Thursday, May 15, 2008
The artist is apparently French with North African origins (it is somehow relevant, u ll see...) and the artwork is a movie made in a Mexican slaughter house... Showing animals being slaughtered and was apparently misinterpreted by a part of the audience that saw there a kind of 'Animal Snuff Movie' realised for the sake of Art. We can't really blame them, can we? I've mentioned earlier in this blog that the art world is not being tender at the moment with projects of people dying in Art galleries for the "show" (I m not discussing these artworks here... this is a whole other debate), the story of this student with her performance art piece in which she artificially inseminated herself repeatedly and then self-aborted for the sake of art, then Guillermo Habacuc Vargas who chained a dog and left it in the gallery without food for the sake of art... It is all disturbing isn't it???
This all sound really crazy to me, however I must say my opinion is a bit biased as I belong of a specific group of people recently mediatised because of its leader actions and PR operations, and girlfriends... We became notorious in the past as some of our traditions are usually perceived as foolish: eating cow tongues and snails, being really arrogant, protesting for everything and demonstrating all the time. We are known as the French people.
My opinion is biased because there are some of the things out there I take for granted (snails are really good... yes, they really are!), some I do not understand (when I say that in France, in soap advertisements, girls appear entirely naked under the shower and, I do not understand why you think this is pervert...) and some things, my people do not accept (Chinese people eat puppies and rotten duck eggs!!).
I do not say I am any better than you, I just say that I am different... I am just French! But look, I am not only French, I went to university, come from a village, a Polish family with a catholic background... and finally I am really into contemporary art things for years... It makes things easier for me to accept or understand as it is part of my culture. In fact, we all are singular individuals, who belong to groups which belong to larger groups. Therefore, when I go to see an exhibition about Chapman Brothers artworks (notorious for being particularly controversial...), I am not really shocked. Does it mean that it would be stupid of you to be shocked there?
Some ideas could be dangerous when exported in other social groups. We have recently seen conflicts exploding all around the world because of a couple of Mahomet's drawings. What kind of conclusion could emerge from this?
Coming back to our slaughter house example, it appears as I mentioned previously, that a group of people believed that the animals were killed on purpose, for the sake of the video. It led to blackmail, dangerous anonymous threats...etc. Who is responsible?
I believe that, as in every communication process, that meaning is built both by the emitter (here the curators) and the receivers (audience). Therefore, the information about the artwork was probably lacking... This is an old habit, tradition for galleries to keep a mystery around the artworks. It is part of the art culture, usually justified by the fact that every viewer must be able to enrich the artworks by building a personal relationship with the piece of art, as many different opinions as different viewers who enter in the gallery; different meanings to be shared, to generate a result that is more powerful than the simple sum of every individually built meanings!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
In an attempt of modernisation, to stay in touch with the general mood, the church often commissioned artists to 'communicate'. Sometimes political ideals, sometimes to say "hey!! we went through the middle age to come to meet you!"... But here, I m just being cynical. But contemporary art is more often associated with the idea of Church (the one with a big 'C' which is related to the people, the dogma…etc.) when it comes to architecture. I have seen some stunning things around there and would definitely recommend you to go to see the Liverpool modern cathedral that looks like a nuclear reactor from the outside, or Notre Dame de Ronchamps from Le Corbusier.
Then, are the edgy things, the most simple artworks the one that belongs to a temple? I believe so... and then comes this marvellous artwork commissioned for the St Martin-in-the-Fields Church in London to Shirzeh Houshiary:
The simple idea of a monochrome stained window that mixes the symbols of the cross and the grid to make a powerful statement about the place of races and gender differences within the Church (the one with a big 'C' literally crystallized by a church feature, the one with a little 'c' this time which only describes the construction).I think it really makes it. The Guardian goes to qualify this artwork as 'gynaecological reworking of Christian symbols'. Do you understand it better? Sure but there is no need to shock anybody by inserting the word 'gynaecological’ in a description of a stained glass in a church. But there again… it s contemporary art and it is traditionally shocking.
Last questions: Does the nationality of the artist (Iranian) adds value to the overall quality of the artwork? What if I tell you that Shirazeh Houshiary was shortlisted for the Turner Prize in 1994? In the author's death, Barthes criticizes the reader's tendency to consider aspects of the author’s identity—his political views, historical context, religion, ethnicity, psychology, or other biographical or personal attributes—to distill meaning from his work.
