2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

I was having trouble reading the copy on e-reserve because the quality is not so great, but I managed to find a better pdf online here:
http://technical-english.wdfiles.com/local--files/text-10/VisualCulture.pdf

Thanks Areca, I changed it

Shohat and Stam argue that the Eurocentric framework by which some people have typically viewed both history and art history is an overly simplified, narrow, and biased one. European art is not the only legitimate reference for historical change in the arts, and it is inextricably connected to, informed by, and beholden to, non-European art. Even Europe itself is not a "pure" entity, and is in fact "a synthesis of many cultures, Western and non-Western." As Shohat and Stam say, "all the celebrated milestones of European progress -- Greece, Rome, Christianity, Renaissance, Enlightenment -- are moments of cultural mixing." Such aesthetic movements as the "archaic postmodern," the "carnivalesque," "modernist anthropophagy," and "the aesthetics of garbage," offer surrogate models for inspecting visual culture which help to dismantle limited, linear, Eurocentric narratives.

Shohat and Stam call for the same cultural awareness, acknowledgement, and listening, the same "polycentric" approach to analyzing artistic culture that Mosquera calls for, and they argue that innovation in art arises not within cultures but between cultures: "innovation arises...from multicultural knowledges."

Shohat and Stam's statement that "the dominant literature on modernism often...prolongs the colonial trope which projected colonized people as body rather than mind, much as the colonized world was seen as a source of raw material rather than of mental activity or manufacture" is reminiscent of Hooks' statement that "It is the young black male body that...was most "desired" for its labor in slavery, and it is this body that is most represented in contemporary popular culture as the body to be watched, imitated, desired, possessed." Shohat, Stam, and Hooks point out the tendency of colonizing cultures to view the actual physical body of "the Other" as the only useful or valuable part of "the Other," and the tendency of such cultures to viciously exploit and appropriate the body of "the Other" even while denying the achievements of "the Other" and the reality of the exploitation.

Shohat and Stam's essay also reminded me of Roland Barthes' Death of the Author in that Shohat and Stam speak of art as something which is not self-isolated, something which is inevitably constituted by many cultural origins and influences. Barthes speaks of writing in the same way: "the text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centers of culture...The writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original. His only power is to mix writings, to counter the ones with the other, in such a way as never to rest on any one of them." Perhaps no writing is truly "original," and perhaps no culture or cultural artifact is truly "original" -- and is "palimpsestic" in that it necessarily references all of its influences and the history of those influences...

It’s a cliché to rattle on about how the digital information age has made it possible to transmit ideas across the world instantly blah blah blah… but it’s true. Visual culture has always been a dialog between members of different social classes, cultures, and nationalities, especially during the 20th century. Now the realm of aesthetic ideas is thoroughly globalized, with artists and designers consistently drawing influence from far-flung contemporaries. Therefore, it is only logical that Stam and Shohat should call for “a polycentric, dialogical, and relational analysis of visual cultures in relation to one another.�

However, although I sympathize with their call for “mutual and reciprocal relativization,� I wonder whether this is a realistic or desirable request. They are absolutely right that Eurocentric art history applies its own biased teleological narrative to everything it observes, and this narrative needs to be challenged and corrected. However, when Shohat and Stam suggest that “diverse cultures should come to perceive the limitations of their own social and cultural perspectives,� I have to disagree. An omniscient meta-perspective is not possible, and when one thinks one has achieved it, one is under the spell of a dangerous illusion. In other words, when you perceive the limitations of your perspective, it is no longer your perspective.

The unfortunate truth is that the concentration of money and power in the Euro/American art worlds give a disproportionate amount of power to these perspectives. Indeed, the contemporary art world as we know it may owe an aesthetic debt to many cultures, but its economic and cultural structure is thoroughly European. In that sense, to participate in this world is to play a Eurocentric game, and for those of us who aren’t interested in playing by Eurocentric rules, it’s time to invent a new game. To me, it seems that Shohat and Stam ought to call for the presence of more diverse perspectives, more equality for these perspectives, and more clarity and disclosure about biases.

