While intellectuals like Henry Jenkins focus on the liberating aspects of transmedia platforms, they seem to spend less time discussing the power relationships imbedded in those very same formats. As recent exposes of conditions in Apple’s factories reveal, the devices that have democratized the arts and the media for some people are the same devices that represent the horrendous exploitation of others.
On a different note, I found Raymond Williams’ discussion of culture to be one of the most profound definitions that I have ever read. His assertion that culture is a whole way of life that encompasses ordinary practices and official systems of learning challenges the notion that arts and culture are the exclusive realms of those who have received some sort of special intellectual training. Williams’ perspective seems quite similar to many of the themes that are currently being discussed by arts educators, folklorists, and media activists.
Not having much art history background, I still believe there are major grounds to say that for a long time, where art and social practice are concerned, only those who had the ability (finances, social standing) to go see art, had the most power in determining what art is and who shall have access to it. Art used to be something that hung on a wall in a museum and you had to pay to get in to see it. Or it used to be a building of a particular design that was built in a foreign country so you had to be able to travel there. It seems that the reoccurring theme here is that money controlled art, and therefore the wealthy controlled art. So it must have been by their standards that what art is was determined and then passed down the line to those who do not have access to it. It is like spoon-feeding information to a toddler that has been passed through generations of people and so warped, and then letting that toddler grow up thinking that they can’t change those standards simply because of its/their origins. It’s like that information is in a vacuum, and therefore cannot be altered. But then along came technology and before we knew it everyone has access to all kinds of art they didn’t before. We can briefly tour art museums from our phones, without ever leaving our living room. Not only can we view pictures of famous buildings, we can read about their structure and design and apply those strategies in our own lives. This transmedia environment that we live in today has not only educated us about the vast world of art, it has given us the power to wield it. Art is no longer just something in a frame, and everyone knows it. A problem we encounter though is that there is now more conflict about what constitutes art than before.
When art was controlled by a smaller group of people the possibility for conflicting theories was also smaller. But now there are people from all different backgrounds and who have all had different experiences vying not only for their definition of art to be validated, but to invalidate others’. While our technology has educated so many people about so many other cultures, it has in now way reached its full potential. There is still ignorance and stubbornness in our world that greatly affects many art worlds. It seems that the relationship between who participates in art and the definition of art are directly proportionate. The more people we have engaging in art, the more unclear its definition becomes, which is ironically incredibly scientific–for every question answered, ten more arise. Maybe art is not supposed to be defined? Maybe it is supposed to be felt. This would validate every person’s belief in what is art and what isn’t. If someone doesn’t thinks that something isn’t art, they obviously feel nothing by it. Art definitely should not be controlled. If we were to release ourselves from the idea of “controlling” art, what would happen? Would the conflict go away? Would we be able to just enjoy what we feel and experience from art? Or would we be left still wondering the same questions?
I think the politics of participation are ever-changing and hard to define. At one point in time participation in the arts was elitist and hard to access. Participation in the arts now is more available and accessible to everyone. Regardless of class or culture we all have access to art. Thanks to transmedia outlets such as the internet anyone can exhibit their own art. The internet also allows anyone from a beginner to a professional to participate and create. But what does this mean for artists?
The American Assembly expresses a strong purpose for arts in America. “Through the interpretive and expressive strengths of the arts and of artist, Americans can more fully live with change and make change meaningful.” That quote in itself poses a strong argument for someone questioning the importance of art in society. The arts sector does have the significance as other sectors like science, health, and education but the importance and benefits of art are now recognized on a greater level. I think there is constant battle in government for explaining the importance of the arts because it is so subjective and can be complicated to break down.
I think that despite the ease at which someone can be an artist and display their work via transmedia makes it harder to curate and critique art. According to Bill Ivey’s Cultural Bill of Rights, we all have the right to creative. I’m creative and I like to dance and choreograph. I could choreograph a dance, recorded it on my phone, upload to the internet, and wait for people to critique my work and post their comments about it. What if my work were to get more views and positive critiques then a famous piece of choreography? Thus comes in the politics of participation and how they are hard to define. Just because I have the power to project my art and make it more easily accessible does not mean my work holds the same value or importance as another artist. Without transmedia, going back to choreography, how would I be able to make my work so accessible that it could be compared to a famous piece? In a way it almost seems power is more important to artist who does not use transmedia.
I’m still not quite sure I understand anything about this topic, so rather than provide a formulated response, I will just be asking a lot of questions. What is the meaning of the word “politics” in this context? And as we’re talking about these ideas, what is the period to which we’re referring? Everything that we’ve been talking about in class is contemporary, but many of these issues seem to have been previously explored by artists of other generations. I always loved performance & earth art of the 60s, so that immediately comes to mind when wondering if these works align with our class discussions. (Perhaps Dadaism would fit in as well?) Work from these genres inherently challenge the constructed “norm” and include transmedia messaging. And, like the examples we’ve been discussing in class, often only become “art” upon entering a social context. So, is there anything different that’s happening now, or is it just a new spin on an old idea? I would love to hear others’ thoughts.
