One of the first sentences I listened to as I arrived at the Creative Summit was from Laura Raicovich, Director of Global Initiatives – “the makers of social changes are not politics – they are the artists”. Well, those were probably not her exact words, and I couldn’t agree less with this affirmation, but it does set the ground to discuss political art in the 90s, as presented by Thompson and Bourriaud is their writings.

Political art may play an important role for change, but as Pablo Helguera mentioned at the summit, many times it fails to reach the audience it is intended for. Bourriaud talks about the change in art thorough the years – “What is collapsing right before our very eyes is nothing other than this falsely aristocratic conception of the arrangement of works of art, associated with the feeling of territorial acquisition. […] It is henceforth presented as a period of time to be lived through” – but the art market still remains very connected to its traditional form: it is not about making a piece available to everyone, rather than finding a way to sell art that is not an actual object. Making art more “democratic” is beautiful as a theory, but in reality what happens is that being unable to sell their work creates a need for other jobs as a means of sustaining. There is also an idillic view of art being something superior that cannot be leveled to consumer products (many times the very object of critique from the artist) and therefore cannot be sold as part of a market. Great, but everyone has bills to pay. It reminds me of the HBO series “Girls”, where the character Adam says the 800 dollars his mother gives him every month allows him to be free to develop his work. A wonderful way to run from the real issue. The point is that art is what the art market defines as being good – 90% of pieces will never reach a larger audience, especially if it does not care about art – most times because they can’t understand the lack of craft so associated with artistry. And no matter how intangible a piece is as an object, it is still going to be sold.

Art institutions who fund artists, the means of making works real for many artists and an alternative to the gallery system, are not as different from the old patrons as well. They have their own agendas, and are looking for artists and projects who fit into them. In the end, there is no actual freedom for artists – to be known and funded you depend upon a market with specific requisites. And the artists are the ones making the least amount of money out of their own work. Taking quotes from our talk at LMCC: “no one wants to fund everything, but you need to do something that fits with our needs and agenda” and “you can’t do something just to meet it, it has to resonate with your body of work”. So, how does one do something in such a context?

Going back to Raicovich’s affirmation, why don’t I agree with ? Because there is no change if not from within the system itself that you’re trying to change – you have to take it down by following its rules. Art belongs to its own separate world of museums, gallerists, artists and institutions. Does art bring awareness? Yes, it does. But only inside a small group of art practitioners and institutions. Most people which are the actual players of change think of it as a beautiful ingenuity, akin to dreamers. Artists don’t take responsibility of the change, so they keep their statuses, as opposed to politicians who deal directly with it and are scrutinized by society.

Not that I don’t think art shouldn’t have a function. I have always thought it needs to critique something. But its role is not to change, but to raise awareness and bring people to think critically. It has to be thought provoking so that we don not get used to things that might end dictating and controlling our lives. This is what I see from most of the works cited by Thompson, like Reverend Billy – it makes it not easy to allow a society to be fully controlled. As artist Krzysztof Wodiczko well affirms, “The oldest and most common reference to this kind of design is the bandeau: “a bandage covers and treats wound while at the same time exposing its presence, signifying both the experience of pain and the hope of recovery”.

To me the space for art should be anarchist – not in the pejorative way it is often referred to, but in the sense of the lack of rules and emergence of an organization from bottom up. There should be no strings attached, no politically correct, no agenda, no fear of the outcomes – the importance is in the discussion that the artwork raises, whatever that is, provoking people to think. It shouldn’t be the role of an artwork to be an opinion leader, but an ignitor of debate, so that opinion raises from discussion after it – as Bourriaud says, art as an”opening to unlimited discussion”. They provide opportunity, as Willliam Pope.L’s Black Factory, and tools for engagement, according to Thompson. A statement I fully agree with it. This endless possibility provided by debate is what should be funded, not pre-conceived shapes or content.

