October 30, 2010
As you may know, the Summit is sort of a two-day Pecha Kucha nite for activist artists. Intros are brief, and most presentations are strictly limited to 8 min. in length.
The presentations related to the topics of Markets, Schools, Regional Reports, Food, Geographies, Governments, Institutions, and Plausible Art Worlds; plus there was the presentation to Rick Lowe of the Leonore Annenberg Prize for Art and Social Change.
There's a great website for the Summit here, with videos of most if not all the presentations here and post-Summit discussion on FB here.
(More visuals I shot of the CT Summit here. For other art stuff seen while in NYC, including links to visuals from the Greater New York and Last Newspaper exhibitions, go here.)
I found the the Summit extremely interesting and enjoyable, and very probably helpful, at the minimum in helping to raise awareness of socially-engaged art practices. Some of my own favorite portions included the presentations by (in no particular order, and perhaps for my own idiosyncratic reasons) Nato Thompson, Julia Bryan-Wilson, Anton Vidokle, Bruce High Quality Foundation, Claire Pentecost, Agnes Denes, F.E.A.S.T., Trevor Paglen, Phil Collins, Aaron Levy, Andrea Fraser, W.A.G.E., Basekamp, Eating in Public, and the International Errorist (who invites everyone to join them; I find no I.E. website, but here's their YouTube Channel).
I also loved the exit-hook music and appreciated Gregory Sholette's manning of the online discussion both during and after the Summit.
The point of the Summit, presumably, was not necessarily to explore any particular topic in depth, but rather to survey recent developments. That said, the program seemed to me more or less haunted by some big, fundamental questions, any one of which could easily devour the whole conversation if not the known intellectual universe; these lurking queries included:
• What is art?*Each of these questions contains assumptions and/or could be broken down into many more fundamental questions.
• What is GOOD art?**
• What is art that's good aesthetically (as distinguished – at least temporarily, for the purposes of discussion – from the question of what is art that's good morally or for other purposes)?***
• What does it take to have a sustainable, healthy art economic system, i.e., a system that would fairly compensate art workers doing work that will, over the long haul, likely be considered "good" (the "why new forms" question being part of this subject, as well as, how the heck are some of these projects funded)?****
• What is a sustainable, healthy economic system generally? or governmental system (recognizing, at least temporarily for the purposes of discussion, a distinction between economic and governmental systems, with CT's question, "what is democracy," being part of the latter subject)?*****
I realize artists are relatively independent-minded and that it's hard to get us to agree on much. But I do still think we actually could come to agreement about some of these "background" questions, or at least reach a clearer understanding of where our differences about them lie. And I think the answers to all are interrelated; but at least for me, I feel I make much better progress with them if I break them down at least this far, at least temporarily.
Would our discussions be enhanced if more of us had more clarity about these big, background questions? Maybe. The way they're haunting us is distracting, at the minimum.
Or maybe we just need an explicit acknowledgment up front that all those big, background questions are out there, and they're really bugging us, but we're going to try not to talk about them?
*What is art? Humans invented the term and we can re-define it and all other terms any way we like. My interest is in defining them in ways that will be most useful; e.g., I personally would like to define art in a way that differentiates it from, e.g., such literal expressions as an article in a medical journal, or such objects as a cup made without any regard to appearance or ulterior meanings. Also, if you define art as the same as politics, as one commenter seemed on the brink of doing, then I'm not quite sure how you differentiate it from religion and a lot of other things. Which may be ok; I certainly agree that politics and religion involve art or have art-y aspects; but I think there's utility in having a definition of "art" that distinguishes it from other things.
(My own, current, working definition of "art" is, any expression that deploys non-literal means.)
**What is GOOD art? I think it's important to separate this from the question of what is art. (To me, "goodness" is basically a way of saying that, within a given context, one prefers x over y.)
***What is art that's good aesthetically (as distinguished from what is art that's good for other purposes)? E.g., art can be "good" in effectively altering perceptions and, ultimately, what is actually possible, and yet be highly morally questionable; e.g., Karl Rove produced little that wasn't art (certainly, it was mostly fictional), and it was, in terms of his goals, frighteningly successful; ditto Ayn Rand.
