Recently, I came across an article describing an interesting design for two towers connected by what would be meant to look like a pixelated cloud. In this “cloud” would be public gardens, a pool, and other services for the two buildings. The idea sounded fantastic until I saw a picture of the design. It looks almost exactly like the twin towers being hit by planes on on 9/11.

Despite the fact that the designers are based in the Netherlands and the towers are to be built in South Korea, these designs have caused quite a stir. The designers have come out with an apology to those who are made uncomfortable by the towers, but they have no intention to prevent it’s construction. Which raises an interesting question: Should artists and designers be constantly worried about cultural associations that may arise from their art?

On the one hand, 9/11 was a very big deal. The entire world has heard of it and even now, 10 years later, the wounds are still fresh in our minds. But neither the Netherlands nor South Korea have any particular connection to 9/11, and the connection of their towers to the attack would not be made. It’s a really nice design and concept if you don’t have those terrible associations. Does it make sense that they should sensor their work because it has bad connotations in other contexts?

This isn’t the first time that cultural contexts has been a problem for artists. For example, the swastika was an ancient east-asian symbol of good luck before it was used by the Nazis in World War II. Because of this, no one thought it would be a problem to have the symbol on a Pokemon card back in 1999. Pokemon didn’t just stay in Asia, and in fact became very popular in the US. The card incited a major stir, causing Nintendo to discontinue that card in America, noting that what was acceptable in one culture may not be acceptable in another. In 2002, a similar incident occurred with toy pandas that came with christmas cookies. The Chinese oriented company meant no harm and immediately apologized for their cultural mistake.

You can read a bit more about the towers and it’s controversy here.

Throughout the year we have been discussing the intersection of money, politics, and art. We have observed giant, expensive spectacles without much political influence, as well as smaller, cheaper expressions of political perspectives. It’s taken us all around the different styles of art and the different people who make it.

This article tries to look at the year in art through the same lens. The author observes how, despite the larger amount of galleries and shows than there were before, it has become more of a rehash of old trends and spectacle than it is an expressive medium. People want to cash in on older ideas instead of trying new things or making a statement. He points out that there were still some great things to come out of this year, including the Islamic art exhibit and the de Kooning retrospective (both mentioned in the article). But they were few and far between, while most of the quality was mediocre at best.

What this article really praises is the combination of art and politics, praising the Occupy Wall Street movement for producing deep, thought provoking art without the monetary ambitions of most of todays artists. The article also mentions two galleries, “Bye Bye Kitty!!! Between Heaven and Hell in Contemporary Japanese Art” and “Ostalgia”, which were all about the political and social issues that the art was addressing. Though the technical techniques were nowhere near as advanced as those of a modern artist, the expressiveness and point-fulness of the art is what makes it what it is. It requires no spectacle and impressiveness to be excellent. It finds that within the art itself.

Over the year, I’ve started to appreciate this idea a lot more. Like John Cage’s 4’33, the message and poignancy of the art can be more impressive and more important that the means used to create it. It is important to appreciate, not just what makes up the art, but what the art is.

The war in Iraq has torn this country apart, and the source of this elongated war may have just been resolved; the issue? A couple of old ornamental dishes belonging to the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.  The Iraqi mission at the United Nations heard of the plates and after hearing of the existing dishes claimed that the plates were taken illegally out of Iraq and they must return to its country.

Creative Time, a public art institution that “helps contemporary artists realize their weirdest and wildest dreams, turning entire buildings into musical instruments or creating signs for Coney Island merchants”, bought the dishes. They were bought for artist Michael Rakowitz, who used the dishware for his fine-dining performance piece, “Spoils.” The artist created this dish with a venison-and-date-syrup entree that guests could be perceived as loot from an unnecessary war or the culinary trophy for crushing a foreign dictatorship.

After reading this article, my first thought was, “Really? This is what you’re going to fight for? The silverware remains of your old dictator?” I then answered myself by reasoning that these dishes were now considered art! (Yes, I am going to be tackling the age-old question of what is art). I am not arguing the validity of the artist quality of “Spoils” by Rakowitz, as I have already stated in a previous blog post (“Edible Art”) that there should be no reason why food can not take on the form of art, especially here, where it is created with a meaning. The question then is, what is up with the dishes?