Journalism is also an agent for debate, not for change. So how does it differ from art in that sense? Thompson provides an answer: “we can recognize these practices as ‘art-inspired’ because they manipulate visual and spatial codes in order to produce criticality”.

All of this resonates in the works of the artists I’ve chosen to discuss from the Creative Summit – Pablo Helguera and Martha Rosler.

Pablo was the first performer of the day and showed up with his band – Pablo Helguera and El Club the Protesta – , singing traditional mexican songs about inequality, classes and labor issues, what he calls “Protest Song”. It is very interesting how he subverts the content associated with this style of music to songs of protest, achieving the club’s objective to break the barriers that distance art from its intended subjects. This was noted by him during the performance – many times socially engaged art never reaches its target, becoming restricted to the artworld and not achieving any change, as I’ve mentioned in the beginning. The other part of his presentation was a piece called “The Dictator Game”, which is describe in his website as being a participatory game show in which “one participant is given a lot of money and the option to either share it to the next person or not. Further scenarios give more power to the second participant, making the exchange relationship more complex as the game progresses”. He states that the awareness of inequality can lead to feelings of guilt, mutual destruction, or mutual cooperation. This is a super interesting piece and very related to the issues I discussed on the Interventions and the Social Readings – it does not wish to be the change; instead, it brings important discussions to light which may lead to change. Awareness is the key.

Martha Rosler’s focused her talk on her Garage Sale’s – good timing with her opening at Moma on November 17th. Her theory to start these sales is very compeling – the narrative of resident’s lives; the horizontality of relations within the community; and how none of this relates to New York, where there are no sales, but leftovers for less fortunate people on the street, and, most importantly, the probable judgement of other New Yorkers, no matter the class, based on what you would sell. What started as a critique to the artworld ended in galleries and museums worldwide, and the artist noted the change in the audience: for some, its serious business; for other, it’s play. The audience participation is key in allowing people to understand those issues she raises. She started with that foreign look Perec talks about, and she provides that to the audience through engagement. In the same way as Helguera’s work, it is not a means for change in itself, but the ignite for development of critical thought in the audience.

In the end of the essay “Spectacle, Attention, Counter-Memory”, Crary asks:

“Are we still in the midst of a society that is organized as appearance? Or have we entered spectacular global system arranged primarily around the control and flow of information [...]?

This is a very interesting question, to which I would answer ‘both’. Debord’s affirmations on spectacle are still very pertinent to our days, but at the same time we are, undoubtedly, living in a society of information, where more than the control, but the flow of it, are shaping the way we think and act.

Kwon cites a play by Don DeLillo, Valparaiso, in which language plays an important role: conversations are disjunctive, with incomplete thoughts, as if the characters were speaking to an invisible ear. I’ve read before that the fragmented way we consume information is shaping our intelligence, the way we think, but more importantly, the way a whole generation is going to think. This dialogue seems to be a radical representation of this. I’ve observed, countless times, how people in conversations nowadays can never finish their arguments – someone always jumps in front with a different thought that alters the direction of it. In art exhibitions, nobody can stand in front of a piece longer than the time it takes to read the caption. And, alas, if somebody stays 5 minutes in the same section of a website it counts as a long stay in surveys – a victory. And it is not only about the fragmentation – it is also about selfishness. We make a collage of information, pieces and bits from all different sources, gathering only what interests or affects us in some way. The layering suggested by Manovich could not make more sense as time passes.

This is the kind of public we have to deal with today, and it is very impressive that many art pieces are still made for the audience of the sixties. What happens is that people need to grasp content in seconds before they lose interest. Many artworks cannot do this – they are failing at communicating with their public, who many times can only understand what it was all about only through documentation. Is the artist wrong? Is the audience wrong? There is no right answer, but if we are headed in the direction of fragmentation (as I believe to be) art has yet to transform again as it did many times before. The Museo Del Barrio has a very interesting quote on its facade which I think addresses this issue very well: “The museum is a school: the artist learns to communicate, the public learns to make connections”.