That said, it seems power and social practice intersect at the very moment when individuals move from spectators to participants. And whether this is in an arts-oriented environment, or just in society at large, the power dynamic shifts. Clearly, the advent of the internet allows more people to connect and participate, though arguably these shifts have occured through other media as well. One of my favorite transmedia projects (in which many of you may have unknowingly participated) is the “War is Over” project by John Lennon and Yoko Ono (http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/). In this brilliant anti-Vietnam war campaign, Ono and Lennon organized world-wide radio spots, billboards, pamphlets, posters, film, their public personas, and arguably the best Christmas song ever, based on the concept that “War is over, if you want it.” Spectators / listeners are urged into the realm of participation by an edict granting them collective power over something seemingly out of people’s hands. For this piece and others that come to my mind, the artists intentionally chose these media to reach certain audiences and to ease access / understanding of ideas. A song by John Lennon and posters alluding to newspaper headlines for the future end of war engage a wider audience than would have been possible had this message been communicated via, say, a painting in a museum.
I love Yoko Ono so use an example from her, but could easily have referenced Joseph Bueys, Allan Kaprow, or many others. Though I suppose this example harkens back to my initial confusion of: is what is happening now different than what happened 30+ years ago? Or, perhaps this sort of art as social practice is seeing a general resurgence because of the revolutionary spirit in the air?
On a side note, I also came across these resources, that complement this topic:
http://www.e-flux.com/journal/after-ows-social-practice-art-abstraction-and-the-limits-of-the-social/
http://theiwt.com/index.php
I hope this is at least marginally coherent.
Becker’s “Art and the State”, prompted me to think about what happens when the state controls participation and the arts in every way. Of course, we don’t and probably haven’t seen this in the US, but this was a big part of the art world in the Soviet Union. (I’m bringing in the example of my own research again this week.) Only certain people could be artists; it was their role in supporting the communist state. All forms of art (painting, folk arts, architecture, music, theatre, poetry, etc.) were closely monitored and all artists were required to follow specific rules and regulations about what they could paint, sing, write, etc. If they didn’t, they were arrested, fined, and/or killed, as was the fate of many poets in the 1930s USSR. Art was used to indoctrinate and propagandize. Those who managed to create art as they wanted, often in the form of criticism of the state, couldn’t display it in any way. It had to be kept a secret and few people had a chance to appreciate it at the time. State control, in any form, brings up questions of authenticity and ownership. When the artist is forced to create pre-formulated art, is it “real” art? And since the state owns everything, does that extend to art? Or does the idea of a collective society erase any notion of ownership? I think this would be an interesting study in some countries today that have dictatorship governments.
I think it is also interesting to consider what happened after the fall of the Soviet state. Now, post-communism, art has no such regulations. Artists can create what they want. Much of the art that was banned during communism has been made available and the artists are seen as heroes of their time. Those who were once seen as enemies of the state now possess power as some of the most respected artists of Russia, who modern artists use as inspiration. With the use of transmedia online, paintings can be seen, poetry read, and folk art purchased by anyone. Art of any of the former Soviet republics is accessible to anyone with an internet connection. Artists have made their own websites and display and sell their own art. They can represent themselves and their art as they want. The internet has stretched the boundaries of art worlds and accessibility across national and linguistic boundaries. These artists have taken the power back from the state and are using it as individuals. Though there are certainly other issues of power, as other commenters above have discussed, I think the ability to make art without state control is something that many artists take for granted.
The American Assembly’s The Arts and the Public Purpose discusses the fresh concept of a broader arts spectrum, which coincides with much of the discussion at the Oregon Arts Summit surrounding the definition of art and public participation in it. At the Oregon Arts Summit, Keynote Speaker Eric Booth stated a shocking fact that the definition of ‘art’ has become so narrow that the majority of Americans (93%!) would not consider themselves consumers of art. That 93% thinks of art only as elitist and expensive. Mr. Booth pointed out that the definition (and perception) of art needs to be broadened to include ANYTHING that is done well—from ballet to bricklaying. This fits directly into the ‘full spectrum’ concept discussed by the American Assembly. Under this broader definition, everyone in the population would be a participant in some sort of transmedia art. People need to understand that rebuilding an old car, concocting a perfect crème brulée, or even taxidermy is considered an art. To take this spectrum into the focused area of music, we are saying that there should be no distinction between enjoying a chorale movement from a Carly Rae song. Obviously, people’s tastes are different and some may prefer one over the other, but should be no inherent ‘better’ or ‘high versus low’ distinction between the two. Pop, hiphop, drum cadences, classical—all of these music styles should be considered art. If this were truly the case, then many more people would consider themselves users of and participators in the arts than currently do. As both Mr. Booth and the Arts Assembly pointed out, the less inter-disciplinary fighting within the arts, the better the different mediums/styles/transmedia types can band together to encourage participation in ANY art and thus foster appreciation, funding, participation, and support amongst ALL art.
After doing the readings and looking at Abby’s post, state controlled participation in the arts is still ongoing. Take for instance the Chinese artist Ai Weiwei. He is artist that questions authority, especially the Chinese government. Weiwei was detained for three months without any explanation last year. After he was released, Weiwei has been charged with $2 million dollars worth of tax evasion, which Weiwei says is bogus and is fighting the alligatons in court. He is restricted from leaving China and is not allowed to use any kind of social media or talk with the foreign press. Weiwei secretly still does interviews because it is still important for him to tell the world what is happening to him.
The same can be said for the group Pussy Riot in Russia who are a feminist punk-rock and artist collective. Their performances highlight what they deem to the problematic political practices or the Russian government, especially Vladimir Putin. They would perform in unauthorized places and post these on the Internet. In August, three of the members Yekaterina Samutsevich, Nadexhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina were given two-year jail on hooliganism charges. A few days ago Samutsevich was able to win an appeal and is free on probation but Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina still have their sentences upheld.
