Visit to the Whitney

The Whitney Museum was rather unique and different from the MET. The experience here was great. Though “Buckminster Fuller, Progress, & Paul McCarthy” were all rather intriguing, the one exhibit that was unique all around was Paul McCarthy’s “Central Symmetrical.” The sound of the exhibit can be heard from the second floor. At first it seemed like construction was being done somewhere but in fact is was his exhibit “Bang Bang Room.” Four walls with a door in each opened which allowed the viewer to become part of the art. Then soon after, the walls closed and the doors kept opening and closing for a good 3 minutes then reopened. [I stood in the middle of this exhibit because the guard was like its perfectly fine, then I actually became claustrophobic for a few seconds, but it was fun.] According to the prompt, the purpose of this exhibit like most of Paul McCarthy’s works was to illustrate instability and how the body can be destabilized due to the surrounding space and architect. Reading this before becoming part of the exhibit appeared to be weird at first and a bit unrealistic, but his other exhibit “Spinning Room” put the viewers in the middle while everything else spun. Just looking at the exhibit caused a nauseous feeling and disorientation. Even though this felt weird, all of his work was intriguing and very interesting. It made the viewer think inside out and made them view things in an uncommon way. Lastly, McCarthy made a film and it was on four panels that spun to create an in and out feeling. Large and colorful, the way the film was projected was very cool.

Personally, this floor was amazing and fun to look at. Floor 3 !
I recommend checking out all the floors because this museum is great.

In the realm of ‘Progress,’ at the Whitney Museum what’s most striking is a gelatin silverprint by Jerry N. Uelsmann, “Mechanical Man #2.” It is a photo of wires and light bulbs imbedded in a second photo of a man wearing a suit and horn-rimmed glasses. The photograph of the man was taken from a lower perspective so it seems as if the man is looking down upon the viewer. This photograph addresses the question of progress: are humans falling so hard into the world of technology that one day they, too, will be cold and automatic like the machines of their own creation?
The man’s facial expression is cold and emotionless. He is already like a machine awaiting the central computer’s further commands. Uelsmann’s piece portrays progress as very mechanical and inhuman. Having been created in 1959, it is evident that the piece has foreshadowed the future because today’s progress has been based almost solely on technologic advances. It is impossible to walk two feet without seeing someone either with a cellphone or an i-pod. The “Mechanical Man” is the next step in the human journey. Seeing as almost everything in this world is improving and advancing, it’s scary to think that it’s not too improbable that one day humanity itself will be upgraded technologically to, say, robots.

I thought that in comparison with Fuller’s work, McCarthy and Progress seemed narcissistic, depressing, and almost pointless. McCarthy’s work has its own beauty and importance, and it is certainly bold and striking. But when I compared it with the beauty and elegance and purpose of Fuller’s work, the silent film of gruesome autopsies and the spinning room seemed trivial, self-absorbed, and pessimistic.
Maybe I was just tired of the lengths the other artists seemed to have to go to justify and explain their work. Like, “by placing the dismembered nude at the forefront of the viewer’s optical palette, I simultaneously evoke the simplicity of childhood and the societal pressures that…..” blah blah blah. With Fuller’s work, no paragraph is needed to explain why this art is great. The beauty of the form and purpose are both explicitly clear. And this inspired combination of artistic and scientific genius resulted in ideas that are useful now, even though they were conceived eighty years ago. Fuller’s art leaves viewers inspired and amazed rather than confused and ashamed that they can’t see the genius in a giant sheet of canvas painted orange. There was nothing elitist about it, just genius and good intentions.

I would have to disagree with Harper and say that I found many of McCarthy’s works to be captivating, brilliant even, rather than elitist. For me, the most absorbing piece was the show-stealer, “Spinning Room” (2008). The exhibit envelopes the museum-goer in an arena of technological disorientation with a quadruplet of centered, rotating cameras that cast the viewer’s actions on four surrounding, wall-sized screens. Then, as if seeing one’s transient image broadcasted along a series of enclosing walls wasn’t bewildering enough, McCarthy adds several additional effects to the mix. At one point you may see yourself upside-down beside a video of you walking from three minutes ago – all on the same screen. The next moment you might catch a glimpse of your figure represented as a flat picture inside of footage of a screen while all four walls show the video rotating in reverse.

Over tens of thousands of years, humans have evolved a perceptual architecture that allows us to survive and function. Now, although our mind’s construction of the world brings order and helps us to sustain ourselves, there’s a high likelihood that many things operate differently from the way our brains would have us suppose. In his interactive demonstration, “Spinning Room,” McCarthy deconstructs our human-centered notions of the way our realm works. First, he destroys our perception of time as a linear continuum by mixing footage of “the past” with that of “the present”. The artist also distorts such species-centric ideas as “up and down” and “forward and backward” with flips and reversals of the video broadcast. Finally, by setting our environment in a spin and representing us as two-dimensional figures, McCarthy weakens our hold on impressions of the world being still and existing in three dimensions, respectively. All considered I found “Spinning Room” to be remarkable in the technical and philosophical thought that McCarthy put into it.