This second part focuses on the readings by Acconci, Auping and Borden.

Acconci has some interesting thoughts for me, following my take on Warner – he says publics need leaders; they are just waiting for one, otherwise, nothing happens. I believe this has a lot to do with what I think and was trying to explain in the last post; the leader is what brings the public together and gives it a reason to exist. This leader could be the embodiment of many different representations – an author, a political leader, etc. Maybe what I’m trying to say is that without a leader, there’s no public; therefore, no self-organization. But this is a subject I believe I’ve extinguished already.

Auping focuses on the work of Long and his relationship to nature, while Borden proposes a new light on the relationship between skateboarders and the city. It is very interesting to compare both on their completely opposite view to achieve the same end result – while Long has a very respectful relationship to nature, becoming a part of it without interfering in it or transgressing the rules of nature, skateboarders become a part of the city through an active interference in the space they are in, transgressing the rules of the city. But, in the end, for both the result is of a morphing with the space they are in. Those two cases shine a light on a very interesting aspect of site-specific works – how to make a piece become part of the space it is in? And it can be done either through an intense modification of the this place or through a very respectful relationship. Again, the meaning here plays an important role – what is it that is trying to be achieved , and what was the meaning previously attached to the space where the intervention is being held? The answer to those questions can show a path to be taken on the development of work.

In this first part I’ll discuss the essays from Warner, Lefebvre, Whyte and Goffman. These readings focus on the public’s behavior and pattern, ranging from subjects such as audience formation to behavior in public plazas specifically.

Warner talks about how publics are formed and their characteristics. He arguments that publics are self organized, independent from governments or other institutions – sovereign, as to say, in their building. I have some objections against this theory – I believe the use of the term “self organized” preconizes the idea that all components of a public are conscious of their belonging, by making a decision. I do understand the origins of this thought, however – in a movie, for example, people consciously decide to watch a movie or not, therefore self organizing as an audience. However, most of the times an audience is defined by someone else instead of self organized. Take the reading of this essay, for example – the author constantly remarks how his readers decided to take part on his essay. Not my case, for example – I had, in order to write this post, to read his paper, as a class requirement. Someone else chose me as a part of this audience. Consciously, I’d probably not be a member of this public; if I ever came across this reading by myself, which I find very unlikely, I’d probably just read one paragraph and let it go, if I ever did so. This is not a subject of my particular interest; I read because someone else thought I must do so as an arts graduate student. This is just one example – brands choose their public, who they think are their consumers and best reflect their products, instead of the other way around. Governments make census researches and from there organize programs to cater each public they defined, usually based on financial information. If I am part of the middle class, as defined by government, I can’t be the public of upper class, as much I’d like to. It’s not my decision, rather a reflection based on the gains from my labor. And, marketing wise, I must say, most public decisions derive from the financial organization of a society. Reaching to the subject of this class, for example – as an artist developing a site-specific work, I do it so with a specific public in mind, who will understand the references and semiotic I brought in. Many people probably would like to be part of the audience who understands it, but a lacking of symbolic references might prevent them to do so. It could perhaps be a two-way definition of a public – the author decides the audience based on the audience itself, which could both be self organized or previously put together by an entity which is not part of the public itself. Like a dog chasing its own tale, or the famous quote of the chicken and egg – cited by the author, by the way. I am just concerned with rushing with an answer in a subject that is not as clear as it first might seem.

Whyte and Goffman writings, ont he other hand, display some very interesting insights on people’s behavior in public places. Whyte focuses on the reasons why people use public parks – what makes one more used than others, while Goffman is concentrated on public as a vehicular unit and participative unit. Both share some very interesting insights in audience behavior in public spaces, and are very interesting references when developing a piece, especially in Whyte’s research. Goffman’s essay reminded a little of Perec, when analyzing a behavior that is common and known to everyone who uses public spaces but we don’t think about it or how we do it. This is such an interesting topic for a site-specific intervention. Lefebvre also evokes this idea in a different way – with his proposition of present vs presence with inanimate objects (and especially his explanation of the magic related, or better, attributed to the night by us) really sets an interesting starting point when thinking about artworks or developing them. It reaffirms the notion that we are always searching for meaning, and as artists we have to think of the set of symbols to be used to trigger this analysis by audience.