The advances of social media has allowed artists like Ai Weiwei and Pussy Riot to have their voices heard concerning problems they have with their government. They are not only able to reach more of a local audience, but a global one as well. As much as artists are able to express themselves, the situations that Weiwei, Samutsevich, Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina have encountered still illustrate how much power current governmental states can have over artists. Both Ai Weiwei and Pussy Riot have websites devoted to them. These sites try to gain wide spread global support for their release or acquittal and numerous other media outlets have spread the news of what has been happening to them. There have been rallies, protests and fundraisers on their behalf.
Social media and transmedia can be a powerful tool to not only express oneself but to be exposed to others thoughts. Even though the Internet has been said to be democratizing, it is still evident that state governmental powers can still figure out ways to control the messages artists are putting out.
Something that is important for people to not be too complacent about is that there still needs to be a physical presence to how people feel. If a million people view that what is happening to Ai Weiwei and Pussy Riot isn’t right, just saying so on a blog isn’t quite enough. Sure it makes people feel like they did something, but because social media doesn’t have any real physicality it doesn’t have real impact. If however, a million people wrote letters to the Chinese government or protested in person in front of the Kremlin, then there is a presence that is harder to ignore. Social media is a powerful tool, but it shouldn’t be the only tool to be relied on.
Another thing I noticed in a lot of the other posts, including my own, is that we all talked about how social media and transmedia has helped expand the definition of what is art and who can critique it. This is a great thing, but at the same time it shouldn’t replace the exposure of participating, listening or seeing art in person. Looking at a sculpture on a computer screen and being in its’ physical presence are two totally different experiences. You can’t walk around the sculpture, feel its gravity, smell it, taste it, touch it on a digital device. You cannot truly say you have seen the work. I worry about the future where people aren’t taking the time to be with art in person and that the understanding of art gets diluted. We can post all we want, but we must make sure to balance this with real life exposure!
The society we live in today is defined by a social hierarchy. We might not even realize it is there, but we operate in agreement with certain limitations and rarely step outside our circumscribed roles. No matter how hard you try to escape this caste system, there is also someone functioning below and above you. One of the reasons communism put into practice has failed in almost every instance is because it is human nature to create a hierarchy. This applies itself to every field, including the art world. Ultimately, who holds the power? The Artists? The Critics? One theme we touched on in the first week is who decides/what is ART? We give power to those who say “this is not good enough” or “I could have done better.” But what if we were to take away that power? It is perfectly possible to do but so much harder to achieve because the hierarchy of power is so deeply embedded in the way we mentally organize society. If there is no one to judge us/tell us what to do…. how do we know?
Hundreds of years ago art became a socially cultivated practice, and being an artist became a profession. The only way to successfully make money was to have a benefactor who would commission a piece then suggest your work to his wealthy comrades. This is where the hierarchy of power in the art world began. The value of art was suddenly judged and gauged by a monetary worth. To this day, when we go window shopping, gallery hopping, museum walking, there is always this thought in the back of our minds (at least there is in mine)… ‘would I pay for this?’ Most often the answer is no because gallery art is outrageously expensive. Who gave the artist permission to charge so much for paint on a canvas? What are we paying for? The time? The medium used? The end product? Who really knows? All we know is that a certain status is achieved by obtaining a piece of artwork. Here the hierarchy of power traps us again.
I was struck by the connection between pluralism and transmedia as I read Bradford and Wallach, and the way that keeping our pluralistic society in mind as we create art can effect and increase participation. Ivey’s Cultural Bill of Rights reinforced that idea for me — the way that we assimilate new forms of media and communication can indeed become part of our artistic identities, and help those previously unexposed to certain art forms gain familiarity and experience. In utilizing transmedia in a pluralistic way, the smaller connections between art forms and art worlds can be reinforced. Ivey’s comment about the right to understand quality also reminded me of the internet-era situation in which anyone can become a critic and give themselves a voice. I think that an important part of maintaining a balance between a media overload (artistic saturation to the point where judgement and experience become less valuable) is the physical experience of art, as Lyle mentioned previously. If people can utilize transmedia to communicate and broaden their personal art experiences while remaining rooted in some type of physical practice or community, the two lenses of viewing art experience can inform one another.
Relating these vague ideas to the actual politics of participation is a difficult one for me (as Ali mentioned). I think that definitions of participation, like Ivey’s definition of cultural rights, can continuously be updated and modified to fit a community or larger group’s needs, and that they are necessary to the process but can also hinder the appreciation of art in the now, as it is being created and experienced.
Again, the chapter by Becker is what stands out to me most. Although Becker only touched on it briefly, the potential of an art piece to be politicized fascinates me. Say an artist paints a seemingly benign subject in what they intend to be a benign manner. Instead, the artist unwittingly stimulates the political feelings of his/her viewers. Completely unintentionally. Is the artist then responsible for the reaction or do the viewers take responsibility? If it happens to be a very public response, maybe to the decisions of political parties, the state may feel it necessary to take action. But who is the (legally) responsible party? Becker smoothly streamlines this thought process into the difficulties surrounding censorship. I am not an artist so I never considered the threat that censorship might cause to the creative process. Becker very clearly illustrates that, although censorship might not be prevalent in countries such as the USA, there is always the little voice in the back of an artist’s head that whispers “Be careful”. I suppose it helps to define an individual as to whether or not they listen to the little voice. In consequence, does the desire to avoid conflict as a artist mean that individual has less prestige in their art world? If extreme artists, such as Pussy Riot mentioned in a previous post, completely disregard the threat of censorship, does that make their work more compelling than the unintentional artist? So many questions!
