Brooke Marcy

 

 

Summery of Eugenics: The Second Wave, Fleshmachine, Critical Art Ensemble

 

 

The essay, Eugenics: The Second Wave, Fleshmachine, Critical Art Ensemble, begins by looking at how, though dormant, eugenics has been waiting for the right time to reemerge into society.  The essay asks the question, “Why cant the body be constructed to best serve “the dominant values of culture?”  Eugenics has faced several problems, such as being associated with the Nazi regime, and a lack of acceptance by the general pubic who, though having no problem accepting medical advancements to support life, have a problem with science acting in the role of the creator. So in order to be accepted, eugenics must discover a way to sell medical intervention in creation, as well as, maintenance of the human body.

 

Fredrick Osborn stated in the early 30s that the only way for eugenics to find acceptance would be for the people “to come to eugenics.”  Osborn believed that the development of the “consumer economy” and the nuclear family would eventually lead to a renewed interest in eugenics. Just as food, shelter and healthcare are looked at as consumer products, so too could eugenics.  Human consumption has become a status symbol and when combined with the nuclear family “ the production of reproduction begins to significantly change.” Unlike the nuclear family, the extended family is seen as a threat to the “capitalist imperatives of production,” thus the continuation of the nuclear family structure is encouraged.

 

The education process plays an important role in keeping people tied to nuclear units, and in teaching children how to become active members of the workforce.  Children are separated from working parents at an early age allowing them “more time with their socializers-education services and mass media-than with significant others.”  People are led to equate work success with “satisfaction,” causing work to become more important than relationships.  The concept of the nuclear family fits in well with eugenics by placing an emphasis on creating a quality child and eventually a quality “satisfied” worker.

 

In the past, eugenic has been looked at as an option only available to the wealthy, leaving the middleclass to fend for themselves.  Yet recently there has been a change in thinking, now it is believed that in order for the developments of eugenics to continue, eugenics must become accessible to the middleclass.  Since middleclass people tend to be covered by healthcare, they are an acceptable option for eugenics, unlike the lower class that usually have no healthcare and over reproduce on their own.

 

The media is supporting a “eugenic consciousness” by creating gentler approaches to advertising, promising to help clients produce healthier “happier” children.   Since the word ”happy has been replaced with the word “productive,” a happy child is a productive child, and “a happy child parent relationship” is based on consumption and production. 

 

Most parents want absolute control over their children’s lives, indicating that control before birth would also be desirable. With eugenics women are guaranteed fertility even if they have been told that they would not be able to have children.  More money is spent on creating fertility than researching what causes infertility; this creates a greater demand for fertility products.  Eugenics also allows a woman to remain fertile longer, giving her  “more uninterrupted time to establish herself in the workforce,” and for a woman who have waited too long, eugenic practices are a renewed hope.

 

It is important keep medical breakthroughs within national bonds, insuring that any proceeds will affect the national economy. This being so, then action is required for “the time is right for eugenics practices to flourish on a macro as well as on the micro levels of society.” 

 

Many promises have been made concerning the use of eugenics, but few promises are, as they seem.  For example, eggs and sperm are considered donations because it is not ethical to profit from creation; on the other hand, implanting an embryo costs a large amounts of money. Just as people can choose to manipulate their babies’ genes they can also reduce the number of fetuses that they are carrying.  Often time’s more than one embryo is implanted, and if more than the desired amount of fetuses attach, they can be removed for health reason or desired outcome allowing the consumer to get what they paid for.

 

Now is the time for Osborn’s theories to become realities. Reproduction can be looked similarly to other consumer product dictated to us by “pan capitalist ideological inscription.”  Yet, none of this has come to pass, and will not, until the public is convinced that eugenics is a beneficial to a productive existence.

 

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of Speed and Information: Cyberspace Alarm! by Paul Virilio

 

In his essay, Speed and Information: Cyberspace Alarm!,” Paul Virilio begins by examining how real space and geosphere have been taken over by real time, changing our ideas about the world.   He notes that humans have already broken the barriers of sound and heat, yet breaking the barrier of light is impossible, and if done, would discombobulate the living and history.  He examines how democracy is based on the stability of “the city” and how the dominance of real time will change our perspective, switching us from distance perspective to a contact or “tactile perspective.”  He sees the build-up of superhighways as causing a new “phenomenon: loss of orientation,” and how reality is being split into reality and virtual reality, threatening individual orientation.  Virilio notes that this loss of orientation is a negative with potential to dramatically affect democracy and society as a whole.

 

Virilio believes that “globalization” is a fraud and that what actually exists is the “perspective of real time,” which indicates, we are living in a “one-time-system.”  He defines “one-time-system” as being the same thing as global time. Virilio next examines how history no longer exists in a specific time or place and instead occurs instantaneously in universal time. Distances and surfaces are no longer boundaries, and cyberspace allows local time and global time to become one.  Virilio proposes that “such deconstruction of relationships with the world is not without consequences for the relationship among its citizens themselves.”  He believes that for every gain there is a loss, and if we are not aware of the loss, than the gains become obsolete.

 

Virilio believes that a loss of control over reason associated with human interactions with multi media and computers could cause the formation of an “information bomb.”  This “information bomb” will need some form of dissuasion to counter the unlimited information.  Virilio sees this dissuasion as coming in the possible form of an accident,  which the stock market crash can be seen as a precursor.  He believes that the problem is not the information but the interactivity, thus computers are not the problem, but rather computer communication.

 

Virilio points out that “ the suggestive power of virtual technologies is without parallel, “ and this build up of “ a computer communication narco-economy” has great potential to destabilize the economy. He also questions the advancements in entertainment and there effect on the population. He believes we need to “acknowledge that the new communication technologies will only further democracy if, and only if, we oppose from the beginning the caricature of global society being hatched for us by big multinational corporations throwing themselves at a breakneck pace on the information superhighways.”

 

 

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of Beyond Postmodernism by John Armitage

 

In his essay, Beyond Postmodernism, John Armitage looks at the work of the French cultural theorist Paul Virilio.  Armitage notes that many of Virilio’s theories, such as ‘dromology’ and ‘logic of acceleration,’ are misunderstood. His essay defends Vililio’s theories and suggests “that they exist beyond the terms of postmodernism and that they should be conceived of as a contribution to the emerging debate over ’hypermodernism’.”

 

Armitage begins by outlining Virillio’s biography starting with his birth in 1932. He notes the effects Hitler’s Blitzkrieg had on Virilio, and how early in his career, he spent time working as a stained-glass artist alongside Matisse.  In 1950, Virilio converted to Christianity and later studied phenomenology with Merleau-Ponty.  Virilio’s first major work was Bunker Archeology, which was a study of the architecture of war.  His concepts included ‘military space’, ‘dromology’, and the ‘aesthetics of disappearance’.  Though not a trained architect, Virillio was nominated Professor at the Ecole Speciale d’Architecture. Though producing many works, Speed & Politics: An Essay on Dromology, The Aesthetics of Disappearance etc, Virilio’s theories are just now being realized by the “English speaking world.”