Some people think art is good if it creates knowledge; some think it's good if it's beautiful (using "beauty" broadly/creatively); some think it's good if it has a desired effect (among other theories of aesthetic "goodness"). I personally think the answers to questions about different kinds of goodness, e.g. aesthetic and moral, ultimately converge, because i.m.h.o., the best art involves more than one kind of "goodness"; but I think it helps to analyze the different aspects separately to get to a clearer understanding of it all.
Related is the question of art's "value," which seems to have become fraught. To my mind, however, valuation is not the problem; the problem is who makes the valuation, on what basis, and over what time-frame. I.e., is putting a price on everything in itself such a big problem, or is it that the prices are all being fixed by vultures? And based on the very little I've gathered re- Marxist thought, e.g., it seems to overlook that an art work's "true" value is often not realized until long after the work was created.
That said, again, we can re-define "value" any way we like; and in this connection, I agree it can be a useful, at least as a thought-experiment, to "disallow a monied reading of every interaction or creation," as one commenter put it.
****What does it take to have a sustainable, healthy art economic system? Among other things, what does it take to have a healthy system for funding art – including fair remuneration to individual artists, sustainable arts organizations that are not vulnerable to being hijacked by the impurely motivated, and even national economic systems that work for those at the bottom as well as they do for those at the top?
Many artists seem interested in alternatives to selling art works as "commodities." But charity from the rich and even government funding implicate concerns about artists' independence; while, these days, extracting funds from the non-rich implicates concerns about putting the squeeze on a struggling economic class. Might not a mix of sources be best, so that at least there's some diversity in choices favored by different funding constituencies?
(And I gather Marx proposed that art works don't have any value and/or don't have any use; but over the longer term, haven't many art works proved by almost any measure you want to use – bang-for-buck, pound-for-pound, ultimate impact – to be extremely valuable and useful [if they're not useful, why so much law concerning their use]?)
(And if creativity is artists' capital, should they perhaps simply make sure to invest it only in ways they can ensure will help sustain them and be used in ways they approve? E.g., to take Siegelaub's Artist's Reserved Rights Transfer and Sale Agreement to the next level, what if all artists always retained basic ownership of their creative works, and merely licensed them to collectors et al., subject to various conditions? And note that once you've exchanged ownership of your art work for paper money (or of your time in exchange for Time Bank paper), the value of the paper can be destroyed.)
Also, during the Summit, I kept feeling we needed to acknowledge that part of the reason there's so little money for art is that the middle class, much if not most of which might otherwise be happy to chip in the relatively small amounts required to fund a lot of great art, is too busy being brainwashed and looted.
Which implicates the why new forms question: what IS a sustainable art production/remuneration system, or economic OR governmental system, whether small- or large-scale. (Or as Nato/Creative Time asked in a book I bought at the Summit and have just barely cracked, what is democracy, a whole 'nother question. [What it's NOT, of course, is, an economic system.]) Is it really that nonprofits (or, say, democracy, or communism, or private ownership, commodification, or capitalism, in all their varieties) can't work? Or is it, e.g., as Greg Sholette suggested, at least partly also a question of scale? Is it that any organization or system, regardless of form, is more likely to cease to work fairly once it reaches a certain size (or as Plato suggests, once it reaches a certain age), because the many in the middle and along the bottom of the org tend to lose the access/ability to hold in check the few at the top, because of increased specialization and diminished transparency and accountability, and/or because people's memories or applications of the system's axiomatic principles become corrupted? (And, e.g., I agree with Greg that merely having an organization be owned by members is no guarantee that it can't be hijacked by vultures; because corporations are owned by their shareholders, and we've seen shareholders also, frequently be shafted by their own corporations, because the latter now mainly are controlled by and serve the interests of their senior executives [partly because corporations have grown so large]; h*ll, even charities like the American Red Cross have been hijacked. Basically, any org that generates or aggregates value will attract vultures; and I do think that, the larger the scale of the org, the more susceptible it is to hijacking.)