I think the issues surrounding unintentional politicization of art is a subject that deserves a little more attention and discussion. What examples can we come up with collectively that reflect a surge of political response, both from viewers and the ominous state, without the artist consciously aiming for that effect?
While reading the Becker article, I couldn’t help but think about propaganda art. Like works commissioned by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. That’s immediately what I thought of when I read Art and the State. That definitely plays into power and social practice, but that was mostly power. It was the power to say that propaganda art was the only kind of art people had access to. Which in turn had an affect on social practice. In our Cultural Museum class today we talked about a proposal for an exhibition at the JSMA and the MNCH using pre-colonial Mesoamerican maps and European maps as part of the content as a platform to present some of the surrounding cultural issues and themes. They cannot get funding from the major grant organizations based on the fact that people think that this is too hot of a topic or thinking that it is too offensive to certain people. This is an example of how the people with the money can control and manipulate what gets funded and therefore what the public gets to see. In terms of transmedia I think now that social media and accessibility for the display of art has changed this for the better. It may also change the audience. People can now see pictures of works of art that were exclusively at certain museums. It gives the people the power do decide what they see and like, instead of have a museum tell them what is good enough to be in the public eye.
But also along these same lines is using art as culture for nationality/nationalism. Some art and artists come to define what art means to a culture or cultural movement. That could also become its own artworld in a sense.
In regards to the issue of how political interests can have an effect on how art is produced and distributed in our current mediascape, I would like to make a few comments about Bill Ivey’s “Cultural Bill of Rights.” From what I understand, this is an excerpt from a larger work in which Ivey launches a polemic against the current state of cultural policy in America and the interference of corporations with the arts. For me, this immediately called to mind the eruption of protests across the internet within the last year centered on SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA. Internet users across the globe were responding to the same issues that Ivey concerns himself with, namely the growing control that private businesses have over intellectual property.
However, it is important to note that while Ivey posits that the government (if reforms are made) can have a positive impact on the arts and serve as agent of protection, the fact that such legislation was gaining serious momentum in the first place would seem to suggest otherwise. Protests against these acts were primarily focused on concerns about potential damage to freedom of speech and privacy. In particular, I see a correlation with Ivey’s second point (“A Creative Life”) that we must become artist-citizens. Given that the internet provides a platform for those who may not have access to other methods of distributing their creative endeavors—particularly if those creations are produced within a digital medium—it is worrying that the government should enforce such restrictions to appease private interests. It is an especially illuminating example of how a hegemonic power structure directly shapes social practice whether it is in support or opposition.
“By their very nature the arts are social activities which connect artists with spectators. Artistic exchange is a form of communication — the “making common” of an idea or emotion. As such, the arts offer a naturally fertile terrain for cultivating social capital.” Saguaro Seminar
I think that this short quote from the Harvard Kennedy School website explains why art is so important in our culture and our everyday lives. This also relates to another article from our reading assignment. (The politics of culture: Policy perspective for individuals, institutions, and communities (pp. 286-300). New York, NY: The New Press.Re-presenting the City), which discusses the existence of art in diverse communities. I guess what I am trying to say, is that art is a communication tool for groups of people that may not previously have any common ground to stand on or have nothing in common socially or economically. The nature of art is social and seeks to explain and teach through emotion in order to create understanding of the world we have immersed ourselves in and created. But I think what I am most interested in, is the term social capital as mentioned in the Saguaro Seminar. According to the above article, I see it simply as the positivity and understanding some forms of art can inspire. I see it as the end result of art in a community. Instead of tangible statistics to support tangible earnings, art produces the assets of culture versus the assets of a corporation where actual money is created. Culture is created by social capital and is what we all have as a basis for identity. If we look at art as a creator and expeditor of culture, it becomes irreplaceable and invaluable and becomes social capital, which are the benefits a community receives. I feel like I am going in circles trying to explain this, and that only by writing what comes out of my brain can I really understand the importance of art and it’s ethereal capital as compared to a businesses capital . I feel like Art is the business of making emotion and understanding and a Corporation or Company is the in the business of making money. I think distinguishing between the two is the main problem. One cannot exist without the other but only one is invaluable but both can be bought by money.
I think it is interesting to look at things by units of energy. Energy is created by ideas and work and rewarded with monetary value based on our values as a society. Money seems to be the ideal, and so everything becomes marketable; even art, the intangible representation of our souls.
My first reaction to the word power is thinking of it as something that one has over another human being, or the power to do what one wants, less limited by the social rules or constraints that ordinary folk must adhere to. But in addressing the prompt question, “How do power and social practice intersect?”, I am inclined to entertain other notions of power. I like the idea of giving power to individuals through an invitation to practice or participate in art, which may increase a community’s social capital and provide a social service to participants. This was discussed at length in the “Update On the Seventh Meeting of the Seguaro Seminar.” So much of the argument of this piece (and in “Re-presenting the City: Arts, Culture, and Diversity in Philadelphia”)—that the arts unify individuals and build stronger communities—recalls the project my group just did on Caldera. We spoke of the power of arts organizations to provide support for struggling individuals and reduce feelings of alienation. Art is a great excuse to get people together to work on a project, and in the process, become closer, exchange ideas and resources, build trust, and learn something new. As Sterns and Seifert (2000) note in “Re-presenting the City:” “. . . cultural institutions and participation build bridges” (p. 298). In this case, a bridge refers to that which links different communities together—like the rich and the poor, or different racial groups. But how does doing art for the purpose of generating social capital or doing a service to residents of a community affect the artwork created? Could it somehow water down the standards for quality within an art discipline or genre? One of the questions posed in the Sagauro Seminar piece is, “At what point do issues-oriented arts programs cease to be art and become social work or community activism?” I tend to think social-practice-leaning cultural organizations do have a real responsibility to improve the quality of life of the residents in their community. And not just by providing nice works to view (be they musical, visual or otherwise), but by building bridges and bonds between people. I believe providing that social service should be prioritized above adhering to some predetermined set of standards of artistic quality.
