2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

This may sound pretentious to say, but it was nothing new to me to know that various cultural institutions and systems will deliberately try to deceive me, not just in order to make a few dollars, but also to control my way of thinking. I tend to think of myself as someone thoughtful enough and sensitive enough to know when I'm being manipulated by "mass culture." I am already disillusioned. I realize that some people are more easily swayed than others by what's "popular," by the fleeting tastes of the time, by useless materialistic sensibilities, but I'd like to think of myself as, if not immune to cultural manipulation, than at least aware of what manipulations are being leveled against me. Williams also talks about how capitalism doesn't need to manipulate people through external or "overt repression" anymore, but rather only needs to instill in us ideologies and mental patterns which will fool us into comforming and compromising our individuality. Happily, though, Foucalt suggests that "if power depends on us -- is located, in fact, in us -- then we can and must begin by discarding those mental habits which make us "complicitous" in our own subjection."

As I was reading Williams' essay, I found myself wondering if there was anything "useful" or "valuable" about consumer culture. It seems to do nothing right in the eyes of the critics Williams cites (excluding Walter Benjamin, who applauds such media as photography and film). I think that in many ways, we Americans are fortunate to be living in a culture in which we have so much that is accessible and open to us, so many choices at our fingertips. As Americans we have the freedom to pursue our own desires and needs. And if we are manipulated by money-minded institutional entities, perhaps it is our own fault. I also tend to think that a lot of cultural products (movies, for example), actually encourage our sense of individuality, self-esteem, and personal freedom.

While I agree with much of what Horkheimer and Adorno say, I think that I disagree with them that "Art...always was, and is, a force of protest of the human against the pressure of domineering insitutions, religious and otherwise." I hope I'm not reading these writers incorrectly, but I think that this statement gives too much credit to institutions for their ability to pressure and control us, and not enough credit to artists, who may very well be, not just unaffected by, but indifferent to, institutional pressures, and may simply try to make something beautiful for no other reason than to make something beautiful. And I think it's OK to do so -- to make art simply out of a respect for "beauty." I think that "serious artists," as Williams puts it, and "real works of art," may NOT "always be a form of political commentary, and implicit critique."

I found myself most intrigued by the discussion of Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialetic of Enlightenment. Their views of culture and capitalism seem pretty extreme and cynical, but are not so distant from some of the opinions I have about society even today. Adolescent females are adorned in makeup, given a list of songs to sing and are instantly deemed as pop stars. The media is part of a larger system of censorship, and advertising encourages groups of people to think that a product forms identity. In other words, this seeming reality is not real at all.

The corporate amusement park, though it may seem like an obvious example, is one I can personally relate to. I see so many families everyday that take their few vacation days to come to these large corporate parks void of personality. Everything in these spaces, from building facades to merchandise to every tree that is planted, is meticulously manufactured and planned out. Nature’s representation is “denatured�. People wander through a fake “southwest territory� and thoughtlessly spend money on “western� buffets and paintball shoot-outs. Meanwhile their spending is the park’s number one focus. The moment one walks “off stage� into the employees only areas of the park, the facades disappear, the colorful lights go out, the music stops, the bathrooms are dirty and the characters are out of their costumes.

This idea of false reality also attracted me to Baudrillard’s ideas about “hyperreality.� Williams states that the disappearance of the real has led to a “panic-stricken� attempt to compensate by “simulation.� The amusement park is a prime example of producing objects and experiences that attempt to be more real than reality. Another contemporary example that could relate to the ideas of “hyperreality� is reality television. Of course we all know there is nothing real about this form of entertainment, it is all carefully contrived. But there is something about this unscripted and raw glimpse into people’s lives that seems almost more real than reality. It is interesting how the writing states that “with hyperreality comes the end of meaningful politics� because in many reality TV situations there are a limited set of rules which are completely void of the outside world.

William’s description of Horkeimer and Adorno’s interpretation of the demise of individuality is very interesting to me. It is amazing that as our culture develops and our need to distinguish ourselves as individuals increases, the more inclined we (as a general mass) become to strive for “shining white teeth and freedom from body odor and emotions.� Of course, this is driven by the media, and of course, many of us believe that we are immune to its power. But are we? Especially as people living in an urban environment?

