Judith with the Head of Holofernes by Lucas Cranach the Elder
Self by Marc Quinn
Disembodied Zombie George Black by Richard Hawkins
Medusa by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio
With Dead Head by Damien Hirst
The Emancipation Approximation by Kara Walker
On a somewhat unrelated note: Jump for joy: I made my first multiple-image dump! Many thanks to jeanette (who also dumped the first multiple-image dump I ever favved!).
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Interzones
As their shared prefix begins to intimate, the internet warrants interdependence. The following are links to sites that I have recently enjoyed reading, commenting on, and/or exchanging with in one way or another:
WANGA Recap, Episode 3 @ Art Fag City: AFC editor Paddy Johnson has committed herself to recapping each episode for WANGA's entire run. Though I still have major misgivings about the show, Johnson's coverage has been attentive, critical, and dialogue-generating (it's also brought many of WANGA's contestants into the comment-threads - in this case, recently-dismissed artist Judith Braun). I make some points in the thread, too (in more ways than one, I guess, since AFC's newly-designed site also features a somewhat unclear "point system" for commenters).
Jerry Saltz's WANGA Recap, Episode 3 @ New York Magazine: Since I can't join in on the fun of his Facebook page, my only other chance at engaging in public-interweb-discourse with Saltz is to comment on his articles posted for New York Magazine. Saltz went for "self-critique" in this WANGA recap, and I wasn't really feeling it. To my surprise, Saltz repeatedly responded to my comments - and put a cherry on my sundae by briefly adopting the acronym WANGA throughout the exchange. Even though WANGA is a wasteland, I do my best to demonstrate (and make a plea for) how word-play can offer an amusing escape-hatch to the WANGA prison.
Response to Ben Lewis by EAGEAGEAG: Rebutting an article that demands rebuttal, EAGEAGEAG's criticism of Lewis' article "The Dustbin of Art History" at Prospect magazine expertly addresses some of the article's major weaknesses.
Pairings & Re-Dumps by Tom Moody: Renaissance-man Moody has written about and engaged with the site/tool/community/experiment dump.fm; he's also posted several dumps and his remixes of dumps by awesome dumper j1p2m3 (which is me!). Here's a "repurposed corporate graphic - enlarged" and a "large gecko head... enlarged, frames removed," not to mention a "head roll pair" and the evanescent, cybernetic "jumpers."
WANGA Recap, Episode 3 @ Art Fag City: AFC editor Paddy Johnson has committed herself to recapping each episode for WANGA's entire run. Though I still have major misgivings about the show, Johnson's coverage has been attentive, critical, and dialogue-generating (it's also brought many of WANGA's contestants into the comment-threads - in this case, recently-dismissed artist Judith Braun). I make some points in the thread, too (in more ways than one, I guess, since AFC's newly-designed site also features a somewhat unclear "point system" for commenters).
Jerry Saltz's WANGA Recap, Episode 3 @ New York Magazine: Since I can't join in on the fun of his Facebook page, my only other chance at engaging in public-interweb-discourse with Saltz is to comment on his articles posted for New York Magazine. Saltz went for "self-critique" in this WANGA recap, and I wasn't really feeling it. To my surprise, Saltz repeatedly responded to my comments - and put a cherry on my sundae by briefly adopting the acronym WANGA throughout the exchange. Even though WANGA is a wasteland, I do my best to demonstrate (and make a plea for) how word-play can offer an amusing escape-hatch to the WANGA prison.
Response to Ben Lewis by EAGEAGEAG: Rebutting an article that demands rebuttal, EAGEAGEAG's criticism of Lewis' article "The Dustbin of Art History" at Prospect magazine expertly addresses some of the article's major weaknesses.
Pairings & Re-Dumps by Tom Moody: Renaissance-man Moody has written about and engaged with the site/tool/community/experiment dump.fm; he's also posted several dumps and his remixes of dumps by awesome dumper j1p2m3 (which is me!). Here's a "repurposed corporate graphic - enlarged" and a "large gecko head... enlarged, frames removed," not to mention a "head roll pair" and the evanescent, cybernetic "jumpers."
