Category: Art Theory

I was bored with “Material Culture and Everyday Life” by Kristine Stiles until I stared reading about Niki de Saint-Phalle.  First, she impressed me when she created “Shoot paintings”.  I want to do that, I would love to assemble balloons fill with paint and shoot them to see the explosion of colors. Niki did it two years before I was born. Her statement to the informel is not less impressive.   She said “I have killed the painting. It is reborn. War with no victims”.  I know that in 2011 this is not as impressive, but she did this in 1961 (50 years ago).

Then Niki de Saint-Phalle, her companion sculptor Jean Tinguely and sculptor Per Olof Ultvedt constructed 82ft long 20ft high and 30ft wide reclining figure of a woman.  The most interesting of this sculpture is not the massive size, but rather the fact that visitors enter the exhibition through her vagina. I consider myself impressed. I love the fact that in 1966 a woman was daring enough to present women’s sexuality in an unapologetic fashion.

I am grateful to all the women before me that put themselves in the line and help open new horizons for women artist today.  This is not to say that women artists today do not struggle. The art world has come a long way, but there is much more to be improved. I am looking forward to the class discussion.

Xochitl Dorantes

Of the three articles we read this week, this one stood out the most to me. I honestly found this weeks reading a little boring (compared to the previous weeks). The article on Nancy Spero left me feeling a little disappointed because of how brief and uninformative it was. The second section (“Material Culture and Everyday Life Intro”) was very word, and didn’t keep my attention very well.

I think what stood out to me about Rauschenberg’s article was the opening paragraph. He says that “Any incentive to paint is as good as any other. There is no poor subject.” This contrasts against the abstract expressionist painters we’ve been reading about before now. I have to agree with him on this, and it may be what aggravates me so much about the abstract artist of the 50’s.

Artists like Pollock and Reinhardt were very picky about what they thought made a good piece of art. In both of the articles we read about them they both spoke of how too much material made a piece of work lose its meaning. (“Less is more”) While I finally grasped the concept behind Reinhardt’s work and do admire it, I have to agree with Rauschenberg that “there are no poor subjects”. It’s what you do with the subject that makes it good, or bad, work.

The other line in the opening paragraph “Painting relates to both art and life. Nether can be made.” is inspiring, though I don’t feel like I quite grasp Rauschenberg’s personal meaning behind it. It makes sense to me though, in a way I can’t quite describe in words. Art and life, to me, coincide. Art is life and vice versa. You can throw in different pieces, “composition, color, subject, etc.” and what comes out in the end is the final work. I don’t know that this is what Rauschenberg meant, but that’s what I take from it.

As for the rest of the article on Rauschenberg, I had no idea what he was going on about. Most of these articles leave me feeling dumb because they are so lengthy, or wordy, but this one was just a bit confusing. There were so many random words thrown into his sentences that I kept getting thrown off. Hopefully after discussion, I will be able to understand exactly what he was trying to say.

The article, “On the Conditions of Anti-Capitalist Art:  Radical Cultural Practices and the Capitalist Art System”, is a challenging reading.  I do not have a full understanding of the whole article; however, I have an understanding of Capitalism. I am not against it, but I am definitely not in favor of influencing Art.  I see art as a form of expression or communication, and I agree with the assertion that if one’s art becomes a product it loses its individuality in some ways. An artist modifying a message in his art to make it more marketable has censored his art; however, this is not to say that censored art is not valuable. There are other valuable aspects to art other than a message. On the other hand, I believe that there is nothing wrong with an artist attempting to make a profit from their work. Call me an idealist if you will, but I believe an artist must always have his freedom of expression.

Reading this article helped me realize that Activist Art and its artists have never received the credit and respect they deserve because artists have always been on the front lines of progress and change.  I realized that in my mind I have always expected artists and teachers to be activists. I thought this was a Chicano thing. Well, reading this article makes me see that this is universal.  I feel that every young artist should read this article because it can help them understand and decide their path. This society is changing, and I know that once again young artists are going to lead the revolution.

Xochitl Dorantes

Picking up pieces of a discarded culture to make art to remember it is a very interesting and thought provoking process, Tony Cragg’s works are a beautiful way to look at disposable and fad culture and times.  What could have been? What should have been? What we missed. What we lost. The book was very accurate to refer to him as an anthropologist in the way that he worked his thoughts into form.

Still Laconic I know, my apologies

This would have been a very interesting article had the author stayed on point and discussed “Feminist Aesthetics” or at the very least Females in the art world, instead we have a whole history lesson on greek and roman thinkers and philosophers, and the birth of the word Aesthetics and art, which only marginally connects to the overall subject of “Feminist Aesthetics” with the next few chapters gradually touching on female artists in history the author still manages to run off on tangents only so slightly connected to what the reader is supposed to be reading about, or what they hoped they would be reading about.

Overall, this was an informative and interesting article. There were a couple of times I felt that the author got off topic, or went on and on, about some of the ideas.

I found the debate between art and craft one of particular interest. I think that it still a debate today, as often times we don’t consider “crafts” art even though they are. Women were made to do more craft like, laboreous work around their home in the early 1900s and earlier. Women did not have the leisurely pleasure of spending their days painting, or making other types of artwork, like men did.  Men were commissioned by upper class families to make fine art, while the women were to take care of the family, run errands, clean, etc. The things (crafts) that women did make during this time were usually things that could be used, or had some sort of purpose. This was what they were expected to do. Yet, these things were not considered “art”. Fine art was what was made by men, for aesthetic purposes. Whether or not a woman had input ideas for a piece of work would not be known, because it was always men who got the recognition for their work.

