Inside the Studio

1. Petah Conye

2. Kiki Smith

3. Sandy Skoglund

4. John Currin

5. Dan Graham

Technology and Media

 

   This weeks readings all strongly dealt with how technology is effecting our everyday lives. They all seem to have a fairly pessimistic outlook on the ever-blurring lines that everyday technology creates.
   In "The Watchdog and the Thief" a few quotes stood out to me:

          “Even people who are weary of the Net’s ever-expanding influence rarely allow their concerns to
            get in the way of their use and enjoyment of technology.”

          "When we extend some part of ourselves artificially, we also distance ourselves from the
            amplified part and its natural functions…today’s industrial farm worker, sitting in his air
            conditioned cage atop a gargantuan tractor, rarely touches the soil at all- though in a
            single day he can till a field that would have taken a month by hand."

    To me, what the author is trying to get across is that these technological advancements that were originally designed to make our lives easier our ultimately numbing us. HE uses the example of the test subjects who either do or do not receive help on the puzzle test. He notes that those who did not receive help worked quicker and more logically by the end than those who did receive help; their brains are being challenged. 
   On a similar, yet different note, "Turning Points," discusses the modes of communication that modern technology has created for us. From landlines to FaceTime, our current communication methods are designed to keep us connected on a larger basis than ever before.
   But how has this virtual mode of communication AND technological ease effected our lives as physical people?
   In "The Machine Stops" people of the world are connected to each other and technology, yet disconnected at the same time. The pull to experience things and people in person is no longer there; they settle for a virtual connection over a face to face experience. 
   This is similar to the "The Turning Points" description of the man who is more happy in his relationship with his Second Life wife and life than his own. He has no intention of ever combining the facets of his real life and virtual life, which leads me to question; are we moving to an era in which we are humanizing our computers while at the same time, dehumanizing the individuals around us?

The Media is the Message

 

   I think the major thread behind this weeks readings was that each new generation of humanity comes up with its trademark tool for communication and what that means for us as a society.
   Much of the reading was rather pessimistic in its outlook of the way that humanity is headed or how we do things. The authors seem to believe that our world is quickly becoming that of science fiction in which we are slaves to our culture, telecommunication advances, etc.
   The authors also often bring up 1984 and Brave New World as being related to our current culture, specifically Brave New World and its warnings against becoming a culture based around our indifferences and eventual love of their oppression through our love of the comforts of technologies that undo the ability to think. In relation to the real world, this seems to signify that we are (or already are) to become enslaved to our telecommunication tools and that we are alright with that.
   In "Four Arguments" the author writes, "In one generation out of hundreds of thousands in human evolution America had become the first culture to have substituted secondary, mediated versions of experience for direct experiences of the world." I think what started with the television has evolved into the internet and more specifically social networking and smart phones. We are so used to over stimulation that there if often an outright need to be connected to something. People constanly are seen texting, uploading photos to Instagram or Facebook, creating tweets, even while in the presence of another physical human being. I would say strongly that many of my generation would prefer to email or text someone over a phone call in most situations. But is this necesarily a bad thing? Do these communications actually dehumanize us/create indifference, or have we just become more efficient in the way in which we communicate?

   On a somewhat unrelated note, in "Amusing Ourselves, the author writes that Las Vegas should be the metaphorical city of our current world because it is almost entirely based around the world of entertainment much in the same way that our current population participates and praises entertainment/ers. Having grown up in Las Vegas I find this particularly interesting because the majority of the people I knew growing up have one of two opinions on the city that relate to the readings:

          1. They work within the entertainment industry and love it there or
          2. They work outside of the entertainment industry and want to leave

   Between reading that Las Vegas should be considered today's metaphorical city and the knowledge of those within my age bracket living in the city who enjoy it makes me wonder, is this reliance on entertainment as a way of life bad, or more specifically, is it a response to something else? 
   For example, Vietnam was the first nationally televised war, and it would be fair to say that because of that, much of that generation became disillusioned to what America, or even the world, meant to them. For my generation, the event that sparked much of what we are now as a society was the World Trade Center Attacks. Perhaps as the generation of children who saw this media saturation of this horrific event and the wars and emphasis on national security and terrorism has become disillusioned and has chosen to participate in society in ways that pose no threat to their happiness.
   Keep in mind this idea is not only related to Las Vegas in particular, but also contestants of reality shows or those working in other entertainment fields. Events like 9/11 push generations of people in different directions and sometimes its more comfortable to focus more on things that come easy and avoid complication.