The Dymaxion House by Buckminster Fuller is a very innovative architectural endeavor that required the house to be supported by suspension lines and an immense spiral staircase. These additions o the house make it look like a futuristic circus tent. This futuristic style house has mini paintings and sculptures that he had completed over the years. Fuller’s pioneering architectural structure captivates the viewer and inspires artists to push the envelope as far as they can. The metal roofing and layers make the house look solar powered and very polished. If someone really lived in a home like this it would probably be incredible uncomfortable and they would have to wear sunglasses at al times, except for when it is rainy and dark. Each room is connected and you could move from one room to another easily. If the house was life-size you could stand in the middle of the home and see everything in the house. The planning and calculations that went into the construction of the Dymaxion House constitute it as art. The beauty of the formation of the round base and pointed top make it different from any other constructed home. Buckminster Fuller’s work was very advanced for his time and has a unconventional look at architecture.

In response to Tyler’s post, I would like to comment that McCarthy’s work on “Spinning Room” and “Madhouse” were innovative, but the provocative silent films and pictures of him were completely disgusting and vulgar. With time, it seems as though “art” gets more and more precarious. I wouldn’t describe his work as exactly captivating, but it doesn’t push the envelope and shock people; probably the response he wanted to get from people.

I agree with Melissa, that some of those silent films were just too over-the-top graphic and disgusting. I don’t care if a documentary of skin-ripping, rib-sawing autopsies makes me consider how I take in information or explore the documentary urge to show reality. For me at least (and everyone else who was in the theater and eventually left in shock and nausea like I did), Stan Brakhage’s film was too much. And in response to Tyler, I completely agree about all the meaning and import of the spinning room, it just seemed sort of like a toy when compared with Fuller’s plans to save the world. Maybe McCarthy is serving an equally important purpose by keeping us from getting too caught up in ourselves and our obsession with progress (that Fuller embodies), but I didn’t then feel like trying to decode why it was meaningful.

Although I consider myself not to be an art person, there was one piece within Buckminster Fuller’s exhibit, “Starting with the Universe”, that was so intriguing that I found myself staring at it for a good five minutes. The piece was called the “Large Tensegrity” and is made out of thin wooden sticks and wax twine, which are used to create the image of sticks floating in the shape of a sphere. Unlike the other tensegrity models found by the wall text of the exhibit, the model I saw, which was located in a side room, on top of a shelf, had no pieces attached to an upper support and no supports from the outside or inside of the spherical model. This piece made me realize that art in museums aren’t just created by people who call themselves artists, but from anyone: mathematicians, engineers, and even inventors.

I agree with Melissa and “hkeehn” (sorry I don’t know your name). I also felt that in comparison to Fuller’s works, the works of the other two artists seemed almost pointless. McCarthy’s video’s brought about an uneasy sense of disturbance – although that might have been his intentions – and seemed insignificant next to other art pieces which brought the viewer to think about the past, and how human technology and ideas have developed and changed. I felt like the pieces from “Progress” also held less value than those of Fuller’s exhibit; especially one piece which was just a long canvas painted a orange red color with black bordering on the sides.

The Buckminster Fuller Exhibit at the Whitney Museum blends science with art and practicality with innovation. Fuller, a believer in the necessity for conservation, devoted much of his life to the creation of societal benefits in the form of low impact dwellings, machines, and communities. One of his basic staples was the Dymaxion Dwelling Machine, which in the case of my observation, was known as “The Wichita House.” Fuller envisioned communities of these practical homes to be spread throughout the heartland of America, including Kansas.
I focused my attention on the Wichita House Blue Prints and Photograph. The blue prints explain the engineering of the house as a round dome raised slightly above the ground. The plans were completed in 1946 and designed to use as little material as possible for the desired affect of a livable home. Fuller’s choice in naming the house a “Dwelling Machine” indicates his belief in the practicality of architecture. I found the home to be beautiful in the sense of progression, and even from an architectural standard it is sweeping, as it is round, modern, and futuristic looking. Others who desire a more traditional appeal may find it to be an atrocity. However, as much of the theme at the Whitney is “Progress,” this is a fitting exhibit and a truly revolutionary concept, making this engineering model not only art, but art as a functional component of life.

Buckminster Fuller said, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” These words seem to be the inspiration for all of Fuller’s works. I found myself wandering his exhibit, wondering why none of these amazing ideas had been put into action. Some of the designs had obvious flaws, but many were well beyond his time and completely brilliant. After the death of his first daughter, Fuller dedicated himself to improving living conditions for all humanity, focusing on the home first. All of his designs were inexpensive, used less material, and were self-sufficient. Some designs I was most impressed with included Triton City, Harlem Redesign, and Model of Dymaxion Machine, or Wichita House. All of these models were complete genius. They could have solved many of the problems we face today, such as providing affordable housing in large enough quantities. While the car is a little bigger than most would prefer nowadays, I know I would be willing to trade my 20 mpg car for the 30 mpg the Dymaxion car gets.