*****What is a sustainable, healthy economic or governmental system generally? History seems to suggest that no organization of great size can function efficiently without some kind of hierarchy, and that efficiencies can also be achieved through some degree of specialization (not everyone is equally capable of financial accounting AND foundry work). And that leads to some kind of mechanism for exchange and valuation, whether it's a currency, barter, or time banking. And pls note that time banking makes time a proxy for value; and it may be a fine proxy, or at least a better one than letting the vultures fix all the values, but, e.g., it doesn't allow someone who's devoted years of unpaid effort developing a skill or expertise to charge any more for their time than someone who hasn't invested the same kind of unpaid time and effort; and the inequity in paying both individuals the same would be only partly remedied by making all education free.
And history also seems to suggest that for certain kinds of large-scale or long-term tasks (building a cathedral, sending a man to Mars), you need an org of adequate size as well as a degree of specialization. And as noted above, whether the org be a government, a corporation, a labor union, or whatever, it tends to become susceptible to being hijacked once it gets too big for those in the lower levels of the pyramid to exert meaningful control over those at the top. (Mind you, there are many factors in creating a sustainable system; another factor in the success of the U.S., such as it's been, has been due to the absolutely rockin' axiomatic principles in the form of the U.S. Constitution, among other things.)
(And maybe the question of optimally healthy, sustainable forms or systems can't just be answered once for all time; maybe there's a sort of arms race between those who wish the benefits of human endeavor to be shared fairly and those willing to exploit the chinks in the systems [and since no system is perfect, there will always be chinks] in order to benefit themselves at the expense of others [or said another way, maybe there's a race among competing definitions of what's "fair"], so that no matter how evolved your systems are, eventually the exploiters either will succeed in their exploitive goals or will force the rest of us to attend to the chinks . . . but even if that's true, that doesn't mean we should give up on making things as difficult as possible for the exploiters, any more than we should give up trying to keep the cookie jar out of the reach of clever children; it just means we can't afford to stop paying attention.)
(And maybe it's also a question of analyzing how capitalistic aspects may work better for certain purposes within a society and socialistic aspects may work better for other purposes within the same society – and I have some ideas re- guidelines re- which do which. In this connection, I wish more conversations about these subjects began with an analysis of the smaller-scale, democratic socialist governmental systems in Finland, Sweden, and Norway. I don't know that much about them but am curious, since they appear to be working well.)
(And yes, I totally agree with another commenter that you cannot have revolution in just one country. The export of U.S. jobs, e.g., is as big a problem as it is only because we're not also exporting labor and environmental protections, etc.)
******Etc. E.g., there's what I also think should be another separate question, which is, whether art CAN have political or social effectiveness. I personally have no doubt it can, but I've heard this disputed; and discussion of the point might help elicit useful info re- just how it is that it can have such effects. Among other things, e.g., is art most effective when it enters the legislature? Can it be as effective using more circuitous means? (And in this connection, our prior inquiry re- what art is may also be pertinent; for I think most of us agree, some kinds of political or social efforts might more usefully be called something other than art.)
(I.m.h.o., art can't NOT have political effectiveness, at least to some small degree; and others agree. Queen Elizabeth I censored Shakespeare's Richard II; the Guggenheim cancelled Haacke's Shapolsky et al. Manhattan Real Estate Holdings show; and the C.I.A.spent millions promoting ab ex. But note, if you make political effectiveness your main criterion for good art, Karl Rove's scores well.)
(And i.m.h.o., there can be no greater art project than that of re-shaping the world; and I see no reason artists should shrink from such a project more than Rove or others do.)
Then you get to the question of whether art should deliberately try to be politically or socially effective.
These questions are complex but not ineffable; but answering them requires real study and clear thinking/speaking. James Madison, in preparing for the brilliant job he did on the U.S. Constitution, carefully analyzed the governmental systems of many other then-past and -existing nations (by now, the vultures have successfully enlarged some serious chinks; but nothing lasts forever).
