Hi Everyone,
I can't wait to hear your thoughts. Remember to draw freely from this week's sources as evidence in your posts:)
Kristi
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
What are the intersections between art and culture at large? Who owns an idea? What is the role of public space versus private space? Public vs. private property? Is there such a thing as an art terrorist? How is art in a museum experienced differently than public art in unexpected places? What is the relationship between politics and art? Keeping these questions and this week's sources in mind, please write a one-minute essay on any of the above questions or on your own topic.
26 comments:
Who decides what gets painted over and what stays?
Art is a great means to convey political ideas, but how far is too far?
Banksy has now become a popular figure, so his art is more accepted, but does that make it right? Fundamentally it comes down to the question of who decides when it is ok to break the law and when it is not. Banksy is a criminal, technically; he defaces public property, yet he is not participating in community service projects or serving time in jail because of his "crime", but WHY?
I, personally, think his work is great and sends a very strong easily understood message. His paintings tell more of a story than many documentaries or reports can every hope to, even though they may spend years being created and edited. But, in a society where private property is valued, we can't all go paint what we feel on the walls. For example, if someone paints racial slurs on the side of a building it would not be tolerated, and rightfully so, but it technically has just as much right to be there as any Banksy art.
It makes me wonder if the politicians have decided to leave the art because they need to give the people some sort of free speech. Something to hold onto so they can claim their ideas are being heard. Or maybe, they are just giving them an inch, so the public can say "at least ...." while the politicians continue to create and implement the policies that inspired Banksy in the first place.
Which brings up another idea. What is Banksy's goal? Is it simply to point out irony in life, as his manifesto suggests, or does he have a greater purpose? If he has a greater goal, is he accomplishing it by his work?
to be continued...
Now if I go around and airbrush the back of someones shirt, while they're still in it, I might get into trouble for some sort of violation. But if they like the way it looks I get acclaim. Although the action never change the reaction, the impact, my image does (depending on how the situation unravels). Those actions could be seen in a positive or negative light, but it's all relative. With that being said how important things of this nature in general may not be something to be decided, but I so believe in case by case decision making.
~Yumi
Art is a way to express one's thoughts though it is always difficult to take a objective stance. Objects are often projected in ways artists pursuade their thoughts. Also, just a peace of art work can convey various messages including historical, cultural, and political backgrounds. In that sense, art does not show any difference from one's thoughts and opinion. Thus, I think the way those thoughts and opinions are expressed should not experience any restriction. As public vs. private spaces arts appear are argued frequently, arts also should have freedom to be expressed as people hold freedom of speech.
The difference between art pieces displayed in a museum and unexpected places represents the major and domaine thoughts supported by public in a public place.
Modern Art, because of its very nature, lends itself to socio/political interpretations. Its space is designed to convey the inner-most reactions to society, in ways that "traditional art" was not possible to do before. We are now allowed to use the five senses: visuals, auditive, touch, smell, and on some rare occasions, taste. Furthermore, the "space" modern art has taken today, is no longer confined to galery walls. Street interventions are the quickest way to reach an audience, especially if you have something to say regarding that particular society. Museums have picked up on this artistic outcry to be politicaly heard, in a world convoluted by information and controlled media. The "Palais de Tokyo" in Paris exposed in 2005 an outstanding complitation of International and "minority"/ artistic activists. The expo was titled "Notre Histoire" (our history), and through sound, visual effects, technology (and often all combined) they conveyed a public response to the sociopolitical decisions made from "above," culture, and so forth. Together, with each artist's interpretation and style, the audience was able to peice together our history and roles as citizens and individuals in this world. Modern Art's ambiguous and undefined structure allows for peoples intent to create meaning of a also confused and ambigous world, for it reflects they reflect one and the same thing.
By appealing to a unrestricted audience, public arts can be a powerful means to spread certain ideology. In this sense, I do think that public arts could be "art terrorists." Banksy could be a good example of such an art terrorist. By sharing his arts in random public places, the author opens his message to anybody from different backgrounds.