 

Armitage states, “the importance of Virilio’s theoretical work stems from his central claim that, in a culture dominated by war, the military-industrial complex is of crucial significance in debates over the creation of the city and special organization of cultural life.”  Virilio states that the stationary and fortified cities of the feudal era, have been superseded by today’s cities, because weaponry itself has become transportable, thus creating a “war of movement.” He notes that this new form of city has changed how people and the city are governed. Virilio also proposes that it was not the economy that spurred the transition from feudalism to capitalism, but rather “a military, spatial, political and technological metamorphosis.”

 

Many of Virilio’s theories are based on his belief in the ‘gesalt theory of perception,’ which lead to his theory of ‘oblique function’. In the 1970s, Virilio began looking at how  communication and military technology was changing and effecting society. Virilio’s work, in the 1980s and 1990s, focused on the notions of “disappearance; the fractalization of physical space, war, cinema, logistics, and perception.” During that time,  he also concentrated on the acceleration of the ‘techno culture’ and its ramifications, and he equated the “third age of military weaponry” with the every growing technologies such as the internet. “ Armitage points out that Virilio does not consider himself a social theorist, but rather a “critic of the art of technology.”

 

Next Armitage looks at Virilio’s “dromocratic conception of power.” Virilio states that the foundation of society is not only the political economy of wealth but also the political economy of speed.  He looks at what he terms “infowar” and how the threat of “unspecific civilian enemies” is used to justify spending to increase the advancements of communication technologies.  Virilio believes that,” in the near future it will no longer be war that is the continuation of politics by other means, it will be the integral accident that is the continuation of politics by other means.”

 

Armitage examines Virillio’s theory that, “ modern vision and the contemporary city are both products of military power and time-based cinematic technologies of disappearance.”  Virilio sees the city as being overexposed by technology and that the cinematographic field is causing fractured perspectives. He points out how war and cinema have become inseparable, and how cinematic images have become substitutions for the real images of war, creating an “infowar.”  Virilio states,” military perception in warfare is comparable to civilian perception and, specifically, to the art of filmmaking.”  This being the case, people “no longer believe their eyes” and the belief in ones own perceptions of reality has been transformed into a belief of the “technical sight line.”

 

Virillo looks at the differences between video screens and “real perspectual objects,” like mirrors, noting the differences between “classical optical communication” and “ electro-optical communication.” Armitage then examines Virilio’s proposal that real time has taken over real space, and the development of what Virilio terms “polar inertia.” He uses Howard Huges as the perfect example of a human being who has allowed ”polar inertia” and technology to replace an active and interactive existence.  He even notes that armies now “watch battles from the barracks” and that “today the army only occupies the territory once the war is over.”

 

Armitage examines Virilio’s concern that in the future the distinction between the human body and technology will be lost; he calls this the “transplant revolution.”  He believes that there is a possibility that not only will body parts be substituted by machines but so to will human functions.  Armitage points out that Virillio does not see men and women as separate entities but rather the human body as a whole.

 

In Virilio’s latest work, Armitage examines his theory that “ while war was a failure both for Europe and for NATO it was a success for the United States.”  He believes that the US used Kosovo as an experiment, testing out new “informational and cybernetic tools, “ in hopes of reaching their goal of “Global Information Dominance.”

 

Armitage next looks at why Virilio’s work should not be labeled as “postmodern cultural theory.” He believes the Virilio is not “reacting against modernism” or against the international style.  Virilio states, postmodernism “has been a ‘catastrophe’ in architecture and has nothing to do with his phenomenological grounded writing,” and that his own work is based on “the modernist tradition of arts and sciences.”  Virilio sees no bases for connection with anti-humanism, structuralism, or theorists like Derrida, and he has no interest in the structural linguistics of Saussure. Armitage notes, “unlike the poststructural theorists, Virilio is a humanist and a practicing Christian.”  Virillio does not condemn modernity but rather views his work as a “critical analysis of modernity, but through a perception of technology which largely…catastrophic, not catastrophist.”

Virilio even defines modernity differently than most postmodernist, and his primary focus is on how the speed of modernity affects technology and society.

 

Armitage concludes by examining how Virilio’s work “remains true to the principle of hope with regards to making sense of history.” He looks at the differences between Virilio and Mcluhan, pointing out that they have little in common. Armitage notes that Virilio’s work cannot be looked at in terms of postmodern cultural theory, instead he should be looked at as a cultural theorist addressing “ hypermodernism.” To understand Virilio’s work one must abandon assumption based on modernist and postmodernist thought, and concentrate on his “work on acceleration through the excessive intensities and placements inherent within hypermodern cultural thought about the military-scientific complex.”

 

Finally, Armitage proposes a brief critique of Virilio’s work and the controversy surrounding his ideas. Deleuze and Guattari look at Virilio’s ideas as problematic. Harvey believes Virillio (and Baudrillard) “seem hell-bent on fusing with time-space compression and replacing it in their own flamboyant rhetoric.”  Harvey sees Virilio’s theories as being limited and likely to rest not on his similarities to Nietsche but “with his differences.”  Yet, Virilio’s theories are beginning to collide with other cultural theorists like Krokers. Armitage states that though his theories are debatable, Virilio “ is one of the most important and thought- provoking cultural theorists on the contemporary battlefield” and that “ his theoretical positions and cultural sensibilities concerning technology thus remain beyond the realm of even cultural theory.”

 

 

 

 

This is not a summery of The Corporation by Brooke Marcy

 

An interesting thing happened while I was watching The Corporation, I began personifying corporations and thinking of them in terms of being human.  What would a corporation look like if it were human and how would it act?  The image of a 60ish well dressed good looking white male came to mind.  He would be the kind of person who went to the right schools and lives in a large house surrounded by a fence. The fence enables others to see his house, envy it, but not get too close, keeping out the aspects of everyday life that don’t concern him. The man would have more money than he knows what to do with, yet no matter how much he has, it will never be enough. He doesn’t think much of others or worry about things outside his own wants and needs. The needs of the people who work under him are not his problem, and he has gotten where he is financially and professionally by exploiting others. He fits the profile of a sociopath, but he is thought of as savvy, not mentally ill. The only time he does something for others or the environment is when he can somehow profit from the action.  Laws are more like guidelines than actual rules, and breaking them is part of his job. His image is everything, and he will do anything to protect and promote it. He doesn’t understand what it is like to be poor or discriminated against, and those who are, don’t concern him. He is very cunning and able to manipulate others and influence their choices.  This is not person I would choose to be around. I could never respect him because of the way he treats others and the environment.  If he were anyone else, he would be in jail or at least heavily medicated.  Yet he surrounds me, and I thoughtlessly play my part by purchasing his products and ignoring his injustice. It is interesting how changing the corporation from an” it” to a “him” better enables me to view the corporation more objectively.

 

I do, however, live my life believing in the power of the people. We need to standup against injustices committed by “the corporation” and have our voices heard.  I was raised a Quaker and have been marching in protests, writing letters and signing petitions since I was old enough to write and walk. I believe that one person can make a difference and that making your voice heard is essential to promoting change.  I am worried that we are creating a generation of people who sit back and let others tell them who they are and what to think.  I guess we shall see.

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of “Signs Address Somebody” by Judith Williamson.