As Robin also mentioned, the idea of every aspect of our reality being turned “hyper-real� rings quite true. I am accustomed to thinking of it in the way that Rowan pointed out as being obvious- as “various cultural institutions and systems deliberately try(ing) to deceive.� I had never directly thought about it visually, though. This idea of everything becoming a hyper-real version of itself through a cartoon-like symbol of itself is fascinating. Even emotions and language are made into trademarked versions of themselves in movies, song lyrics, and advertisements. Willams points out that “even when nature is represented, it is ‘denatured...’� When I go to nature to escape reality, am I actually escaping into reality? Perhaps I’ve already forgotten what reality is...

Robin, I enjoy your comparison of the amusement park to this hyper-reality. I wonder, though, doesn’t it extend into our everyday reality? Do we have to go to a corporate amusement park to wander through the “southwest territory� and spend our money on plastic cowboy hats? Or aren’t we bombarded by that in the grocery store, Target, and wherever else we have to go in urban and suburban environments to buy what we need and don’t need? I heard recently another version of Andy Warhol’s 15 Minutes of Fame that relates to the world of reality TV. Instead of being famous for 15 minutes, everyone will be obscure for 15 minutes. At least we won’t have body odor.

First of all, I want to briefly respond to one of Ethan’s comments. In recounting the benefits of consumer culture, he says, “…we Americans are fortunate to be living in a culture in which we have so much that is accessible and open to us, so many choices at our fingertips. As Americans we have the freedom to pursue our own desires and needs.� Indeed, for those in America with sufficient economic privelege, nearly any desire or need can be satisfied for a price. What makes this marketplace wonderland possible? The answer: vast economic inequalities on both a domestic and global scale – from cheap wage labor to treaties like NAFTA that disproportionately benefit the US. Ironically, although many postmodern theorists are quick to point out the alienating aspects of consumer culture, they, like Ethan, gloss over the political and economic injustices that make such luxurious plenty possible for a small percentage of the world’s population. I have more thoughts on this subject, but I’ll save it for our discussion of Baudrillard’s After the Orgy. (By the way: I’m not trying to be an asshole, Ethan! Just musing…)

I really appreciated Williams’ overview of so many different thinkers in such a short piece. From this bird’s-eye-view-of-philosophy, it seemed that the transition to postmodernism was informed by a theoretical worldview that was increasingly focused on psychology instead of politics. Thinkers like Althusser, Saussure, and Foucault were writing with great insight and specificity about the psychological landscapes navigated by individuals – from ideological constructs to the very building blocks of language we use to understand our world. However, it seems that they were increasingly reluctant to address the large-scale power structures that regulate social landscapes. I suppose this distrust of a more simplistic Marxist critique is understandable, given the disturbing distortions of socialism that were at play in both the Soviet Union and China during the latter half of the 20th century.

The fragmented texts of postmodern thought have inspired an equally fragmented array of artmaking practices. After reading the Williams article, the Barthes piece, and the Duchamp essay, I was struck by a paradox of sorts. Both Duchamp and Barthes –influential on postmodern thought – seem to advocate an intellectual climate in which art or writing is judged on its own merits as a thing itself, open to interpretation by the viewer and free from considerations of the artist or author’s intentions. Certainly there is postmodern work that seems to accept this condition. (Jenny Holzer’s work is a perfect example.) However, there is another strain of postmodern work that seems to present itself as an opaque puzzle – a formally unremarkable object whose existence is justified by high concept. If one is willing to put forth the effort to solve the puzzle, read the statement, research the context… sure enough: all clues lead back to the artist’s brilliant intentions or perhaps a self-referential art-world in-joke. Louise Lawler’s photographs of art objects exemplify this form of insider critique…

Robert Williams writings on postmodernist art theory seamlessly continues our discussions from last weeks class. I found this essay to be extremely interesting. It explained all of the issues i've been concerned with as of late and expounded on them in far greater detail. In the context of the art world it makes sense that the focus of art making shifted the way it did. Once many of the Modernist endeavors reached a stale mate artists began to make work that was inspired by concerns that lie outside of the art world. The switch from modernist thought to postmodernist thought is marked by the "rejection of Greenbergian formalism", which is primarily concerned with the progress of abstraction itself, to modes of art that focus outwardly on political, societal and cultural issues.