Part of me was unsure whether or not this was actually art. It took me a while of trying to figure out what made it art or made it not art until I gave up and settled for the fact that Professor Israel said not to try to define art. If photos of a green screen, giant metal balloon animals, and spinning chairs in spinning rooms are art, I see no reason why housing and car designs should not be considered as such.

Backtracking, I would agree with Tyler as well. “Spinning Room” toyed with my mind like the rest of his works. His work made the viewers look at things in a different way and how we normally perceive things would suddenly be altered. This type of work opens minds and allows the viewers too consider other ways of looking at a particular thing. Tyler stated, “First, he destroys our perception of time as a linear continuum by mixing footage of “the past” with that of “the present”. The artist also distorts such species-centric ideas as “up and down” and “forward and backward” with flips and reversals of the video broadcast.” I would definitely agree with Tyler here. Not only did McCarthy do this, in addition it made each person feel a state of disorientation, confusion, and a bit uncomfortable but to the point where it was not over the top but every interesting at the same time.

Buckminster Fuller’s exhibit including all his ideas and inventions caught my attention. His innovation at a time when the Industrial Revolution was just about over and much of the focus was on the war is astounding. While most inventors created weapons or bombs, Fuller investigated new ways to build housing in flood areas. He was looking for ways to live on water, to live underwater, and to give affordable housing to those returning from war. The use of the tetrahydron as a strength component is obvious because it appears so commonly in nature, yet it took a real genius to apply it to building. This strong structure allowed homes to be built on stilts that would not collapse if hit by a storm. His inventions were practical, yet sometimes their potential of working seemed improbable. For example, putting a dome over Midtown Manhattan to keep out pollution. Wouldn’t cars inside the dome cause pollution?
Fuller’s Dymaxion Car is before its time. The first car, the Ford Model T, had just been invented about twenty years prior. The fact that Fuller created a car that has better gas mileage than most cars today is beyond belief. His car sat 11 safely and resembled a submarine. The most amazing quality of the Dymaxion Car was it’s turning capabilities. By using a low and forward center of gravity for the wheel axels, the driver could pull the car’s front end into a spot, and spin the back tires into the spot. Cars today cannot do that. It is depressing that Fuller did not receive funding for many of his projects, because we would have been able to see several more inventions from his great mind.

I agree with “rlee” some of the works in the “Progress” exhibit did not seem to signify anything. They use the example of the red canvas with two black strips on the side. I also did not understand the six video screens with glowing balls of different color on them. I stared at them for a few minutes trying to figure what “progression” this really was. All I could think of was the progression of time it takes for you to watch this senseless video when you could have been looking at another part of the exhibit.

Walking through the Buckminster Fuller exhibit helped me understand the possibility of creating the future in the way science fiction fantasies were meant. At first, I found many of the works very complicated, such as the collections of the geodesic domes, but soon encountered the practicality of Fuller’s ideas. I admired his values of material efficiency and the success of the individual enabling the success of the community. His genius exudes an overwhelming ambition to me; at first, studying the photograph of Fuller’s Tetrahedron City reminded me of Egyptian pyramids, but then realizing that the structure was 9000 feet tall and meant to house 300,000 people stuck me as utter boldness. The practicality of actually building such a structure, even at this time, is outrageous, but Fuller’s idea behind enhancing mankind is almost heroic.

To me, Fuller’s intentions behind his designs completely ignored the notion of development and progress; it seemed almost as if he had lost hope in altering the way society was at the time. Its relationship to art showcases imagination at its highest peak, making the impossible seem possible. If we consider his work art, we see the real life application of using creativity and making it innovative and hopeful. This hopefulness gives us this sense of expression that we do not usually see in science, but through art.

The “Progress” exhibit explores the concept of changes in ideology over time by different artists. The work entitled No War by Ad Reinhardt consists of the back and front of a post card mounted side by side. On it are written words like, “No war, No imperialism, No murder, No bombing, No napalm, No escalation, No credibilitygap…. No art of war, No art in war, No art to war, No art by war….” Ad Reinhardt created this work around the end of the Vietnam War; before then there were lots of posters and political art recruiting for the army but his work was anti-war. Reinhardt’s work speaks of progress in that he advocated peace but also forces the viewer to consider concepts such as a world without murder, bombings or imperialism. Those things that are obviously morally incorrect and can be avoided, have become so engrained in our history that it is hard to imagine a place without them. How has society become so corrupted that things such as murder and bombings have become the norm? While progress can be beneficial in terms of technology and medicine, there are also things that should not be allowed to progress any further such as our society’s gradual acceptance of the violence around us.

