In Defense of The Internet

Many people lament the historically recent technological shift in our culture. "They" say that it has imprisoned people in a reflection of reality (disconnecting them from the actual) and dehumanized them. Instead of interacting with people proper, so the rhetoric goes, people are now engaging with a screen that only encapsulates a whiff or an echo of humanity.

Of course, some of this is true. The internet and its outdated predecessor the television can be seen as compact psychological cages. To me, however, it seems that people who hold this view forget the painful, madness-inducing isolation paramount in this world. They must be city-folk who have a healthy social atmosphere for intellectual, social, and pleasurable endeavors.

For most of the population, of America at least (the only country I can speak for), who are suffocating in traps that parallel the technological ones like slave-driving bosses, miserable and self-indulgent neighborhoods, and ignorant relatives, the internet can be a utopian window for cross-state relations. Instead of one being stuck in a sleepy, dull area, one can converse about favorite artists, authors, musicians, etc. through forums which house engaging discussions. One can experience bright and life-affirming personalities through comedic videos on Youtube. One can elevate one's mental faculties by browsing the latest political commentaries on Rollingstone.com or CNN.com (and local papers or libraries are no substitute...the former are often concerned with dog shows and the latter, highly selective). One can learn about anything at the drop of a hat. (What do I want to learn about today? The baboon spiders a.k.a. tarantulas of South Africa? Done).

Of course there's a lot of bogus information out there but one just has to be smart about sources. When in the history of the world wasn't there a lot of bogus information out there? Woody Allen said, "Everything our parents told us was good is bad. Sun, milk, red meat, college." How many parents force their children to eat everything on their plate? This enforcement leads to enlarged stomachs and tendencies that encourage obesity. Where did they get this "method" from? It wasn't the internet. Everything my father's mother told me, God rest her soul, was B.S. and she never owned a TV or a computer! She believed in fake illnesses like "Liver Groan" (you catch this from jumping in the pool too much--and don't think she was just using this as a method for instilling fear...she actually believed in her diagnosis because her mother told her about it).

I'm more terrified of isolated information handed down from generation to generation than an information free-for-all that, when surfed right, can be enlightening. This new transferral of information may be wreaking havoc on the nervous minds of scholars but screw 'em. Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of respect for good professors (several of them have enriched my experience of the world and made me a better and smarter person) but many of them seem to be more concerned with tooting their own horn, puffing themselves up, and social positioning. Maybe the internet's insistence (I realize this is grammatically wrong) on collectivity (not that the literary world wasn't already heading this way) will force them to concede a little ego.

If Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead in today's world, someone would have posted a video from his cell phone on Youtube.com showing the behind the curtain switch of the dead body with an impostor. It was easy to deceive people who had no other source of information but word of mouth.

Anyway, people who regret the technologically-centered incarnation of reality that we live in for the reason that it is socially isolating and an information bedlam don't really understand that such a state is the nature of the world and that this version helps people who would otherwise be completely cut off stay in the game.

Time to think about criticism again....

Hope everyone is enjoying a productive semester - mine has been utterly chaotic and I apologize that I'm playing catch up to so many people's work. But I saw this and thought I should share it, as the subject - how criticism is responding to a changing world - is a major part of this sumjmer's conversation in my seminar.

Ann Powers had a little piece in the LA Times (Music industry rules are shifting under feet of artists, fans and critics) about the new Raconteurs album and how it will be released to the public without any advance release to critics. The article is short and readable, and notable because Powers is thinking through a good many of the constituencies affected by the shifting landscape of art/critic/audience relations. I'd encourage everyone to read it, and post comment (but, sorry, I can't give any advice about the Raconteurs album yet).

Best,
gerard

Red Light Cameras

An MSNBC article titled, "Red Light Cameras Work Too Good for Their Own Good" enlightened me about the real motivation behind enforcing traffic violations.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970

In Dallas, TX, they had installed "red light cameras" to capture images of drivers in the act of violating traffic laws. There are cameras like these all over the country. I'm familar with them because my sister was ticketed in NYC and she received a picture of her car before and as she ran a red light at 2 am. I mocked her stupidity ("Thought you were gonna get away with it, huh?") while being in awe of the technology.

In Texas and Illinois, however, they have decided that the cameras work TOO WELL and have limited or ceased using them. "Why?" one might ask. Because their revenue for ticketable offenses has decreased too much. But wait--I thought devices like these were implemented to lower the amount of violations and consequently make the roads safer. Nope. It turns out these nifty cameras were put in place solely to catch more criminals (and generate profit) not to stop them. Since "violators" were aware of the cameras, they were more conscious of their driving, less tickets were handed out, and the government got less money.

It's one thing to take extra cash from careless drivers but another to depend upon them as a regular profit. I didn't realize minor crime was an economic crux. The police claim that without the ticket revenue they can't afford to operate the cameras that were installed to generate ticket revenue. HA! A great expediture that turned out to be.