I was struck by how complete the grasp of "Culture Industry" is. It is woven into every facet of modern life. Advertising, entertainment, and the media seamlessly work together to make a cultural barrier that is nearly impermeable. All of these forms of information dissemination "create a sense of community around the values of consumerism" while "instilling an ethic of productivity and submissive conformity". We are led to believe that we have a myriad of choices but in many cases we are offered watered down versions of various expressions that are targeted at all of the different facets of the market. Every demographic is accounted for. Postmodernism attempts to pull back the vail of capitalism's consumer culture. Some of the ways in which postmodern artists do this is to embrace the various forms of commercial culture. Photography and video, as well as any other forms that can be easily reproduced and distributed. Some other defining characteristics are utilizing "subversive appropriation and transformation of pre-existent objects or disruption of events". Pop Art is seen to be central in these ideas. In particular Andy Warhol played a central role in embracing and defining postmodern ideals. Ironically, Warhol didn't have a problem with the "Culture Industry", in fact he embraced it.

In defense of Williams ideas about how subtle the manipulation by the culture industry can be. I will use my own first hand knowledge of the subject from my old job. We were designing the package for Yogurt Burst Cheerios. One would assume that it is Cheerios with a Yogurt coating. In reality it has no yogurt in it, it is coated with a transfat slurry that looks and sort of tastes like yogurt. This is why we were forced to name it "Yogurt Burst" Cheerios instead of Yogurt Cheerios. The two words could not legally be linked. On top of this the supporting copy says "Yogurt Burst Cheerios combines the whole grain goodness of Cheerios cereal with the lightly sweet taste of yogurt to create a truly memorable breakfast sensation." By using the phrase "taste of yogurt" they are deceiving the consumer. They are legally okay because saying it tastes like yogurt is technically true. To be fair they did reformulate it recently to get rid of the transfats, but there still isn't any yogurt in it. Lastly, in terms of graphics we couldn't use any images that looked too close to real yogurt, but we were told to use graphics that eluded to the textural quality of yogurt. We were forced to ride the fine line between truth and deception. They really don't care about the well being of their customers, they care about the bottom line which is, putting real yogurt in it will drive up the cost of production and decrease their profit margins. This is just the food we eat imagine how the news is distorted to serve the interest of it's parent companies.

William’s chapter on postmodernism has left me feeling very cynical concerning today’s media, politics, consumer culture… on and on, but I held many of these feelings to begin with. I too would like to claim that I too am smart enough to be self aware, as well as aware of the influence of the culture industry that I am subjected to, but are any of you willing to buy that?, I don’t. It is a shame that the rise of individuality, the freedom of the many “have-nots� from the power of the “haves�, has been embraced and subverted until what was once taken is now freely given, because we have been convinced that is what we want, what we need, what we got to have to be connected, to be hip, to be cool. We work longer and harder to buy the things that make our lives better and distract us through entertainment, which put us further in debt, making us work longer and harder to buy the things to…

Ours is a culture of convenience, and I like Ethan, feel fortunate to live on this convenient island known as the US of A, but like Jonathan am aware that all of this comes at a price. The blood of oil, coffee, and the “American� way of life is on all of our hands, whether we acknowledge it, or not.

To me the world is as fucked up as it has always been. We are just more connected now than before, so the scale seems grander. Everyone’s actions are influenced by their self interests, and it is human nature to want more, or at least a better life for ourselves and our children. This is true of the powerless and the powerful, in all times. The problem is greed, self interest run amok. Today’s popular culture industry maybe rooted in the desire of individuals, but isn’t our creativity too. Are we not artists in part or wholly to escape the trappings of our culture industry? Are not our creative goals of becoming more educated artists rooted in the search of our voice, our art and our individual selves? From George Washington to Lil Wayne, America has always loved its rebels, no matter what –ism they are or were labeled under, or subscribed to. And haven’t these American rebels become products of the culture industry too?

“Old Mc-Ism had some -isms, E! I! E! I! O! …and from one -ism came a post-ism, E! I! E! I! O! then a hyper-ism here and a neo-ism there, here an –ism, there an –ism, everywhere an –ism -ism…�

This time line of postmodern influences covers the changes in theory and marks the different approaches that people have taken on what is postmodernism and how we can grow out of the modernist thought. I see the concept that postmodernism is really the same approach or spirit as modernism but a growth of those ideas, therefore it is Post-modern. There may not be that much of a change since the breaking of the original mold but history moves slow. Looking through time, it is easier to see the individual changes and explorations into what art is and what art does for and to people.