The examples of successful models of public art in the Saguaro Seminar piece reminded me of an organization that I learned of during the Oregon Arts Summit this past weekend. One is Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s the Green Show (http://www.osfashland.org/en/productions/activities-and-events/green-show.aspx). There’s not much on the website now (it looks like OCF just redesigned their site), but Claudia Alick, producer of the Green Show, talked about workshopping performances with rural school kids throughout the year, in addition to their free, and very eclectic and family-friendly summer programming. Another organization that people in class (Art in Society, that is), might find interesting is Signal Fire (http://www.signalfirearts.org/). In addition to facilitating artist residencies deep in the woods of national Oregon parks, Signal Fire recently launched their program Wide Open Studios, which is a college-level wilderness arts program.
What I got from the reading of Culture is Ordinary by Williams was that some are left outside the walls of establishments based on class though Williams expresses that most wouldn’t know it or care if you told them. From his text he mentions that merely showing up was enough to be part of the experience and that his environment did not threaten him or make him feel any less.
“I was not, by the way oppressed by Cambridge. I was not cast down by old buildings, for I had come from a country with twenty centuries of history written into the earth.”
Williams seemed to not have any ill will towards such things but enjoyed the learning from his history, life and experiences. The fact that this life behind the walls wasn’t available to him was fine, he could still exist and live a good ordinary life.
Within the readings from The American Assembly they immediately state that they will be identifying the role and place for art. Cities and organizations missions include reference to common good, public service and creating flourishing environments but as stated these environments are created by the combination of the culture, ethnicity and people within them. Cultural institutions are good in bridging the gap between rich and poor and creating a platform to communicate. I was interested in this information because it helped me understand that ultimately these populations of people make the scene, location and culture through their unique combination, stirring the proverbial melting pot. And though these positions of power and “educated bodies of knowledge” identify what contributes to a vibrant community, they do so by examining these living examples of a collaborative community. The organizations can be seen as a voice for the populations as well as a barrier, diluting and regulating the initial impetus.
One more thing I forgot to add is that the Saguaro Seminar briefly mentions William Cleveland, the then-director of the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis. He is now the Director for the Center For the Study of Art and Community in Bainbridge Island, WA (http://www.artandcommunity.typepad.com/csac/who-we-are.html#Cleveland). He will be speaking in one of my classes, Community Arts Think Tank, taught by Professor Lori Hager, this Thursday. I’ll bring back a little report to anyone who’s interested in what he talks about. How’s that for telling stories across multiple platforms!
When considering the idea of politics of participation, one quote from the Becker’s “Art and the State” really stuck out to me, “Political leaders usually believe that the symbolic representations embodied in both high and popular art affect whether citizens can be mobilized and for what ends”. I find this perfectly describes the politics of participation. The government supports art forms like songs, films, plays, sculptures, and posters that can reaffirm what the government wants its citizens to believe. It is these kinds of arts that the government wants people to participate in and starts them young. The National Anthem, Stars and Stripes Forever, and America the Beautiful are easily recognizable tunes for any American child. Figures like Rosie the Riveter and Uncle Sam help us learn American history in school. As people grow up, although our viewpoints may begin to differ from that of the government, the foundation of nostalgia and patriotism is still there when you hear America the Beautiful or see Rosie.
Transmedia environments have made it easier for people to participate in creating art that goes against the government beliefs, but at the same time it also can be used for governmental gain. Take the 2008 election for example. Shepherd Fairey’s Hope poster of Barack Obama became an iconic symbol for the Obama campaign and had a hand in wining him the presidency. In a transmedia dominated generation, does the government still uses its power to control the politics of participation or just chose to promote or censor what they deem worthy?
While this example is not exactly art, I think it accurately displays the way power, marketing, and society intersect on a transmedia level: the Red Bull Stratos event. This was the biggest ad stunt that Red Bull has pulled yet: have someone do something remarkable, and plaster your name all over it. While not to take away from the amazing feat that Felix Baumgartner accomplished, I think that the spondership by Red Bull says a lot about society. Red Bull, like other materialist companies that promote spending and consumerism, used Felix, a modern day “hero,” regarded by some, as a way to market their product. Millions of people tuned in to the brand name of Red Bull. Red Bull literally gave this man “wings.” This publicity stunt transcended many levels of transmedia: it was an adversiting campaign, there was a website, it was a televised event, you could watch it live on the internet, and there was a man physically performing something amazing. Would a company other than a consumerist one sponder an event like this? Would NASA sponser an event that was not in the name of science, but in the name of breaking a world record behind the guise of science? Probably not. Would people have been interested if it was something less exciting than a man freefalling from space? Questionable.
