After Obama did all the b.s. of saying thanks to George Bush (yea thanks GWB!) he said this:
"That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed an irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Home have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many: and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet."
What I am asking YOU: What is the role of a young american artist during this time?
Is there an obligation to reflect this environment in our work? Is it possible to not?
What is an artists role in a time of crisis?
Posts
response, not in order of questions:
ReplyDeletei don't think its possible NOT to reflect the environment in our artwork. in some ways, its as though, we process our life, through the work. its how some of us make sense of it. how others are able to see it. so, i don't know about obligation, i think its just a reality.
that being said, we each view things differently. and as such, will respond to the world differently...and thus our artwork will reflect this. i suppose, as it always has been. so, some might retreat into their own visual fantasty world. some might work to expose the masses to the inhumanity of our world. while others might simply find ways to use their art to capitalize on the current situation for their own personal gain. and of course, there are many more possible ways of dealing with/reflecting the world in one's work.
the thing i'm most struck by during this transition period, is the lack of emphasis on the arts. its as though, that "fluff" isn't as important and we'll just have to address it later. now, to be fair, people are losing their jobs and homes all over the place. but you know what, of all my friends the first i've heard of being at risk of losing a job, is someone who works in a museum. that's really disturbing to me.
so, what's our role? i'm not sure. i suppose, what do we want to do with our talents to make this whole thing better? how to we chanel some of our engery into helping the situation improve rather than sitting idly by?
i suppose for some, its to continue to reflect what we're seeing, in hopes of raising awareness that can later bring about change. but maybe also, we should start reflecting what we WANT to see. in the words of gandhi "be the change you want to see in the world."
for me, i'm becoming increasingly interested in changing the way art is perceived and treated in our society. it is not just another commodity. it is not the act of photographing celebrities as they try to exist in the world. it is a real, human response to our existence. the work, be it a painting; a building; a photo; or a performace, is vital to our daily life in ways most of us do not perceive.
the rest of you? what do you think?
Well T, I think this is just you and I on this one lol.
ReplyDeleteI don't think its possible to not speak of these crisis's either, its everywhere on the news in our conversations and affecting our lives. I think the fact that we are as a people feel a uneven balance, our nice fading american lives and this foreshadowing of I don't even know yet, our work will reflect some kind of opinion optimism or lack thereof.
See the thing that has been making me think of all this is while we may think that our role as artists is to voice some kind of truth to our audience our images are inherently mistruths. A photo is capturing this moment that in one second is over, and this photo is through the photographers eye through a mechanical device through a process of printing.. so what truth does it tell. A painting is trying to create this experience that I'm not sure it can truly recreate. So how do you approach these problems in a non-cliched way? In a way that can swim through the bull shit and find the truth? It kind of relates to the idea of how language fails so often to be what we think language is... this truth for our ideas memories experience.
Today when reading the essay "Lapsus Imaginis: The Image in Ruins" by Eduardo Cadava, I found a passage that explains what I've been thinking about for the past few weeks:
"There can be no image that is not about destruction and survival, and this is especially the case in the image of ruin. We might even say the the image of ruin tells us what is true of every image: that it bears witness to the enigmatic relation between death and survival, loss and life, destruction and preservation, mourning and memory. It also tells us, if it can tell us anything at all, that what dies, is lost, and mourned within the image-- even as it survives, lives on, and struggles to exist-- is the image itself. This is why the image of ruin-- again, speaking for all images-- so often speaks of the death, if not the impossibility of the image. It announces the inability of the image to tell a story: the story of ruin, for example."
So it seems as though, if a painting can show the image can't show anything concrete thats the only concrete thing it can show. And I don't see this as a fuss to get worried that I'll never be able to depict the things I thought I could.. but as a challenge to understand HOW to depict something important to me.
I could see this being an example of these concerns in art form:
Malloy wrote.. (this is just something I keep in my head not sure if its exact quote)
"I went inside to write it was raining and midnight, but it was not raining and it was not midnight."
well kids chomp on that mouthful.
AND REPLY DAMMIT.
oh erin. i'm going to find a way to keep moving this post UP on the blog. this will be discussed! :)
ReplyDeletei love the text from cadava. what are the chances you could scan, pdf, and email me the full essay? i couldn't find it on the internets.
more complete response tomorrow. have many, many thoughts about this.
No worries, it took me a few days to have the time to sit down and write that because my thoughts are a little scattered brained on the subject. But I just find this to be a really important thing to understand and talk about. Even if it is just you and I :P
ReplyDeleteAnd GIIIRRRL you don't even want to KNOW how many essays I can get to you in pdf format. SOOOOOOO MANY! I'll start out with this one, then maybe we can chat and I'll tell you what else I have.
love it! let's keep up the discussion. i might send this link to some other people and see if they'll speak up, as well.
ReplyDeleteoh, send em! send me your pdf essays! i need to be reading more. send to gmail account. gab has it, if you don't.
k, erin, just you and me, still. am digging in to the essay, but not finished (gd! it's long!) but, i love the quote you posted and your comments on the topic. for me, there are a couple of things happening here.
ReplyDelete1. the idea of representation of "reality" in art.
2. the role of the artist/importance of "art" in society, in part as a result of the representation or lack thereof.
let's start with 1. "reality." can we all just agree, this concept is somewhat rediculous? while, there are some basic laws of physics/motion that remain consistent, i think we forget that so much of our world is subjective. maybe, because for most people, our perceptions are similar and we have bought in to a certain level of consistency. for example, most of us agree that a particular color is "blue." we have all agreed to use that word and we have agreed to apply it to a particular color cast that we see in our world. except some people don't see it. they're "color-blind." and for them, the color blue might not even exist. there might always exist, a scientifically measurable lightwave and reflective quality in objects that we have all agreed to name "blue."
but after these scientific facts, we cast our own personal interpretation on to so much of our world, that it almost becomes a moot point, to me, this idea of the artist portraying reality. i mean, there is no CONISTENT "reality." there is "my reality," "your reality," etc. there is also "my reality right this moment" vs "my reality an hour from now when something new is revealed/discovered/understood" that totally changes/reverses/alters my previous "reality." thus, (scientific facts excluded) reality is heavily subjective/situational.
so, what makes anyone think an artist could EVER portray a reality that EVERYONE would buy in to? as you pointed out, even a photographic image is subjective. a photograph can never capture the entire story. it can never represent the entire "reality" of even the fraction of a second that the film captures. video can't even do that - there's ALWAYS someone off-camera! and don't even get me started on the mediums in which the physicality of the artist's hand is more readily visible.
and so, then what? if we can't reproduce "reality," who cares? why bother? why make art? why buy art?
except since when, has the validity of a work of art rested soley on its accurate representation of "reality?" even portraiture, throughout history, has been used to augment/subvert/accentuate reality.
so, if accurate portrayal of "reality" is NOT why we make and aquire art, what is? i think that leads me to point, 2. role of art/srtist in society. but, i'm gonna save that for the next post.
and yes, i realize that what i'm saying here has probably already been said, and very likely by someone more intelligent/eloquent than myself. if you have evidence in the form of text that can be sent to me, please do! if you care to argue against my points or have examples of other's counter-arguments, i would also love to read those, too. i suppose, i'm just putting this out there for the purpose of healthy discussion and also to sort of formulate for myself why what i'm doing is valid and perhaps help myself as i work out my own, personal creative path.
more to follow at a later time.