And hey, why not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAoVj0-bZkI

This is just for fun.

The Keeper of the Ordinary

Barbara Kishenblatt-Gimblett, what a name. What a gal. She was the focus of Suzi Galibiks interview for this weeks readings, and what a star she is. Barbara described herself as a “curator of vernacular arts”. Naturally I was first confused on what this meant, so I went ahead and looked up ‘vernacular’ (the language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region) and then ‘curator’ to get the most technically meaning (a keeper or custodian of a museum). What a unique way of describing oneself! The keeper of the ordinary. Sounds so professional. Actually it reminds me of some tribe, living untouched by civilization, keeping the ways of the original humans. Or something ridiculous like that, very scared, very important. 

Anyways, that’s enough of a side-note. Let’s get down to business.

She touched on topics that have been discussed throughout the whole book, I found her ideologies very approachable to new-comers. Or at least the way she talked about her position and feelings about the art world where non-aggressive. Which was appreciated. Too many times in this book I have felt that idea were thrown at me. It was like a brick in the face. Speaking of which. Tannaz. Whoa. What a interesting individual. I don’t think I have ever met or heard a more random artist. I honestly didn’t get it, any of it. She would show a piece and say that it came from like 28 different influences, which makes sense, we draw on multiple experiences and visions to create. But the things she pulled out had no connection and made absolutely no sense. First it was a test tube, then she read a poem, then it looked like robots and then were tulips in cinderblocks. It was like jumping trains, but each train was a new idea and they where going different directions. I tried to follow, guess I just couldn’t make the jump. Not today at least. 

But I don’t want to criticize her work. Its like what Barbara said, “I don’t have to like everything I see in order to find it worthwhile. Liking it is not a measure of worth, of value”. Tannaz’s work had a great amount of careful thought and care poured into it. And for that I appreciate it. But I will say this, the main problem I had with her work was that it couldn’t  fully be understood simply by looking at it. She had so many random and intricate influences. It was actually became very frustrating because I couldn’t see the connections. That’s why I looked her work up on the Oregon website, I loved what I saw. This might be partly because I was taking it at face value, and not trying to analyze and pick out exactly what idea she is trying to put across. So, I guess I do enjoy her work, just not the explanations that came with it. 

Back to Barbara. (I liked her) ((I’m just going to talk about things I found interesting in the reading)) She had this idea that we need to scrap distinctions and start all over again. She said this when asked if gardens where for aesthetic pleasure or for food production...I liked this because its back to the basics that everything is beautiful and we need to go back to appreciating, essentially, everything in the earth.. She also touched on the ‘art of living which she explained gives value to form. I took that as it gives us as humans value. Neato.

Visual Response. For some reason two images kept popping up into my head during lecture today, 1. Monet’s haystack sunset series ( no idea why, but it happened) and 2. Kanye West, this was mainly because I felt that Tannaz had a slight ego,. I felt like I was being talked at, not to during lecture. So Kanye seemed fitting, you know what they say, Kanye’s almost as big as Kanye thinks he is. Yup, that’s all I got. 

Miro Got Hops

The process. Its all about the process. It helps just further understand the meaning and effort of a piece. It can also explain the whole peace... Its like watching a race you don’t really understand what it means to win, unless you watch the athletes during the race.  Seeing sweat cascading down their faces, rib cages heaving in and out as they breathe and push their bodies to the peak of physical exhaustion. Unless you can observe this happen, the journey to the win. Not only the win, but anyone that crosses that finish line.  Its amazing. Its beautiful. Its an art.

I feel like this is a direct connection to the style of art that Terri Warpinski creates. Her layering style on photographers was extremely beautiful, but in most of them, I’m afraid to say that I wasn’t able to see the work she’d applied to the surface. But once she pointed it out, the photos started popping off the screen with texture and life. 

Terri also had an interesting statement that her favorite tool was an eraser. This was such an interesting thought to me because it speaks a great deal about her art. She is not trying to add pieces into the already chaotic art world, but instead she is drawing on influences from nature and already existing structures to create her work. Her photographs are things people have seen and know about, but with her own unique and creative approach these photos are transformed into masterpieces.