As a side note, this summer I was reading some of Bakhtin’s writings about the Rabelaisian carnival as a subversive ritual challenge to power – fascinating stuff. I was borrowing the book and I returned it before finishing, but now I’m reinvigorated to check it out of the library and finish. Also, Shohat and Stam have a section entitled “the aesthetics of garbage.� Yeah!

I had a hard time reading and disseminating this text before a more digestible one was posted but hear goes my response. I really enjoy the alternate views provided by Shohat and Stam into the art worlds and cinema beyond the West. I have always felt that Art History is as incomplete as human history, which is traditionally written by the victor. I remember taking the mandatory art history courses required by my undergraduate institution, being disgusted by looking at different versions of the Madonna and the Catholic saints over and over again, then the reformation, onto impressionism, modernism and postmodernism.

I always wanted to know what else happened. It’s a great big world, and all we were required to study was Europe? I am pleased that in graduate school we are now reading about other culture’s art and art that has originated outside of the traditional art world. By reading about the movements of “archaic postmodern�, “carnivalesque subversions�, “ modernistist anthropophagy�, and the “aesthetics of garbage�, Shohat and Stam have offered snapshots into other artistic and aesthetic movements. By doing so I don’t feel they have completely destroyed the linearity of the Eurocentric framework of art history but I believe it’s a good start. Perhaps there is no one linear way to teach a more complete art history and a new model should be explored.

Concerning both of this week’s writings, I was pleased that both have acknowledged the influences of these other cultures on the great historic art movements of Modernism and Postmodernism, all the way back to the Renaissance and further to the Greeks. It’s time we acknowledge the contributions of all. In my other response I forgot to mention a favorite amongst Mosquera’s quotes: “We live in “a great time of hybrids�, as a Mexican rock star sang,…�

In the initial paragraph of the essay, Shohat and Stam begin speaking about “visual culture.� Assuming we all understand a common definition, they go on to say that visual culture “as a field interrogates the ways both art history and visual culture have been narrativized so as to privilege certain locations and geographies of art over others...� Immediately, I questioned how the authors interpret the field of visual culture. If it is capable of interrogating art history, as well as itself, I wonder if it is not to be defined as the true avant-garde, or contemporary art work that has not yet been “discovered?� Is it Fort Thunder before the arrival on its doorstep of the Whitney Biennial, the institution that would turn their work into an idea with a label that fits into the impoverished, progressive framework that Shohat and Sham are critiquing? Later on, the authors declare that they have “called here for a polycentric, dialogical, and relational analysis of visual cultures existing in relation to one another.� Here, it seems that they are trying to create a framework in which new art can be created by any person in the world, and that this work will not be placed into categories preformed by a Eurocentrism that will inherently make these pieces seem either unworthy or mimetic. Instead, the work will be evaluated through a perspective that does not allow for any originating community to be epistemologically privileged.

It is questionable as to whether or not this polycentric view can ever truly be reached. As the authors point out, “the visual is always ‘contaminated’ by the work of other senses, touched by other texts and discourses... (etc.)� Consequently, we each carry with us a perspective that is unconscious, and also includes prejudices and limitations. While we operate from this starting point, I believe that it is nothing more than a place to begin. Shohat and Stam state that “diverse cultures should come to perceive the limitations of their own social and cultural perspectives,� and, unlike Jonathan, I agree. Like Jonathan, I believe that an omniscient meta-perspective is not possible, but I do not think that the authors are suggesting that anyone can, or should believe that they can, truly achieve such omniscience. Instead, the intended sentiment is that by experiencing other perspectives and therefore perceiving, and hopefully degrading, their limitations, we may be able to create a contemporary visual culture that is more reflective of its art.