 

 

In ”Signs Address Somebody” by Judith Williamson, she begins by defining signs as having meaning only as long there is someone to give them meaning.  Signs would not exist if they did not have meaning existing within the receivers belief system.  In order for an ad to have meaning, the product must replace an “image or feeling.” Yet Williamson points out, that this relationship between product and consumer is a reciprocal one. The consumer gives meaning to the product and the product gives meaning to the consumer. To fully understand this relationship it is important to examine the space existing between “signifier and signified.”  Williamson notes that this space is held together by the invisible existence of ideology.  Ideology is considered the absolute truth, and we do not question its existence or the belief system it supports. We like to consider ourselves free individuals capable of making our own decisions, when in fact, it is our ideology that dictates our belief system and influences our choices.  In her writing, Williamson explains how advertisements work within our ideology and “invite us freely to create ourselves in accordance with the way in which they have already created us.”

 

We live in a society in which value is determined by what we are willing to exchange for it.  In other words, the more something means to us the more valuable it becomes.  Advertisers are aware of this transference and emphasize value to encourage consumers to buy their products.  By working on the assumption that the consumer/subject intrinsically has the inherent ideology to translate signs into meaning, the advertisers are able to use signs in their ads as a form of manipulation. We see the ad, we recognize it’s meaning, and we buy the product. Here the subject actively fills the space between the ad and its meaning.

 

Williamson points out that since it is the subject that brings the meaning to the ad, then the ad, as well as being “made by us and in us, it is also made with us.”  She uses the example of Clairol as representing happiness. Not only is the consumer able to buy happiness by purchasing a box of Clairol, but the purchase also signifies us, creating a new system of groups.  The consumer enters in to the happy group of Clairol users, which in turn reflects what sort of person you are, a happy Clairol girl. So now the product has actually transferred traits, you are a happier person because you are a Clairol user.  Subjects are now categorized into different groups depending on the products they buy, each “ occupying a particular position in the social structure.”

 

Next Williamson explores Levi-Strauss’s definition of totemism. Levi-Strauss says,” The term totemism covers relations. posed ideologically between two series, one natural, the other cultural.” Williamson argues that ‘totemic’ groups created through advertising are not natural. These groups are based on the members using the same cigarettes or drinking the same soda. Though these groups overlap allowing for multiple memberships, they have been created by the consumers allowing the products to identify who they are and how they feel. Because of this, products and feelings become interchangeable.  People choose products by recognizing themselves “as the kind of person who will use a specific brand.”  In other words, ads must exist from the inside out, so when we are confronted with many choices, we choose the one that best describes our lifestyles and ourselves.

Williamson uses an ad for Cockburn’s port to illustrate how we become participants in the ad itself. In the Cockburn’s port ad, a discriminating group of friends are gathered around a table enjoying a glass of port.  The advertisers have left the place at the head of the table empty; this is the place that has been saved for you. After placing yourself in the ad, you can easily identify the other people at the table as your friends, and as a unique and discriminating individual, you can see yourself joining them in a glass of port.  This ability to interchange ourselves with the people in the ads “ leads to the idea of the mirror phase.”  Regardless of whether it is a group of people or a singular person, we are capable of transferring ourselves into the ad becoming the “you,” and since we are unique and special individuals, the ad must be speaking directly to us.

 

Williamson points out that by individualizing products through naming, they are actually naming the products after us.  We interchange ourselves with the product making the car we drive or the soap we use a reflection of ourselves. This being, we the consumers tend to choose the products that would best represent out ideal selves.  The advertisers realizing this identity transfer design the ads to flatter our egos, making us feel that it is our own preexisting taste and individuality that makes their products a logical choice. Williamson also explains that it is essential for advertisers, though placing us in groups, to keep us as individuals making our own choices, that way if we by buy their product, we will stand out in a crowd.

 

By remaining flexible and identifying the different aspects of each individual, ads are capable of expanding the definition of self.  By addressing people as having multiple experiences, interests and belief systems, advertisers are able to market products as being essential to all aspects of life, thus taking into account who you are at any given moment.  Yet no matter how complex we are as individuals, the many facets of our lives create a whole. Williamson uses the example of an ad showing a woman in various life roles representing “all the kinds of women within you.”

 

Advertising arranges women and men into separate categories, emphasizing different needs.  Women are divided into two parts, the workingwoman and the ideal woman.  Ads tell us that women must physically transform themselves to play different roles.  Williamson uses the example of an ad featuring a woman biochemist.  The woman transforms at the end of the workday by changing out of her work clothes, male influenced, into a soft feminine blouse, abandoning her male association and transforming into her feminine self. In other words, she can be a woman or a biochemist but not a woman biochemist.  Ads focused on men also divide men, but this time, the division is between family and masculinity.  For example, a car ad will try to appeal to men by selling both virility and family comfort. The power of ads lies in their ability to feed off the “subjects own desire for coherence and meaning in him or herself.”

 

Society places emphasis on the Self, and ads respond to the need for individuality within the whole. Levi-Strauss says, “We have each become our own ‘totem’.  Thus the signifying branches of society are inextricably bound up with what we are-who we are.”  Williamson points out that ideology is reproduced in advertisements and is inextricably linked to the conscience.  She sites Lacan’s theory concerning how a child looking in a mirror will separate his identity from what he sees.  The mirror image becomes an object, allowing the child to “ place himself in a similar relation to an object,” thus the child now sees himself as both the object and the subject. Advertisers know that people viewing an ad will place themselves in the role of the imaginary person, making the ad a personal experience. This is how advertising is able to tell us who we are and who we want to be. Thus we assume that by purchasing their product, we will come one step closer to becoming the ideal self-seen within the ad.

 

Williamson looks at how advertisers “ by offering us symbols as the objects of unity, they ensnare us in a quest for the impossible.”  We live within this system of signs lead by desire, which is the “root of the process of the Symbolic.” We are constantly driven to strive for the ideal, and advertisers play to our desires.  If we buy their products, we will become the person we wish to be, smarter, funnier, happier etc. We are even capable of believing that it is our face on the product box, and that by purchasing the product, we are buying a new improved self. Williamson point out that “we are both product and consumer; we consume, buy the product, yet we are the product. Thus our lives become our own creations through buying.”

 

 

 

 

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream by Noam Chomsky

 

 

In his essay, What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream, Noam Chomsky begins by looking at how the nature of media relates to the audience and its surrounding controlling power structures. He points out the similarities between media and scholarship, and classifies media into two categories, “mass media” and “elite media.”  “Mass media” is defined as entertainment media, for example sitcoms, cartoons, reality shows etc., all of which are designed as diversions or escapes from everyday life.  “Elite Media” on the other hand, sets “ the framework in which everyone else operates.” Chomsky uses The New York Times and CBS as examples, stating that these corporations dictate what news is to both the public and other media sources. 

 

Chomsky next examines why and how “elite media” has achieved the authority to set the news agenda. He notes, though in their own right powerful and profitable corporations, the “elite media” relies heavily on their “parasitic” relationship with larger power structures, for example the government, bigger corporations, and universities.  To keep their own control, the “elite media” must conform to the ideals of the more powerful institutions and corporations.  Chomsky uses the universities as an example how institutions reliant to outside sources form a dependency, perpetuating the teaching of the ideals of the dominant power structures. 