Taking the dishes away from “Spoils”, are we still considering the dishes art? My answer? Why not!. If we have learned anything in our class, it’s that art can take on many different purposes and mediums.  What one may consider art, the other may consider rubbish. Sometimes art doesn’t have to be a painting, sculpture, or a canvas with nice polka dots; it can sometimes just reflect history. This idea that art can sometimes just be art for its reminder of history, hit me when I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art to see the Egyptian exhibit. The exhibit itself felt like it was there to take me back in time, to show us a period that once was. Nothing that was on display was made for art. It was all either made to record history and tradition, or, the objects on display were part of the lives of the Egyptian people. Some objects that I saw were utensils, vases, pottery, and other daily objects. What was history is now art.

If we are supposed to appreciate the lives of the Egypt that once was, why shouldn’t the Iraq of the past be recorded as history. This history could then be translated as art. The tyranny of Saddam Hussein was a dark time period for the Iraqi people. Although I’m sure people would want to forget the horrible times, there is still a need to preserve a country’s history. History is not to be looked down upon but rather be looked at for guidance, as to learn from our mistakes. Art then takes upon itself this heavy burden of encompassing all that we are. Art, now as history, has the ability to show the beauty in the world we live in, no matter how one interprets our world.

Looking through previous post, it becomes clear that more often than not, art has political effects. The art of occupy wall street, the Exit Art museum in NYC, and even political cartoons, are amongst the many examples we have blogged about that use art as a means of political change. In my art history class, I learned of two  influential paintings inspired from the horrors war. Goya’s The Third of May,1808 The Execution of the Defenders of Madrid (1814) and Pablo Picasso’s Guerinca (1937). Both artists depict war’s brutality on the innocent Spanish civilians of their respective time periods. In 2006, the two paintings were even showed in the same room at an exhibition at the Prado and the Reina Sofía.

As Napoleon voraciously expanded his power across Europe in the early 1800s, his troops marched into Spain and seized the Spanish throne. Infuriated by the removal of the Spanish royal family to France, the people of Madrid rebelled on May 2, 1808 in the Dos de Mayo Uprising. The French retaliated swiftly and viciously; the next day, hundreds of Spanish peasants were round up and shot. This massacre of civilians is the subject of Goya’s The Third of May, 1808 The Execution of the Defenders of Madrid.

The Third of May, 1808 The Execution of the Defenders of Madrid

Painted in “glowing whites, golds and scarlets against the sombre blacks, greys and browns of the background, the doomed men are immortalized,” explains art critic Robert Hughes. In fact, the only illumination comes from a lone oil lantern at the soldiers’ feet. The stark contrast heightens the painting’s emotional pitch, drawing the viewer towards the young victim with raised arms.  Art historians have speculated that the papered lantern functions as the bitter core of the painting. The lantern symbolizes the Enlightenment that Goya, like so many other Spanish civilians, had anticipated the French would bring to Spain. But the French only brought a reign of terror; the lantern is controlled by the French soldiers, as they mercilessly murder innocent peasants; the Enlightenment contorted into evil. Goya employs light to make a bone-chilling point– war is cruelly savage.

A century later, in 1936, the Spanish Civil War erupts. On April 27th, 1937, the little village of Guernica in northern Spain is pounded with bombs for over three hours. 1,600 civilians are left dead or wounded. Pablo Picasso captures this horrific event in Guernica.

Guernica

Picasso refined sketch after sketch to include a remarkable amount of abstract symbols, often holding many contradictory meanings. When asked to explain his symbolism, Picasso remarked, “It isn’t up to the painter to define the symbols. Otherwise it would be better if he wrote them out in so many words! The public who look at the picture must interpret the symbols as they understand them.”