On a more arts-level: the arts have always been percieved as elitist. From the time when art was percieved as having a greater value beyong pure ritual, certain groups of people have been isolated from the art world. Take salons, for example, where people would pay to see art, and there would be a panel of people who decided where on the wall an artist’s work would be placed. If your art made it to the eye-level place on the wall, your art was thought to be the best. If your art was higher or lower on the wall, better luck next time. Today we see the same thing. The concept of the “starving artist” still exists. There are still people who “get” art, and those who do not. Although anyone can walk into a museum and educate themselves about art, or read a book on art, or even look it up on the internet, there is still that divide that creates two categories that people put themselves into: those who are artsy, and those who are not.
The Becker article, “Art and the State,” hits on this in the “Property” subchapter (beginning page 167). Art is now, and has been for quite some time, been treated like a commodity. “Artists and business people collaborate,” as seen in my example of Red Bull Stratos. This is big money coming together with a person who is more relatable to the public – an artist, or in this case a daredevil – to put on a show of what humans can achieve. That is what art is sometimes: the exploitation of human capability.
The Arts and Public Purpose by the American Assembly surprised me on their assertion of importance of art in american society. To me, art in America always seemed like an ignored segment in our society. America tends to put emphasis on science, business, and economics rather than developing culture and supporting the arts. The American Assembly promotes the idea of finding nationalism through participation and support of the arts. They believe that America’s participation in the arts will help spread democratic ideas throughout America as well as globally.
This reading, paired with Becker’s article “Art and the State” reminded me of what other countries have done to promote their own sense of identity and nationalism. Immediately what comes to mind is Hitler’s Degenerate Art traveling exhibit and his conquest for great European Art during WWII. He used art as a way of showing the his country and the world that Germany was a cultured country and had power by “owning” these great works. In contrast, he used the degenerate art exhibition to create a sense of German nationality and identity by denouncing works that were modern or non-German, especially any art work created with a Jewish or Bolshevik influence.
Hooray, pieces that define art as a broad spectrum of expressive cultural practices! I appreciate that we’re getting into how everyone participates in the arts, at least informally.
I love Laurette’s concept above that “Energy is created by ideas and work and rewarded with monetary value based on our values as a society. Money seems to be the ideal, and so everything becomes marketable; even art, the intangible representation of our souls.” Something that had struck me about the American Assembly’s “Arts and the Public Purpose” essay was that it justified the arts socially, ideologically and financially. My impression was that for the purposes of that writing, the social and ideological arguments were mostly gilding the lily. At its core their defense not-for-profit art came down more to the “cooperative” relationship which the Assembly described as mostly flowing from not-for-profit to the commercial, but which is in fact much more complicated and folded in on itself. That, and the oddly imperialistic tone of the pro-democracy statements, made me very uncomfortable. To get back on topic, at the end the core message I got from it was “the arts are a huge financial boon to the nation; not-for-profit arts also make people feel good and promote American values, which can then be be monetized as well.” This is far more political than philosophical, and I can’t help but wonder how differently it would have come out if the same group had been writing for a different audience.
I can’t imagine writing a similar essay without discussing the benefit of the public domain, the rich cultural heritage that America has to share with the world and that future Americans will inherit from artists working today.
Bill Ivey’s Cultural Bill of Rights is much more what I’d hope to see as a political statement on the public value of the arts,, and his “art and diplomacy” statement leaves me much happier than the Art and Public Purpose reading. But there’s still something missing: an explicit link to the First Amendment, to the fundamental right of American artists to do what Lyle points out that Ai Weiwei and Pussy Riot are punished for doing, which is to criticize their political systems.
I’m looking forward to a broader discussion of Ivey’s “America Needs a New System,” because I’m having trouble unpacking it myself. I definitely follow that we’re working with an arts funding system that’s a legacy of another time, when “art” had a narrower definition and “quality” was defined by an elite few, but I can’t wrap my head around the notion of funding Disney or HBO. I think we’d need to work through Ivey’s three steps to getting our bearing in the arts first. I’m interested in what you all see as “places where the gates are too narrow” and what could be done politically to help.
The power play of participation in the arts has everything to do with labels and identity. In Bill Ivey’s Cultural Bill of Rights he states that its a right of Americans to create art that “accurately conveys the complexity and diversity of America’s human and material artistic resources to citizens of the world.” But is that the right to convey us as we want to be seen or as we actually are? In order to control our reputation, we must have power over our portrayal. But it is not simple to hold power over one’s identity. As Raymond Williams said, culture is “made and remade in every individual mind.” To him culture is ordinary, to others it is high art, to others it thrives in diversity. Who has the power to say which is right?
This fight for power over identity results in labels that justify us vs. them mentality. For example, I was surprised by the finding in “The Arts and the Public Purpose” that a large amount of the social and cultural institutions exist in low economic status areas. I then realized that I had been thinking of cultural/arts institutions as mainstream institutions such as museums and performing arts venues, thus discounting a whole section of cultural life. In this realization, I recognized that this same categorization is used in order to exert power of the mainstream arts organization over the alternatives (the fine art vs. folk art argument for example).
And then there is the artist’s power over his/her identity. This is a much more tenuous relationship. There’s the artist’s intent and how he or she is perceived by his/her audience. There is not much an artist can do except produce quality work. But then you think of the playwright who hands over his/her script to be completely re-interpreted by the director and actors. I once wrote that: “Being a playwright is like handing your baby over to mad scientists who find the cure for cancer” meaning that the playwright has no control over what becomes of his/her work but often it is transformed into something even more magical. So, do artists really want control over their works use and reception? I don’t believe the process of creating the artwork ends at the presentation but continues with engagement.