New Dictionary
My attempts to institute "WANGA" as a critically-acclaimed term appear to be dwindling. In fact, other commenters are now trying to turn Saltz away from my suggested sources with blatant scare tactics. My feeble attempts to redirect meaning continued with the following comment:
@REBECCAROSE2004: Like a loosely-moderated comment-thread, the Urban Dictionary is comprised of texts by whoever wants to venture a definition, which, although problematic, doesn't make "a very evil place, filled with vile, evil, horrendous things." It makes it a democratic place (there's even a crude "voting" application for each entry), which I thought was supposed to be one of the noble attributes of WANGA (the show, of course).
And whether the Urban Dictionary is comprised of wholly "truthful," error-free definitions only reinforces that it is, in fact, a dictionary (good luck finding a dictionary that isn't rife with dubious definitions! There's a reason that even the most beloved dictionaries enjoy frequent updates/editions).
Given the flak that Judith received for her "backwards" cover (someone on Facebook - a friend of contestant Erik, no less - posted that she "HATED Judith's slaughter of one of my favorite novels of all time"), and how it was later found that Austen herself wrote backwards-written letters for her niece, I would hope that one thing that could be eked from the banality of WANGA is that art-making often rewards us when we engage in a slow, thoughtful, playful read rather than mucking around in bland literalism.
In 1966, Kurt Vonnegut wrote an essay called "New Dictionary" that was later published in his short-story compilation "Welcome to the Monkey House." You can read all of "New Dictionary" online, but here's a bit that does well to explicate how even an earnest search for "dirty words" can lead to new, if not unexpected, knowledge of other things:
@REBECCAROSE2004: Like a loosely-moderated comment-thread, the Urban Dictionary is comprised of texts by whoever wants to venture a definition, which, although problematic, doesn't make "a very evil place, filled with vile, evil, horrendous things." It makes it a democratic place (there's even a crude "voting" application for each entry), which I thought was supposed to be one of the noble attributes of WANGA (the show, of course).
And whether the Urban Dictionary is comprised of wholly "truthful," error-free definitions only reinforces that it is, in fact, a dictionary (good luck finding a dictionary that isn't rife with dubious definitions! There's a reason that even the most beloved dictionaries enjoy frequent updates/editions).
Given the flak that Judith received for her "backwards" cover (someone on Facebook - a friend of contestant Erik, no less - posted that she "HATED Judith's slaughter of one of my favorite novels of all time"), and how it was later found that Austen herself wrote backwards-written letters for her niece, I would hope that one thing that could be eked from the banality of WANGA is that art-making often rewards us when we engage in a slow, thoughtful, playful read rather than mucking around in bland literalism.
In 1966, Kurt Vonnegut wrote an essay called "New Dictionary" that was later published in his short-story compilation "Welcome to the Monkey House." You can read all of "New Dictionary" online, but here's a bit that does well to explicate how even an earnest search for "dirty words" can lead to new, if not unexpected, knowledge of other things:
If my emphasis on dirty words so early in this review seems childish, I can only replay that I, as a child, would never have started going through unabridged dictionaries if I hadn't suspected that there were dirty words hidden in there, where only grownups were supposed to find them. I always ended the searches feeling hot and stuffy inside, and looking at the queer illustrations - at the trammel wheel, the arbalest, and the dugong.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Looping Michael
I've picked up several animated GIF's of Michael Jackson on dump.fm in the past couple of months, and today seems like an appropriate day to post them.
It's also got me thinking about how animated GIF's can act as a strangely appropriate form to memorialize someone, given their quality of "preserving" an image and representing it ad infinitum. Rather than encaustic mummy portraits or idealized relief-portraits on gravestones, I could see people having beatific cycling portraits of themselves programmed into the face of their tomb (be it urn, headstone, or Facebook page).
Michael morphing, shuffling off this mortal coil (posted on dump.fm by godless)
Spotlit "Smooth Criminal"
Gold-clad, crotch-dive, shake-off
Right angle forever
Adoring, clutching fan
Popstar as ascending, haloed, glittering archangel
"Remember the Time" frisson
Living-hieroglyph blitz
Update: Though not an animated GIF, this painted relief by artist Carolyn Lloyd Swain memorializes Jackson with neo-folk aplomb.
It's also got me thinking about how animated GIF's can act as a strangely appropriate form to memorialize someone, given their quality of "preserving" an image and representing it ad infinitum. Rather than encaustic mummy portraits or idealized relief-portraits on gravestones, I could see people having beatific cycling portraits of themselves programmed into the face of their tomb (be it urn, headstone, or Facebook page).