It is interesting to think about these ideas in relation to Adorno’s “culture industry,� as well as to Mosquera’s thoughts on postmodernism as a result of globalization. Adorno expounds on the manner in which the media seizes the avant-garde and commercializes it, and Rinder and Collins speak of the high art machine tempting new artists into allowing their work to go mainstream(Fort Thunder, Banksy). While Adorno and Horkenheimer connect the negative aspect of contemporary culture with imperialism, Mosquera displays the progression of imperialism to colonialist dominance, to globalization, and finally to eurocentrism. Finally, Shohat and Stam critique the historical framework that art history and critique has created for itself, and how this has perpetuated the lack of true perspective and diversity within the contemporary art world.

Bart, its good to hear that others have also felt limited by art history. Until returning to school, I had labeled my undergraduate frustration as angst. Maybe it would help if Howard Zinn wrote an art history text book.

This week’s readings were a bit difficult for me to digest, although I could not quite pinpoint why. To break the article down, it helped to read, “The dominant literature on modernism often regards Europe as simply absorbing ‘primitive art’ and anonymous ‘folklore’ as raw materials to be reined and reshaped by European artists. This view prolongs the colonial trope which projected colonized people as body rather than mind, much as the colonized world was seen as a source of raw material rather than of mental activity or manufacture.� And, as Rowan has mentioned, this statement brought me right back to bell hooks and the idea of Europe eating the Other. In this case, European artists take in, then regurgitate the art and folklore of non-European cultures as an act to separate themselves from their own Eurocentrism and become one with cultures such as Africa, Latin America and Asia. Yet the authors also remind us that the idea of a “pure Europe� was rooted in the African, Asiatic and Islamic influences that so heavily influenced European progress and suggest that perhaps their greatest artistic achievements stemmed from those historical moments when its art was most hybridized.

It may be a little off the main focus of the article to get into a particular visual culture example, but I found both the carnivalesque and the aesthetics of garbage to be quite intriguing. The idea of “the strategic redemption of the low, the despised, the imperfect and the ‘trashy’ as part of a social overturning� is quite empowering. I know the idea of garbage in this article serves as “postmodern and postcolonial metaphor�, but I can’t help but think back to how my mother and my grandmother throw everything away. Any item or scrap that does not have a place gets immediately discarded without further thought. Various rooms in the house have decorative trashcans where one is not actually allowed to throw garbage. My mother and grandmother both bring bags of garbage with them in the car just to throw them into public trashcans so the trash won’t be in their home. I grew up with two women who always regarded trash as negative and useless, something to be disposed of immediately. Thus I find the authors’ statement, “…garbage is reflective of social prestige; wealth and status are correlated with the capacity of a person (or a society) to discard commodities, i.e. to generate garbage� so truthful. This makes me consider cultural perceptions of trash other than my own, but also the whole idea of transmogrification, or turning something ordinary into something fantastical or bizarre. I admire artists like Bart and Jonathan, who “transmogrify� others’ waste into works of art. I’m interested in considering the meanings of this notion within a different context or social group.

I enjoyed Jonathan’s response and understand why is it so difficult to avoid the whole internet resulting in globalization conversation. Yet, surely there are still many countries and cultures that don’t even have computers, thus no access to the internet. As Shohat and Stam suggest, … the Pennsylvanian Dutch, who eschew all modern technology, and the cybernetic technocrats of Silicon Valley, both live in ‘postmodern’ America…� Even without the internet, more efficient transportation and improved information communication can all contribute to globalized aesthetic ideals. Also, I would find it difficult to argue the fact that the monetary authority over art is rooted in Euro/American economies, consequently shifting the power. And as Mosquera acknowledges, “Eurocentrism is the only ethnocentrism universalized through actual world-wide domination by a meta-culture, and based on a traumatic transformation of the world through economic, social and political processes centered in one small part of it.� It seems somewhat hopeless to ever achieve the equal perspectives and clarity over biases that it would take for Eurocentrism to escape from the art world.

