Whitney Biennial 2008

It's that time of the even numbered year for the Whitney Biennial. Yes, that's right! I know, I can hardly contain myself... seriously! I love this show! It opens on March 6 and runs until June 1.

Anyways, there seems to be nice roster of artists including Ellen Harvey, whom I adore and she is so sweet with her sexy British accent. She spoke at UArts a year or so ago–brilliant artist! (The video is available in the library) Check out her New York Beautification Project. She's going to be doing drawings of 100 Biennial visitors, in which afterwards you fill out a questionnaire asking if it was a successful drawing or not. More here about that event and everything else pertaining to the Biennial.

Also, here is a link to the Whiteny Biennial 2008 press release.

And one more thing, you can pre-order the catalog at Amazon cheaper than buying it at the museum (although it's also good to buy stuff there because supposedly the money goes back the museum, but we all know how poor college students are right?). So, click here to go straight to the catalog page. But it won't be released until March 17.

A Wannabe Scholar in a TV World

"There can be no objective rule of taste, no rule of taste that determines by concepts what is beautiful. For any judgment is only as good as it is similar to Simon Cowell's."

-Immanuel Kant, From Critique of Judgment

Today I was reading Entertainment Weekly when I knew I should have been researching Lawrence Weiner and I thought: these writers seem caught in between worlds. Their abundance of wit is evident in their writings which are consistently humorous and sometimes even moving and yet they are doomed to eternally discussing T.V. Sure, there are slight book and stage sections but let's not kid ourselves, EW's bread and butter is Dancing with the Stars gossip.

I thought to myself, perhaps they were like me at one time, seemingly caught in a rack (the German torturey kind) between Detective Benson (Law and Order: SVU) and Wittgenstein (20th Century German philosopher--see Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) and they just submitted to the dark side where being dumb is not only hilarious but a ratings guarantee. Then again, perhaps they were all scholarly creative writers who seized a solid job opportunity and then proceeded to immerse themselves in the simulcra. Either way, they're in limbo between According to Jim and Derrida (evidenced by writers like Lisa Schwarzbaum who use the word deconstruction in its correct form--signifying shifting components of representation-- and not just as a substitute for "breaking down."--see her review of Be Kind Rewind)

Contrary to their eternal balancing act I feel like I've conquered my historically oppressive nemesis and have gradually lessened my signal intake but I still feel like I'd strike brilliance if I didn't respond to The Daily Show theme emanating from the other room every night at 11:00 like Pavlov's dog. (j/k)

It must have been a lot easier for Hawthorne to focus on Young Goodman Brown (1835) when home entertainment was reading and Marquis De Sade's philoso-porn was the so-called "bottom of the barrel." If you want a glimpse of contemporary basement dwelling entertainment (and who doesn't once in awhile?), watch the so-unbelievably-dumb-your-stomach-will-send-up-its-own-opinion The Girls Next Door, a voyeuristic binge into the Playboy Mansion where the camera tracks the lives of three Playboy Bunnies. It reminds you just how far our society has come. In one episode we track Holly Madison as she co-hosts a radio talk show hour with her dog. We then follow her as she takes her beloved canine to a dog talent agent where he promises big things.

Believe me, I'm not fantasizing about days of yore, I wouldn't trade in my computer and cell phone for a quill. And I certainly wouldn't want to cut off the flow of information because I'd probably end up like Tracy Letts' characters in Bug (convinced that imaginary bugs are everywhere and that I am their mother). I'm just noting the contemporary struggle.

Online Writing and Blogging

Hello All!
Gerard recently passed this list of on-line Art Writing and Blogging from Frank Smiegel. As you are all in the midst of thesis preparation and other scholarly pursuits this could be a helpful list of resources. Frank mentioned that having a decent spectrum of art writing to explore, from the very personal to the very polished & almost scholarly--will help folks see some viable writing types they might develop into a voice that isn't the dutiful term paper or diaristic ones. Note that the comments listed next to the links are Mr. Smiegel’s!


* Alec Soth: www.alecsoth.com. Mr. Soth seems to have stopped blogging for the time being; a big drag. There are still a wealth of archives there.