I don't believe artists have to consciously take on this kind of task either in lieu or as part of their art-making in order to make good art or even in order to have positive effects in the world (I believe art can have major, world-shaping effects outside of the legislature as well as, perhaps, within it); but I believe that the more the various factors are understood by artists, the more, better art works will likely result, whether they address the complexities directly or indirectly, deliberately or incidentally.
October 25, 2010
October 24, 2010
October 23, 2010
On Oct. 21, Guggenheim NY hosted a production announcing the top 25 in its juried YouTube video competition. The trailer for the event is painful but does give an overview of the videos (some of which you've seen before, e.g., here). (Thanks, Ben!)
You can see the full-length videos here; more info here.
October 22, 2010
Day after I got back from NYC, I & the sig. other drove to NM. My main objective was Site Santa Fe's biennial, The Dissolve, which is all video.
As I understood from one of the many guides at the facility (ca. 2.3 per visitor), curators Sarah Lewis and Daniel Belasco worked with architect David Adjaye to design an exhibition divided into three sections, with dark, gray-blue, -green, and -red walls and scrims respectively (think RGB). The sections were meant to organize the works roughly according to stages in the exploration and historical development of video as a fine art technology (although each section includes videos of various vintages). While I'm not sure I totally got the curators' thinking on that point, I thought the dissolve theme was well-chosen; and the installation was exceptional, given the challenges of showing video in a space not at all designed for it.
I was also told the curators deliberately included only work by artists whose primary media were NOT video. This seemed a little unfair to the early adopters of video as their main medium but perhaps emphasizes to any remaining doubters that even your favorite painters, sculptors, et al. have turned to it.
I'd seen some of the works before; nonetheless, it was "a banquet to me." Some favorites:
- Paul Chan, 4th Light, 2006 (well worth seeing again)
- Brent Green, Paulina Hollers, 2006 (other works by Green were shown by the Video Association of Dallas in 2007 and 2010)
- William Kentridge, History of the Main Complaint, 1996 (shown by the Video Association ca. 1997)
- Avish Khebrehzadeh, Theater III, 2010
- Laleh Khorramian, Water Panics in the Sea, 2010
- Jennifer and Kevin McCoy, Traffic #1: Our Second Date, 2004 (this looked really interesting but referred to Goddard's Week-End, which I haven't seen)
- Joshua Mosley, A Vue, 2004 (seen at the Modern of Fort Worth in 2008)
- Oscar Muñoz, Re/trato, 2003
- Robert Pruitt, Black Stuntman (Volumes 1 and 2), 2004
- Christine Rebet, The Black Cabinet, 2007
- Mary Reid Kelley, You Make Me Iliad, 2010 (my favorite new work)
- Lotte Reiniger, The Adventures of Prince Achmed, 1926
- Hiraki Sawa, Airliner, 2003 (I've seen another, related work I liked even better, but this cool piece worked perfectly as the opener for the exhibition)
- Cindy Sherman, Doll Clothes, 1975 (reprised from the Dallas Video Association archives in the 2007 series, I Heart Video Art)
- Federico Solmi, Douche Bag City, 2010
- Dziga Vertov, Soviet Toys, 1924
- Kara Walker, National Archives Microfilm publications M999, Roll 34: Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands: 1) Six Miles from Springfield on the Franklin Road, 2009, 2) Lucy of Pulaski, 2009
October 20, 2010
From Matt Taibbi, the Rolling Stone reporter who's been doing the work journalists at more "serious" news outlets should be but mostly aren't:
America is quite literally for sale, at rock-bottom prices, and the buyers increasingly are the very people who scored big in the oil bubble. Thanks to Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and the other investment banks that artificially jacked up the price of gasoline over the course of the last decade, Americans delivered a lot of their excess cash into the coffers of sovereign wealth funds like the Qatar Investment Authority, the Libyan Investment Authority, Saudi Arabia's SAMA Foreign Holdings, and the UAE's Abu Dhabi Investment Authority.Much more at the link above.
Here's yet another diabolic cycle for ordinary Americans, engineered by the grifter class. A Pennsylvanian like Robert Lukens sees his business decline thanks to soaring oil prices that have been jacked up by a handful of banks that paid off a few politicians to hand them the right to manipulate the market. Lukens has no say in this; he pays what he has to pay. Some of that money of his goes into the pockets of the banks that disenfranchise him politically, and the rest of it goes increasingly into the pockets of Middle Eastern oil companies. And since he's making less money now, Lukens is paying less in taxes to the state of Pennsylvania, leaving the state in a budget shortfall. Next thing you know, Governor Ed Rendell is traveling to the Middle East, trying to sell the Pennsylvania Turnpike to the same oil states who've been pocketing Bob Lukens's gas dollars. It's an almost frictionless machine for stripping wealth out of the heart of the country, one that perfectly encapsulates where we are as a nation.
When you're trying to sell a highway that was once considered one of your nation's great engineering marvels — 532 miles of hard-built road that required tons of dynamite, wood, and steel and the labor of thousands to bore seven mighty tunnels through the Allegheny Mountains — when you're offering that up to petro-despots just so you can fight off a single-year budget shortfall, just so you can keep the lights on in the state house into the next fiscal year, you've entered a new stage in your societal development.
UPDATE: More great writing from Taibbi, this time from Griftopia:
"Voters who throw their emotional weight into elections they know deep down inside won't produce real change in their lives are also indulging in a kind of fantasy. . . . What voters don't realize, or don't want to realize, is that that dream was abandoned long ago by this country's leaders, who know the more prosaic reality and are looking beyond the fantasy, into the future, at an America plummeted into third world status.
"These leaders are like the drug lords who ruled American's ghettos in the crack age, men (and some women) interested in just two things: staying in power, and hoovering up enough of what's left of the cash on their blocks to drive around in an Escalade or a 633i for however long they have left. Our leaders know we're turning into a giant ghetto and they are taking every last hubcap they can get their hands on before the rest of us wake up and realize what's happened.
* * * * *
"In the ghetto, nobody gets real dreams. What they get are short-term rip-off versions of real dreams. You don't get real wealth, with a home, credit, a yard, money for your kids' college - you get a fake symbol of wealth, a gold chain, a Fendi bag, a tricked-out car you bought with cash. Nobody gets to be really rich for long, but you do get to be pretend rich, for a few days, weeks, maybe even a few months. It makes you feel better to wear that gold, but when real criminals drive by on the overpass, they laugh.
"It's the same in our new ghetto. We don't get real political movements and real change; what we get, instead, are crass show-business manipulations whose followers' aspirations are every bit as laughable and desperate as the wealth dreams of the street hustler with his gold rope. What we get, in other words, are moderates who don't question the corporate consensus dressed up as revolutionary leaders, like Barack Obama, and wonderfully captive opposition diversions like the Tea Party - the latter a fake movement for real peasants that was born that night in St. Paul, when Sarah Palin addressed her We."
The Nov. 2, 2010 elections are almost upon us. If you live in Dallas County, you can find info re- early voting here (it's already begun) and re- regular voting here. If you live elsewhere, please check with your local election authority.
There's a quote somewhere to the effect that those who fail to exercise their rights can expect to lose them (I'm not finding a great source for this; pls let me know if you've got it).
B.t.w., last I checked, in Dallas County you have at least a slightly better chance of generating a paper trail re- your vote if you do so on election day rather than early voting. Speaking of which . . .
October 12, 2010
Report from NYC: NYFF, "Greater New York," Conflux, "The Last Newspaper," & the Creative Time Summit
There was a lot going on.
Went to some gallery shows in Chelsea; some visuals here. The works I enjoyed most were by Pipi Rist – her installations at Luhring Augustine were gorgeous – Matthew Day Jackson, and Sarah Sze. Also came across work by Aaron Kang (see also here), quoting Kant; c.f. the Perpetual Peace project, near the end of this post below.
I caught one day of the "Avant Garde" at the New York Film Festival. Seemed a bit heavy on the watery reflections, leaves in breeze, and texts coming in and out of focus. But very worthwhile; among other things, I was glad to see new work by Lewis Klahr (see also here) and Dani Leventhal (whose work I've recommended to the VideoFest, but it hasn't been picked up here in Dallas yet; but the NYFF curator indicated there's been a bit of a craze for her work in NYC). I also loved the idea of one video by David Gatten, screened at the marriage ceremony at his own wedding in lieu of speaking any words to his bride (making me think about conducting a semi-legitimate, mass-wedding-via-video here in Dallas – something spectacular, if you know what I mean!)
Saw about 50% of the Greater New York exhibition at P.S. 1 – not only does the show fill that good-sized facility, but much of the work is video – visuals here (shot under, shall we say, extremely adverse circumstances, so apologies for the extra-low production values) – including substantial, recent works by Matthew Barney (Guardian of the Veil), Ryan Trecartin, Kalup Linzy, and many others – one artist new to me whose work I especially liked was Deville Cohen. If you want more than a cursory acquaintance with the works in this show, allow two days. The show offered evidence that whatever media artists may be losing with the death of hardcopy news (see The Last Newspaper, below), they're finding plenty of new material online. (B.t.w., those interested in my reports on Temporary Services' ART WORK project might appreciate this.)
Then caught the last half of the opening presentation at Conflux 2010, New York's psychogeographic art festival, on the subject of little-seen urban ruins and underground spaces – the speaker, Steve Duncan, shared lots of great info accompanied by lots of great photos – my visuals, starting here, don't begin to do it justice (it had already been a long day). Did you know that many of the world's great cities, including Paris, Moscow, London, and New York, paved over and built on top of the rivers that originally sustained them, transforming the rivers into arteries in their storm water and sewage systems? And they did something similar w.r.t. the quarries from which the stones used to build their buildings were extracted. If you're adventurous, you can explore these old, underground quarries and sewers, and see some amazing things. And the speaker mentioned he cut his hand down there once, and by the next day his hand was the size of a baseball mitt, infected with four kinds of deadly bacteria; so don't get cut down there.
Saw the NYC premier at The Kitchen of a "live documentary," Utopia in Four Movements, by Sam Green; he directed The Weather Underground, which I loved. His new project contemplates our relationship to utopias, which he semi-facetiously defined as places that do not exist, where everyone has a good job and a good standard of living. He mostly showed footage of/talked about (1) Esperanto (2) communist states, esp. Cuba, although he consistently used the term, "socialism," in talking about them; and he more or less assumed we agree that our own capitalist democracy has also proved disappointing, if not quite the failure of communist states, and (3) forensic archaeology, i.e., where they dig up mass graves and attempt to identify remains.
During the Q&A afterward, I asked if he'd considered talking about socialist democracies, and what he might have said about those. I asked because I'm genuinely curious about whether their systems work as much better than ours as they seem to. E.g., I have the impression that pretty much everyone there has a good job and a good standard of living – like Green's definition of utopia, only they do exist!
He answered along the lines of, that he was interested in exploring our feelings and attitudes about utopias; and the socialist democracies, well, they're just there, and there didn't seem to be much of a story there. And yet more than once in his talk, he'd mentioned his deep disappointment, and wishing there were a solution or way forward. So, um, like, Sweden and Norway . . . ?
Went to the New Museum's new exhibition, The Last Newspaper; visuals here. It's big and terrific; and also interesting in what it did not do. It did not particularly inquire into what it is that we might be losing with the death of paper news, apart from a cheap, wonderful, ready-made medium; it did not ask, for example, what we may be about to lose in the way of hard archives, or modes of thinking; and it came nowhere near any issues re- what's displacing hardcopy new, i.e., virtual news. Also interestingly, the exhibition was larded with Kant quotations. As I learned later, these quotations were thanks to the Perpetual Peace project – more below.
Possibly coming up in a later post: a few remarks inspired by the Creative Time Summit (a few visuals here). For now I'll just mention, first, that they have a great website with, I believe, videos of more or less all the presentations, here; and second, that the instigator of the Perpetual Peace project (see pics sprinkled among the New Museum vizis, such as this one) was among the speakers, and he explained that it was a "secret" article by Kant that was the foundation for the U.N., and that the little booklet displayed at the New Museum contains this secret article.