Michael morphing, shuffling off this mortal coil (posted on dump.fm by godless)
Spotlit "Smooth Criminal"
Gold-clad, crotch-dive, shake-off
Right angle forever
Adoring, clutching fan
Popstar as ascending, haloed, glittering archangel
"Remember the Time" frisson
Living-hieroglyph blitz
Update: Though not an animated GIF, this painted relief by artist Carolyn Lloyd Swain memorializes Jackson with neo-folk aplomb.
WANGA-Meme Etymological Madness
The arrested-adolescent side of me is doing cartwheels as the word-nerd side of me nods in smug self-satisfaction. Or vice-versa. Maybe they're just sides of the same coin?
I looked up the word WANGA and I got two main definitions:
1. "The term Wanga is an African diasporic word that occurs in The Book of the Law (the sacred text of Thelema, written by English author and occultist Aleister Crowley in 1904): A wanga is a magical charm packet found in the folk magic practices of Haiti, and as such it is connected to the West African religion of Vodun, which in turn derives from the Fon people of what is now Benin."
2. "Wanga Dolls can bring you love, money, success, revenge--anything you desire! Select the doll or dolls that fit your specific need, then experience the wonders that only a Wanga may bring!
Wanga Dolls summon the forces of the night, supernatural forces that are beyond man's comprehension. Each Wanga represents a powerful spirit that could work in behalf of the person who possesses it. Possess the Wanga and let its extraordinary powers work for you!
Wanga Dolls are hand-crafted and hand-painted, so please order your Wanga only if your need is great."
HAH!
JESSE_P_MARTIN: @JerrySaltz: Please Google "WANGA URBAN DICTIONARY" for a more contemporary use of the term. It's much more "HAH!" worthy than what a simple Google-search will provide. Do you think the people that named the show were aware of the magical, naughty acronym they had smuggled into the show's title? I'm afraid that this interests me somewhat more than the politics of the show.
JERRYSALTZCRITIC: I have to admit that I did know exactly what 'Work of Art's " subtitle was. I just looked it up. It is "The Next Great Artist." (ouch!)
In a previous comment Mr. Jessie_P_Martin advises us to look up the word WANGA (Mr. Martin's acronym for the TV show) is the Urban Dictionary. The (partial) definition is:
"Wanga: A male reproductive organ, in some cases extremely large.
(adj.) Most likely originating from Mexico or Latin America.
1. Loose or floppy, especially referring to clothing or body parts.
2. A adjective that conveys a negative feeling toward bagginess, floppiness or looseness of clothing, body parts or attachments."
(Note: There were four (!) misspellings in the U.D's definition of the word; so that this might just be a bogus internet definition.) Nevertheless, Mr. Martin, perhaps all those words can be applied to WoA: baggy, floppy, loose, and extremely large.
Hah!
Thank you,
Jerry Saltz
JESSE_P_MARTIN: To fully exploit the potential for all of the "vulgar" acronyms being thrown around, I propose that the "Work of Art: the Next Great Artist" (WANGA) solo-exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum (BM) be thus titled: "WANGA in the BM." Thoughts?
UPDATE: Following this exchange, Saltz has returned to typing "WoA" (Work of Art) instead of "WANGA' - even when he's quoting other commenters who are using "WANGA." Don't drop the WANGA ball, Jerry! I just posted the following to the thread, ending with the Barthes quote above:
JESSE_P_MARTIN: @JerrySaltz: Can't help but see that you misquoted JUJU69's use of the proper acronym "WANGA" for your abbreviated "WoA," a revision that JUJU69 has unfortunately adopted in their subsequent post (doubly surprising, given the voodoo/randy implications of a name like "JUJU69," similar to the previous investigations into the meanings of the word "Wanga"). Why the change back? Preference or producer pressure?
...Fourier's speech itself is sensual, it progresses in effusiveness, enthusiasm, throngs of words, verbal gourmandise (neologism is an erotic act, which is why he never fails to arouse the censure of pedants). (Roland Barthes from Sade: Fourier: Loyola)JERRYSALTZCRITIC: Someone above used the word WANGA to describe Work of Art...