Lastly, this power play over identity has strong ties to controversy and censorship. Returning to Ivey’s Cultural Bill of Rights, we have the right to convey the complexity of America, but how? This reminds me of an exhibit of the Enola Gay (the plane that dropped the atomic bomb) at the National Air and Space Museum. The museum had wanted to display the plane with an exhibit about the moral implications of dropping the bomb, covering both the American and Japanese view. However, since the museum is a public institution, there was great backlash because this exhibit was not portraying Americans in a positive light. It was not seen as patriotic. After much debate, the exhibit was slashed, the director resigned and now all that exists of the exhibit is a part of the Enola Gay and sign that has a 11 word sentence from the pilot. In this example, the power over identity was not held by the museum, but in a people who wanted to uphold their reputation.
The article which stood out the most for me in regards to the politics of participation, as well as power intersections, was “The arts and public purpose” article from the American Assembly. The first section that struck me was on page 65, when they were talking about developing and implementing a new concept and description for the “arts”. This was an appealing way of looking at various art worlds as a whole, when discussing for the arts industry to be of equal importance to science and education. My thoughts on this were; would it be possible, and if so, when would it be possible to develop a national concept of a flexible arts sector? Is it possible in the reasonably near future that the ‘arts sector’ could be viewed as a ‘full spectrum’ arts sector as opposed to the currently separated areas of arts? Clearly if “high art” and for example, “conceptual art” were considered of the same value in our society and economy, then groups associated to both genres would receive the same funding support and advocacy. This isn’t always the case, although more and more post-modern art is being accepted into American and World cultures as important to the art world. Another idea from the article that ties into this idea is, “A problem for the not-for-profit and unincorporated worlds, and even for independent producers in the commercial world, is that the most effective means of distribution are beyond their reach.” The inability for these producers to use the most effective means of distribution is just one of many issues that keeps the art world unbalanced and disjointed.
Politics exist in and dominate every form of participation in art worlds. Power and politics determine the shape which social practices take. Although this is most frequently seen as a societal evil in that inculcated frameworks of power assume a rather dictatorial relationship to expression which should by ideally unfettered, rigid political power structures are a fact of life. The good thing is that our current transmedia atmosphere is doing much now to shift and disseminate power- although no huge ‘structures’ have been torn down yet by people being able to access and share more information on the internet. Still, our transmedia environment today is steadily democratizing art worlds, making everything more readily accessible and encouraging wider participation and the dissemination of information. I do agree with Lyle about the fact that we need to be aware that a balance should be struck between taking advantage of the internet and being physically there (as viewer but also as performer, collaborator, etc) as participants in art worlds. We need to take advantage of all the forms of participation we can in order to keep the public arts alive. I was just watching some videos and looking at projects by the City2.0 (they won the latest TED prize). I’ll put up a link to the video….which has as one of its messages “Combine the reach of the cloud with the power of the crowd”. This is what we’ve got to do today.
You can watch City2.0’s video here- http://www.thecity2.org/about
I deeply agree with Brant Burky’s viewpoint” artists do not create within a vacuum.” I would like to explain it by a fact which happened in China. The light industry in Hangzhou is developing rapidly, but Hangzhou is better known for its long history and beautiful sceneries and it is a city for relax and travelling. In the past years, a group of artists gathered together and started to establish arts studios and artistic lofts, which was warmly popular by the young people at first. It almost became a kind of tide at that time. But unfortunately, most of them have not developed very well due to a series of reasons. Firstly, these arts studio or lofts are all located in remote areas due to the high rent fee in the center areas. It’s so inconvenient for individuals visit if they don’t have a private car. Thus, most of them don’t want to visit again. Second, the programs and service were provided by each institutes are limited, since these arts institutes were extremely dispersed. They can’t work cooperatively and share resources. In addition, artists take more roles in the arts industry which over-extend themselves and commit to doing more than is reasonable. According to the above mentioned several reasons, most of them cannot continue to operate. Recently, especially from 2010 to 2012, the government became committed to urban renovation and cultural planning in order to build itself into a great cultural city. Under the policy, more and more arts communities have been established or reformed by the support of government. Not only that, it also includes historical culture resource exploitation, culture resource management and the folk culture resource management that provide a good development condition for arts studio. Education, arts institutes, gallery, museum and other cultural resources constructed a cultural networking together. It is hard to imagine an artist or a group of artists can do this by their personal abilities. China is a socialist country and this example may have a bit special. But it is enough to address my standpoint of the question of this module. In my opinion, political, legal or other cultural power structures often actively or intangibly influence the art and play an important role in art creation, exhibition, auction and other aspects of arts activities. These elements and arts construct a framework and they influence and interact with each other under this framework. Furthermore, it’s certainly inherent to the social practice of arts. All individuals can create their own arts work and share with others instantly in the trans media context. Because of the increasingly SNS and networking resources, greater information could be accessible and transmit quickly. The elements which construct the whole artistic structure have become diversity and complexity, which need us to reconsider the position of the arts and consider the continually shifting relationship between the power of arts and social practice intersect.