In response to Beth’s paragraph on Fuller, I think that Fuller considered very pertinent issues such as housing, transportation, and pollution and designed very creative ways to solve those problems such as his plans for the dome over Manhattan and the Dymaxion Car. His exhibit also made me think that art and science are inextricably linked in that it takes a certain amount of creativity not normally found in just science to come up with the shapes and structures Fuller came up with. The dome for example looks like an organic structure and is aesthetically pleasing but also could potentially solve a lot of problems with pollution, and saving energy for heating and air conditioning

The “Progress” exhibit was quite intriguing and stunning. I found that in comparison to the Fuller exhibit and McCarthy’s work, the show had much more substance and was somewhat more realistic. By this I mean that like the “Photography by Photographers” exhibition at the MET this show told much about the growth and development of art and the world, and how the two interact. I disagree with the comment that this exhibit was pointless, for me it was actually more relevant to life and art than any of the other works. In particlular I really enjoyed the piece by Barbara Kruger with the quote “We don’t need another hero.” I feel that this work in conjunction with many of the others in the exhibit comments on society. I walked away from this rather large and powerful piece, wondering what the artist truly means by this statement and came to the conclusion that the world does not need another superficial figure to look up to, but that everyone should basically work together to get through this life and create a better society. My thoughts of this work may not be what Kruger intended for the viewer to take away, but that’s the beauty of art. “Progress” exhibited a variety of works done in different mediums and styles but tied everything together through the idea of time and change. Personally it was much more interesting than any of the other exhibits and had more focus on the visual component of art.

I found Buckminster Fuller’s designs and ideas extremely intriguing and inspiring. In them I found clear links between science and art. While the calculations that go into designing such structures involve scientific methods, there is so much creativity and originality present in the designs. I found it admirable how much emphasis Fuller placed on making the structures easily moveable and easy to build. It seems as if he genuinely cared about helping humanity, or at least saw that since we are all on earth together, we must work together in the interest of creating a better future. While there is certainly an element of beauty to designs such as the geodesic dome, there seems to always be an element of practicality in his structures.

I was particularly intrigued by the designs for houses, like the Wichita house. I thought the display had a bit of an eerie feel to it, since all the houses look the same and are all in neat rows. They are well thought out however and I’m sure could have been a great solution to the need for low-cost housing.
I thought it was admirable how he tried to provide the best design and functionality he could with an affordable, easy-to-build house. While they are certainly odd-looking, maybe it’s better to have something a little odd in exchange for achieving great things.

To back up a bit, I completely agree with Aleksandra about the eeriness of “Mechanical Man #2″. It is certainly a commentary on the direction that progress is going- life is becoming more and more automatic to the point that there is little we must truly do on our own now. Even as all of us write these essays we have the assistance of a laptop and spell check. It is so interesting that “Mechanical Man #2″ is from 1959, because Uelsmann’s prediction about progress is coming true faster than I like to think about.

Bang! Bang! Step inside the Bang Bang Room by Paul McCarthy and be transported to a much scarier darker place. At first, you are merely on wooden platform with wallpaper walls spread out like wings. You are confused and slightly amused as to why you are standing on a wooden platform. Then the doors on the walls start to bang open and shut. They bang in no discernible pattern; the sound echoing through the large gallery. The walls start ominously moving in enclosing you in little box. This experience is at once exciting and scary and claustrophobia inducing. The artist in making this exhibit disorients the viewer and transports them to a different reality. This whole theme of disorientation goes hand in hand with most of the other pieces of art in the room. Though inanimate, they make the viewer feel and forces one to ask, how does man react when taken out of his comfort zone? Luckily, we have Paul McCarthy to help us explore those types of questions.

My experience at the Whitney Museum was very enjoyable. I checked out every floor and I found to be most fascinating by the 3rd floor, Paul McCarthy’s “Central Symmetrical Rotation Movement.” At first, “The Bang Bang Room” appeared to be an opened room with four walls with four doors but when we stood in the middle of it, the walls started to closed up and the doors in each wall kept banging open and shut that I was frightened by it. I felt that I was enclosed in a room with empty space and each door was an opportunity for me to exit but I couldn’t escape at the same time.
I was disturbed by McCarthy’s video, “Ma Bell, 1971.” This video showed him in a room doing some weird laugh and he had a yellow pages book, cotton, a container with black paint, and flour. He put some flour on one page and poured paint on it, then he flipped some pages and constantly doing the same thing and later on he added cotton to the pages and at the end, he used the paint to make the pages full of paint. It focuses on duration and repetition through obsession with laughter throughout to represent a character, possible a witch. I was disgusted and impressed by it; I couldn’t take my eyes off for the seven minutes, black and white video. Overall, I thought McCarthy’s works were very realistic because they engaged viewers by making viewers be part of his art. The exhibit created a sense of confusion and disturbance but intriguing at the same time.