I looked up the word WANGA and I got two main definitions:
1. "The term Wanga is an African diasporic word that occurs in The Book of the Law (the sacred text of Thelema, written by English author and occultist Aleister Crowley in 1904): A wanga is a magical charm packet found in the folk magic practices of Haiti, and as such it is connected to the West African religion of Vodun, which in turn derives from the Fon people of what is now Benin."
2. "Wanga Dolls can bring you love, money, success, revenge--anything you desire! Select the doll or dolls that fit your specific need, then experience the wonders that only a Wanga may bring!
Wanga Dolls summon the forces of the night, supernatural forces that are beyond man's comprehension. Each Wanga represents a powerful spirit that could work in behalf of the person who possesses it. Possess the Wanga and let its extraordinary powers work for you!
Wanga Dolls are hand-crafted and hand-painted, so please order your Wanga only if your need is great."
HAH!
JESSE_P_MARTIN: @JerrySaltz: Please Google "WANGA URBAN DICTIONARY" for a more contemporary use of the term. It's much more "HAH!" worthy than what a simple Google-search will provide. Do you think the people that named the show were aware of the magical, naughty acronym they had smuggled into the show's title? I'm afraid that this interests me somewhat more than the politics of the show.
JERRYSALTZCRITIC: I have to admit that I did know exactly what 'Work of Art's " subtitle was. I just looked it up. It is "The Next Great Artist." (ouch!)
In a previous comment Mr. Jessie_P_Martin advises us to look up the word WANGA (Mr. Martin's acronym for the TV show) is the Urban Dictionary. The (partial) definition is:
"Wanga: A male reproductive organ, in some cases extremely large.
(adj.) Most likely originating from Mexico or Latin America.
1. Loose or floppy, especially referring to clothing or body parts.
2. A adjective that conveys a negative feeling toward bagginess, floppiness or looseness of clothing, body parts or attachments."
(Note: There were four (!) misspellings in the U.D's definition of the word; so that this might just be a bogus internet definition.) Nevertheless, Mr. Martin, perhaps all those words can be applied to WoA: baggy, floppy, loose, and extremely large.
Hah!
Thank you,
Jerry Saltz
JESSE_P_MARTIN: To fully exploit the potential for all of the "vulgar" acronyms being thrown around, I propose that the "Work of Art: the Next Great Artist" (WANGA) solo-exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum (BM) be thus titled: "WANGA in the BM." Thoughts?
UPDATE: Following this exchange, Saltz has returned to typing "WoA" (Work of Art) instead of "WANGA' - even when he's quoting other commenters who are using "WANGA." Don't drop the WANGA ball, Jerry! I just posted the following to the thread, ending with the Barthes quote above:
JESSE_P_MARTIN: @JerrySaltz: Can't help but see that you misquoted JUJU69's use of the proper acronym "WANGA" for your abbreviated "WoA," a revision that JUJU69 has unfortunately adopted in their subsequent post (doubly surprising, given the voodoo/randy implications of a name like "JUJU69," similar to the previous investigations into the meanings of the word "Wanga"). Why the change back? Preference or producer pressure?
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Johnson WANGA
WANGA BONUS SUPPLEMENT: Apparently inspired by my posting of my Saltz-exchange on Facebook, WANGA contestant Erik Johnson commented on my wall. WANGA saturation supreme...
Erik Johnson: Jerry is an awesome guy... Like the rest of us, he doesn't owe anyone regret, guilt, or any of the other goofy shit the insider art world needs so it can forgive us for doing a reality show... We all had a chance to be part of something and we had fun... When "the ultimate fighter" first aired there were a lot of pro fighters who called these guys "reality show rejects" ... That is until they were spraying those words out of a mouth void of it's teeth.
I appreciate your opinion, and your enthusiasm... I just think if people who are so against this show applied their opinions of it to ANY other reality show that has brought light to a closed off protected clique, they would probably see how ridiculous it is to be so against it. I love art so I'll support anything that makes it more available... Anything that makes it more fun... And I don't think me or Jerry or anyone else involved should feel bad about that... Before "the ultimate fighter" MMA wasn't nearly as popular as it is today... After it aired the sport grew overnight... That to me is a good thing because as a fan, I had more access to the sport: websites, magazines, tv shows, local fights and most importantly great conversations/debates with other fans. I know quite a few people that are putting food on their table since the amazing growth of that sport. I know it's a long shot, but "work of art" could do the same thing for artists... If that's the case then I'm happy to be a part of it.