Following the advice of reading these texts selfishly, the aspect that resonates more with my work from the selection of this week is context. I have been consistently a firmly believer that nothing exists with a context – either it is physical, social or a discourse behind the artwork. Therefore, it cannot deliver the same content wherever it is. It is about the conditions to deliver meaning.
At some points throughout the essays, more than once the question of “what is art” is mentioned. Site-specific pieces started with the modernists, and developed in ways that differed completely from what was understandable as art; many works could not be included in the traditional categories of painting/ sculpture/ drawing; it couldn’t be defined through materials or craft anymore, raising an issue that is still present nowadays. If art is that which we give meaning to, and choose as being an artwork, isn’t it to contextualize the piece, as to say? If a work of art only has value if a museum or gallery acquires it or a piece has its meaning rooted in a current cultural/social situation, isn’t it to add context to it? We are always searching for the content which gives meaning to a piece, which brings the truth the artist is trying to convey, and for it we need to contextualize in physical space, time, cultural and social issues, the artist’s experience and background and our own experiences and understanding of the world as well.
With such a broad definition, than would I be stating that any piece is site-specific? Maybe I am. Nothing exists out of context, not even ourselves. But perhaps what sets site-specific pieces apart from others is the intent, to point out some specificity to a context which connects a piece to a given “site”. And this intention is what needs to be carefully thought out when developing our own pieces.

COMMENTS ON PIECES FROM READINGS:

Mile of String – Marcel Duchamp

This artwork was made for first international Surrealist exhibition in the United States, held in 1942 at the Whitelaw Reid mansion in New York, called “First Papers of Surrealism”. Duchamp made a net of strings in front of the artworks, creating a barrier and making it impossible for the audience to get closer and have a clear and unobstructed view of the other pieces without destroying it.

Research and picture reference: e-flux.

What I find most interesting in Duchamp’s works is how we experience them nowadays. Take this piece, for example – it is extremely tied to the physical space, but also to the venue and the relationship with the viewer. It is specific to space, time and culture at the same time. What is its value? To be able to interact with it as the artist desired, and therefore destroyed, or the object itself? How should we see it today – reenacted or documented? What should be preserved of it for future generations? Many of Duchamp’s works are today museum piece’s nobody can interact with, like static sculptures. The bicycle wheel, for example, holds historic value for being his first readymade, but it wasn’t unique, and most importantly, it was meant to be used by the audience in order to understand its meaning. The context has changed, so its specificity has changed as well. It is really interesting how these works were setting new parameters for art, but how, even today, it is hard for cultural institutions to understand how to preserve its conceptual and contextual essence and not a physical object. In fact, not having a physical object has in fact created many problems for the art market: if art is tied to a specific social/ physical/ cultural context, how to sell it? What will belong to a collection? There are many questions in this, but I believe they are all very pertinent in understanding site-specific art.

Palais Idéal – Ferdinand Cheval

The “Ideal Palace” is a building in France made by a postman after he tripped on a stone and was inspired by its shape to build his own palace. He then came started collecting stones during his mail round everyday to use in his building, where he spent 33 years in construction. It has no particular style, rather than a mix of many – in which “all styles from all countries and all eras are mixed and join together”. Cheval had no previous training in Architecture. It became recognized and praised by surrealists and cultural institutions, and holds the title of national monument.