* The performer/artist Momus has a fantastic and almost daily meditation on culture high + low, near + far http://imomus.livejournal.com. There's a great entry up from a few days ago on Nick Cave's Grinderman band and their song "No Pussy Blues"--required reading, establishing for aging post-punks like me. . . .

* Jerry Saltz is a weekly must-read for anyone involved in contemporary art. He's at www.nymag.com.

* Artforum critic Brian Sholis blogs smartly at: www.briansholis.com.

* NYC-based www.artfagcity.com. can be decent.

* The "Scene & Herd" gossip column at www.artforum.com. is always more than art world fun--and will often make you want to quit the whole biz and just take up farming.

* For small journal-based writing, you can sample Cabinet Magazine at www.cabinetmagazine.org. There's a great piece up now about Duchamp's urinals.

* Good reviews are also found at www.theartnewspaper.com.,www.artsjournal.com., and www.stretcher.org.

Call for Artists and Art Lovers

The Delaware Art Museum’s
Artists Digital Slide Share

Friday, March 7, 2008
5:30p.m.-7:30 p.m.

The Delaware Art Museum is now offering the Artists Digital Slide Share, a venue for artists to present their artwork to community. Artwork will be presented in a slide show fashion. The program will take place during Art on the Town (First Friday) in the Delaware Art Museum’s DuPont Auditorium.

Audience members are free with no reservation required.

Artists who wish to present are required to register online at www.delart.org . Click on Discover, then Adult Programming, then Artists Digital Slide Share. Or go directly to http://www.delart.org/discover/adult_prog/artists_dig_slide.html
Space is limited. Only completed registrations will be accepted.

Questions: Contact Brett John Johnson, Studio Programs Manager, at 302-351-8551 or bjohnson@delart.org.

The Art of Recontextualization in Commercials

(I apologize that every link in this note sends you away from the page, but just simply click the back arrow after watching them).

Lately, I've noticed many commercials are employing the art of recontextualization. For example, The Careerbuilder.com commercials place office supplies, furniture, and workers in a jungle (which represents a Hobbesian state of nature, i.e., survival of the fittest in a short, brutal life) to exhibit how office workers just try to "survive the work week."

Image from the Careerbuilder.com's Jungle series.

Picture use courtesy of http://www.justforlaughs.com/

Link to commerical: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCsLITgWzTI

Gotta love the post-it note horn blower (and the cinematography as well). In the new Honda Ridgeline commercials, the company is juxtaposing descriptionally and conventionally oppositional but desirable elements of a car like "tough meets classy" by exhibiting figures who represent the one into atmospheres that stand for the other. In the "tough meets classy" commercial, a well-worn and filthy Chuck Norris (Walker, Texas Ranger...I wish you could hear me singing the theme song) enters a fine dining area.

Image from Honda's Ridgeline commericals
Picture use courtesy of http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/norrisad.jpg

Link to commerical: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-nPto9zmSo

In Snickers' newish commericials for their "Snicker Dark" chocolate bars they show a viking, a pilgrim, an indian (and other unidentifiable but presumably iconic historical types) at a gas station. Snickers' purpose for the use of these figures is that they are presenting their product as a "feast." Pilgrims and Indians are obviously related to the Thanksgiving feast and the image of a Viking is usually directly related to huge, indulgent meals. So, Snickers, or more correctly, Mars is recontextualizing the historic feast with their product as the object and contemporary society as the place with hilarious results.

Image from Snickers Dark "Feast" Commercial

Picture use courtesy of http://thumbnail.search.aolcdn.com/truveo/images/thumbnails/07/2D/072DF8AC994998.jpg

Link to Commerical: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEYEFfAbB5g

(This next bit is a tangent from my topic [this just a blog!] but is interesting nonetheless) In the commercial, the pilgrim comes out of the store to inform the viking that there were no more snickers bars. The Viking gets angry and throws a trash can at a car. Then, the pilgrim says that the store did have new Snickers Dark bars and the Viking proceeds to celebrate this message in the same way that he displayed his anger, by throwing the trash can.