 

Seven Days in the Art World

   This has been the most interesting text to me thus far.
   I feel that the book does an excellent job of immersing the reader into the different spectrums with a no-nonsense attitude. The author, Sarah Thornton gives facts of how the art world functions, and it is ultimately up to the reader to decide how fickle or not that world is.
   The book was ultimately frustrating and fascinating all at once.
   I particularly found the first chapter, The Auction, about Christie's Auction House, of interest. I knew auctions were a part of the art world, but did not completely understand how much they effect the art market; it seems as if they ARE the art market almost wholly, in fact Thornton writes, "without auctions, the art world would not have the financial value it has. They give the illusion of liquidity...A liquid market is the New York Stock Exchange. Someone will buy your IBM stock at a price. There is no law to say that someone will buy your Maurizio, but the auctions give a sense that most of the time, most things will sell. If people thought they couldn't resell...many wouldn't buy a thing." And yet, the author also advises, "Art needs motives that are more profound than profit if it is to maintain its difference from- and position above- other cultural forms."
   This led me to ask: Is there anyway that art and/or the art world can function outside of the market? How does this market effect the work and vice versa. How does this effect young artists not yet part of the market on a large scale? Is the art market just a really expensive joke that has no reflection of quality artwork?
   Other parts of the book that stuck out to me was in the chapter, The Crit. In The Crit, Thornton examines Cal Arts MFA critique seminar. This stuck out to me because it somewhat reiterated the notion of the Master of Fine Arts Degree as an artistic necessity; that until you have accomplished this sector of academia you are not fully accepted into artistic legitimacy. She writes, "...MFA degrees from name art schools have become passports of sorts. Look over the resumes of the artists under fifty in any major international museum exhibition and you will find that most of them boast an MFA from one of a couple dozen highly selective schools."
   I wondered; as we come into a new era in which people have a grand access to information and schools of thought; will the MFA have such a high prestige and importance in the future? And are artists with non-MFAs regarded in a lower context? What about those people who become artists not through academia via art school, but other formats? Is there work disregarded simply because the lack of a degree?
   

Response: Women, Images and Art

 

This last weeks viewings and readings have been particularly tough for me to totally swallow. I find my mind spinning with anger, confusion and celebration as I think about all the information I have been given recently. As a both a woman and an artist I am both entranced and disgusted by the role which women play in and out of the art community.
   Obviously sexualized and stereotypical images of both sexes have been used for as long as the image, particularly the photographic image, has been around.
   Images of the beefy male and the sexy damsel in distress are something that I have been acclimated to from childhood. I grew up in an era of digitally manipulated imagery. A world in which the fake has become apparently more desirable than the real. A world in which to be successful as a female in the professional world, means not only must you be smart, attentive, quick witted, level headed, etc., but fit into an ideal standard as well. A world in which young women strain to fit into an unattainable ideal.
   But what should we do about it?
   And here is where I begin to struggle.
   After reading and watching all the materials given to me this week on gender disparity both in and out of the art community, it leaves me to ask myself hard questions. The women of the 1970s and 1980s fought (some with better results than others) for women artists like myself to have a place in the art community, and I think based on my interactions they have.
   At the University of Nevada, many art student population are women. A decent portion of the faculty are women. The shows brought into the gallery feature women on a regular basis. Almost all of the artists I look up to are women. And it is not just because they are women, but because I identify with the work before I even know the gender of the artist. It is something that has simply happened naturally.
   However, as optimistic as my collegiate experience has been thus far, I know things are not going to be simple in being a woman in the professional world.
   I am aware I look a certain way and have fallen into overtly "feminine characterizations." I am physically built like a woman complete with ample breast size. I have blonde hair, blue eyes and a fair complexion. I have been the victim of sexual abuse. I am not particularly strong spoken and somewhat timid in certain situations, though this is something I have been working on.  I am an alumni of a fairly popular sorority.  I make work that looks delicate and feminine.
   I have often thought how about how all of this has and will effect my life. I was raised in a very liberal household that taught me that all people are created equal and should be treated as such, however as I get older I realize that not all people have these same values, especially if they were never taught it in the first place. Which leads me to question:
   1) How can a new generation of female/feminist artists continue the legacy?
   2) How do I fit within this? Am I less of a feminist because I have built a relationship with a man, enjoy "girly" exploits including, make-up, fashion, etc., or participated in active membership of a women's fraternity? Does any of this matter?
   3) How has/is the art world changing in regards to women artists?
   4) If women become the dominate sex, how does this factor for men, particularly young men?

The Ways of Seeing Questions

The Ways of Seeing, By John Berger

1.) In part influenced by the Feminist movement, has the essential way of seeing women changed or evolved?

2.) Has the reproduction of images desensitized us when we see the work in person? Would our reactions be different if we'd never been exposed to it before seeing the physical work?

Railway Journey: The Industrialization of Time and Space in the 19th Century Questions

Railway Journey: The Industrialization of Time and Space in the 19th Century    By Wolfgang Schivelbusch

1.) The book claims that many persons who had the ability to ride in compartments felt a sense of alienation. Do you think this sense of alienation is still present within today's technological achievements? Take advances in social media and communication outlets into account.

2.) The book brings up materials on separate occasions (the transition of wood to metals, glass, etc.). Do you think certain materials are a marker of a specific generation? What would that material be for our current generation?

3.) Taking into account, Schivelbusch thought the railroad created/annihilated time and space, how do you think he would see social media and today's instantaneous communication?