 

Chomsky points out that an individual can prosper as long as elite ideals and behaviors are observed, if an individual chooses to deviate from these ideals, they are immediately shutdown, fired, censored etc. He uses the example of the censorship of an introduction to Animal Farm by George Orwell. Here the author, stating what was deemed an unpopular opinion, was unable to print his own ideas in his own work.  In some cases, Chomsky notes, the elite ideology is so ingrained in individuals that even those individuals don’t realize its influence. 

 

Chomsky looks at how, for example The New York Times, can be looked at as a large corporation selling its product, the audience, to the market, the advertisers.  Here he defines ”the audience” as educated privileged people with marked similarities to the people running or working within the powerful corporations.  In other words, the media can be looked at as a refection of the interests of the buyers, the sellers, and the greater powers that influence their decisions.  This institutional structure is one that readily exists but is never discussed, questioning its existence would be going against the elite ideology.

 

Chomsky next examines the public relations industry, public thinkers and the “academic stream,” all of which believe in the stupidity of the general public. It is the job of the elite to inform the general public as to how to think and behave, acting as “spectators, not participants.” This theory, Chomsky states, evolved during World War I and II, and stems from the development of propaganda.  The growth of propaganda influenced how Americans saw themselves, and how they interpreted their relationships with other countries. This spurred the first and only propaganda agency, referred to as” The Committee on Public Information” or the “Creel Commission”.  Chomsky even references Hitler’s belief that he lost the war because he could not compete with ”British and American propaganda.”  This concept of controlling public thought, developed during WWI, was the beginning of the public relations industry. Chomsky quotes Barnay, the “guru,” who wrote that these new techniques “had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course.”

 

The American business industry was impressed by the results achieved through the use of propaganda, and with the country becoming increasingly democratic, started placing an emphasis on public manipulation. Here Chomsky uses Barnay again as an example, explaining how his advertising skills made him a leader of the industry by persuading women to smoke. Next Chomsky examines Walter Lippmans concept of ‘manufactured consent.” In order to overcome the problem of the public having the right to vote, Lippman pointed out the need to “manufacture consent and make sure that their choices and attitudes will be structured in such a way that they will always do what we tell them.”  This concept of human manipulation began the development of what Harold Glasswell termed “political warfare.”

 

In conclusion, Chomsky looks at how the inner workings of the “institutional structure” remains today exclusively designed for the people on the inside, never to be discussed or questioned, especially by the ”ignorant meddlesome outsiders.”

 

 

 

 

 

Brooke Marcy

 

A summary of Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses by Louis Althusser

 

In the essay, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, Louis Althusser begins by pointing out that for production to succeed, the creation of the means of production must simultaneously be established.  He states that without the “reproduction of the conditions of production” the production itself would ultimately fail.  One form of production is often reliant on others, creating a complicated chain, so when one fails many can suffer. An important link in this chain of production is the wage driven labor power. Earning a wage enables a person to support themselves and their families, which perpetuates a continued need for earning.  To generate the greatest output, it is necessary for the labor power to possess diversity of knowledge and skills. This diversity is created by the “capitalist education system”, which depending on the amount of study, can prepare the student to work productively in a variety of roles.  Yet, a technical knowledge is not the only thing taught, students also learn the “rules of good behavior.” These rules teach a respect for the dominant class and the “subjection to the ruling ideology”, thus repressing the workers by dictating the roles they will play.

 

Louis Althusser next examines Marx views of the social whole, which consists of the economic base and the superstructure.  The relationship between these two structures is dependent and reciprocal, and without a solid base the superstructure would not survive.  He also discusses Marx’s descriptive theory of State, defining it as a “machine of repression” perpetuated by the dominance of the ruling class.  To expand on this definition, Althusses adds the State apparatus, consisting of police, courts, prisons and the army, supporting a  “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,” and State power, which is constantly struggled over by dominant class fractions.  State power and State apparatus are two separate entities and should not be confused.  The possession of State power affects the apparatus, but the apparatus will still function without the State power. On the other hand, the only way to transform the apparatus is to destroy and replace preexisting State power.

 

Althusser next expands on the definition of the State by introducing the new concept of the ideological state apparatus, not to be confused with the State apparatus, though both contain aspects of each other. Unlike the violence driven State apparatus, the ISA functions by the incorporation of ideologies taught in institutions including schools, churches, families etc…  The ideologies, though diverse, function as a unified body under the ideology of the dominant class who control State power.  Though unified, ISA is still a reflection of class struggle and influenced by the ruling class ideology. In order to work properly, the State apparatus must include both violence (SA) and ideology (ISA), and it is the job of the State power to unify both apparatus, creating a harmonious, stable, submissive and productive work force.

 

Unlike the singular State apparatus, there are a number of ideological state apparatuses, which over the years have shifted in dominance. For example, the dominance of the church has been replaced by education. Similarly, State power has shifted from the landed aristocracy to the industrial bourgeoisie.  Althusser points out that it is the education apparatus that perpetuates the ideals of the ruling class and per motes the “capitalist relations of exploitation.”  At a very early age children are taught in school what to think and how to properly act and function in society.  Though schools claim to be neutral institutions for learning, they are in fact machines designed to manufacture people to fit into specific roles whether it is the role of the exploited or the “agent of exploitation.”

 

Next Althusser examines the nature of ideology.  He replaces the definition of ideologies as a “history of social formation,” with the idea that ideology in general has no history of its own, inferring that ideology is nothing more than an internal illusion of reality.  He states that the only true reality is that of everyday life and that “ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.”  This blurring of illusion and reality combines to form a reality of existence, which throughout history, has acted as a tool for some to manipulate to gain dominance over others. Althusser also looks at how the existence of ideology within an apparatus makes its existence material.  Humans act on their beliefs derived from ideas based on material actions and rituals defined by the ideological apparatus, and it is these beliefs that dictate behavior and create human consciousness.

 

Althusser proposes that, “there is no ideology except by the subject and for the subject.”  He goes on to look at how all ideology functions to identify individuals as subjects.  He defines “subject” as a person living naturally in ideology and that it is through ideology that we are recognized as separate and irreplaceable individuals.  Subject and individual are two separate entities, and to make his point, Althusser uses the example of a person being hailed on the street.  The minute a person being hailed turns their head; they change from a non-specific individual into a specific subject. The reason behind the turn of the head is the eternal existence of ideology, which identifies subjects among individuals. Here Althusser point out that if ideology is internal then“ individuals are always-already subject.”

 

Althusser continues by examining Christian religious ideology. Once again, the ideology revolves around the transformation form individual to subject, but here there must be a belief in the existence of the ultimate Subject (God).  It is within this belief that the subject molds their own existence, and if the subject lives their life by the example of the Subject, then like Christ, the subject will find salvation by “re-entering the Subject.”  This creates an absolute existence with no questions, if one behaves in a specific way, they will be rewarded.  Althusser terms this ideology a “ mirror-structure,” and states,” this mirror duplication is constitutive of ideology and ensures its functioning.” He points out that without subjection there would be no subject and ideology boils down to the need for “ the reproduction of the relations of production and of the relations derived from them.”  In other words, all that must be is and remains so to ensure continued production.