I know I am now posting after the 15th, but was just reading an article from the Wall Street Journal I found relevant to our issues this week. The author claims that because of the capitalist structure constraining art and the prevalence of modern technologies, avant-garde art is dead. I found myself trying to think of a great sculptor or painter making work today, and I’m having a hard time coming up with names. The problem with that, though, is that so many reputations grow into what they are posthomously, or at least decades later. Work is seen as groundbreaking because it was avant-garde in comparison with the current ideologies and politics of the time, and this kind of observation can only truly be made after some time has passed and history can be analyzed. So it might be that the author of this article is wrong, and that time and exposure within the art world of museums, galleries etc is just needed to make a reputation- although she has seemingly given the issue time in her article, since she goes back to the 60’s.
Anyway, I found this piece thought-provoking.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444223104578034480670026450.html#mod=djemLifeStyle_t
The politics of the art world are ever changing because the way society views art is ever changing. That is due, in part, to the large effect that the prevalence of transmedia has had on our culture. Art was once viewed by stepping into a gallery or viewing someone of high society’s private collection. Today, the viewing of art is much less elitist. With the rich resources that are now available to the masses because of the internet, anyone can be an artist, produce art, share art and view art. (Even I have my own “Blue Canvas” page where my art is displayed and commented on- and I am hardly an artist) The internet alone was a huge influence on opening the doors for the masses to participate. I would even go as far as to say that without the internet, this kind of participation by the public would not be possible. With the availability of art on a grand scale, a lot of the art politics had to take a back seat. There’s just no way to monitor or control all of the art that is now out there for everyone to see and/or participate in.
In the more structured art worlds, those of the galleries and museums, many of the classic politics and structures are still found there. And it’s because they’re still relevant and applicable. People with a strong knowledge and understanding of the arts are still needed to collect and organize art, critique it, and arrange galleries. The work of curating is an art itself. And I really don’t see brick and mortar galleries and exhibits going away because of the dawn of the internet age. There’s much more to be said about going to see art in a gallery as opposed to flipping through pages on a website. The grandiose feeling of being in the presence of art is one that can’t be replaced by digital means.
“Culture is ordinary; that is the first fact.”
I was struck by this statement by Williams, his statement about the way of life and the purpose of “Every human society” is something that many generations of artist and thinkers of their time conveys to us through various mediums, whether through literature, philosophy, history or simply the arts. However, it is only human nature to habitat in a hierarchical social order. And it is our inclination to lead and influence each other on what is “good” and valuable of the various purposes we try to convey. William in his last statement of the article suggests that we rethink what is the purpose of what we do, and should we really listen to the “cheapjack” in the office?
I thought William’s point about culture was an interesting comparison to “The arts and the public purpose.” In response to some of the thought on Russian and soviet propaganda arts brought up in our threads, I thought that this document serves in a way our own version of what is Americana. “The arts help to define what it is to be an American,” this first mandate screams government control to me in my face. But does it? One of the points from the first mandate reminds me of the Caldera project that I recently researched on, and I found that the core values of community focused issues and emotions of Caldera directly responses to what it means to be an American. So, perhaps even though we as American are still looking for ways to identify with culture, or the culture we are defining, I find it interesting that we as humans are constantly looking for or searching for an answer. Our own interpretation of art and culture is constantly in flux, because there is always the political stance, or influential thinkers attached to ideas and of physical artifacts. American society is all about the individual, yet, why are we restricted by our own freedom?
Response to module 2
When I look at power and social practice intersecting in art, I first make a close observation to
how my life and work intersect with art. This challenge enables me to examine myself and see
how I have become an artist. I look at social practice as a process that has made me who I am
as Walugembe.
According to our class discussion, social practice and participatory art are the process that
encourages individuals to become who they are. In my case. because of the television I watch
at home, the text materials I share with people (many I have never met), exchange of ideas
through various social media networks have shaped my views and made me a new individual.
My judgement of democracy in different from that i had two years ago. I am now highly
influenced by American democracy because of the individuals in network with.
At my workplace (Swahili Imports), we import African art works and sell them nationally and
internationally. We always use social networks to interact with our customers. This have
resulted in a continuous evolution of my life and those i relate with.
In class, we discussed the many ways power and social practice intersect in transmedia
environments, and i was surprised to note that the form of power embedded in cultures can
transform the way people perceive things. A few weeks ago, i was looking at the new stool
designs we imported from Senegal. The stools bore pictures of Senegal tribal kings. The
pictures are a reflection of power among the tribal Senegalese people. When I texted a friend
recommending him to buy one, he responded by calling ‘those kings’ the oppressors of the
Senegalese people in their time.We kept texting each other and involved other friends. At the
ends of our exchanges, the comments from other participants influenced my perception of these
kings and the Senegal art. This was the power of social media and social participation at work.
When I look back at my country Uganda, the form of democracy we have there embraces
cultural leaders as a form of social leadership, but the US democracy does not. I find it easy to
understand the power of tribal leaders in senegal art, because Ugandan art has simillar
influence. The Senegalese politics of participation used in collecting the form of art to export to
Swahili is different from that the US individuals have. Tribal kings are one form of institution in
which political power was embedded, therefore it has a high level of influence in the African art
industry.
In the ‘American Assembley (2000): The Arts of public Policy, Bradford and Wallach made a
pledge to the re-inforcement of the independence of all the arts and to the public purposes that
they serve. They called on all people to join the pledge.
We should therefore always avail free access to all arts (not for profit art and commercial art),
and let the people be free to choose where to participate.
sorry, I left my module 2 response in my ePortfolio as draft and thought was published. I only realized it when i checked my grade and had nothing; then went back and clicked ‘publish’ (still improving my computer skills).