The fact that the viking used the same action (with different grunts) to celebrate and to display anger touches on how a passionate person walks a thin line. Passion can beget much enthusiasm and energy but that same positive emotional outpour can quickly turn destructive. We see this after a sports championship is won and the crowd borderlines on riot status like the burning and smashing that went on after Super Bowl XL in Oakland: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/superbowl-xl-riots-burning-couch/2548737745.

In this case, the Viking's positive and negative actions are the same. The result of which cancels out motive. What's it matter what he was thinking if the result is identical? If a viewer had been passing by and hadn't heard the pilgrim (and the difference between the Viking's grunt was indistinguishable from a distance), he may be under the impression that the SAME EVENT (sequence of causes and effects) has just occurred twice (The Viking threw a trash can and hit a car. The Viking threw a trash can and hit the same car in the same spot). And physically, the same event did happen (as much as temporally separate events can be the same), just with different reasons. Do these separate reasons make it a different event? Are two works by two artists different if they look exactly the same? (what if they grunt differently while they make them?)

Anyway, it would be really interesting to compare these contemporary commercial flavored recontextualizations with art historical ones like Duchamp's Fountain, Warhol's Brillo Box, Oldenburg's Clothespin (or any of his other giant objects), Kosuth's definitions, etc. and see how the motivations and results parallel or differ. Such is an exploration for another time.

Before I go, another series of commercials I want to point out are the Pioneer ones. Here's a link to one of them http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1vMUexTKUE&feature=related
Now, you tell me that it doesn't remind you of video art's explorations of the body (Acconci, Nauman, Sherman, Arnold, McQueen, etc.)?


Thanks for reading

(The writing in this blog is a little confused but I hope you get the gist...commercials are recontextualizing things...I like this...how does it relate to "the art world?")

Aristic Awareness and Critical Inquiries

Due to the near flood conditions I didn't get to First Friday; so, the following text is a philosophical exploration about plan, intuition, consideration, critical inquiry, and 'Why?'

When one asks an artist about a facet of said artist's work, one assumes that the artist, since she is the creator, has a privileged perspective in regard to her work. But is this assumption valid? When one chooses to act, one is making the decision to transition from being above to in. Prior to acting, one can consider many actions to perform but once one chooses and becomes entrenched in the action, one becomes immediately biased for that action. [1]

Creation as action is no different. An artist can consider, plan, strategize, but once he commences in the creation, he is playing and not coaching. Then again, equating the creation of an artwork with an action may be a stretch. A parallel between the creative process and a series of actions is better. This shift in thought allows for there to be gaps between actions. Artists commonly use these gaps as chances to go from "shake it all about" to "out" where they can refocus their lens. Also, these gaps permit valid inquiries into process. A viewer who was either privy to the progress of the work or can recognize specific "gap decisions"can now celebrate or criticize a specific twist or turn into the evolution of the work. One can ask, "Why did you choose to place a blue veil here?" And the artist, can dive back into gap X and retrieve his reasoning for "why blue veil."

Now, what if an artist disregarded gaps? What if the artist decided to act (without even previous strategy) and not back up or step out? What if, in G.E.M. Anscombe's method of examining "Why?" questions (in fact, my entire investigative process here is mimetic of her deductions but within the context of art), the artist "just swam" through the current of creative dilemmas without reason? This method would naturally seem to make the artistic output more susceptible to criticism because the viewer will seemingly bear many unconsidered options and can therefore impart a vast amount of propositions for potential "others" of the given work. "Well, what if you did Y? Did you consider Y? What if you did Z? Did you consider Z?" And since the artist disregarded all gaps in which Y may have come up, there's a great chance that the viewer will overwhelm the artist with variable constructions that the artist left unexamined.

The answer "I just did it this way" is left in the dust in such situations and will not be accepted, especially in the academic context. "I just did it this way" is not a reason for 'Why?' and leaves the artist vulnerable to multileveled attacks. But what if the artist says, "I followed my intuition"? Does this response change the situation? How is intuition different from "I just did it?" In Anscombe's considerations of intent, she comments on her wish to avoid "irreducible intuition." Her main reasoning is that it ends inquiry. Intuition is a logically unjustifiable private cause with feeling as guide. When one plays the "intuition card" one is denying critical inquiry. Because 'Why?' is ended by "it's what I felt."