Her statement about erasers also struck me because I feel the polar opposite about erasers. I hate them. I draw in pen, always. I like the idea that even if you make a line/shape/mark that you didn’t intend, it turns into a little game of transforming the piece around that. Its like my mother always told me (she’s an art teacher) “there are no mistakes in art”. This is the reason she never gives her student erasers, because there are no mistakes. I think this is a beautiful and clever philosophy.

As far as the readings go for this week, I was kind of confused. Not about the material... But more the main point. I felt like Richard Shusterman was scatter brained and all over the place. At first I thought he was arguing that art and life need to be in union and be more integrated, but then the very next paragraph is claiming the exact opposite. That art should be seen as a process. He stated “ what you’re doing us producing an object through special kill, but not through you essential character.” (254)... I had some problems with this, from a previous blog I expressed that I judge art not only on the final product, but also the artist as a whole. It helps me understand what they were trying to get across. Much like Terri’s work, I probably wouldn’t have thought twice about her work without her passion and concern with what the pictures meant. 

Anyways. I wasn’t too moved or motivated by anything in lecture or the readings this week... so for my visual response I picked Joan Miro... Not really for any particular reason other than the fact that he is my absolute favorite. I love everything about his work and his style. He is one of my main influences in art. Hands down a GEM. 

This one's a real treat, some crafted air Jordan shoes inspired by Miro. Gotta love em.

Change, it's not just something in your pocket.

Guerilla Girls: self-proclaimed art conscience of the art. Out to make Feminism sexy, funny and positive. 

First off, how on earth did I not know about the Guerrilla Girls! They are my kind of people. Angry anonymous artists. Well, they are not exactly my kind of people, but I can definitely appreciate their work, and what they stand for. Their basic stance is to integrate women into the ‘system’. This system is dominated by white males in all fields of the art world (museums, sellers, other artist, etc.). They are also fighting for lasting changes towards equality with issues in both racism and gender. 

I find that I often have problems with artists who are too forward with their messages, that’s partly why I had such a hard time with Suzi Gablik. She came off very pessimistic and dead set on this idea that we’re in an apocalyptic era. Way too much negativity (it’s bad for the complexion)...Anyways, the approach that Guerilla Girls are taking is very encouraging to me, one of them said this during the interview; “the whole point of out anonymity is that we don’t use the Guerrilla Girls to further our own careers... we focus on issues and not on our specific careers...that way we speak for more people” (215). This is powerful noninvasive/unifying tactic because they are able to address problems within an extremely difficult and influential system with tasteful humor. The posters they design are harmless, but make very clear points about the discrimination that's occurring within museums and the art world in general. 

They attack the head honchos of the art world. These are the mind and voices that are most influential on society and the way that culture thinks. It only takes one tree to start forest. It only takes one voice for change. Another issue they address is the idea of a ‘change of heart’. This is a very long and subtle process, and they approach it was realistic goals. That’s probably why I like the idea of this group so much, they have goals, but they aren’t demanding. They understand that an entire system can’t be changed over night. Its all about small victories. 

To totally switch sides of the spectrum, Mary Jane Jacobs. Taking it to the people!. She is an outside of the box type of gal. But I still found her quite enjoyable. She experienced, for years, what it was like to be on the inside of those white walls. She found that it was not enough for her, or society, for that matter. I loved her ideas of art forming communities. That social interaction would draw people together and perhaps start a movement of some kind. Or maybe I am just hoping that some sort of movement would emerge. Anyways,. another thing that I liked were her thoughts on why certain pieces make it into museums... because they are “in”. Its in the museum because its what’s ‘hot’. These are the most pointless pieces to me, they are not timeless, they are only relevant to the time and issues of that day. Anyways. Mary Jane, totally winner in my book. 

Visual Response:

I have no idea why, but Friedensreich Hundertwasser kept popping into my head. This guy is absolutely nuts. He’s a freak. And I love it. Its almost obnoxious how ‘out there’ he is. I thought of him mainly because he knew how to take his art to the next level. He decorated buildings, people couldn’t escape his work... not they would want to, but all the same. I guess I connected the idea of displaying art on massive levels to the public... which loosely applies to the art that Mary Jane and the Guerilla Girls do/did.