Category: Art Theory

Elisabetta was an Italian Baroque artist who not only championed both female painters and female subjects.  She died mysteriously at a young age, but not before she opened a painting school where she taught other women including her sister.  Most of her themes foreground female fortitude.  The painting below by Elisabetta is something that I think embodies Female Power.  This painting is the representation of the tale of one of Alexander the Greats captains and what happened to him after he raped titular Timoclea.  The story goes after Timoclea is assaulted the one who assaulted her asks her where the money is hidden, she leads him to the garden well; as he looks in, she pushes him into the well and drops stones on his head until he is dead.  This painting turns this story around by making the rapist helpless, with his feet kicking in the air as Timoclea stands strong above him.  Most paintings of this scene are shown with Timoclea accepting Alexander’s judgment of mercy; this painting does not it shows us Timoclea’s justice and her in acting that justice. 

Elisabetta’s death made her a martyr to her town of Bologna; she had become a symbol of progressiveness in Bologna and a place where women were encouraged to grow creatively and express themselves through art and music.  This fact makes it so sad that she is not as well-known now as men of that time.

Can you make art outside your experiences?

I think you can make art outside your experiences. The painting above is about Timoclea and her attacker, Elisabetta was not there, yet she still painted it. I believe if one feels strongly about something and see wishes to address it than yes you can. Now there are touchy subject matters that gets everyone fired up about them and we tend to put them in their own little groups segregating them from everything else. But if you are making art to bring awareness to an issue you have not experienced yet you feel strongly about the issue and want to do something about it then, go for it.

Do we excuse the sexism/segregation of the past because it was ingrained in the prevailing culture?

This question is a tough one in that it has many ways in which to be answered. Answering the base idea of the question, no if something is wrong than do not except it even if it is the status quo. I believe that once you know the difference between what is right and wrong it is on each individual person to make the right choice and that is on them at that point not what is accepted or how they were raised. I think maybe a better question would be do we continue to look back and condemn them rather than trying to fix here and now? I wish to make now better for I can not change the past and the future has yet to be written but if I can I will have a say in how our future turns out.

Do we still need labels?

I am someone who has issues with labels, I do not want to be defined by my sex. If an individual wishes to be defined than that is on them, but we should not do that to everyone just because they are say female or male. If we do this we are creating and encouraging more segregation.

Where does feminism go now?

I believe that depends on each individual artist, it is up to every artist to decide what type of art they wish to make.

Racism has been around for centuries, and sadly, it hasn’t gone away. This means that historical events that were rooted in racism, oppression, and hate will be talked about and that they’ll have monuments made about them. It’d be easy to just say “let’s destroy all the racist monuments” but it isn’t that simple. For one, this would cause an insane amount of outrage and just cause more violence and racism and secondly, what would this accomplish? This would just shield younger generations from knowing what happened in history. The events were terrible, but you can’t just turn a blind eye and pretend like it never happened. I think a good solution for this issue would be to add more information and context from different viewpoints so people could become more educated on the events that took place.

Now, the more controversial part. Who can make what art. This question is tricky because I know a lot of people will probably disagree with my opinion, and I might even change my opinion after hearing other arguments.

For me, art is about expression, freedom, creativity, and escaping. It should be where oppressed people come to make whatever they want and where everyone is viewed equally. By saying “only you can make this” and “well, you can’t make that type of art”, aren’t you just adding to the problem of segregation and oppression? I do think that making art from things you’ve experienced can make it more credible, but you can also make art about things you empathize with.  

This might piss off some people, but if a white person wants to make a painting about racism and how they empathize with those experiencing it, why can’t they? If someone who has never experienced addiction does the research on what it does to someone, and they want to make art about that… why shouldn’t they be able to? They aren’t meaning any harm by it and they are bringing those issues to light.

Racism seems to be a word that is constantly popping up in America. This is because we cant logically think as a people and put “differences” aside. This issue seems to show up allot more in the southern regions of the country. This has a large part to do with the civil war, ignorance, and just pure hate. Another reason racism is on the rise is because our current leader, who claims he isn’t a racist but is indeed a racist.