Art is culture, because it is a way to express one's culture, whether it is national culture, political culture. As history shows, throughout times, artist such as DaVinci used art to secretly embed controversial ideas within society. If DaVinci used "The Last Supper" as a secret manifesto on controversial topics in Christianity, I don't see why Banksy can't freely express his ideas as well, especially since we now claim to live in a society much more liberal than that during DaVinci's times.
How can terrorism be associated to art? Terrorism, in its most common definition, is reffered to as violent actions installing fear within the citizens of a country. Reffering to an artist as a terrorist is just affecting one's right to free speech. The artist, through his art, is not hurting anyone, and is not producing fear within the society. He/she is just putting his/her opinions out there, for everyone to see. And at the same time, everyone is free to agree or disagree with the art they experience. There is no place for terrorism in art.
Art can be best experienced in public places, rather than in museums. It's not that hard to think why that is the case. The art in the museum is filtered through the minds of those managing the museum, therefore, in a museum we only see those pieces of art that the manager (or whoever else) decided that are worth to be seen. And as different people hold different values, not everyone, obviously, might consider those same pieces important. Whereas on the streets, and in public places, there is no one to filter what we see. We become the direct filter of the information transmitted through the art. And of course, in some cases, that information might be political. Which makes perfect sense, in a society in which freedom of speech is claimed, but not upheld. As people directly speaking against the government are avoided, and often times are tracked down by secret services and so on, what better form of speaking your mind is there than anonymous art? It seems like it would be the best way to tell everyone whats on your mind and not get in trouble for it (hopefully).
...:::IRiNa:::...
Who decides art's worth? Who owns ideas? What determines originality? What is art's purpose?
Art serves many purposes. Banksy uses art as a way of expressing disapproval. His work, mostly political, expresses in a uniquely law defying mode what he thinks of social limitations and issues. Art, in this form, serves as a motivator of social defiance and revolution.
Banksy's New York museum escapade goes directly to the root of the question of art's worth. Who is to determine what kind of art is valuable, and others not so. Is all art valuable? And in Banksy's case, what are the limitations presented by public and private property? Banksy's most impressive art is street art, in which most cases the art is a violation of governmental laws. This, to me, gives the art a different aspect of value, due not only to his impressive skill, but the dangers in which he was faced in order to create this art.
Originality is a difficult question to tackle. In the case of Joy Garnett and Susan Meiselas, the question can be answered with several convincing responses. While photography catches art in its truest form, unaltered, it minimizes spectrum and the eye of the camera is dictated by the photographer. This might account for some bias. On the flip side, an artist who takes inspiration not from live events, like photographers, but in previous art, and uses this to create or recreate her own art, is producing art that is just as valuable. Both are creating art off of the inspiration of another. Who owns this art? Who has the rights to profit, and copyright? In this case, a side that is minutely examined but perhaps should have more say to the rights of this art, is the subject. The ownership of art and the definition of its value is clouded by profits and dollars, when maybe it should be determined by aesthetic value, like Banksy.
Banksy seems to produce art for the public, although he does seem to be making a living and thus some profit from his artwork, he doesn't work for dollars or "equilibrium price", but rather for the pleasure of defying laws, and in most cases, conveying a socially motivating cause.
Public art is more appealing to my senses that art in a museum. When I pass by any wall in the atreet that portrays some kind of art I am always attracted to it whereas when I am in a museum I feel I need to contain myself within centair parameters of the place and the frames. Looking at art indoors makes me focus so much on the art or picture in and on itself that I need to lose the focus of the context that I am in. In the streets however I can freely make connection between the piece of art and the whole context of the place so that I fully experience not only the art, but its whole context or background. I easely froget the piece of art portrayed at a museum. On the other side, looking graffits or the public art of the streets become an unforgetable experiece. I feel I have more freedom to sense the whoel purpose of the art's existance and sort of being immerse on it. So what is the real prupose of museum in term of art exhibits? How much can a person gain from looking at a art at the museum in terms of awareness or knowledge?
