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?

Ukrainian Sleeping Beauty

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/28/sleeping-beauty-ukraine-allegory?newsfeed=true

No in-depth analysis on this. Just a fairy tale inspired performance work I've come across to keep in mind.

Never Sorry

http://aiweiweineversorry.com/

   There is obvious much to be said about the film Ai WeiWei: Never Sorry that includes a look into both his political activism and artwork. He is clearly fearless, incredibly intelligent and talented, but my limited knowledge on both he and his activism does not allow me to really write in-depth on the subject smartly.
   So what I'd rather touch on is some of the points of the film that stuck out to me as both viewer and artist.
   The first is how his childhood experiences intensely influence the way he operates in his adult life. This may seem like an incredibly simple idea, but one that resonates with me because it is a theme that I hold close in my own artistic ventures.
   Mine is not politically charged like that of WeiWei and deals more-so with the nature and function of the human memory, specifically traumatic experiences and self-exploration. However, at the root similar: what we experience as children will inherently effect our outcomes, interests, ideals, personalities, etc. that we form as adults.
   How we deal with and process this information is of particular interest to me. In WeiWei's case he used it to fuel his passions for political reform; to attempt to fix the problems his father's generation could not and that he saw first hand as a child. In my own case, it is more about sorting out the nature of what is real and what my brain has filled in. I always find interest in the way artists (or even just people) take various approaches to common experiences, i.e. in this case, the childhood experience.
   I find this idea vastly complicated and am still not quite sure how to process or relate these thoughts, but am steadfastly working on a way how to within my own work and mind.
   The other point that resonated with me was the point that art cannot simply exist; it must provoke a discussion. Obviously not all acclaimed, or even "good" artwork is politically charged or as aggressive as that of Ai WeiWei. Art would likely end up stale and redundant with use of the same subject matter in all pieces, but I must agree that for the validity of a work, especially today where a debate of what makes art "Art," it must make people think. Whatever that means exactly, I am still trying to figure out myself.