Or is it? Can intuition be different in separate circumstances? What if we consider the fourth stage of competence (I forget where I learned the stages of competence from but they are not my own) in which an acquired skill is able to be employed unconsciously? The four stages of competence are unconscious incompetence...when one does not know how to succeed at learning a skill and as of yet is unaware of what keeps them from understanding why they fail, conscious incompetence is when one has learned enough to know why they aren't successful at mastering a certain skill and what they have to do to progress, conscious competence is when one has acquired said skill but still has to concentrate intensely to perform it, and unconscious competence is when one has learned a skill to the point of mastering it and one can do perform it easily or "intuitively?"

Can one's intuition be learned? Is the intuition of an amateur different from the intuition of a master? It seems so. Once one has practiced said skill for a long period of time, memory acquired through repetition can lead to a kind of learned intuition. So, can the answer, "I did it intuitively" be acceptable from a master and not from a student? Perhaps...since the fourth level of skill competence is only accomplished by mastery. And by definition, a student is not a master. A student claiming conclusion by intuition is inherently a suspect claim that cannot be validated until the student becomes the professor. Then, perhaps, intuition can be a justifiable reason.

But even so, is it then irreducible? If a master intuitively works, does that mean we cannot validly question or "breakdown" her intent? Or are their concepts so ingrained in their intuitive practice that said ideas are immediately apparent through the product? Such questions seem too contextual for abstract inquiry. And in this line of questions skill and idea are too blurred. Just because a master intuitively practices a skill that does not mean that there isn't a new concept subject to criticism influencing their intuitive use of a skill. A painter who is skilled at hyperrealism could be applying a new idea as a guide for this specific use of hyperrealism. And even if their hyperrealist skill can't be questioned, their idea, context, or method for employing the skill can be criticized.

This exploration is leading to skill and I want to veer it back for a summary of what I've thought so far. Action is blind, the artist's ability to implement gaps between action during creation allow the artist to "step out" and consider what she's done and what she will do, an artist who disregards these gaps has a better chance of leaving many unconsidered aspects that can then be brought to surface by the professor to show the student's lack of awareness, the last comment is dependent upon the artist's maturity level, i.e., a master's ignorance of gaps is due to learned intuition (unconscious competence) whereas a student's dismissal of gaps seems premature and, finally, even though a master's skill is immediately apparent (or it is?), the concept behind his employment of skill in a certain manner can be criticized.

I still wrestle with the idea of "learned intuition" and maybe it's because of the use of the word "intuition." Previously I thought of intuition as immediate awareness guided by feeling without thought...the fleeting temporality of immediacy probably led to me holding any kind of "learned immediacy" suspect. But it seems that from practice, one can, in the mode of muscle memory (muscles can be trained to do certain movements naturally), simply employ a skill "intuitively."

There's a logical inconsistency in the above text. My consideration of a student's dismissal of gaps transitions into an examination of a master doing "the same thing." But in this transition, I seemingly change from talking about a work being entirely completed intuitively to a skill being used intuitively. The young student denied all conscious intermediate reflections and the master was just not questioning his own skill (an absurd inquiry in the first place). So, if the master disregards all considerations of context, form, concepts, etc. by saying "I made the work intuitively" this action may be more justified due to the master's years of experience but it still defeats inquiry. And when I say 'inquiry" I mean inquiry directed at the artist. Of course, people can discuss the work critically amongst themselves (which may lead to a better conclusion anyway due the questionable notion of the artist's privileged perspective...especially under the guise of intuition). But investigations of intent by the viewer will go unsatisfied if the artist claims intuition.

Anyway, thanks for reading and I can't believe the New York Giants are the Super Bowl champs!...

[1] however, when one prods an artist about a work, it is understood that the artist is no longer in the action but assumably has had time to reflection upon "the action" and perhaps her privileged perspective comes from being strategist, creator, and reflector...this view renders the artist less blind.