The next time you get pulled over tell the cop, "I pay taxes."

"French Students Shy of Real World" -BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7293992.stm

This article (click the link above) discusses how the educated youth of France are choosing too many "soft majors" and not working enough. What do you think? Is America the same way? Are too many of us choosing impractical career paths and then wondering where our money is? And if so, what should we be studying instead?

I think about this a lot. Susan Sontag said something like "Anyone who doesn't work with their hands is a parasite." What she means is anyone who isn't doing hard labor is living off of others hard labor. The latter group includes artists, critics, theorists, etc. Are our paths justified?

Art is a natural part of humanity and its enrichment of life is, to me, self-evident. If we all adapted a utilitarian perspective, what kind of life would we be constructing?

Who or what "decides" who should be a laborer and who gets a spot in the ivory tower? Money? Influence? Academia? Skill?

Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?

Picture used with the courtesy of http://www.impawards.com/2006/posters/who_the_bleep_is_jackson_pollock.jpg

A brief synopsis of the film Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock? (released in November 2006, directed by Harry Moses):

While scanning a local thrift shop, former truck driver Teri Horton came upon a rather large, abstract painting and decided to buy it for her sick friend. The original price was seven dollars but she haggled it down to five and put it in her truck. When she presented it to her friend, they both agreed that it was ugly and joked about throwing darts at it. A local art professor came upon the work and said that it may have been painted by famous artist Jackson Pollock. Teri's response was, "Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?"

After she consulted a few people, she became convinced that the work is actually an authentic Jackson Pollock. However, the art world thinks otherwise. Experts like Thomas Hoving, an executive at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, are convinced that the work is of no significance and was not made by Pollock. The film documents Teri's struggle to prove the legitimacy of the work against the consensus of the experts.

This film is a Marxist crossbreed in which the art world, the bourgeoisie, and former truck driver Terri Horton and her friends, the proletariat, collide. This reading is encapsulated by the "opposing" ways of celebration: The experts and the in crowd of the art world fashionably attend gallery openings where they drink fine wine, eat various cheeses, listen to classical music, wear expensive jewelry, and mingle with supermodels (Moses unfairly limits his shots almost entirely to this type) while Teri Horton's sweatshirt and jeans group hovers around a bar at a familiar dive laughing, drinking beer, listening to the local Mellencamp, and saying F-U to the absent snobs.

Beyond the upperclass/lowerclass distinction, this film is an inquisitive documentary (is there any other good kind?) that is relatively objective. Moses seems to be honestly after answers and truly conflicted when science and the art world disagree. I won't give too much more away but the film is worth the watch even though it is sometimes tedious (in the second half, the twists are mild), rambling (one can only listen to Horton for so long) or absurd (Horton comes up with a maddening story for how the painting was made).

B-

The Story of Stuff

Anyone who is concerned about consumerism and its effects on our planet should follow this link:

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Annie Leonard and the team who made this video did an outstanding job of clarifying the issues through illustration.

Air Kissing: An Exhibition of Contemporary Art about the Art World

I hope you can join us for "Air Kissing: An exhibition of Contemporary Art about the Art World" opening this Wednesday, March 5, at 6:30 PM with a panel discussion in Arcadia's Little Theatre followed by a public reception.

http://gargoyle.arcadia.edu/gallery/07-08/air-kissing.htm

Curated by Sasha Archibald for Momenta Art (Brooklyn), "Air Kissing" addresses some legitimate grievances about the art world in engaging and entertaining ways.

The panel discussion prior to the reception promises to be interesting. I look forward to seeing you if you're able to attend.

Thank you.
RT

The Plan and the Moment

While I was reading Crime and Punishment (Dostoevsky, 1866) again, I noticed that in the moments leading up to Raskolnikov's act (murdering the old lady), the tensions between his plans and his actions parallel feelings and thoughts that many artists experience during the creative process. Take this first quote for example:

We may add only that practical, purely material difficulties of the affair occupied a secondary position in his mind. 'One has but to keep all one's will-power and reason to deal with them, and they will all be overcome at the time when once one has familiarized oneself with the minutest details of the business...' But this preparation had never been begun. His final decisions were what he came to trust least, and when the hour struck, it all came to pass quit differently, as it were accidentally and unexpectedly.

This paragraph is a microcosm of the struggle between concept and expression. The statement "material difficulties...occupied a secondary position in his mind" is reminiscent of Sol Lewitt's over-quoted declaration, "When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair." (From "Paragraphs on Conceptual Art") The important part of this quote in this context is "all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand" because in the story, Raskolnikov keeps discussing how attentive he must be to details (theoretically) while he should be paying attention to details. It is as if he is still contemplating the potential use of the paddle while he should be hitting the ball and still thinking about which brush to use when he should be already painting.