I agree with “bterranova” that Fuller was very creative with his inventions during that time period. His motif was “to do more with less.” I was very impressed that he dedicated his time to help society by exploring patterns and shapes and technologies to design affordable houses that require less work with self-contained water and power supplies and building the energy-efficient Dymaxion car. One of the domes that I really liked was the Geodesic Dome for the Yumiuri Golf Club; it is a great piece of drawing with an unusual structure, which made it very creative.

The word ‘progress’ generally breeds thoughts of a better future. It’s better to think that, as a society, we are progressing towards a more peaceful, more humane world that will breed equality and compassion. To a degree we are and, also to a degree, the Whitney museum’s “Progress” exhibit preaches this.

What’s more intriguing (and daring) to examine is the dissenting opinion – that our technological advances are desensitizing us, devaluing our work, and, ultimately, making us less human. Jerry N. Uelsmann’s work “Mechanical Man #2” fully encapsulates this. The man captured in black and white here externally represents the male status quo of Uelsmann’s era (1959, specifically). He is clean cut, dressed in a suit, and wearing fashionable “Buddy Holly” glasses. These details allow us to assume this man is successful…perhaps a businessman or doctor. He brings home the bacon, fathers lots of children, and all that jazz.

The illusion stops once we hit the chest. We see that this man is not really a man at all, rather, he is made up of wires, switches, batteries, and motors. There is a massive control panel where his lungs and heart should be, thus, the very essence of man is eradicated in this “perfect” man. With this, we must question our ideals, and whether or not achieving some goals will compromise the very nature of our being.

Robots are daunting enough, but Uelsmann takes the eeriness of this work a step further by placing the businessman in a place of dominance – he is literally looking down at the viewer. This sense of futility arouses several questions in the viewer, perhaps most relevant to the exhibit as a whole, “Is this instance of progress too far along to be stopped?”

Of all the different exhibits that I viewed while at the Whitney, the one featuring Buckminster Fuller’s designs was what stood out the most to me. I found the majority of his work to be ingenious, and was seriously impressed by the way he strove to improve the world. What caught my eye was the futuristic, almost alien-looking models of his blueprints, particularly the metallic dome shaped Dymaxion Dwelling Machine, but what kept me fascinated were his revolutionary ideas for a better future. His concepts for better housing, including the Dymaxion Dwelling Machine, were particularly ground-breaking, and it was amazing to see the innovative ways in which his homes could be constructed using less material and labor than standard housing, as well as his brilliant ideas for built-in water and power supplies. In addition, his Dymaxion Car was well ahead of its time, comfortable seating eleven passengers and running on better fuel mileage than many cars that are being sold today. It was particularly shocking to me that so many of his proposals for better living remain just that-proposals-instead of actual working models, especially in light of today’s economic problems and the issues of diminishing natural resources.

I agree with those above who mentioned that some of Paul McCarthy’s work seemed pointless, especially in comparison to Buckminster Fuller’s. His videos in particular ranged from unsettling to outright disturbing. One that I recall in particular involved a mortician, I believe, measuring and examining several different nude corpses. The images were utterly nauseating and I walked out of the room feeling as if I had been a witness to something invasive and wrong. I imagine that it was his intention to leave the viewer feeling this uneasy, but it still struck me unnecessary and possibly even voyeuristic, particularly when comparing it to the works of Buckminster Fuller.

Going back to Mia’s post, I would have to agree that as I walked through the exhibit, I too kept asking myself why Buckminster Fuller’s ideas were for the most part never put into action. HIs innovative science and engineering would have benefitted humanity greatly. As Mia says, the plans had numerous flaws, but for the time period in which they were developed, they were truly revolutionary and advanced. Fuller’s visions of a communal and/or low impact human lifestyle were extraordinary and should be given the attention they deserve by modern scientists and the general public. One can only hope that a progressive exhibit like this can raise awareness about similar modern projects.

Labeled as a foolish utopian with quixotic ideas, Buckminster Fuller was regarded as man whose plans were just too impractical for society. However, to those who admired and believed in his work, Buckminster Fuller was simply put, a genius. With ideas decades ahead of his time, Fuller truly embodied the brilliant mastermind with simple ambitions. Fuller’s exhibit at the Whitney displays his array of plans and blueprints for housing development projects that would alleviate spatial stress on this planet by maximizing the amount of “free” area that is abundant in nature. This is especially true for his designs for a floating housing complex, which was within commuting distance of land, and was a fusion of a cruise ship and apartment buildings.
The one Fuller piece that had the greatest impact upon me was the designs for hovering spheres above the clouds, which would be used as housing areas for future beings. If the diameter of the spheres was equal to a half mile, sunlight striking the insides of the sphere would cause it to become lighter than the atmosphere, thus, allowing it to float into the air (there was much more advanced science and mathematics involved but this was the only information I could comprehend from the excerpt). Although this may seem highly impractical and near impossible, the idea was so unique and brilliant and instantaneously changed my opinion of this man from a brilliant visionary to a pure genius. For an individual to even fathom such an idea, and create a blueprint for it to fully function is simply remarkable.