It seems a good PR operation to me that eventually leads the commissioning team to declare to the press: "The fact that we are standing now in a church, in front of a window designed by an Iranian woman artist, at the beginning of the 21st century, is truly significant". Sure it is but it seems to me that this cosmopolitan attitude towards contemporary art and especially artists becomes another fashion that will soon be outdated. Will people qualify what we should call 'cosmopolitan art' as the art of the years 2000 as 'extreme art' is now sometimes used to qualify the 90's as the last years of the age of 'controversy as a trend'? Controversy for the sake of controversy>>> cosmopolitan for the sake of postmodernism.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Defining whether a work of art is ‘original’ or not may depend on a stereotyped definition of originality for social coherence needs, and may thus according to Harrison and Wood “be unresponsive to the work of those who challenge the authority of that tradition and that stereotype”. Because we also hold stereotypes about our own culture... We may therefore imagine that there is a bias when exploring the question of our identity... Would you really think that you can be that subjective?
For example, Graciela Trajtenberg highlights in Modernism in Action: Comparing the relationship between the Visual Arts, Social class and Politics in Israeli Nation-building, that the attempt of artists affiliated with the organised labor movement, to promote an art deeply embedded in the local cultural conditions (“reflecting the political aims of the Israeli settler movement” and “with a flavour of Middle-East cultural heritage”) were countered by the contemporary art world hegemonic power.
Guy Ben-Ner -- From 'Self portrait as a family man'
Taking the problem on the reverse, studies also highlight the difficulties that an artist may encounter while trying to depict elements related to a ‘true national culture’.
By analysing the creation process of an artist who wishes to produce an artwork that might reflect his/her national culture, Fanon (1965) highlight that the exchange of influences between ‘dominant’ (here the US and European art world and its influence on the international art market) and the dominated cultures (second third and quarter world cultures that try to impose their own cultural views on the international art market) is too deep nowadays.
This artist would take the risk to come across the use of stereotypes within the depiction intention. In attempting to reach the basis of what might consist the ‘true’ national culture, artists deny the foreign culture and its influence, such as its contributions in terms of techniques and trends. Such work is therefore based on the assumption that constant recognisable patterns exists in what is considered as ‘true national art’. But Fanon, argues that “the forms of thought and what it feeds on, together with modern techniques of information, language and dress have dialectically reorganised the people’s intelligences".
In the artist attempt to depict what consists of the ‘true’ elements of a culture “turns paradoxically towards the past and away from actual events”. He/she, then illustrates the ‘cast-offs of thought’, a set of rules, norms and values that do not reflect the reality of the culture anymore.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Hello reader! Look what I found on the Internet today: A press-release from the website of the Guy Hepner gallery... A good occasion to compare those two influential photographers. Unfortunately it is a bit late (till 31/11... and a bit far away as well...). One raised on the east coast, the other in California, but so many similarities...
Terry Richardson- iconic, established, extrovert. Exuberant and erotic at the same time, he has carved a niche as the heavyweight champion of off the wall, spur of the moment, raw talent photography of the past 10 years. His "snapshot aesthetic" is unmistakable, often shot with nothing more than a mundane compact camera. Richardson is an icon, his photos every bit as much. 
Tony Stamolis- Tony Stamolis's new portfolio is the work of a classic cad: raw and sexy, with a winking sense of humor. The Brooklyn photographer shoots friends, lovers and ad-hoc still lives with a prankster's eye. Never happier than when provoking the masses and challenging the generally accepted, his signature look is captivating, as funny as it is sexy, all the while remaining what it should be: great photography
Work is available from $2500, for all inquiries please email info@guyhepner.com
Do you think they are typical products of the U.S. culture? Have a look at the following text: It comes from a study of Hofstede, well-known in the world of cultural studies who is famous for his work on cultural dimensions and available on his excellent website: http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_united_states.shtml.
"The high Individualism (IDV) ranking for the United States indicates a society with a more individualistic attitude and relatively loose bonds with others. The populace is more self-reliant and looks out for themselves and their close family members.
The next highest Hofstede Dimension is Masculinity (MAS) with a ranking of 62, compared with a world average of 50. This indicates the country experiences a higher degree of gender differentiation of roles. The male dominates a significant portion of the society and power structure. This situation generates a female population that becomes more assertive and competitive, with women shifting toward the male role model and away from their female role.
World averages shown above are: 55 - 43 - 50 - 64 - 45
The next lowest ranking Dimension for the United States is Power Distance (PDI) at 40, compared to the world Average of 55. This is indicative of a greater equality between societal levels, including government, organizations, and even within families. This orientation reinforces a cooperative interaction across power levels and creates a more stable cultural environment.
The last Geert Hofstede Dimension for the US is Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI), with a ranking of 46, compared to the world average of 64. A low ranking in the Uncertainty Avoidance Dimension is indicative of a society that has fewer rules and does not attempt to control all outcomes and results. It also has a greater level of tolerance for a variety of ideas, thoughts, and beliefs".
Now have a look on their portfolio displayed on the following websites and keep what you just read in mind:
http://www.terryrichardson.com/
http://www.tonystamolis.com/portfolio/01.html
Got it? ;-)