Because of this racism we have uneducated battles to keep confederate civil war monuments. I believe these monuments should not be removed but be made examples of. These monuments should not be glorified but be a reminder and a lesson of the horrors that took place. I also believe that we should build monuments for the brave men and women who ran the underground railroad in the same parks; because those are the people who should truly be celebrated.

There also however is another side to this racism. This idea is that white privileged people who have never experienced oppression can try to express it through art. I think this is arrogant and proves that we still have a race problem. I think this because people are simply trying to gain fame through a popular subject matter that means nothing to there heritage. It almost feels irresponsible to try and relate to something you as an individual has never expirenced.

In conclusion, I find myself agreeing there should be awareness raised of these problems, but by the discretion of the people ACTUALLY experiencing it. I also feel that the only way we will end this racism won’t be by trying to race wash things but celebrate and accept each other’s cultural differences. We should not need a month to appreciate/teach the history of a race. Instead of focusing on a month why don’t we make ALL history of ALL people taught ALL year round. If we accomplish these small issues then maybe eventually we can end most of the problems we have today.

Defined by Merriam Webster

the human race

 noun

Definition of the human race

: all people : human beings as a group

Princeton’s WordNet

1. world, human race, humanity, humankind, human beings, humans, mankind, man(noun)

all of the living human inhabitants of the earth

A human race is defined as a group of people with certain common inherited features that distinguish them from other groups of people. All men of whatever race are currently classified by the anthropologist or biologist as belonging to the one species, Homo sapiens. This is another way of saying that the differences between human races are not great, even though they may appear so, i.e. black vs white skin. All races of mankind in the world can interbreed because they have so much in common. All races share 99.99+% of the same genetic materials which means that division of race is largely subjective and that the original 3-5 races were also probably just subjective descriptions as well.

What am I trying to get at here is we need to STOP Segregating ourselves from one another.  We are always crying outrage about one group or another; stop and figure out we are all a part of the “HUMAN RACE”.   Why must we segregate one another?  Why do we feel the need to make one person feel bad or put them down?  Why must we continue to judge a whole group of individuals and not the individual themselves?  Why is it that we say your bad because you’re white?  Why is it we say individuals of color are better at sports?  Why is it we say you had it better than anyone else because of the color of your skin?  Why is it we say men are better at this than women are?  Why do we say that Hispanic workers are harder workers?  Why not just that individual is better at this or that?  Why not the individual instead of a whole group?  Can we not address the problem itself without causing more segregation?  When we use segregation to fight segregation, segregation is enforced by the act of trying to fight it, and until we stop this merry-go-round and get off the same old ride, we will change nothing.  For have no doubt we all need to change our mindsets on the subjective description of what race is.  We are all the same race, yes there are different cultures, yes there are different beliefs that each individual holds true to themselves, but we are all the same race.  Let there be no misunderstanding here I “HATE” when someone says otherwise, we all need to stand for one another and stop judging all for the actions of some.   

Now I guess to the topic at hand that is so burning in the hearts and minds for this discussion, war monuments and art.  War monuments are a part of our past and should be viewed as such.  If we as the human race forget the past, we are doomed to repeat it.  I for one never want to repeat what has happened in our past, be it American past or not.  Through out history there has been one group or another oppressing one group or another group; it is an evil cycle of mass bullying!  I do not know the answer to what to should be done with these monuments.  I do not view them as anything to fear for I know part of the past that they represent is wrong, I think to myself that is a beautiful work of art, and I will never view the world as they did.  They strengthen my resolved to be a better individual, to not judge others by their differences, to look beyond one’s ideas of self and realize that we are all the same.  I would have to say that the feelings of all should be taken into account and that a solution that is acceptable to the whole is what should happen.  Be that solution maybe they are moved into the museum, not erased from our history and may be replaced with an art piece that represents that era but does not inflame.  My heart breaks for the way we as the human race have treated one another and continue to do today.  No, I was never a slave, no I can not tell you how that feels, but neither can most individuals today.  One can be outraged over injustices done to one’s ancestors, but one can not say I have been a slave unless you were.  I know that there is an argument coming or an outrage felt by some at what I just said, but at its core those words are true.  What we really need to talk about is oppression.  Oppression of any individual or group of individuals is wrong, and it happens so much today across the globe it is frightening.  Oppression of ideas, oppression of where you come from or grew up, oppression of one’s gender, skin color, sexual orientation, body type, and anything that makes one different (on both sides).  We can rejoice in what makes us different and not put down or demean others that are not the same. 