What is the role of public space versus private space? Public vs. private property? Is there such a thing as an art terrorist? What is the relationship between politics and art?
it is interesting to think about the implications of the difference between public and private domain, especially with reference to art and activism. In private, where we act as we want because we can afford to do so, our actions are less inhibited, but more routine. In public there is nothing but change. People come and go, weather changes, day becomes night etc. in this environment we are always aware and always receptive to signals in our surroundings because we cannot afford to be lax, acting as uninhibited as we want will get us jacked, lost, run over, or at least late to work.
By forcing his art into the public sector Banksy forces the public at large to address the topics of his art. It promotes discussion, invited criticism and advances the very self-aware opinion and biases of the artist. Banksy denies others the rights associated with ownership of their property in a protest of the very same thing that makes the property valuable; consumerism, faux glamor, over inflated nationalism, colonialism and imperialism are often sharply condemned by Banksy. it is like direct action activism, and words are certainly a device of violence if properly used. But Banksy's art is not enacting violence again the people seeing his work, it is directed at abstract concepts-- consumerism, imperialism, nationalism, etc. his violence has minimal collateral damage (the cost of repainting and the owner's sense of pride) and zero deaths, but it is violence all the same. however terrorism involves criminal acts with the intent of causing havoc, shock, violence, and a general, sense of terror indiscriminately. Banksy's crimes are crimes, and some may consider them immoral as well, but they are not acts of terrorism.
Public art. It's not much more than an outdoor museum, except it's free. Doesn't that make it better though? Everyone gets to experience it. Just like artists want...I think.
Yet, artists seem to want to coup up all their art in the confines of these walls, these...museums. In these museums are supposed to be the best art, the most distinguished, prestigious. Who desides what art is "good" or what isn't? How is an artist supposed to get his message accross if his art is locked away like a prisoner? Or is it all about profit?
"So little to say and so much time," Banksy's rat says. Is it true? I guess when you think about how long time will go on, there really isn't much to say. Especially when you think of what's really important that's not being said. It's all art, really. From the art in the museum to the architecture of the museum. Art on the sides of buildings, art not deemed worthy because it's on "my" building, so it gets painted over. It's on "my" turf...
Why paint it over? Why paint us over?
Real art is everywhere. Reality is everywhere. We just have to stop locking it away and averting our eyes.
Art should have a strong power on influencing politics. As Joy Garness was saying, the art with extreme emotional and physical states appeal to the audience to some extent what the author trys to convey. Even though the viewers will have various interepretations of the works, the arts which contain political implications will give some sort of influence on the mind of viewers.
When I went to the El Salvador, I saw many arts on the wall at the streets, buildings, and surprisingly at the universities. Most of the arts portray Father Romero who fought againt the Salvadoran armed force during the civil conflict. He was the strong figure for many of the Salvadoran citizens, because he was always on the side of helping people from the threat. Therefore, the arts of him standing in front of people to fight against the army give significant impact on the viewers about the legitimacy of the Salvadoran government's use of force againt the citizens.
As seen in the example of El Salvador, the arts have definitely posess the power to influence and even change the politics of the country.
"Ideas are useless. There are billions of ideas flowing everywhere, all the time. When you conceive one and praise yourself for your originality, odds are someone had already thought of it before. Twenty times. And nothing came out of it. Yours is not any different. Ideas, in themselves, are nothing. They are abundant. They are free. They are dispensable. They are useless. It is only their execution that has any value."
"Ideas are useless. There are billions of ideas flowing everywhere, all the time. When you conceive one and praise yourself for your originality, odds are someone had already thought of it before. Twenty times. And nothing came out of it. Yours is not any different. Ideas, in themselves, are nothing. They are abundant. They are free. They are dispensable. They are useless. It is only their execution that has any value."
"The issue that interested me was how protests though art influence politics. Protesting by artists is popular all over the world especially in the form of graffitis. Even though graffiti is criticized to be a violation of public property, I tend to think that it can be admitted as a way of protesting in a way. Politics sometimes have violated people's freedom, rights, and livings. Then, why would it be criticized if those who are violated their lives by governemnt disobey the rule of the government? For instance, the wall in the Gaza Strip might have took away someone's family to the other side of the wall. This is none other than a violation to a person's right to live with a family. Nobody can complain about artists violation of public property in return of more severe government's violation of people's lives.