I feel differently about McCarthy’s videos than “rlee”. I thought they were just as significant as his other works. The videos seemed to clearly twist our ideas of perception, just as his other works did. Instead of spinning the room in different ways on each wall to confuse our perception of sight, he filmed the casual inspection of dead bodies. While the people watching were greatly disturbed and unsure what to make of the scenes, the people participating in the video were used to what they were doing and treated it very business-like. How it is perceived depends on our past experiences and current circumstances.

In Paul McCarthy’s “Central Symmetrical Rotation Movement,” amid the cacophony, one video was particularly intriguing. In it, McCarthy flipped through a telephone book, slathering each page with what seemed to be black paint and cotton balls. While doing this, he made a series of demonic sounds that could be interpreted as anything from laughter to screams. The repetition of these actions, coupled with the cries, was haunting. The purpose of this exhibit was to create disorientation in the viewer, and this film was quite effective in doing that. One wonders what would cause somebody to undertake such a tedious task, much less to record it and think that anybody else would actually be interested in watching it. There is something juvenile about what McCarthy is doing in the film. He is destroying something, much as children who do not know better are apt to do. Whether or not this is art is questionable. There does not seem to be anything profound about what he is doing in video, yet it still holds one’s attention. It creates a feeling, and brings one back to that childish irreverence for things like phone books. Most children cannot make a distinction between paper that is safe to unleash their creativity on and paper that is not.
Despite how striking the video was, I do agree with hkeehn’s assertion that McCarthy pales in comparison to somebody like Buckminster Fuller. One of the problems with art today is that it relies too much on unwieldy interpretations and too little on actual craftsmanship. Fuller’s work can be appreciated by anybody because it is streamlined and modern. There is a beauty in such simplicity, and as with writing, sometimes less is more.

Buckminster Fuller was a man who was decades ahead of his time. He was thought to be either a genius or an optimistic utopian whose ideas were too absurd and alien for society. I for one, feel that Buckminster Fuller was a true visionary like many men of his time such as Nikola Tesla. Although his ideas may have been a bit outlandish for the time he was in, people should have looked past that fact and observed the fact that most of his designs were both relatively practical and efficient in their construction.
A perfect example of Fuller’s eccentric vision is modernistic Dymaxion House. This simple house was designed to be built from old grain containers that could be shipped easily to wherever a house was necessary and be built on site. Not only was his design of the Dymaxion House cost efficient and simple, but the house also provided certain amenities that even modern day houses don’t provide. One such amenity was natural cooling of the house because of its dome-like design. It is a shame that his ideas were not accepted and adopted into mainstream society because they could have helped the fundamentally change the modern day world.

I completely agree with the sentiment expressed by “glue” in regards to the sort of man Buckminster Fuller was. He was a true visionary who was underappreciated during his lifetime. His ideas were highly advanced and quite practical and efficient. It is a shame that they were viewed as impracticable because they could have had a profound impact on modern society.

Although the three exhibits at the Whitney Museum were intriguing and thought provoking in their own right, I found that the Buckminister Fuller pieces challenged the conventional definition of art—a definition the other pieces the class has observed maintain. Fuller’s “art” was more a series of scientific discoveries, hypothesis, innovations and ideas. His art was in the form of blueprints, models and portfolios that for the most part aimed to either fix housing problems, help recycle garbage or improve the human experience. Some of the most captivating ideas are the “home-in-the-box” premise, astrodome stadiums, apartment complexes and a greenhouse atmosphere over midtown Manhattan. Most of these ideas came to surface in some shape or another. Take for example mobile homes, modular homes, and mega stores like IKEA, they in some form or other borrow from the Fuller home-in-a-box premise. Astrodomes have been made for Major League baseball teams and Olympic Events alike. Although atmospheres don’t cover whole of midtown Manhattan, the premise has pushed forward in the form of greenhouses, aquariums and other climate controlled hemispheres. The real “art” experience behind Fuller’s work is the balance between practicality and imagination. Of course, all of his inventions did not materialize, but they were based in scientific fact and worked for the greater good of the human race. Although sensational and rather idealistic, it’s this balance of imagination; scientific research and genuine good intentions that make Fuller stick out.

After reading through everyone’s very active blog responses, I apologize that I enter the discussion so “late in the game.” Everyone seems to have valid points that have been discussed well. I’d like to respond to Nunez’s comments about the McCarthy video with the phone book. Nunez brings up a very valid point about McCarthy’s work, and art in general which is that it “makes you feel something” whether you are grossed out, intrigued, disoriented or (like in Nunez’s case) brought back to your childhood from one of McCarthy’s exhibits, his art makes you feel something. A person’s ability to conjure up such emotions from a video, or a spinning room, is a powerful tool and aspect of what art truly is.