Now on to the part of this discussion that upsets me the most about all of this, why must we bring segregation into art?  Art should be about bringing individuals together, to make them stop and think that is amazing; I never saw it that way.  Art should bring individuals together if not but just for a moment in time; it all has to start somewhere and why not with art?  When we say, you can not express art in that style because you are not ….. (whatever the reason is), art is moved from expression into a realm of segregation.  Thus, once again we are creating segregation where we say we do not wish it, this infuriating cycle continues.  Yes, I agree that to feel the pain or suffering of some event can lend to a better understanding but that does not mean others can not understand and want to express their own support or outrage.  We always look at the picture before us when talking about the word “racism,” but few clearly see to the core of what it is, segregation.  Segregation is what we should be speaking of for segregation happens across all groups.

I talked not long ago to someone about my upcoming capstone and one of the ideas I wished to pursue.  After explaining what I wanted to do I was told that it might be touchy because I had to ensure I was not taking advantage of that group of individuals and was wanting to bring awareness not just make it something for myself, I agree with this.  The part that struck me was when I explained that I had been there, that I had lived that life, it was all good then.  I began to think why was it all good?  Why was it more ok then than before?  Why would it be ok for me to make this art now and maybe not so much before, could I not understand before?  Would it be ok for me now to take advantage of this group because at some point in my life I was there?  How is that ok, is it ok?  I do not think so, and I do not think that the individual I was talking to meant it that way.  It is wrong for anyone to take advantage of anyone else.  But I must ask a few more questions; why is it ok for us to accept some forms of segregation and not attack just a passionately all forms of segregation and bullying?  Why do we pick and chose which we want to fight, for if one is truly passionate about eradication this tyranny one should fight all fronts for if we allow just a sliver to survive it will never end.   I love the quote, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”  I have to wonder I am I doing nothing if I stand back and say, I never experienced that so I do not know.

History is often ugly, but it’s important that we don’t forget our past no matter how easy it would be to look away. Art gives the artist an opportunity to remind us of where we’ve been and inspire us to be better in the future. However, when artists choose to idolize and glorify individuals and groups responsible for committing crimes against humanity they fail their communities. Many German towns have memorials with the names of their fallen citizens from the World Wars to remember the price their community paid without trying to portray the Nazi party in a positive light. If these Confederate memorials are truly about heritage and remembering our history, the could similarly be replaced with Civil War and Abolition memorials without public outrage.

The piece in the Whitney Museum is definitely deserving of the controversial conversation it commands. On one hand it’s an important message and statement of the pain and suffering felt by the family and community, but that statement loses some impact coming from someone who doesn’t belong to that community. However, would a piece from a member of that community and about the same subject matter have been allowed past the Ivory Gates of historically exclusionary museum curatorship? Museums and galleries have a long history of excluding oppressed communities.

We as artists can absolutely use our voice to make art for and about an oppressed community. However, we must use our voice to speak about our experiences in relation to those groups and be careful not to speak for them or speak over them. If we are taking opportunities away from artists within oppressed communities then we have the responsibility to step back and call attention to those artists instead.

As a country, our history is deeply rooted in racism. This provides us with art, such as monuments, that celebrate those in history that played a huge role in that racism. The Confederacy is not a part of southern heritage, though I do believe it is a huge part of our history and should be treated as such: just history. History repeats itself all the time. The evil within our country never seems to change, it just gets better at masking itself (i.e. calling it “heritage” instead of “history”). I would like to say that we should remove these monuments completely, but that would keep from us learning about where we came from and how we need to improve. I would also like to say that we should move them to a “Learn From This” museum, but showing the evil might entice more evil. I do not have a clear and concise solution for this issue. I think each side has a downside, but I definitely do believe that something should be done and we should still be able to learn the full truth about our history.

As for making art as an outsider, I am both an “insider” and “outsider”. As a mix of white and Latina, I find this to be a tricky subject. I could write about what it is like to be both, but I am not sure I can write about being one or the other. I grew up heavily immersed in my Hispanic culture, so maybe I have a little more understanding of that side of myself.