Shohat and Stam talk of the limited perspective of Eurocentric art history and critique. In offering up other examples of various art movements through out history from non European countries, it easy to see that we have tunnel vision when examining visual culture. It is refreshing to hear Shohat and Stam talk of the role of cultural influences on the various art historical and cultural milestones. Picasso drawing inspiration from African tribal art illustrates this phenomenon as well as some of the notions Hooks brought up in "Eating the other".

I am reminded of the "Arts of Japan" exhibit at the MIA. The collection contained three beautiful large scrolls that depicted various constructed landscapes. The flat linear quality contained graphic conventions that are used in contemporary art, design and illustration but they were done thousands of years earlier. There is a certain poetry and imagination that the Japanese culture developed extensively while we were busy trying to represent the natural world that is equally if not more complex. Similarly Inuit art from the pacific northwest has an extremely graphic quality that in some ways looks very contemporary.

In animal biology, genetic diversity strengthens the gene pool where as more isolated species experience a higher rate of disease and health problems. This notion applies to cultural phenomenon such as art, theatre and music. If we keep working in the isolated monocultural bubble of the Eurocentric art sphere we will most likely end up like the cultural equivalent a pug or some other over bred dog that has accumulated many unhealthy genetic predispositions. The authors state that "aesthetic innovation arises, not exclusively but importantly, from multicultural knowledges." In order for us to move beyond modernism and postmodernism we need to shift our monocentric view of the art world to a more all encompassing view. As Shohat and Stam stated, "A polycentric approach, in our view is a long overdue gesture toward historical equality and lucidity, a way of re-envisioning the global poitics of visual culture."

I absolutely agree with change of viewpoint that Shohat and Stam call for in the art world and the understanding of art history. Their polycentric view is a much messier view than the pre-modern/modern/post-modern lineage, difficult to digest and explain, but if it is more truthful and enlightening it ought to be framed in this polycentric way. Teaching art history is complicated by this change, but perhaps by acknowledging the influences of non-European arts while studying art framed specifically as European or Western, this history could begin to be more inclusive—and accurate. As the authors say, the current understanding “provides an impoverished framework even for European art, and it collapses completely if we take non-European art into account.�

The authors talk about the value of opening up the art world to non-European cultures, pointing out that the avant garde is revitalized by cross-cultural pollination. It seems this has happened to some extent, but as they point out the art markets are mostly in the Western world. But making room for “Third World� art to be shown is vital-- art stagnates without this “mutual and reciprocal relativization.� Of course buyers can’t be forced to buy non-European art, but if historians recognize it and galleries show it, it can take its place as part of the canon and its real value can be recognized.

Regarding art history the authors make some really interesting points; “Western art, then, has always been indebted to and transformed by non-western art. It was also African and Asian and American indigenous art that liberated the European modernists by provoking them to question their own culture bound aesthetic of realism.� Ben brought up Inuit art. When I was very young my father got a number of Inuit prints to put on our walls (some were stonecuts, maybe some engravings). They became part of the background noise while I was growing up. They had strange shapes and symbols, they depicted hunts, gods, and animals, and they were rendered with minimal details, with bright fields of color and dark jagged lines. I’m sure this was my first exposure to abstraction in art. They way they are rendered certainly looks very “modern�. I was both puzzled by them and drawn to them, I think because they were so different than what I understood to be traditional art (which was what I saw in frames at Kmart – realistic paintings of flowers). The prints were from the 70s, but the style in which they were rendered was traditional Inuit, and I can see how a European realist artist seeing this sort of art for the first time could be inspired (or alternately, perhaps derisive). The authors also say, “But outside of the West, realism was rarely the dominant; hence modernist reflexivity as a reaction against realism, could scarcely wield the same power of scandal and provocation.� An Inuit artist would not have been surprised by the abstraction of a modernist piece, because he or she has been doing it all along.