I also think that raising controversy is also a way for artists to raise awareness of the public to their protests.
After all, however, it is for sure better if artists do not go against the law and find a way to demonstrate their opinions without going against the society."
The individuality of persons in picture or drawing should be respected. Otherwise, any arts can be manipulated into authors' interests of what they want to convey thorough their works. Therefore, public needs to be aware of that arts are often incorporated with some intended purposes of authors. Like in politics, I believe that people sometimes prefer just one strong image or art concerning political agendas or etc, to long speeches or manifestos. In such case, arts can be very powerful to attract attentions of the public, but at the same time, it shows that the public can be easily controlled with simple arts. (ex. images of falling twin towers at 911 attacks to call for nationalism and heroism.)
Art has strong power to affect politics. Although his arts were removed by museum after they were discovered, it indicates the importance between private space and public space. Politicians struggle over deciding the scope of audience. it has different effect when his piece is in musuem and public space. If it is in public space and everyone can look at that and have thier ideas about the arts. If it is in museum, many people still can see but people will be different from that in public space. Thus, audince plays crucial role to make thier culture and politic situations. Arts havegreat affect or politics through the audience.
What is the difference between viewing art in a museum and viewing art in the street?
Art in a museum is seen as inherently valuable because it is either old and well-known or a new idea that is worthy of being seen along with such well-known works of art. There must be some sort of criteria in order to get your artwork into a museum exhibition. What are those criteria? Who decides what is admitted to a museum and what is not?
Art in the street may not immediately be seen as artwork. Some types of graffiti seem like simple words that may be undecipherable to the general public. Unless someone sees a connection or a hidden meaning in the street art, he may not pay much attention to it. In this case, he will probably classify the graffiti as ugly and damaging to public space because he does not understand what the artist is trying to portray. If the message is clear to the viewer, he may be more likely to view the graffiti as artwork. Once it is seen as artwork, it seems to take on a new meaning, as in our society art is seen as a mode of communication; as a way of communicating ideas. Once it is understood that an idea is being presented, one can evaluate it and make some sort of judgment about it.
Since it may b e difficult to get art into a museum (as Banksy showed when he decided to secretly put his artwork in an existing museum exhibition), creating and displaying artwork in the streets may be easier. But the artist then runs the risk of his art being seen as unimportant or simply as decoration.
Who decides worth? There can be a very simple answer to this question or an unattainable answer. The simple answer would be power.
Power determines worth. Correct?
When someone places worth upon another object/person, that person feels some sort of innate power which gives them the inalienable right to declare that something is important.
That leads me to the notion that deciding worth within society is simply a struggle of powers: multitudes of different powers struggling with one another to determine what is of value. Take for example Banksy's case: he argues that his art bears value, and thus, he sees nothing wrong with transposing his art into famous museums amongst multitudes of other famous art. The museums, on the other hard, were not too happy with this idea. A Renaissance woman wearing a gas mask wasn't exactly what they considered to be 'worthy' art.
Hence, we see a struggle between the power that Banksy feels that his art expresses and the power that lies behind the 'classical' pieces of art promoted by the museums. Both are fighting to make their art the norm -- the symbol of value.
Who owns ideas? Is tracing the very original person of a specific idea even possible? Although Meiselas argues that Garnett decontexualized the Molotov man, did she herself completely contextualized in the correct manner? Both Mieselas and Garnett have different aesthetic values, which are original respectively. Garnett interpreted the Molotov man to convey the human figure in extremis. That's an original art, different from the "original" photograph of Mieselas. Art has various formats to convey and to capture viewers' emotions.
Will copyright issue limit artists from executing their full potential that could possibly result in an innovative form of art? Digital age definitely dislocates and discontextualizes the existing artworks and might infringe artists' rights. Nevertheless, the increasing accessibility of art to a larger and diverse audience, could "advance" the field of art to a new stage with a potential for new aesthetic discoveries.