 

Althusser concludes by stating that the relationship he has discussed between Superstructure and infrastructure is abstract and problematic, bringing up several questions. He examines how class struggle is not addressed when looking at the “total process,” and how this struggle effects the generalization of ideology. He notes that even the provenance of the ideology of the ruling class is more complicated than what was earlier stated and is derived by other sources. He states,” ideologies are not “born” in the ISAs but from social classes at grips in the class struggle: from their conditions of existence, their practices, their experience of struggle, etc.”

 

 

Hans Haacke

Brooke Marcy

 

 

A summery with supporting arguments for Hans Haacke essay Museum: Managers of Consciousness 

 

 

It is believed that the art world is an exalted entity untouched by the bureaucracy and politics found in other industries.  In reality, according to Hans Haacke this could not be farther from the truth. Vast amount of monetary exchange and political maneuvering are involved in the producing, buying, and selling of art, but admitting that the art world is driven by these influences jeopardizes the mystique and value associated with art.

 

There are two different types of art managers; the new comers with business degrees and little art knowledge, who believe that art is simply a product like any other, and the old timers trained on the job with knowledge of both art and business, who have played a significant role in the perpetuation of the ideology of art as an exalted industry.  With the sagging state of the economy, art industries trying to stay afloat are turning to those managers trained in business and not in art.  The problem with this is art is not a product, but a more intangible consciousness, thus the term “consciousness industry”. This consciousness is not universal but a social and societal reflection, which is produced by both artist and viewer alike.  By treating art as a product, this new brand of manager, will influence the production and perception of what art is. To survive, the art industry must keep a steady balance between this reality and perception.

 

 Art industries not only generate income for themselves, but they also generate income for surrounding shops, hotels and restaurants, as well as, having the ability to boost an areas reputation and desirability. Even the Governments realize the value of the art industry and keeps a sharp eye on the “distribution of consciousness” utilizing its appeal if the needs arise.

 

Two very important players in the Museum industry are the board members, who believe a Museum is a business like any other, and the powerful donors, who relish being connected to the exalted world of art.  Both have uncontested authority over the day-to-day workings of a Museum, as well as its staff and directors. To keep both the donors and the board members appease the Museum must simultaneously maintain an exalted façade, while retaining financial stability.

 

In recent years, Museums have been turning to large corporations for exhibition funding.  The larger and more elaborate the exhibition the more appealing it is to the corporate backers. Behold the birth of the “ blockbuster exhibition.”  The relationship between the Museums and the corporate sponsors is a reciprocal one. The Museum receives the funding making the exhibition possible, while the corporation becomes associated with the respectability of the Museum, thus changing the way it is perceived by the public.  This relationship, however, encourages Museums to produce exhibitions appealing to corporations, while leaving out smaller possibly more important exhibitions, effecting both art production and distribution.

 

Jackie Stevens

 

Brooke Marcy

 

A summery of The Industry Behind the Curtain by Jackie Stevens.

 

 

The essay by Jackie Stevens looks at how biotech companies are using art to desensitize the public and boost the reputation of the industry.  Artistic representations of the developments in biotechnology, whether disturbing or not, make the industry more tangible and less mysterious, which in turn adds credibility and helps placate viewer distrust. The viewer is reassured about the seriousness with which biotechnology is being examined and the permanence of the industry.

 

The man behind the exhibition Paradise Now: Picturing the Genetic Revolution, Howard Sein, believes he can change public opinion about genetic advancement by translating science into art, thus making it more accessible to the public. He theorizes that the more the public is exposed to artistic interpretations and positive exhibition related materials, the more willing they are to accept advancements and even feel positively towards the industry.  He uses backers like GMF and his own charitable organization JGS to add additional credibility to the show, which translates into credibility for the industry

Andrea Fraser May I Help You

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of May I Help You? by Andrea Fraser

 

The setting for Andrea Fraser’s performance piece May I Help You?, is gallery space exhibiting 100 works by artist Allan McCollum.  “The Staff” are three performers given a script portraying seven separate personas.  The personas are taken from a variety of sources including writings by Pierre Bourdieu, whom she references several times, and the dialogue is derived form direct quotes. Her seven personas range the gamut, and when approaching a visitor to the gallery, the staff member exhibits differing behaviors influenced by individual taste and varying social, educational and environmental backgrounds.

 

The first Staff persona approaches the visitor with well-spoken elegance.  She is polished, educated, and wealthy. She has obviously lived a privileged life and has been exposed to art her entire life.  She believes that art belongs among the polite society of the upper classes, and that the value of the artwork is not monetary but spiritual.  The next persona is also wealthy and educated. She has similarities to the first, and believes that loving art is a reflection of ones own superiority of taste.  The third persona, who is privileged and educated, looks at he artist as well as the art. Unlike the others, she doesn’t allow her upbringing to influence her perception of art, instead she lives in the here and now and enjoys the art for the excitement and originality of the pieces. The fourth persona approaches the art with a more business like attitude. She did not grow up exposed to art, but she has been educated and associates art with quality. She is still not confident in her knowledge but hopes being around art will give her more credibility.  The fifth persona, like the fourth, did not grow up around art but appreciates the work. Her lack of education makes her unsure, but she is hoping to better herself through an understanding of the work.  The fifth persona comes from a low-income background and has no formal art training. She has experienced Museums and galleries and associates art with wealth and beauty. The sixth persona comes from a low-income background, most of her time, like her mother before her, is spent trying to make ends meet. She likes the art, but has no art education, and is preoccupied by her own daily needs and responsibilities.  The last persona has had little education and feels art is produced for the wealthy and completely inaccessible to a person with her background. Looking at art upsets and reminds her of her own lack of education and social status.

 

Through seven different personas, Andrea Fraser examines how society and environment affect taste and perceptions associated with art.

Carol Ducan

Brooke Marcy

 

A summery of the essay Museum of Modern Art as Late Capitalist Ritual: An Iconographic Analysis by Carol Ducan and Alan Wallach

 

 

In the beginning of their essay, Carol Duncan and Alan Wallach, look at the role played by the Museum as an architectural space. They draw comparisons between Museums, churches, and shrines, arguing that the structures similarly house specific ideologies and are viewed as embodying high moral belief systems.  Each structure allows an individual to escape the everyday world and enter into a sanctuary, where history and the individual experience is celebrated.

 

The relationship between Museum and artwork is a reciprocal one. The purpose of the museum is to act as a neutral space where art can be viewed and contemplated by the individual, giving artistic thought a voice.  This is not saying that it doesn’t affect the work, which depending on placement can change the language of the art.  The arrangement of art functions as an “iconographic program” of the Museum.

 

The architectural structure of a Museum can embody the period in which it was created.  The example of this embodiment is the Museum of Modern Art in New York.  The sleek exterior reflects the ideology of the 1930’s, celebrating capitalism and individuality, and epitomizing the future while surrounded by the past. The glass entrance acts as a portal into an educational and physical labyrinth where the individual is introduced to the history, development, and achievements of Modern Art.  Here daily thoughts and worries are over shadowed by a carefully selected ideology.