I do know that I do not think it is right to create art when you have not experienced what marginalized groups have. It feels as if you are profiting off of the pain they have faced for years. Even if you were to hear about the pain, you will never truly understand all of it. Instead, I would suggest supporting the artists that know what they are talking about. Raise their voices up and take a seat while they speak. It shows you are with them. It is an insanely respectful approach.

The topic around confederate war statues is highly debated. There so many articles supporting removal, opposing removal, moving them to museums, or adding plagues historical context. I think my view is mixed among many of the views. Some questions that I thought about while reading include: do we protect the work for the sake of history, do we have a responsibility to the artist to protect their work, and do we have responsibility to community? “For the sake of history,” and “,to learn from the past,” are the most used reasons for why to keep the monuments. For taking them down, the argument is that they are offensive and do not represent us today. In some regards, I do think the monuments are important and destroying them seems extreme in most cases because they are representations of history and destroying them is an act of iconoclasm that seemingly wants to erase the evidence that we as humans have committed horrendous acts to other humans throughout history. Now this is not to be mistaken for supporting what they were originally made to represent. I think what many of the ideas they represent are from the past and are not acceptable today, so what can we remember the past through these things without supporting the old meanings behind them? I found being accompanied by a plaque that gives context is the least that could be done. It preserves the statues that show views from history, art styles like American neoclassicism, and stand as reminders of events and people even if they are from views that are not right. The plaques should explain the time they are from like why it is the way it is, and how they do not represent today’s views but rather our progress from them. I still see a problem with this as I is not condemning the actions and allows the artworks to still show this view. Sometimes a plaque is not enough.

The other side that tugs at me for just removing the statues is depicted in this quote by Kyung Moon Hwan, “Removing outdated and inappropriate public memorials, in other words, is just as historically valid as keeping them in place. If they cannot be transferred to museums, then destruction seems unavoidable.” He also says, “Like many other nationalities in the modern world, South Koreans have become familiar with the sensitivities of such a problem. But they have mostly recognized that monuments, like laws and governments, are living things, originating in the past but continually refreshed with meaning as times and values change and knowledge is gained.”

I think my view is generally that I think it is important to remember the past, but we should also represent our thoughts and views today. I think I favor putting the statues in museums with context and then creating new memorials of which societies may move themselves later when views change again. In this way, we are leaving our views as the past left its views. I think the history in the view of a time period is important to understand (even though they give only bias side) the past so I don’t support destroying every statue we don’t agree with. My view is very mixed in all honesty, but it is not a simple topic.

I would like to propose a few other options that we can be debate that do not destroy the statues just for the sake of debating. Disclaimer: I do not know what I fully agree with personally.

One: We could leave the statues, add the plaques for context. Maybe state what we, as people, learn from the past so we never repeat the mistakes. The next part of this is to add a partnering statues that reveal the other side of the various historical monuments. So we have this View of the past from the past. And then a legitimate memorial that is not representing those biased views. In this instance both are in public spaces so they confront people.

Two: We could move the statues to museums, add context. The next part of this is to add a partnering statues to be with them in the museum that reveals the other side of the various historical monuments. So we have this View of the past from the past. And then a legitimate memorial to victims/ and views of today/ what we think is a truthful representation on an event. In this instance both are in museums in spaces together.

Three: We move the historical monuments into museums where they can be given proper historical context, and make new monuments in the public spaces that they were in. These new monument represent the past in a manner that is a reminder of the past events and we should continue to learn from it. They also do not glorify the bad aspects, but do call us out on the bad.

Alternate 3: We move the historical monuments into museums where they can be given proper historical context, and make new monuments in the public spaces that they were in. These new monument represent modern views. May have a plaque talking about past monument to show how we changed and should continue to learn from past. (I lean towards this option far more than others.)

Four: Leave a plague with context in the place of old statues to serve as public reminders of the past without glorifying individuals or views. Move old statues to museums and provide context.

Some potential problems I thought of: cost of new memorials, Where to put old statues? What would the new memorials be of? Who is permitted to make something about a time none of us were ever a part of? When the past’s view is taken away and we only see our interpretations of the past in public places, are we attempting to hide those horrible views? In the cases of statues honoring people that committed acts we would not approve of today, I think making another monument is somewhat problematic. I don’t know what one would make to either challenge that past view, show today’s progress, or show the truth of those people in order to acknowledge the bad. A possibility might be to make a different figure(s) that is better suited for representing progress for better so we have the past compared to progress.