I think Nunez’s reaction to the phonebook video is certainly valid, and so is anyone else’s who’s just disturbed by the shreiking and laughter of a man as he destroys the yellow pages. McCarthy’s art makes you feel something whether it is delight, anger or confusion.

In response to all prior comments on McCarthy…

I’d have to say that McCarthy’s pieces are so outrageous because he WANTS people to notice them. Even though they are at times disturbing, we as humans are instinctively drawn to them because they are so far from the norm. It is up to the viewer then to consciously move past the discomfort and look deeper into what McCarthy is trying to say. I can’t say for certain what slamming doors mean, but it could be calling into question certain values…we associate the word “house” with home and comfort, but the slamming doors were so unsettling that many (myself included) couldn’t stand to be near them for long. Likewise, the spinning images on the screens greatly alter our perceptions of reality and force us to wonder what actually IS real - a potentially earth shattering task.

While Fuller is definitely a genius, I can’t imagine him driving a point as far as McCarthy does without the use of such extreme means. I think so many people dislike McCarthy because he removes them from their comfort zones and forces them to question aspects of their lives that they’re more content with ignoring.

Of the three exhibitions at the Whitney Museum, Buckminster Fuller’s “Starting With the Universe” was the most intriguing and innovative. Although Buckminster Fuller would not be considered a traditional artist, his inventions combine elements of architecture, engineering, visual arts, and mathematics to make them not only useful but also captivating to the naked eye. His works aimed to improve society while utilizing as minimal amount of resources as possible. Fuller’s forward thinking and planning is apparent, however many of his ideas aim for efficiency over comfort and thus society could never truly embrace his form of genius.

Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion 4D Housing proposal which seems a bit futuristic even today, was in fact proposed in 1929. Suspension cables support the Dymaxion House, which is an improvement over the concrete foundation of traditional houses, which is often susceptible to cracking. The house features a centered spiral staircase, which allows one to easily move from the ground up into the interior of the house, and then up one more level to a terrace-like environment which could be ideal for out-door entertaining, if one can deal with the reflection of a hot sun against the shiny metal the level is constructed of. The interior, which is in the shape of a hexagon, is situated around a central hub and thus allows easy movement from room to room. The walls of the interior are large glass windows, and although they let in much natural light, the traditional family would probably opt for a bit more privacy.

Buckminster Fuller had dreams of mass-producing these homes, and had hopes that they would pop-up all over America. However, society did not embrace these efficient, well-engineered dwellings, and the traditional home still ruled the housing market. As a result, the Dymaxion House like much of Fuller’s work is left merely to be admired and one is left to ponder what the world would be like if all of Fuller’s forward-thinking ideas became a reality.

Even though there were other works in the Buckminster Fuller and McCarthy exhibits that caught my attention, I was particularly drawn to the Progress exhibit. The exhibit here grouped together many different artist and ideas united under the one theme of the eventual progress of humankind. Some of the art was taken to have a futuristic slant like “The Mechanical Man”, or more of a hopeful slant like the single postcard with the mantra “no more war”. The picture I was most drawn to was one of two SNCC workers standing outside of a building and beckoning people to come and vote for “freedom”. This image was striking for me because it showed the progress from the previous social attitude that some people were not allowed to vote, even if they wished to do so. However, another photo shows them being turned away from the building that they themselves heralded as a haven for freedom. There is also progress shown as how these SNCC workers want us to vote for the ideal of freedom instead of the standard voting for the leaders of the community. It shows that we have made so much progress in a short amount of time, but that we still have some time before we can make our current society a better place.

I think Katherine has a point when she mentions that McCarthy “removes [people] from their comfort zones and forces them to question aspects of their lives…”. If we consider the idea of “progress,” McCarthy’s intentions have us release any form of sensible consciousness we have. Indeed, looking at the exhibit does not give us a sense of relief, but a sense of wonder; his works require more than a moment to perceive because he creates illusions by altering orientation. I am intrigued by Katherine’s comment about the slamming doors and walls; usually houses are associated with the home, and the near violent characteristic of the slamming doors and walls can send a negatively painful connotation of a person’s home life.

The “extreme”-ness Katherine refers to is necessary to capture the viewer’s attention and to send the message that change is not always an easy experience. Specifically, shattering the idea of “progress” seems to demonstrate itself in the other Whitney exhibits, like Buckminster Fuller’s. He was also over-the-top with his designs and opening the minds of people during his time to consider outrageous measures to change humankind.

