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.