Shohat and Stam’s descriptions of the carnivalesque and the garbage aesthetic are particularly riveting. (I can think of a few examples of this kind of work but I’d like to investigate more, maybe check out some of the movies they mention. I imagine the carvinalesque aesthetic inspired the artists at Ford Thunder….) The carnivalesque seems to embrace a sort of chaos that makes Westerners slightly uneasy, much as modern art made people squirm. That seems to be when the most exciting, fresh art is made, when boundaries are being tested and expanded.

The authors suggest that to believe the Eurocentric narration of history whose progression is neat and linear is not only untrue but does a disservice to itself. To believe in the grown up idea of Europe and the infant idea of Non- European or third world less developed cultures only promotes colonialism and denies that Europe itself is made up of traces from all cultures, which have been happening all at the same time. Hybridization has positively effected poetry, painting, dance and film.

Adorno led us to believe that the dominant culture will always absorb the non dominant culture while these authors take care to show us how the ju-jitsu trait of turning strategic weakness into tactical strength can employ the force of the dominant against domination. Drawing on the traditional elements of non western culture, such as non linear plot lines, magic, ritual and an attention to feeling and mood shows a sophisticated deployment of cultural heritage which is not static and traditional but quite modern and flexible. I particularly responded to the section on the garbage aesthetic. The statement that the garbage dump becomes a vantage point from which to view society as a whole, made me think about the natural by product of all this capitalist production which is waste, and there is a lot of good information to be found there.

I again found a lot of optimism in the conclusion of this article as I did in Baudrillards text. New objects of knowledge do not become extinct or die out, they transform. To project one construct across another creates many vantage points. To shift away from the confines of Cartesian thinking and to pay attention to the in-between, to the shifts, to the changing is where innovation will occur.

It was hard for me to relate the Eurocntrism with my view towards art. Shohat and Stam's statements made great sense to me (to the extent I could understand) but they mostly seemed like something we are already conscious about. What Shohat and Stam mentioned as their “now� is already a “past�, the approach they suggest to take has already been taken on my field of art.

Throughout the history, like mentioned in Shohat and Stam's writing, as examples such as African Art to Picasso, cultures have been eating and influencing each other. Dominant culture is only a consistent of multiple cultures. Eurocentrism is supposed to emphasize the idea of monocentrism but Europe in its own entity has multiple cultures (centers) and thus “Euro�centrism is already an example of one form of polycentrism.

My question is what to do next. Now that we are aware of polycentrism and many things are polycentered. What would be the ultimate form of polycentrism? Globalization or individualism?

Taking the notions of Eurocentered aesthetics and looking at them through the pulses of “Third World� cultures is as Bell hooks would say, an obsession with the “Other.� I think seeing the interconnectedness is the only thing art can be doing to expand the avant guard. Shohat and Stam go on to explore the ways visual culture is taking shape across the globe. They are insightful and give examples of what impact influences have had on the Eurocentered art world. I have never really thought about how “Western� the art world is, but now I see the way. I do also think that today, with how small our world has gotten, there is more international exhibitions and more artists crossing continents. This article, in its too many words for thought way, lets me see how a Polycentric view of aesthetics is most appropriate for visual culture and for expanding its presence in people’s lives. There are the Avant Guard movements happening in every country’s cultural development.

I like the mention that we are a product of all the things before us, all this modernism exists in today’s aesthetic, therefore the process of appropriation and fusion of styles is what is changing within art, not the idea of rebellion (which is always there it seems.) They are also looking at the “conventional sequencing of realism, modernism and postmodernism, which is well over due. I had a conversation the other day, that there is nothing but modernism, this post thing is a joke and I agree. It appears to me, after all this directed reading that modernism is the only thing going, The (Euro) center of it all.