 

The collection is arranged with a beginning, Cezanne, and an end, American Abstract Expressionism. As the individual walks through the labyrinth of rooms, they are introduced to the history of Modern Art through carefully place iconic images. Each style, Abstraction, Surrealism, Cubism etc. is represented by the finest examples, which have been deemed so by curators, donors and history books.  The viewer is introduced to a new and exciting language where increasingly intangible ideas and modes of expression become a tangible reality.  A person who has experienced the labyrinth will emerge enlightened and liberated.

 

Yet the authors note that everyday existence is not as removed from the individual experience of the labyrinth as one might think. In reality each piece of artwork is a reflection of the human condition.  Artists are not gods and goddesses, and their work is not exalted and spiritual entities that the Museum strives to impart on the viewer. The work itself is a reflection of the ideology of an artist who is dealing with social and environmental influences of everyday life experienced during a particular time and in a particular place.

 

 

 

Andrea Fraser

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of Museum Highlights: A Gallery Talk by Andrea Fraser

 

 

In her performance piece, Museum Highlights: A Gallery Talk, Andrea Fraser takes on the role of Museum docent and tour guide Jane Castleton. Her character dresses conservatively and presents herself as a representative of the Museum. She is white and middleclass, which makes her easily identifiable to her audience.  She begins her tour, which includes restrooms, coatrooms, the gift shop etc, by making sure that everyone has paid their entrance fee and by expounding on the privileges of Membership. She emphasizes her need to only express her “best qualities”, and encourages the visitors to raise themselves up to meet the standards, qualities, and values associated with the Museum.

 

 Instead of Jane giving the standard dialog associated with a Museum tour, she combines her own words with quotes she has appropriated from Museum publications, municipal reports and other sources.  She juxtaposes these quotes, jumping from discussions on poverty, workhouses, the prison system etc., with those exemplifying the artwork and embracing the purity and morality intrinsic to the Museum. By doing so, she is pointing out the discord between elevated values found within the Museum and the social, economical and political realities existing outside the protective walls. Another example of this dichotomy is seen when Jane enters a period room showing the living conditions found in 1625 England. She squirms at the dirt and filth referring to the room as an example of societal degradation and lack of education. Jane clearly finds this room unworthy of its surroundings, and to counteract this unpleasant reality, she quickly switches her audience’s attention to cleanliness of the bathroom, which serves as a more fitting reflection of the tastes of the Museum. Jane notes that the experience of visiting a Museum is not necessarily about the art but about learning proper values.

 

Andrea Fraser continuously points to the ridiculousness of the mystique surrounding the Museum, and through her juxtaposing of quotes, reveals the true nature behind the exalted facade. She looks at what the Museum expects of its visitors, and examines the differences and similarities between the volunteer, the donor, the staff, and the visitor, all of which, are drawn to the respectability and high moral values exemplified by the Museum. When speaking of the donor, she alludes to the fact that with enough money an individual can actually buy Museum credibility, bringing attention to the fact that the Museum is a business. Through her work Andrea Fraser is presenting people with a humorous and poignant look at the operations, values and motives behind the machine that is the Museum, and how those values relate to social and environmental reality. 

Craig Owens

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of From Work to Frame, or, Is There Life After “The Death of the Author by Craig Owens

 

In Craig Owens’s essay, From Work to Frame, or, Is There Life After “The Death of the Author,” he begins by looking at the work of Robert Smithson. Smithson examines how dealers and collectors, not the artist, determine the value of artwork. This division creates a distance between the artist and their work, and brings up questions of authorship.  For artists to reclaim their work, Smithson points out the need to examine the  “apparatus the artist is threaded through,” and ask how this apparatus affects both role of the artist and the production of work. 

 

Craig Owens then examines the work of Giulio Paolini and Gerhard Richter, both of whom explore, in different ways, the disappearance of the author/artist in their work.  Paolini sees the artist as a magician who vanishes at the end of the act.  He allows the work to acts as a mask, concealing the artist from the audience.  Richter deals with the disappearance of the author/artist by refusing to conform to stylistic unity.  Coherency of work becomes the signature of the artist, and Richter’s stylistic changes frustrate critics trying to label him and his work.

 

Similar to Richter, Cindy Sherman confuses issues by placing herself both in front of and behind the camera. Her constant shifts of identity blur the line between photographer and subject, distorting the concept of the author, or as Paolini terms “authorial identity.”

 

Barthes states that it is language and the reader who dictate the voice of a text and not the author. Owens believes that “The Death of the Author” acts as an important transition spot between the avant-garde of the 20s and the “institutional critique of the 70s.” He points out that to think the 70s are a rebirth of the 20s is to misunderstand contemporary practice. Modernist’s work contradicted Barthes theories by ignoring the audience and embracing the work and the artist. The Post-modernists, however, looked to the space created by the absence of the author by examining the “frame,” and asking questions about location and the “social nature” of production.  Craig Owens uses Broodthaer’s Musee d’Art Modern-Department des Aigles as an example of the shift of focus from art to “frame.”  Broodthaer created his own Museum space, and in the inaugural exhibition, filled it with shipping crates supposedly containing valuable art.  Here he is questioning the intrinsic value of art and how container influences the art it contains. In another piece, Conquest of Space, Broodthaer equates art and the military, looking at how both function within the “ boundaries of the nation-state.” 

 

 In his work, Déco, a Conquest, Broodthaer examines the history of the development of the avant-garde. He highlights their need for dominance and their rejection of bourgeois society. Owens points out that the avant-garde saw the “frame” as the enemy needing to be destroyed. They proclaimed that art needed to break free from the institution, but unfortunately for them, the institution they wished to destroy easily contained them.

 

 

Daniel Buren explores cultural confinement in his work by placing his art both inside and outside the container, thus bringing attention to the object and where it has been placed. Buren sees the Museum/Gallery as the “frame,” and he notes that often it is the job of the art to hide the realities of the “frame.”   In Buren’s own art, he looks to find ways around the “frame”, as well as, ways of working within the institution to bring attention to the containment it creates.  He states that the artist needs to step down from the pedestal and allow their work to speak.  By letting go of ownership the work becomes common property and not subject to appropriation. He believes that true artistic freedom is found by working outside of the “institutional frame.”

 

In Hans Haacke’s work, he examinees the power of the collector and exposes “ the anonymous, impersonal façade of corporate funding.”  He presents the viewer with the realities existing between the corporate donor and the exhibition they are sponsoring.  Michael Asher on the other hand, brings attention to the exhaled façade of the Museum. By displacing or removing objects and replacing them in a different setting, he allows the viewer to see the subject more objectively.  In one example of his work, he shows the audience, by removing a wall revealing an office space, where the value of art is created. In another work he removes the glass roof of a Museum and then slowly replaces it during the exhibition, bringing attention to the relationship between the artwork and the surrounding space.