The Frankfurt School seems to be more in line with the old school approach to art as change and art as social critic dealing in politics. Warhol’s indifference to this is a good example of what happens when things get shoved down your throught that you don’t like, thus giving way to Barbara Kruger and the openness to confront society. This Popular culture and it’s massiveness is always something to criticize because it never goes away, progress is always happening. Technology is the newest takeover of society, this may be a time for post-post-modernism. I do see technology as a new mold we will be breaking (or is being broken as we speak).

One idea I really liked was “Concepts as linguistic objects� someone had to make sure conceptual art has a basis, and not just lofty ideas filling our minds. There is something to abstract thinking and opening perceptions, this “object� idea does make me “feel� better about spending my time thinking without pressure to make. I see myself as an object maker, I don’t really think there needs to be more objects in this material filled world, but that is what comes from me, the creative act, artist as mediumistic creator.

It was interesting to read about the roots of postmodernism, as it's never been clear to me just what postmodernism indicates, what 'postmodern art' means. Reading about the philosophical ideas that steered the movement has made it less obscure, but it's honestly still muddy to me. Part of the reason for this may be that the ideas are so ingrained in me, in our society now, that it's difficult to imagine life before the changes. I grew up with identity politics swirling all around, with everyone thinking and talking about racial, sexual, cultural and class identities. Assimilation seems like it has always been a bad word, with differences being celebrated (at least nominally). Studying these paradigm shifts does help brings into focus what is different, good and bad, about society and art now.

I look forward to reading more from the Frankfurt School. That corporations are designed to deceive us is obvious to most, but the Frankfurt School seems to take it much further, almost to a level of conspiracy theory. Williams says, paraphrasing their ideas, "Under contemporary monopoly capitalism... "culture" is not truly "popular" at all, but a carefully rationalized form of mass manipulation". They are certainly onto something, I think, when they discuss identity being assigned and desires being manufactured and placated by pop culture. But their dismissal of pop culture wholesale is limiting. It smacks of the 'elitism' that is so despised by some Americans. It seems that if enough people like it, or if it didn't come from trained academics, it must be rubbish pop culture. But it brings up the question, who are they to decide what is and isn't art? How do they really know when an artist is creating something new and exciting, versus a corporation attempting to fool them into thinking they enjoy it? I think it's hilarious that Adorno hated jazz, and it reminds me of my father deriding rap as not 'real music'. The line between rubbish pop culture and good art is much more nebulous-- I would consider some popular music and Hollywood films to be fantastic art.

Generalization is something I tend to question about in most of books and
writings (As you may have noticed from my previous writing). Description of
postmodernism in the writing of Robert Williams was the same case. Further
I thought about it, my question had grown to a doubt that confronted with
the whole idea of categorization of “-isms�.

The first question emerged as I tried to compare postmodernism with
modernism. What is “postmodernism� to begin with? In the opening
paragraph, Robert briefly explained that postmodernism is, “...a deeper
reorientation of thought about art... that continued into 1970s and
1980s�. And he said that the name “postmodernism� suggests a radical
break from modernism. So if postmodernism is NOT modernism, then there must
be a difference between the two. And I thought that this “break� Robert
mentioned would be what makes the difference between modernism and
postmodernism, which would then finally lead me to the definition of
postmodernism. So I followed the text as Robert proceeded to follow the
traces of modernism through key figures from 1960s to the end of 20th
century. Beginning with Marxism, Horkheimer and Adorno's “high� art,
Jean Baudrillard's “extinction of reality�, to the “emptiness� of
Andy Warhol, then to the world of literature from Claude Levi-Strauss and
Roland Barthes' “structuralism�, to Jacques Derrida's
“post-structuralism�, then Lyotard, Deleuze, to Jacques Lacan's
“feminism�, and to the “present� ideologies with more attention to
the technologies and globalization... Unfortunately, after a long journey
with Robert's guidance, I could not point out a distinct “break� from
modernism to postmodernism. I could sense a gradual transformation of
ideologies among those artists through time, but I found no clear moment of
the “break�. The only clear difference I can point out between
modernism and postmodernism, is the chronological context.
Speaking of time, it is interesting that the term “modernism� implies
that the arts were “modernized� nearly a century ago. I wonder if the
terminology has effect on our perspective on seeing those movements. I am
really curious to know how we would be calling the movements on next
centuries.