Looking all visual culture from different centers makes everything more similar. I say this because of the rebellion aspect I mentioned earlier. The mention of aesthetics having a ju-jitsu trait of turning strategic weakness into tactical strength is a beautiful thought. All cultures are the dominated fighting the dominators, for some it is more violent and encompassing than for others, but art is a place to project the ideas of the people, not for the bourgeoisie, except aren’t they the ones who buy the art? This is such a peculiar world we live in. This article was filled with information and examples of abject aesthetics that explore this struggle in societies and in visual culture itself. I found some parts very interesting and think about the tensions and the creation of “world upside down� on a broader scale now.

Ben, your comparison with the animal genetics is really interesting. I think our next question would be whether if we should keep each species or if we should keep breeding until we are all mixed up.

I also liked Ben's analogy about inbred pugs (I like them, but really, they seem like they can hardly breath) resembling art and culture cut off from the world. I think the ideal is something in between keeping the 'breeds' seperate and intermixing to the point of being indestinguishable mutts. It's great to have local cultures, but you need to freshen up the gene pool regularly to keep it healthy.....

The idea that a Euro-centric perspective is the center of all artistic practice, and everything outside that is 'less-than' rings true for several aspects of contemporary culture. It makes me think immediately of the way religion was viewed in the suburban midwest where I grew up. Christianity was the 'real' and 'legit' religion, and all others were 'underdeveloped' and 'primitive'. This state of mind gave the impression that things that were fun and colorful, filled with rhythm and singing and dancing, were not actually 'serious' and therefore immature and 'not worthy' of my time. This relentlessly monochromatic disease cut off the vein of vivid red blood to my beige suburban heart. Luckily, I was able to live for five weeks in Ecuador when I was sixteen, and that experience changed my perspective forever and put a travel bug inside me that kept me searching for more colors and sounds and perspectives ever since.
Reading examples from the essay about other religions and art practices outside the euro/western culture focusing much more on feelings and moods makes me question if we intellectualize things too much in this country. If you intellectualize something too much, does the emotion and soul of the work suffer? Its difficult to find really fresh and lively things inside American institutions. It seems by the time a work of art gets to the museum its had plastic surgery and is comfortably placed inside a 'series' and accepted context. Any raw energy it had has been watered down and polished. We need to ask ourselves if this polishing is actually killing the life inside the work. Many times for me exciting work is found in children and amateur shows, not to mention 'outsider' art. Art made for the sake of being made, because it has to be made, because it FELT right. It doesn't need to be over-analyzed and fit snug into a contemporary art context.
I also really enjoyed the Vatsayan quote from the essay about "the belief that time is cyclic rather that linear". Like I have said in previous blog entries, the evolution of the western mind is a flight from nature, away from the natural cycles of things, and that is unsustainable. The image of something rotting in the earth is just as beautiful as something being born. Hence my love for the 'carnivalesque' and the 'grotesque', because 'in the carnival aesthetic, everything is pregnant with its opposite'. Death and life together as part of the same natural process. 'Overturning good order and respectable aesthetics' with discarded material is the essence of carnivalesque subversions, and the aesthetic that I am most drawn to. Art as a magic act, art as alchemy. All my favorite artists fall under this umbrella, Al Hansen, Harmony Korine, Joseph Beuys, etc. Oh, how I love surprising juxtapositions and playful dislocations.
I love the image of a Brazilian Kayapo holding a camcorder. A classical percussionist using Hot Stix to produce a rhythm. An ancient Christian hymnal played with a bunch of Casio keyboards. Giving an important speech wearing a pair of sweatpants. A percussive piece played with a bunch of typewriters. A beautiful photograph printed in a run of 1,000 on newsprint. Shooting backwoods white trash America with a beautiful 35mm movie camera (Gummo). Recording a song on a cassette 4-track and having a Turkish musician do the final mix in his bedroom and mail it back to you. Do a large book of collage work using only magazines and printed matter found in the trash bin.