 

Haacke points out that art is an industry run by many, thus counteracting the belief that art is an exalted entity.  Art is produced, bought and sold and Haacke brings attention to relationship between the “capital and the art world.”  This relationship separates the artist from the work but also ensures continued growth of the “art apparatus”, creating more opportunities work to be seen. Louie Lawler deals with this relationship by turning the tables on the art world. To bring attention to the role of the apparatus, she has placed herself within the industry in every aspect. In one exhibition, she hung photos of art industry workers assembling an exhibition next to a gallery containing artist work. By doing this, she is pointing out what goes on behind the scenes of an exhibition, “here by presenting, rather than being presented by, the institution.”

 

Jenny Holtzer believed that the time to examine the “apparatus the artist is threaded through” is over. Craig Owens’s on the other hand, through his essay, points out that this is not true, and he wants the reader to understand the importance of the artist understanding the existence of the apparatus. Only with this knowledge can we, in varying roles of the industry, “employ, rather than simply being employed by, the apparatus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jonathan Lethem

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of the article The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism, by Jonathan Lethem

 

In his article, The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism, Jonathan Lethem examines the conscious, or unconscious, borrowing of ideas and themes in literature, movies, music, etc….  He begins by writing about a childhood experience. He looks at the disappointment he experienced when discovering that his favorite author William S. Burroughs had borrowed from others writers. The disappointment, however, was short lived as he came to the realization that appropriation was a valuable part of Burroughs process, better enabling him to realize his finished product. With this experience in mind, Lethem uses other examples of artistic appropriation to support his argument that art is not about trying to forget what you know, but it is about taking knowledge and transforming into your own voice.

 

By placing everyday objects in a different context the surrealists were able to reveal to the audience the true nature of the object.  They wanted the viewer to reevaluate they’re surroundings and see the intrinsic qualities found in objects normally judged by their usefulness.  Lethem looks at how in the age of pop-culture the audience is bombarded by images and rarely sees beyond the logos, products and commercials. Our environment numbs us, and it is the job of the artist, no matter what the medium, to “make the familiar strange”, and reveal to the audience the realities hidden beneath chaos.

 

Copyright has turned ideas into “intellectual property”, and though it has given artists control over their work, the incessant amount of suing over infringement has created fear. The artists, who might have made use of the ideas of others, are now afraid of being persecuted, putting a stop to further development of ideas. Over the years, the terms of copyright have expanded to include a broad range of expression including daily correspondence and random doodles. With the advancements of technology, regulating copyright has become almost impossible. Lethem suggests that we look at copyright for what it really is, “ a government-granted monopoly on the use of creative results.” He notes that this definition makes copyrights as limiting as they are helpful.

 

Lethem then looks at the possibility of transformation that occurs when an artist sells their work. Once sold, the art enters the realm of the audience, allowing others to appropriate ideas and manipulate the work, giving it new life and longevity.  He points out that artists who do not allow this transformation to occur are alienating their audience and limiting their own work.

 

Lethem next examines the dichotomy created when artists and corporations who appropriate others ideas in the creation of their own work, fiercely protect their work from influencing others. He uses Disney as an example and compares their “corporate ownership” to the “source hypocrisy” used by privileged artist freely borrowing styles from third world countries.

 

There are two separate forms of economy, “a market economy and a gift economy.”  Lethem defines the difference as being; the gift of a commodity establishes a connection, while the sale of a commodity results in no connection.  Art combines both commodities, it is bought and sold, and yet, a bond is created between audience and artist.  This duel concept is difficult for some to understand, but without the bond created when experiencing art, there would be no art.  Another way of examining a “gift economy” is to look at it as a “public commons”, which Lethem defines as a space belonging to everyone and controlled by society as a whole.  Lethem points out that almost all commons are encroached upon and that it is the public’s responsibility to protect our common grounds from those who wish to profit.

 

Lethem brings up a question by equating art to science.  He uses the example of a scientist looking for a cure to a disease.  Instead of doing his own research, the scientist pieced together others discoveries to find the cure.  He realized that the cure already existed; someone just needed to tie together information.  Lethem suggests that perhaps the same approach is necessary in art.  Instead of creating the new, he proposes exploring, recognizing and reconfiguring what already exists.

 

Lethem then examines an experience he had when trying to see a movie by the Iranian filmmaker Dariush Mehrjui. When he arrived at the theater the doors were closed with a sign indicating that the movie, an adaptation of a J.D. Salinger work, would not be shown because of legal threat.  Lethem questions Salinger’s motives behind the threat, seeing the movie as homage not plagiarism.  He asks the question, why would he care?

 

Lethem next supports his hypothesis by creating new rules when looking at authorship.  For example, he states that authors and corporations should view all appropriations of their work as an honor. Copyright should protect an author’s original work, but promote the use of the ideas freely. All text is plagiarism and there is no true originality, “old and new make up everything.” If artists don’t keep in mind the gift aspect of their work, then the work is nothing more that “advertisements for themselves.”

 

Finally, Lethem tells the reader that his article has been an appropriation of other people’s writings, and he goes on to highlight in red where he has first used others words.

 

 

 

 

 

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of the essay “The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes

 

 

In his essay, “The Death of the Author”, Roland Barthes begins by arguing that the physical act of writing is the beginning of the death of the author.  He points out that the author has not always been perceived as an important individual creating a singular consciousness spoken directly to the reader. Instead, the author was viewed as a mediator for narrative thought.  He then contradicts the current concept of revering the author by looking at Mallaime, who argues that it is not the author that controls language but language that controls the author. So when reading a text, it is not the voice of the author that is heard but actually the voice of the language.

 

Barthes also notes that if one believes in the concept of the author, then the author could be considered the beginning of the work and the work itself the end. The author lives within the creation, not the other way around.  He uses Proust and an example of an author who lived his life based on his work, as apposed to his work being based on his life. This supports the idea that the author is nothing more than the language. If true, one could imply that writing has no other origin than language, and the concept of author is nothing more than a myth.

 

Barthes defines language and text as being a derivative form of communication developed by varying cultures; thus language itself is a reflection of culture.  He argues that writing is just words defined by words cumulating in indefinite combinations.  This being true, no author is ever capable of writing something completely original. The author is simply regurgitating what already exists. It is the limits of the author’s understanding of language that limits the text, which brings in the voice of critic to point out the weakness.

 

Barthes next looks at Balzac who believes that it is not the author who gives voice to the writing but really the reader.  The text, comprised of language created by cultures, is only given meaning when it is read and interpreted.  Without the reader bringing his or her consciousness to the text, there is no meaning. 

 

Do Barthes observations apply to his own writing?

 

 

Whose Monument Where?

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of Whose Monument Where? Public Art in Many-Cultures Society? by Judith F. Baca

 

 

Judith F. Baca’s essay, Whose Monument Where? Public Art in Many-Cultured Society, questions the role of public art and its relevance, perception, and responsibilities to today’s diverse and multicultural communities. In the past, public art has been seen as monuments glorifying a specific, often heroic, point in the development of history.  More recently, these monuments act as a reflection of the power and dominance of a corporate sponsor. Thus giving relevance to the individuals they represent and the artist who created them. Though these monuments represent great meaning for a few, they are often irrelevant to a large percentage of today’s population. Judith Baca points out that public art is perceived and interpreted differently depending on the viewer and she bring up the question, “what shall we choose to memorialize in our time?”