Who owns an idea? An idea originates at the very moment when someone thinks something. From this fact, it seems that the person who came up with an idea owns that idea. However, the question is; what enabled the person to think and generate the idea? If there is nothing to think about, there is no possibility of creating a new idea. Therefore, it can be said that a new idea is partly formed of and constructed on old ideas. This conplicates the ownership of an idea. Furtheremore, it can happen that a new idea is actually not new. For example, when a person thinks that he/she generated a whole new idea, but finds someone else who has already generated and publicized the same idea, another question rises. Is that idea owned only by the person who created it and introduced it to the public before others? What if others haven't merely publicized it, but already had come up with the idea before? Does the owner of an idea have to be limited to only one person?
What is art? Art is a part of life. Art can be anything that expresses one's feeling or opinion. Anything in our lives could be an art. Everything can be defined as art, such as all the houses we live, all the furniture we have, all the clothes that everyone wears differently. Art is one of the means for people to distinguish own identity; therefore, rights to show oneself have to be protected by law.
Although some might say that art cannot enter in political fields, I do not think that art should get out of the way. If someone has an opinion against to the political issue, that opinion can be expressed in a form of art. As politic is related to our lives directly, art cannot be separated from our lives. It is a selfish idea of politicians to not have people to against them by expressing with art. The opposition to having art in politics shows the fear of politician that how art can have impact on people's life. Because people see and gain some thoughts from art habitually, it is common for people to accept the idea of the art. Even looking at the same art, people will receive different impression and influence them in different ways.
How original is a work of art? There is a certain degree to originality I believe. You can't say that a piece of art can be a production of orignial thought because there are so many different kinds of things that influence our stage of creation. Creating something originial for me isn't real. Everybody, learns first through copying and absorbing the works of others. I know some seem to have this innate ability to create something original but one must first learn what others have already created to know the extent of your originality. Learning about the kind of work that already exists in the world may just prove how unorignial your work may have seem at the beginning when you first created it. For example, in joy garrets painting of the molodavo photography, we see how orgininality plays a role in her creation of art in terms of displaying extreme emotion but she doesn't really create something original because the photograph was already an existing piece of work.
The comment by the old Palestinian man who said, "We don't want the wall to be beautiful, go away" really struck me. The old man said this in response to Bansky, a British street artist known for his politically-charged pieces when Bansky created his art work on the Palestinian side of the concrete wall that separates Israel and Palestine (Gaza strip). His artwork has meaning, and he does it in response to oppressive governments and inequality, but I wonder if those actually separated and enclosed by the wall,understand his intentions? If they do not, and truly his action wasn't really welcomed, isn't that just pushing a political view onto another party? "YOU are oppressed, and let me HELP you express that!"
I believe that art has the power to touch many people transgressing boundaries of language and culture. But I wonder about Political art. Art aimed to draw out a specific emotion, to communicate a specific message, in order for someone, some group to garner support for their cause. It's every right of an artist to create these images but when is it that this is taken too far?
I think it is almost impossible to give a complete judgment about whether people created their own art work without using other people's work. On the one hand, even though some art works seem to steel the ideas of existing art works, these artists might state that they made a totally new piece of work because they put their own impressions or opinions to the work. On the other hand, I believe that some artists deliberately might use a part of existing works for numerous purposes; some might have no choice but to borrow others’ idea, others might try to ironically show their resistance to the existing works. The most significant thing is that artists respect other artists or their works. As long as people show respect to others’ works as an artistic product, they don’t take any actions which harm other artists, or they will give a sincere explanation about their “controversial piece of work.”
I am very interested in power relation in arts. Presumably, many war photographers are likely to be middle-class persons in developed countries because to become professional photographers we need to be able to afford such equipment as camera and travel expenditure. On the other hand, those who are taken in anti-war photos are the vulnerable victims. One of the works by Banksy was really striking to me because it delineates this vertical relationship between ambitious artists (or media) with cameras and a little girl crying amid of a disastrous situation. I don’t think all those photographers are not necessarily tying to exploit war victims’ experiences to make money. Indeed, their intentions are good and relevant. It is important for especially people in developed counties to be exposed to the devastating “reality” and suffering of others as a result of wars in which their countries take part. However, I cannot help be skeptical about war photos, revealing this invisible power relation.
Post a Comment