However, Picasso’s alteration of light from good to evil is certainly obvious. Light is the instrument of slaughter in Goya’s painting. In Picasso’s, the bodies seem to be reaching towards the upper left of the canvas, to the evil eye. And in the eye is the merciless glare of a single light bulb. Art historian Simon Schama explains that the bulb is “the incandescence of the exterminating angel, the searchlight of the death squad and the targeting bomber, the bare bulb of the tortuous cell.” The electric light bulb is juxtaposed against the flame of a candle, held straight out by a heroic arm, depicting the battle between the good and the evil lights.

Both Goya and Picasso encountered the monstrosities of war directly. Goya’s  The Third of May, 1808 The Execution of the Defenders of Madrid and Picasso’s Guerinca are paintings which remain standing as personal testimonies of war’s vicious cruelties. Each artist utilized their canvases to highlight the brutal victimization of innocent civilians.

According to a New York Times article, Antoni Muntadas has a new multimedia installation in the Bronx Museum of the Arts which addresses societal isolation.  This exhibit features audio and visual components to convey various aspects of social control tactics.  For instance, one piece boasts multiple stills and moving images of passionate fans at a soccer game, highlighting railings, fences, individual seats, et cetera.  I doubt that the article’s description does the work justice, though.

A more plausible aspect of the article is the end, where the author refers back to his opening, framing paragraph regarding what entities individuals are most frightened by and refracts it back onto the artist.  After offering a brief explanation as to why Muntadas’s work is lacking, the author suggests that Muntadas has placed limitations on his creative capacities that are similar to the confining societal factors of which he raises awareness.  The author describes, “It is as if he had erected a fence around his own creative intellect to keep out unruly impulses of imagination and emotion. What, I wonder, is he afraid of?”

Artists who seek to express disturbing societal injustices face a problem that other artists can shrug off.  To some degree, these artists need to be mindful of how their audiences will respond to their art.  In our English 110H class this semester, we had to write a persuasive essay to either a hostile, friendly, or indifferent audience; and, for each group, the “successful” approach varies.  The same applies to “art with a cause.”  When an artist (whatever his medium may be) realizes this, it certainly affects the final outcome of the piece.  If it is supposed to urge an audience to action regarding the societal ill, then it must be created with a fairly high concern of the audience itself.  On the other hand, however, this may prove detrimental to visual artists who are thinkers because there are not a few concrete manners in which art can move an audience.  Simple images of protesters at Occupy Wall Street can be as effective as an abstract drawing about the one percent.  Because art is such an innovative craft, artists seek new ways in which to express themselves effectively.  When a response is anticipated (or action called for), an artist’s options may become limited in an attempt to get the best desired reaction.

Was this Muntadas’s dilemma?  I do not know.  But it certainly addresses the unique roadblock faced by artists seeking societal change and response to their creations.

Look At the New York Times Article, Art Shivers in the Recession!

Finally, it seems as if the art world is realizing there has been a recession in the general world.  It is refreshing to see that the upper crust of society is realizing that something has happened to the rest of the world, and that maybe they should not be buying millions of dollars worth of art.

Unfortunately this is not the case.  In the auction houses, there was not a lack of buyers, but rather a lack of sellers.  Some of the paintings that were sold went for exorbitant amounts because of the lack of competition.  People who own old work masterpieces are unwilling to sell them in this economy.  Instead, the lesser known artists, or second tier old world painters are the ones that were on the auction block in Sotheby and Christie’s auction houses.

Quoting from the article “Such blatant overestimation was not due to some inexplicable hubris on the experts’ part. It merely reflects the desperate efforts made by auction house departmental heads to entice consignors by complying with their every wish, however unrealistic.”

The art world market seems to be shriveling in these tough economic times, but whether this is a good or bad thing is yet to be determined.  If the art world auction markets die down, art will not be circulating and it may be difficult to ever see some of the great works because they will be in a vault in a wealth man’s house.  On the other hand, it may be a wakeup call to the wealthy population that something is happening in the world, and you cannot be a recluse and not help out.

It is a telling sign that people do not want to part with their work.  As we have discussed in class multiple times, Occupy Wall Street and other movements like that are reacting to something.  The wealthy are not as willing to part with their riches and would rather keep them locked up in their vaults.  This may lead to the end of the auction house as we know it.