Another point I found of interest was the idea that when looking at a piece of work, you take a masculine view point (to put it roughly). I think this is extremely true of fine art because a lot of the work made during the time was of nude women. These women were painted, and sold for high value. There was never any recognition for the “object” (this is exactly what she was), and these were made for men to enjoy. I think this also plays in with Plato’s idea of memesis. He said that a real object becomes less real (3x) when painted. I think this is also true of the women that were used as objects in fine art. Their bodies were sold in these paintings, but there was never anything else behind that. They became less of a real person, and more of an object.

The idea of only men being “geniuses” was a little infuriating, to say the least. If “most theorists” honestly believed that only men possess the physical ability to be a genius, then that is quite discouraging. How are women to better themselves, or believe they can succeed, when constantly put down by a general population? It is a fact, that the majority of historical, famous figures are male. However, I don’t think that many of these theorist have taken the time to step back, and wonder about the women these men were around. Historically, many male figures can attribute some of their ideas and success to their female counterparts. So, to say that only men possess the ability to be a genius is both egotistical, and disheartening. (And that is probably the point.)

To summarize, I think this article was overall very informative. The author didn’t seem to take a biased stand point in writing this. I think that feminism is something that definitely still needs to exist. It is both infuriating and discouraging that men are praised for sensitivity and emotion, while women are scrutinized for masculinity. Until their is a fine equality in the sexes (there definitely isn’t at this point, and anyone who disagrees is blind to inequality) feminism will continue to strive and question societies norms.

Ad Reinhardt’s ideas of art are a little difficult for me to understand. When I first read this section of our text, I didn’t get it. I don’t see “evil” in art, at least not in the form of art itself. I see “evil” in artwork, but wouldn’t it come from the creator, not the physical material? Error is naturally occuring in art, but I don’t understand what Reinhardt means by “evil”. I’ve read this article again, and again, and it puts me at a wall every time. Maybe I’m just not getting it.

This whole section just seems a little ridiculous to me. I can’t tell if it’s a mockery, or sincere. The ideas come off as frustratingly egotistical. The second paragraph jokingly mocks art movements, calling them the “humiliation and trivialization of art in America”. It also slanders the idea of institutionalized art. Reinhardt gives off this vibe that only certain people are “real” artist; that those who work hard to make a statement, to get their art noticed, or to even improve their abbilities, are ruining art.

He talks about true and false art (assuming by false he means the “academic” art).  He says that art can only be “exclusive, negative, absolute and timeless” and never “practical, useful, related, etc”. Is this guy serious? Why can art not come from something beyond ourselves, emotion, thought? This idea of art being only art, and having nothing behind it is a fine idea, but to think it is the only way, the “real art”, is extremely closed-minded.

Reinhardt goes on to say that “An artist who dedicates his life to art, burdens his art with his life, and his life with his art”, and that “Art is art, and life is life”. This is an idea that I can see but also don’t agree with competely. I can understand that making art your “life” can be very frustrating. By doing this, you’re almost forcing yourself to make art even when the ideas are not free-flowing. In my opinion, this would be the “false art” Reinhardt’s talking about. (Art that is made to be presented, with no emotion or drive behind it.) However, I don’t think that art is just art, and that life is just life. They are one and the same to me, but as I’ve realized I am someone who puts ideas and emotions into art.

Reinhardt’s ideas seem a lot like Pollock’s in the previous interview we read. Reinhardt talks about forgetting our learned lessons. “Traditions shows artist what not to do.” This seems to me like a lot of what Pollock was saying, about how we cannot use previous styles to accomodate current circumstances. Like before, I still think that tradition should not be forgotten. It should be learned from, and there is nothing wrong with being inspired by, or recreating a style. If art is to be truly free, all these rules and criticisms make it less so.

Another frustration was with Reinhardt’s idea of “more is less”. I don’t think that just because a person thinks upon, or changes/fixes, etc. a piece of art, that it becomes less. He says that the less skill a person uses, the more of an artist he is. I don’t think it matters what kind of utensils, media, or ideas you’re using. What it comes down to when the piece is finished is the drive behind it, the texture, the style. He denies all of these things.

I could on and on about this section of the reading. I probably should have left it simply at that I just don’t understand Reinhardt. His ideas are hard to be open minded to, but also hard to respond to because I’m not really sure of the kind of person he is, or what his drive was behind these ideas. Honestly, I think that he thinks too much on what is, and what isn’t, art. He talks about being a pure, and free, artist, yet he sets all these limitations and barriers up for himself. (And I honestly find his work a little boring.) He claims that art influenced by society is not real art, yet it seems he is completely influenced by society himself.

” Evil and errors in art are art’s own ‘uses’ and ‘actions’. The sins and sufferings of art are always its own improper involvements and mixtures, its own mindless realisms and expressionisms.”   I really liked this phrasing of the darker side of an art’s life, and I really enjoyed reading him wax philosophical but at times he seemed like he just throwing words together (housebroken samurai?????).

I agree with Pollock that the modern art of now seems to better come from within than a source and that there is no such thing as an accident in art( so i would also be agreeing with Freud but he’s been discredited so to hell with him) and I also strongly believe in Wright’s statement that the critiques and laymans will have to adapt and change towards the art industry as well.