I wholeheartedly agree with Katharine. The “Mechanical Man” is the epitome of “Progress”; that photograph shows what is happening to the society we live in: it is making us less and less human by the day. With new technology being invented every day, humans are starting to rely more and more on metal and wires rather than on each other. Uelsmann portrays our technological progress as a decline in human interaction, sympathy, and even emotions that just can not be recreated in robots and machinery. Looking at the photograph, as Katharine said, you get a feeling of inferiority, as if the robot is more superior than you, as if it is better than you. This particular work of Uelsmann evokes fear and concern for our future.

Like John Oros, I would like to apologize for blogging so late. However, I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to “klin’s” thoughts on Ad Reinhardt’s No War within the “Progress” exhibit. I would like to agree with “klin” that as time goes on, we should always try to improve society, and we should strive for peace. In the perfect world, there would be no war, murder, or bombings. In this perfect world, there would be advancements in technology, medicine, and biochemistry. Ideally and in pursuit of progress, these advancements would be used to save lives not to make more weapons to make war and murder easier and faster. This overall idea of the pursuit of progress is also explored in John Lennon’s “Imagine” as well. John Lennon’s “Imagine” speaks of the world “living in peace” and as “one.” Thus, there would be no war or murder like Reinhardt imagined.

“Klin” is correct in asserting that Ad Reinhardt ‘s No War is a representation of ideological progress. Hopefully the world can progress to a point where we can all live in harmony free from war. However, society as it exists now is not ideal, and thus Ad Reinhardt and John Lennon’s ideas are merely brilliant concepts, which may never be embraced since they propose such radical changes over our idea of established society, in which war and murder are common practice.

Katharine does bring up a good point about the way that McCarthy makes us uncomfortable. It quite arguably is the only objective in his piece. He aims (and from what I’ve gathered from the blog he succeeded in) effectively challenging the viewers perception of the norm, what is real and what’s acceptable. His way of reaching the viewer is so unconventional that it makes him uneasy.

To ssteinerman, tnunez, and others:

I would challenge the contention that McCarthy’s work is “pointless” in comparison to Buckminster Fuller. In fact I wouldn’t even make the comparison. McCarthy is an artist attempting to make comments on human perception while Fuller is primarily a designer of new and beneficial technology. While McCarthy may have not been trying to improve the world in the same sense Fuller was, would you also criticize Salvador Dali for making surrealistic paintings instead of drawing up progressive architectural plans?
And in response to tnunez, how exactly are you defining craftsmanship? In my opinion, works such as Spinning Room showed an ingenious sense of craftsmanship in its planning and complex execution.

I think comparing McCarthy and Fuller is a bit superfluous and (sadly haha) I have to agree with Tyler. Fuller was not even attempting art, though we may consider it art. He saw his drawings and inventions as practical necessities that would address housing and environmental problems before they became insurmountable. And just as Fuller was not attempting art, McCarthy was not attempting practicality and to call him pointless in comparison is to call all art pointless compared to science and technology (which may be your opinion)–but remember, we are not comparing two artists, we are comparing an artist and an engineer/designer. Personally, I was more interested in and exciting by Fuller because he was so ahead of his time and so simplistic in his genius.

The piece that interested me most was the Dymaxion House! It was a hexagonal structure that Fuller envisioned as being rented and used for immediate housing (for example, what FEMA uses trailers for.) As James observed, what if this had become a reality? Fuller wanted to address material crisis that did not exist but that he thought would exist one day. Perhaps the renewed interest and appreciation for Fuller is the application of his “art” in a world that is lacking innovative solutions yet is full of artists like McCarthy, whose outlandish modern art created to test the limits of human experience and evoke [fill in emotion here] is commonplace. However, this does not make McCarthy, who has been an active artists for many years, any less interesting. His Bang Bang room and the Spinning Room place people at the center of the art, changing perceptions of art in a literal as well as figurative way.

As a response to those that loved the Buckminister Fuller’s “Starting with the Universe” exhibit, I have to agree that it was an amazing display of art as well as environmental awareness and futuristic thinking. With an interest in environmental studies, I found myself amazed at how Fuller approached his projects with such attention to space, conservation and sustainability.

What really stood out to me in the exhibit was how environmentally conscious Fuller was decades ago, but only recently has this “green” movement began in our society today. His philosophy was that “earth was an integrated system with finite resources, and the survival and success of on was interrelated to the survival and success of all.” Fuller thought about the Earth, the use of its resources and its ability to sustain life. He felt that it was everyone’s responsibility to enact change. This is a policy we still have trouble advocating today. Not enough people believe adjusting their actions can make a difference on the earth (Or maybe they simply don’t want to). Because of this ignorance, we continue to harm the environment and waste the earth’s resources. The people of his time thought that his ideas were preposterous, but with the benefit of hindsight, we see that his works were in fact genius. Perhaps if he had preached his ideas more persuasively and to a wider audience, his developments could have been encompassed and used in ours lives today.