Picture source, Research: Official Website, NY Times article

There are many interesting issues in this particular work. It is site-specific first  because of the conditions of its inception and the source of the stones which make it. It is also site-specific – or maybe non site??? in that it displays all styles of all places and times, making the physical material relate to where it is standing, but not its content. However, there’s more to it: it draws attention since it was built by a single man who made a Herculean effort to bring it to life, based in an encounter with a singular stone. It is the vision of someone who had no previous training on the task he proposed himself to do – would it have the same recognition if built by someone with training? There are many odd buildings in the world, built by one person, and most to not have the same status of artwork. What if an architect had built a palace with such a mix of styles? Most likely it would not be well accepted, by failing in demonstrating the aesthetics standards desired by its peers. And maybe this is the most important part of this work: is its art condition derived from the fact that it was praised by prominent artists and thinkers of the time? Like historical facts, which become noteworthy because a historian decide to study them? Is its status derived not from what it is, but from what was attributed to it?

This response has more questions than answers, but I find them all very interesting issues to think of in the process of development of a piece. Maybe others will find as well.

NORTHERN SPARK / 01 SJ BIENNIAL

I was searching both websites for a piece to discuss but I couldn’t find any I found interesting enough. In the process, I realized it was due to the way they are presented: a technical, dry and standard definition that instantly made all projects seem boring. Both exhibitions seem to spam through a large spam of categories, and it reminded me of the ITP show: the way it is set up and presented makes every visitor focus on technical issues and things that “make something” instead of conceptual work. Letting go of my initial negative reaction (and my realization that presentation plays a giant role in the way people will view your work), I actually found a work which seem very interesting: “Capturing the Night”, by the Bell Museum of Natural History. The description is very broad and not detailed at all, but seems very promising: “capture the night with sound, light, and art; learn stories of the stars; and call in the creatures of the night”, with a picture of a man holding a little empty bottle. It made me think of trying to capture the essence of night and putting it in a recipient: it is so familiar to everyone – most cultures have similar associations regarding night - , so specific but at the same time present everywhere, but so intangible. It is and isn’t a site, something everyone has experienced – how to add a different perspective on it? Anyway, I’d love to grab the night in a bottle.

For the software part of it, I’ve used the SpriteDemo Processing sketch by Nick Fox-Gieg. It can be found here.

This is the final result for both characters and their respective sprite sheets:

Other things I’ve used from what we learned in class were expressions in After Effects and using png files to interface between After Effects and Photoshop. The swallowing scene was entirely made in a .psd file, exactly as a stop motion animation would be done.

Hope you enjoy!

Here’s the development of the project so far:

Thanks to Nick Fox-Gieg’s Sprite Demo Processing Sketch, I’ve been able to put together people walking for our silhouettes. It’s a big time saver – otherwise we would spend forever trying to align a small walk in After Effects, not to say rotoscoping everyone thanks to the lack of green screens the day we shot. Here’s a test I’ve made with an example found online:

Here’s the sprite sheet for it – I took the original image and organized it correctly in Photoshop, making every frame the same size and removing the background:

Besides that, we’ve shot all face closeups and walks this past weekend and finished shooting the background. Also, we contacted a musician to make our score – I can’t put the music he sent us here, but we’ve talking to him about our expectations.

More to come after the critique by the end of the week.

Storyboard updated for both Big Screens / Open Source Animation finals.

Besides After Effects, the plan is to use the kinect to retrieve 3d data from people. It should be done by either 3d scanning a stop motion video of them or using Processing + kinect to get image depth videos or still images.

Here’s the story:

For the adaptation from the giant screen (which this storyboard is for) for Open Source animation, I plan to make a part of the cityscape in the background, then have silhouettes populate it, and zoom in the face of one of them, fading into the shot of a close up of one of the faces supposed to be on the columns. After a few seconds of showing emotions, I’ll keep the zoom out showing the whole body (black background) and then the character walks out of the screen.

Here’s a test video with a small part of the background and a random silhouette using the displacement effect on after effects. The background is composed by many individual videos overlaid one on top of the other: