Jamie Spatt

Contemporary Art History

Final Paper

August 1, 2010

Global Kitsch: Contemporary Art in the New Direction

Perhaps one of, if not the most influential faces of recent art history, Andy Warhol once said, "Art is what you can get away with." When looking at the recent protagonists of contemporary art, one begins to see this quote in a new light despite it's status as a somewhat sepia lit memento. What we have now is something the entire art world was unprepared for, art AS world, and world as art. Looking back at art's complex and ever changing history we move through from movement to movement, renaissance, to impressionism, to the romantics, to the expressionists to the da-da and the neo da-da, and the post painterly expressionists, and the modern artists, and finally we fall in to a category that is considered post-modern, a term which in itself is an ironic contradiction. How can we be past modern? In this past modern society, there are some fascinating things going on with art. But what do we call ourselves? What will future generations refer to this time period as when all gets record and goes down into the books.

A few characteristics of this new art movement stand out to me as clear. One is that we are no longer operating out of a central location. Pollock's New York is no longer the apex of popular art culture. It doesn't stem from London either, or from Paris, or from any one or two specific cities. With the advent of the internet we now find ourselves connected to people and artists the world over like we have never been before. Another striking future of the new artists of today is that nothing is original. We have lost in a sense our individuality. No matter what an artist decides to do, in whatever medium, or style, aspects of it have all been done before. You can look at a piece by William Kentridge and say to yourself, okay, expressionism has been done before, video has been done before, video with audio has been done before, drawing has been done before. Nothing new. The funny and somewhat scary thing is you can look at any piece of art, and see the influences and traditions of thousands of years of artists that came before them. Whether an artist is aware of it or not, we are no longer original. Originality is a thing of the past. 

And at first, it is terrifying. Artists have at least in recent history been the type of persons to want their uniqueness confirmed more than anything. More than money, and usually, fame too. But if you go back far enough you see that it wasn't necessarily always so. Pre Renaissance artists were operating in a very similar way to the artists of today. The works were not about the artists touch or brush stroke, they were about what the patron asked and paid for. Their pieces were never intended to be unique, original, beautiful flowers. At least not at first. Eventually, culture broke away from this, but with much opposition from the non-artist's perspective. How could Picasso's "Demoiselles d'Sauvignon" be art? For the viewer in 1907 it was considered an abomination. Today, this piece is hanging in MoMA, and is often the topic of many art history 101 courses as it represents a major shift in the tides for the world of art. The move from realism to abstraction. 

But we have dominated abstraction. We have over-killed it. Not only have we seen Picasso, we have seen Johns, and Hesse and Oldenburg, who said, "I am for art that takes it's form from the lines of life itself, that twists and extends and accumulates and spits and drips and is heavy and course and blunt and stupid as life itself." We have seen Kaprow, who said, "The line between art and life should be kept as fluid, and perhaps, indistinct as possible." We have seen Andre, and Lichtenstein,  Koons. Today we are perfectly comfortable calling the Demoiselles beautiful, valuable, works of art. In the modern day we have nothing more with the resources we have as artists that could possibly shock us. We find ourselves in a position where history begins to repeat itself. We become graphic designers creating with pixels what Michelangelo once did with paint. We study to become teachers because the art market is once again, a commodity for the upper class. The art of the middle and lower class, is, although not all of it, is mostly re-used ideas through re-used techniques for decently a low cost. As artists of the twenty first century, we find ourselves in albeit, weird place. 

Perhaps, this returning and recycling of art movements will proceed until technology offers us something new to play with. While we wait, we work with what we have, and draw our uniqueness from our subject matter rather than our materials. It is not that because we are currently unoriginal that we are not good artists. We are great artists. With resources available that no artists in history have ever had before. Our materials and vehicles of expression however are at a stand still. It cannot be denied. What is original to this art period that we haven't seen before is that almost anything can be passed off as art. In the right light, with the right title, the orange sitting chair in your kitchen might be the next ready made sculpture in your local gallery. Maybe it doesn't need the gallery, maybe it's art already. Who knows. In the most respectful way possible I go back to  Warhol, and say, "Art is what we call it." This is my essay. This is my art. Fluid, blunt, and stupid as life itself.

"As Soon as Possible-Acceleration in Contemporary Society."

Looking-Assignment

by Jamie Spatt

Fast food. The world wide web. Ipods, cell phones, game boys, and televisions. Trains, planes, automobiles. From the food industry to the entertainment industry, to industrial industry, everything today is operating at a quickly increasing pace compared to the steady crawl of those generations who came before us. "As soon as possible- Acceleration in contemporary society" at the Strozzina in Florence is an elegantly posed critique on what it means to live in the high speed society that we find ourself immersed in today. In the basement of the exhibition space of Palazzo Strolli, curator Franziska Nori asks ten international contemporary artists to offer their unique responses to their experience with accelerated modern culture, some explicit, some aesthetically beautiful, and some more simple and open-ended, all giving us opportunity to reflect on how we humanly fit into the constantly evolving pace of our time. 

One of the primary places we often feel the rush of the times is at work. We all know what it is like to be faced with deadlines, living pay check to pay check, and being 'on the clock' for up to or more than forty hours a week. Mark Formanek takes this experience and quite literally puts his 'workers', 'on the clock'. In his piece entitled 'Standard Time', a group of men in hard hats construct and deconstruct a monumentally sized 'digital' faced clock built of wood, that actually keeps real time for viewers in the gallery. The piece is a video installation projected on the wall. The men continue as the video loops all day long, twenty four hours a day, building and rebuilding the clock, with no lunch breaks or cigarettes. The piece leaves us with the feeling of staring at the clock all work day long, just waiting to go home for the night to rest. But unlike these us, these workers never do. 

In a Completely different style Jens Risch carefully knots thread over and over until they become small lumps that are reminiscent of coral, or some naturalistic form of personal importance. Placing them in glass cases on pedestals, and displaying a video of her carefully knotting hands creating the pieces shows us that they are precious. Something to be treasured. But were they not in the cases, on the pedestals, process revealed, would we see them as important? Or overlook them for something more entertaining? In any case the slower movement in this piece is refreshing and helps to keep the show in balance, the aspects of which are, as they should be, varied as life itself. 

One aspect we do not see in either of these pieces, which life is full of, especially at this speed, is tension, and what happens when tension goes unrelieved. In Arcangelo Sassolino's 'Pneumatic Expansion of a living force' we see just how tense this life can get. The piece is a glass bottle in the middle of a glass tank, which eventually explodes, shattering the bottle and startling museum goers with a loud sound. We look at this piece with apprehension, wondering, will explode while I am standing in front of it? Or will I avert the point of shatter, and 'safely' walk away? Is our culture and way of life a ticking time bomb? Can all the glory of a high speed life like the one we live in survive throughout the centuries or will it eventually self-destruct, leaving us in a dystopia? 

As far as the future goes, no one can be certain what will come of our race-pace culture, and the world as we know it today. But through works like the pieces we see in 'As Soon as Possible' we are made aware and conscious of both the problems and the benefits of our life styles. Maybe the artists are asking us to slow down, maybe to do nothing but just embrace our awareness, or maybe to say what the hell and speed it up and see where the modern trends are taking us. But most importantly, as all art does, these works at the very least serve to make us question and critique our world, others living around us, and most importantly ourselves, the choice is ours what we decide to do post-gallery experience. 

The Sensory Overload exhibit at the Milwaukee art museum tracks the development of kinetic and optical illusionary artwork, whose highly interactive and stimulating nature introduced new dimensions to the art world. The artwork in this exhibit moves chronologically, and includes pieces from the 1950's, all the way up to the 80's and 90's. These decades were arguably more experimental than any decades before, all across the board. Sensory Overload is a reflection of this experimenting that was going on, from an art perspective.  As our world becomes more and more consumed by technology, cell phones, computers, and televisions, many people seek the human hand in artwork, and crave it's pure sensations. As Frank Stella, a featured artist in this exhibit said, "What you see is what you see."

Walking into the space, the first piece that catches an eye is 'Ruin' by Nam June Paik. Ruin is a sculpture of assembled television sets from the 60's and 70's. Stacked almost to the ceiling, this piece has an ominous air about it, as if it's looming over viewers, sending out a warning, and forcing us to look. It wants us to act cautious, to think twice. The piece echoes Paik's belief that the television has defined the American landscape since World War Two. It seems to be asking, "What if the human race gets ravished and almost defeated by it's wars and all that is left are these TV sets and our crumbling monuments to our obsession with the media?" Colors and light flash chaotically on the TV screens, leaving us feeling deserted, and empty, wondering if we ourselves have too strong a fascination with our media and televisions. 

Turning the corner from 'Ruin', there is one of Al Reinhardt's 'Black Paintings'. Badly positioned on a wall near a window and a blinking neon sculpture, it is difficult not to pass Reinhardt's piece without really noticing or caring that it's even there, at first. But upon further observation, you begin to see why the poor placement choice of this piece is somewhat of a small tragedy. The point of Reinhardt's modernist 'Black Paintings' was to refine out all the unnecessary aspects of a typical piece of art, leaving behind a "breathless, timeless, styleless, lifeless, deathless, endless," piece of art. He would blacken his colorful paintings so much so that they became almost completely beyond apprehension. Sometimes it takes up to twenty minutes to see the actual 'face' of the painting seep through. It is usually Reinhardt's request that his painting be dimly lit, wanting his viewers to find light in the darkness, literally. So apart from being poorly placed in the exhibit, this piece is highly sensational and interactive, and an asset to the collection. 

Overall, Sensory Overload is a successful chronology of optical and kinetic artworks over the past fifty years. The pieces are interactive and fun, and have playful and mysterious effect on the audience. Even middle aged and elderly men and women feel like children in this exhibit, getting close to the works and figuring out what it is about them that makes them an 'overload' for the senses. However it's important to not completely lose objectivity when viewing this exhibit or any exhibit or artworks elsewhere, and that's why pieces like Nam June Paik's 'Ruin' and Ad Reinhardt's 'Black Painting' fit in well with the other pieces. They keep us thinking and keep us not just aesthetically entertained, but cognitively pleased as well.  

Eva Hesse, German-born, American sculptor, painter, and interdisciplinary visual artist, was perhaps most well known for her use of latex, plastics, and fiberglass in her artwork long before these materials were popular on the art scene. She also became an important artist historically, because of her position as a Jewish woman making art in the 1950's and 60's in America, who also was working in a very abstract to non-representational way, which art critics of the time may not have been expecting. What draws me most to Hesse's work, is her concern with the intellectual and philosophical aspects of creation. She says of her work, "When I work, it's only the abstract qualities that I'm working with, which is to say the material, the form it's going to take, the size, the scale, the positioning...for me it's a total image that has to do with me and life." Her works are aesthetically beautiful and brilliant, though not in a traditional way. The works make you question yourself and your ideas, asking you to look again, to come closer, to put words to what you see and to relate to them, and essentially Hesse, on a uniquely personal level. 

Hesse had a take on art making that I can easily relate to. Her materials were often found materials, whatever was lying around at the textile factory she worked at, and her process playful and imaginative. She also focused much on titles of her work, and often kept a thesaurus nearby to search out the right words and titles for her creations. In looking at her artworks, certain words come to mind, and the conversation and vocabulary that can emerge is as interesting as the pieces you are seeing themselves. Often Hesse would say things like she was trying to create 'non-art' and if something was too obviously beautiful, she would re-do it, as she did for her piece 'Repition Nineteen 3'. In my art I often find myself also searching for beauty that is not immediately eye catching, not blatantly obvious to viewers. I think Hesse wanted people to see her works and have to think about them, think about their own lives, and her life, and life in general and all it's eccentricities to actually see the beauty in her pieces. It takes a special kind of person to see beauty in the chaos, and I believe Hesse monopolized this idea in the works she made for the time period she lived in.     

Some of Hesse's works are ominous, some imposing and strange, some chaotic, and at the same time most are fragile and delicate. Experiencing her mother's death at age ten, being in a difficult place with her jewish heritage so close to the time of the holocaust, struggling to make it as a female artist in the 50's and 60's, going through divorce, and eventually learning to live with a fatal illness and dying from a brain tumor at age thirty four left Hesse with incredible insight to the fragility of life. Hesse's work  reminds us how something as vulnerable and at times tragic as human life, can be still eternally beautiful, and still, infinitely worth it. 

I'm not exactly sure what my very best leadership experience has been in my life, but I know one that stands out in my mind that's pretty neat. It happened the summer of 2006. I applied for and received the chance to go on a mission trip in Europe. I was the only one who got accepted from my school ,so I would be going with twenty others who were perfect strangers, and many of them college students (at this time I was going to be a junior in high school in the fall). We spent two weeks just traveling and back packing together as a group around western europe and then would be spending another two weeks in Hungary. I think my leadership style was mostly democratic as we all shared in the experience and had pretty equal roles. Our roles were to live with host families in Pecs, Hungary, and teach an english camp at their middle school for two weeks during the summer break. I definitely think I felt like a leader not only when teaching at the camp in the final two weeks, but also throughout the trip. Being one of the only two people who didn't know anyone else on the trip, I think I handled the discomfort of being away from home so long with strangers extremely well. By the end of the first two weeks I felt completely integrated into the group, and was comfortable with everyone I was traveling with. In a more traditional sense, the leadership during the camp involved leading and making up group English learning games with the hungarian children, teaching them english songs, and just going out of our way to befriend them and help them to improve their English speaking skills. Since we all had a task to focus on, the cohesiveness, and effectiveness of our group and leadership roles were very successful. Because we had all bonded for two weeks previous to the camp, we also had strong membership relations and a fair to strong amount of likability for each other. At the end of the camp, the students didn't want us to leave, and even rode along on a three hour bus ride with us to the airport just to see us off back home. I learned through this experience how easy it can be to engage in leadership roles when you put your mind to it, stay focused on goals, and keep a positive attitude about yourself, your situation, and others. The recognition received was mostly just the thanks we got at the closing reception from the families and students. I have also been able to put this mission trip on several job applications, and also received some compliments from friends, family, and teachers for it as well. Also as a previously extremely shy person, this trip helped me open up and learn how to be more outgoing and more of a leader. 

The guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment used several bases of social power to get compliances from their 'prisoners'. First the used both threats and promises. They threatened the prisoners with solitary confinement, push ups and other physical punishments, and denying certain human rights like their use of the toilet being replaced with a bucket in their cells they sometimes weren't able to clean for a while. They used promises when they decided to break solidarity among prisoners, allowing certain prisoners to sleep in 'privileged' cells where they could brush their teeth and eat better higher quality food at meal times. Secondly the guards used legitimate power to gain prisoners' compliance. Even though they weren't real guards, the inmates thought that they were, or were to obey them like they were actually prison guards. 

Police officers and guards are people we generally consider to be in authority over average citizens. We know that they hold the power to issue us tickets or arrest us if we do things that are illegal. For the most part, people accept this because over all it keeps our society as a whole under control, safe, and happy, however power can be abused. As we saw in the Stanford Prison Experiment, the guards started out reasonably giving orders and keeping control, but as the days went on, the began to exercise less and less humane actions towards the prisoners, and maybe even enjoyed doling out these punishments to them because at the end the guards said they mostly didn't want the experiment to be over, whereas the prisoners did. This experiment proved that the prison system is flawed in that it de-humanizes rather than just corrects behavior. And it's not just the prisoners that experience this de-humanizing, but the guards experience it too. 

If I was a prisoner in this experiment I would like to say that I wouldn't have obeyed the unfair things the guards tried to do to the prisoners, and that I would have stood up for myself and others there with me, but I'm sure the situation is much different once your there under the influence of all the different aspects and the environment of the mock prison life. I'm almost sure, then, that I would have reacted much in the same way as these average volunteers reacted because there's a lot going on that is influencing your mind and way of thinking in that situation, things you can't control or avoid, like solitary confinement if they decide you need it, or refusing to feed you well or at all, or making you defecate in a bucket in your own living space and leave it there, all of these things would change you pyschologically. I think the same goes for the role of the guards. Having been given the powers that they were, and being told to exercise those powers over people that they were told to think of as criminals probably put them in a weird position and I won't say I wouldn't become one of the guards practicing unfair treatment to the prisoners because I think it's one of those things you can't judge until you experience it personally, and I think there's a lot more going on in the psyche than meets the eye in this experiment, but I would like to think I'm to nice of a person to treat people that harshly. I think I'm more of a passive person so it would be easier for me to submit in a bilateral situation rather than cause an useless conflict spiral.

Before entering this class I knew something about what Yoga was like, although my knowledge was, as I am finding out, very limited. I knew Yoga would be excellent for my physical health and well being, and I knew there was a concern for the health of the inner self as well but I had no idea how vast and all encompassing Yoga practice could be. Yoga helps us to integrate our energy, complementing our outer life and physical body to our inner selves and spiritual and intellectual development. It helps us view ourselves and others with compassion and awareness. Through inner growth and outer restraint that we learn by practicing the disciplines of Ashtanga Yoga we are trained over all to lead a more conscious and blissful life. In Ashtanga Yoga, or the Eight Limbs of Yoga, written by Patanjali, there are two limbs that deal with ethical actions and behavior. These two, the yamas and the niyamas, are the two I will elaborate on in the following paragraphs using my own personal experiences and examples. Yamas are the ethical treatment of other people and they include: ahimsa (non-violence), satya (truthfulness), asteya (non-stealing), brahmacharya (chastity), and aparigraha (non-covetousness). The niyamas are the ethical treatment of ourseleves and include: sauca (cleanliness), santosa (contentment), tapas (fervor for the subject), svadhyaya (self study), and isvarapranidhana (surrender to god or a certain subject). 

The yama ahimsa (non-violence) seems like a pretty simple ethical discipline. In fact many of the disciplines of the Yamas and Niyamas seem simple at first. The easy answer to the question, "How can I practice non-violence in my life" is obviously, not to physically harm other people. Which is good! Certainly ahimsa means not directly inflicting pain another person, but it can, as many of these disciplines do, include so much more than that alone. One way that I practice ahimsa in my daily life on a little bit of a deeper level is by practicing vegetarianism. By being vegetarian, I take a step towards preventing myself from hurting or killing other creatures. A way that I am not always good at ahimsa would be in my work place. It's not that I hurt anyone physically at my job, waitressing at a casual dining restaurant, or even verbally harm anyone, but sometimes I get so frustrated at receiving lower end tips that I sometimes have unkind thoughts towards some of the customers. I could improve this by thinking of all the possibilities before I let myself get angry about it, like maybe they didn't have enough money to tip better, or maybe my service was less than ideal. This would be a form of satya, being truthful and real with myself and the customer instead of getting hot headed and not thinking things through. I can learn to not blame other people for a bad tip and maybe then, even if my service wasn't bad at all and they tipped me bad for no reason I can accept the possibility that I was fault anyway and grow and improve even more as a server.       

My practice of the niyama, Sauca, probably needs the most work of all. Not because I'm always dirty or don't brush my teeth or something, but because I have a smoking problem. Sauca doesn't just mean keeping your outer body clean but also your inner body and even your mind. Smoking makes your lungs dirty and actually it doesn't help your outward body stay clean either, or the air around you that you share with others. So needless to say my sauca needs some work. An aspect of sacua that I'm better at, with the exception of when I get a bad tip at work, is keeping my mind and thoughts clean. I know that everyone on occasion thinks badly of others, and I do too, but I honestly have learned to love all different kinds and varieties of people and think positive thoughts about people almost always, even when they act unfavorably towards me. This skill may come from the fact that I grew up in lutheran schools all my life till my senior year of high school, or maybe because my parents have always been very loving and forgiving people, whatever the case, when thinking of myself or other people I have learned to see flaws and failures as opportunities for growth, and I've been told I give good advice in this area. This also touches on santosa (contentment). Jealousy can be a dirty emotion. Being content with what you have helps create cleanliness in your mind and in your spirit. 

Isvaripranidhana is probably the hardest practice of all for anyone to achieve. I'm not sure if anyone can say they are truly and completely dedicated to one certain subject in their life one hundred and ten percent, with no distractions including not being distracted by their ego, and those who can are probably few and far between. However, I think it is possible for many people to come close. I think one good example of isvaripranidhana in my life, though it is definitely not perfect, is my dedication to my studies. I try very hard to get all of my assignments, projects, and papers in on time and done to the best of my ability. I can't say I do this without complaining, and that's where I think I come short, my ego tends to lead my astray, and not just in my studies but in many areas of my life. I think to be able to practice isvaripranidhana, you have to be able to practice all the other yamas and niyamas. I don't think you can be egoless and completely dedicated to a subject without being pure in your mind, or content, or non-violent. That makes isvaripranidhana the ultimate achievement. The other yamas and niyamas can act as mini goals on your way to the ultimate goal, the ultimate surrender of your ego. 

Since the start of my yoga practice three short months ago, I can already see that yoga not only sounds fabulous, but it is fabulous. It's the only practice I know of that simultaneously stimulates you mentally, physically, and spiritually, all at the same time. Even each of the yamas and niyams I've discussed in my paper can be used to enhance your total person in physical ways and non-physical ways alike. In your asanas (yoga postures) you can practice santose by being content with how far you can get down into a pose and not push yourself too far. You can practice tapas by not being afraid to push yourself when your ready to take a pose to the next level (without injuring yourself in the process). You can practice isvaripranidhana by being complete focused on your postures while you practice them, and not letting your mind wander. By practicing these aspects of yoga in your daily life you can achieve both and inner and outer transformation of self, that will only and can only, improve your life to the upmost.