 

As developers turn landscapes into cityscapes, public art is used to beautify and bridge the gap between the developer and the public, creating a veiled unity and acting as a “false promise” of inclusion.  With the increasing development of public spaces, the definition of “public” does not pertain to everyone. “Homeless, vendors, adolescence, urban poor and people of color” are excluded from the term “public” and find themselves unwanted by developers, becoming displaced and segregated into communities living in the outer reaches.  Judith Baca uses Los Angles as an example of a city where developers have abused and exploited ethnic communities, creating a divided and scared society. She believes that artists can, through their art, help communities reclaim public spaces and bring back lost identity by giving them a unified voice.  In order to do this, it is necessary for the artist to remain aware of cultural differences and replace their own personal vision with a collective approach. She uses Christo’s work as an example of personal aesthetic sensibilities dictating a public art project as apposed to more inclusive and possibly more meaningful approach to public art.

 

Overtime the changing policies and stronger competition for the use of public spaces has resulted in new regulations and censorship.  Judith Baca uses the mural by Mexican artist David Alfaro Siqueiros as an example of this change.  His work dealt with the difficulties facing Mexicans and Chicanos living in California during the 1930s. Though his mural is being carefully restored today, and remains a relevant topic, it is unlikely that the imagery used then would be permitted today.  Despite the new policies, murals remain an effective way for artist representing ethnic groups to reclaim public space. These murals act as public monuments reflecting the realities and struggles faced by ethnic communities, thus creating a more accurate history. 

 

The children of these communities have been greatly affected by these monuments, and wanting to make their own voices heard, have turned to the art of graffiti.  While working on the Great Wall project, Judith Baca has come in contact with many young graffiti artists.  She has seen firsthand the struggles between the graffiti artists and the opposing authorities, both sides claiming ownership over public spaces.  Unfortunately, she points out that it is the graffiti artist’s notion of beauty that often loses out in the end, taking its toll on the young artists.

 

With poverty increasing and the expanding division between the wealthy and poor, Judith Baca asks the question, “Whose story shall we tell?”   She believes that public artists living amongst ethnic communities have the responsibility of creating a voice for the people and act as a catalyst for change.  She feels artists need to assess their process in relationship to the outcome, and concentrate on what they want to say, keeping in mind how their work will effect” public memory.”   Public art in this capacity can begin a dialogue encompassing all communities and give representation to voices of hope.  Judith Baca sees this as “the most 

Cultural Pilgrimages

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of Cultural Pilgrimages and Metaphoric Journeys by Suzanne Lacy

 

In her writing, Cultural Pilgrimages and Metaphoric Journeys, Suzanne Lacy examines the histories of “new genre public art” and  “public art.” Both forms of art exist in public spaces, but the ideologies supporting the works are vastly different.  She begins by looking at the development of “public art”, which with the help of government funding in the 1960s,” became a viable mode of individual artistic expression with hopes of enhancing, revitalizing and re-conceptualizing urban space. “Public art” enabled artwork to leave confines of the Museum and become accessible to the public.  By the 1970s and 80s a new trend began with the development of site-specific art. This opened up new ideas appropriating ecological and social aspects into the work, permoting education and public awareness. “Public art”, though conceptualized by the artist, also involved design teams consisting of architects, designers, and art administrators. There exists a distinct separation between the artist and audience, and during the tensions caused by the down turn of the economy in the 90s, it was art administrators, not the artists, who were able to keep the peace and begin programs to better educate the public. 

 

 Susan Lacy next looks at the development of the less accepted from of “public art” called “new genre art”.  Unlike “public art”, which was an expression of an individual artistic voice, new genre art was the results of a calibration between artist and public. The concepts fueling the work often deal with social and political concerns, with the hopes of not just affecting an aesthetic understanding but social transformation.  For many years, this form of activist art was not taken seriously and often combined experimental multimedia forms of expression. The late 50s saw artists abandoning the confines of conventional art spaces and entering into the realm of popular culture and public space. In the seventies artists started looking towards their communities and cultures to find a new artistic voice that spoke to personal and public concerns. Boundaries of race and class were crossed, and ethnic, feminist and Marxist artists began looking outside of themselves to find a new form of communication through aesthetics and an inclusion with the audience. The 80s and 90s new genre artists, or leftist artist, dealt with subject matter concerning ethnic struggles, a rebirth of feminist issues, AIDS and homosexual issues, censorship and ecology. Interestingly, the 90s saw recognition of genre art by “official” public art and a transformation from radical to accepted practice

 

There are many difficulties facing the genre artist when examining their work. First, the artist must reject the traditional role of the artist as existing on the fringe of society and instead create a value system by connecting with the community. They must find a balance between external and internal voices and confront prejudice to form a new transformational aesthetic language. Only when this language is defined can the artist truly hope for change. The artist must also consider the issue of the continuity of the work after the completion. In order for a work to be truly successful, the dialogue created must be maintained and the community exploration and education encouraged.

 

The genre artist is no longer alone in the studio, but out among the community, listening, empathizing, and gathering information to create a collective language.  They must embrace both similarities and differences and individual and community. The art itself is often found in the space that separates the audience from the artist, creating voice for the community.  The audience is no longer white and middle class, but a complex group of individuals creating communities with varied opinions, belief systems, cultures and traditions. Every change of venue introduces a new relationship between artist and audience and greatly effects both content and process. This notion of public diversity changes the definition of public as a whole, and this new definition must be taken into account and embraced by the artist and their work. 

 

Not only has the definition of the public changed, but so has the role of the artist and venue.  The artist now becomes a spokesperson and educator, working with the public to bring about awareness and hopefully change.  How this educational information is shared becomes an integral part in the art making process. The space the art occupies is no longer designated, appropriate venues can be found anywhere from playgrounds to shopping centers.

 

Critics and curators play a valuable role in the genre artist’s process. They both give words to the artist’s thoughts and help to bring those words to a greater audience.  The curator is the promoter and supporter, and helps bridge the gap between the artist and audience by finding new ways of expanding educational activities.  The critic sets the standards by which the work is seen and translates the works, which helps form connections with a more diverse audience. They are also the ones to view the work honestly and contextualize it in relation to history and contemporary art practice.

 

For the genre public artists finding the balance between beauty and originality is a difficult one. Contemporary art practice embraces novelty above all other qualities and often shuns beauty, but for the artist expressing a collective public consciousness, beauty must be addressed within the work as a being an important part of the human experience.

 

There are many difficulties surrounding the critique of genre public art, and the process must be looked at from a variety of perspectives.  The critic, when evaluating the work, must take into account the artist intent and how that intent has been translated in the work. It is hard to define what makes the work successful, and many questions need to be asked. For example: Should the critic judge the piece as a collective consciousness calling for social change or focus on the aesthetic qualities?  When the work is the collaboration of many, whose work is it?  To be deemed successful, does there need to be proof that the piece has caused societal change, or can it simply be a symbol of the desired change?  How does the art function differently than direct action?  These and many other questions arise when trying to assess and critique the genre public artist’s work. Perhaps, in order to comprehensibly critique the work, a new dialogue between artist and critic must be developed. If created this new language could pave the way for a new definition, changing the way art is appreciated and perceived.