Then when the narrator says, "His final decisions were what he came to trust least, and when the hour struck, it all came to pass quite differently, as it were accidentally and unexpectedly," it shows that even when Raskolnikov made a decision, had set the plan before the action, what followed never went according to design. It's like a conceptual artist drawing a grid and then splattering freely over top of it. Of course, the parallel isn't perfect, there were external circumstances that led to Raskolnikov's "plans" misfiring but many times, these missteps could have been avoided by more careful planning on his part. The component I want to emphasize is that he ponders what he should do while he is doing and then does something different from what he may decide anyway. The concept and the execution are all befuddled into a mess of the energy of the moment.

Here's another quote:

And, indeed, if it had ever happened that everything to the least point could have been considered and finally settled, and no uncertainty of any kind had remained, he would, it seems, have renounced it all as something absurd, monstrous and impossible. But a whole mass of unsettled points and uncertainties remained.

This little beauty of a snippet reveals to us that if Raskolnikov had completely figured out everything beforehand that he would've deemed the whole idea "absurd." The fact that "unsettled points and uncertainties remained" allowed him to begin. Since he didn't know everything that was going to happen, his action became possible. That idea is fascinating and it goes right back to Lewitt's assertion that extensive, finite plans are "the work." True, Raskolnikov's reasoning for why the action would be "perfunctory" is because it couldn't happen (an irrational notion, most likely) unlike for Lewitt where it doesn't matter if it happens (an irrational notion, most likely) but the decision for why the action is negated is because it's all been figured out.

There can be many qualms about my parallels...one of which is that Raskolnikov's issues include a hefty moral dimension that Lewitt's (or artists in general) lacks (but not according to some...is abstract expressionism irresponsible today? Should artist's be socially responsible?). We aren't killing anyone. But that element isn't the one I'm focusing on. My examination here is based around plan and action which are commonalities of making art and killing someone (or any calculated action in general) and the impulsive energy that strikes during the moment disturbing the balance of intent and action. To bridge the gap further, one may recollect the art historically common distinction between classicism and expressionism in the 18oo's. The neo-classicist Ingres believed that the essence of the work lay in the drawings (as the plan for the painting) and it's calculated, sculptural finish while Delacroix believed that the expression of color and passion was paramount. Raskolnikov's plan and execution got tangled in reason, passion, chance, delirium, calculation, and distraction... none of which can be really distinguished by the end. It's like he is trying to be Ingres but falling into Delacroix and even beyond to Hans Arp.

Here's an example of one of Raskolnikov's hilarious bouts of distraction:

"His mind was even occupied by irrelevent matters, but by nothing for long. As he passed the Yusupov garden, he was deeply absorbed in considering the building of great fountains, and of their refreshing effect on the atmosphere of all the squares."

While he should be focused on his execution, as he just stated for the umpteenth time that he should be, he's appreciating the architecture of "great fountains." While he's heading out to murder somebody he's pondering aesthetics! The similie here is pretty straightforward (in that any time one is achieving an aim, there are certain to be distractions...it's just ironic here that Raskolnikov's distraction is aesthetic).

I'll list the rest of the relevant quotes (many of the parallels are self-evident) and then I'll follow them up with some final thoughts:

"He suddenly felt tempted again to give it all up and go away. But that was only for an instant; it was too late to go back."

"It was not so much that his hands were shaking, but that he kept making mistakes."

"Good God, am I going out of my senses?"

"But a sort of blankness, even dreaminess, had begun by degrees to take possession of him; at moments he forgot himself, or rather, forgot what was of importance, and caught at trifles."

"He dropped the axe with the blade in the water, snatched a piece of soap that lay in a broken saucer on the window, and began washing his hands in the bucket."

"But he knew he was not looking thoroughly, that there might something quite noticeable that he was overlooking. He stood in the middle of the room, lost in thought. Dark agonising ideas rose in his mind--the idea that he was mad and that at that meant he was incapable of reasoning, of protecting himself, that he ought perhaps to be doing something utterly different from what he was now doing."

"Here he was half way to safety, and he understood it; it was less risky because there was a great crowd of people and he was lost in it like a grain of sand."

Many times when I'm making a work, I question my choice for the existence of this work. Why am I making this work and not another? How do I know that my aesthetic sense hasn't spiraled out of control and that I'm not just deluding myself that this work is worth my time or anybody else's? Sometimes my focus is imprecise and I'm messy where I should be exact. Sometimes after I'm done a work and I look back on the process I think, "Wow, how did I guide those variables in that way to get it just right? How did I not screw it up when I was so lost in passion?" Sometimes I get so lost in a work that I forget myself, my surroundings, and intuition drives. Then after the process is completed and the reflection is over, I look up out of my little locale and see that I am in "a crowd of people" and "lost in it like a grain of sand."