(These are just ideas I’m sure they all have more problems and even I’m not sure if I really agree with them. They are here for us to debate really.)

I touched on the question of who can make these the monuments, but I did not offer my opinion yet. A good portion of me just wants us to move on from the whole concept of dividing ourselves as we seem to do by skin, sexuality, and/ or nationality. I would like to say that anyone can make any art. I think usually when done right we empathize enough to make art, write stories, and learn; however, I do think experiencing something makes the art more credible. It is difficult to make art on something we have not experienced. In the case of the past, there is a whole additional barrier, Time. I do not know if we can accurately make art about the past without having lived in it. (Maybe making monuments by representing today’s views is better for this reason.) In the case of various discrimination, I can only truly depict what experienced, and I usually believe it is good to try and empathize.

Whenever I think about technology in art, I usually think of inventions from recent times so it was crazy to learn that artists have been experimenting with different forms of technology since the 40’s. I find it so interesting how artists come up with different ways to use items around them to make a new technology.

Photography, virtual reality, apps, and video art are just a few of the ways new media is being brought into the art world. Technology is always changing so it only makes sense that artists would always be experimenting with it as well. I think this is a great way for artists to connect with people who wouldn’t go to a gallery or museum to see art. Pretty much everyone has access to technology nowadays, so if an artists utilizes that to get their message out there, it can be seen by those who wouldn’t otherwise see it. I also think it’s really neat how virtual reality is being used in therapy to diagnose and treat different anxiety disorders.

The art forms I read about in these readings were very intriguing to me. One piece that really stood out to me was the “Legible City”. What Jeffrey Shaw did by creating this interactive world seemed brilliant to me. Using this sort of technology as a platform for the viewer almost forced them to pay attention. Peddling the bike and moving the front wheel made the viewer aware of there surroundings while the visuals forced the viewer to read. This was an early step to A.R. technology and almost a prototype for it in my eyes.

Another piece that seemed very interesting was the “GFP Bunny”. The idea of genetically modified pieces of art is something I am not sure about. I don’t know what to think, does that cross a line? The piece itself seems really interesting and the ideas seem like something I would explore. However, I am not sure about performing acts on an animal seems very wrong to me.

It’s also interesting that although our technology is advanced that we still use some of these same ideas. Our technology is constantly changing even the computer I’m using to type this on is somehow updating as I type. Some of these ideas are more built on then replaced. A great example of this is “Legible City”. Although the technology seems dated the ideas are still used to this day. I also fear, however, that by using this technology more and more we are shying away from who we are as people.

Even though we have access to technology we should remember the things that got us that very thing. We advanced so quickly that now it seems we’ve gotten lazy and are content with the things around us rather than trying to improve them. We need to keep pushing as humanity rather than tear ourselves down by not combining the arts with technology. I feel that when we combine these two aspects completely the possibilities will be endless.

I find it interesting that a computerized drawing program was created in 1961 and not much later art was being computer generated.  Yet before in 1960 Jeffrey Shaw had begun introducing cybernetics into his works.  These ideas are the base of much of today’s technology based art which is being created

One could say that the merge of art and technology began with the printing press.  But I do not think that is what is really technology now, our understanding of the world of art is far beyond that of the artist of the past.  Today an artist can produce a work on a computer and print it out in 2D or 3D depending upon what type of printer they use, artist could create robotics to perform the painting, thus creating art while making art, the use of virtual reality for art is growing at a rapid pass, and just taking pictures and making memes on social media have become forms of art.  The one question of, “What is art?” has been near impossible to answer throughout the ages has not gotten any easier as more technologies have been applied to the art world. 

Photography is a passion of mine and I personally see it as art while others do not, this is the same for social media art of today what so many are conflicted with.  Technology has given rise to many new ideas and questions but one thing it may be rocking the ground on more than anything is the idea of museums and their roles in art.  With the internet out there as both a form of producing art, show casing, and selling art this technology may have finally loosened the grip galleries have on an artist.

Katina Green-Art History 2-2018