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.