Jesse Patrick Martin: @Erik: How is it that you don't consider Jerry Saltz an "art world insider?" Being a charismatic critic who prides himself on not going to art school doesn't exempt him from having extensive affiliations with the "art snobs" and "elitists" that you're constantly raging against. Your "outsider" stance is tired, wrongheaded, and misinformed. I'm not saying this to piss you off, but to sincerely let you know that your "us vs. them" arguments are just getting in the way of things.
I'm glad the WANGA experience has been positive for you, and I'm not suggesting that anyone should feel guilty about taking part in it. What I am advocating is that any real criticism of WANGA's problematic format isn't just dismissed as "hating," "elitist," "insider," or "snob" talk.
As an artist and teacher (and reality-show watcher!), it's important for me to address WANGA in a genuinely thoughtful way. I agree with you completely that art should be made available, but I can't say that "I'll support anything that makes it more available" or "fun," because the formats that make art "available" aren't always in the best interests of art and artists - and I strongly feel that WANGA is an example of this.
Erik Johnson: Hahaha! I'm certainly not trying to change your mind about anything.. If everyone agreed with me, then I'd never get to have an interesting conversation... And whether my "outsider" deal is tired or whatever, really isn't any of my business. I'm not defending Jerry, he's a big boy with some VERY thick skin... I think what makes him different is the fact that he is interested in getting people to talk about art. Getting people who normally would think they can't have an opinion about art to realize that they can and do... Seriously (I know I'm opening myself up for some insults from some people here) I have a hard time even calling myself an artist most of the time. I'm just a guy who likes to make stuff and be creative. I'm not talking about your post when insatiable this but I have read some really nasty shit about myself lately from the insider art snobs. Some of it is kinda funny, some of it is pretty mean. I really just can't understand what the fuss is about. If your problem is with the format, then that's a "television" issue not an "art issue" When I dislike something THAT much I just refrain from watching it, I don't put ANY of my energy into it.
Anyway, I could go on and on, but I'm not trying to debate this, or change your mind. But I would like to know what could possibly be the WORST thing that can happen from this show?
Jesse Patrick Martin: @Erik: The "worst" thing that could happen has already happened, and has been happening for some time: the total folding of art into the world of sheer advertising, entertainment, commercialism, fashion, design, etc.
WANGA is merely a symptom of this type of banal and continued assimilation of art into these realms, and the translation always seems to leave art/artists at the narrow but precise whims of marketing rather than allowing it/them to exist without such strictures.
I'm not promoting a "pure," idealistic prescription for how art/artists should operate, but I am saying that there are bad-marriages between art & commercialism that ultimately work to water-down and mass-distribute an *idea* of art, artists, and the "art world" that only further denigrates actual art/artists.
Erik Johnson: Jerry is an awesome guy... Like the rest of us, he doesn't owe anyone regret, guilt, or any of the other goofy shit the insider art world needs so it can forgive us for doing a reality show... We all had a chance to be part of something and we had fun... When "the ultimate fighter" first aired there were a lot of pro fighters who called these guys "reality show rejects" ... That is until they were spraying those words out of a mouth void of it's teeth.
I appreciate your opinion, and your enthusiasm... I just think if people who are so against this show applied their opinions of it to ANY other reality show that has brought light to a closed off protected clique, they would probably see how ridiculous it is to be so against it. I love art so I'll support anything that makes it more available... Anything that makes it more fun... And I don't think me or Jerry or anyone else involved should feel bad about that... Before "the ultimate fighter" MMA wasn't nearly as popular as it is today... After it aired the sport grew overnight... That to me is a good thing because as a fan, I had more access to the sport: websites, magazines, tv shows, local fights and most importantly great conversations/debates with other fans. I know quite a few people that are putting food on their table since the amazing growth of that sport. I know it's a long shot, but "work of art" could do the same thing for artists... If that's the case then I'm happy to be a part of it.
Jesse Patrick Martin: @Erik: How is it that you don't consider Jerry Saltz an "art world insider?" Being a charismatic critic who prides himself on not going to art school doesn't exempt him from having extensive affiliations with the "art snobs" and "elitists" that you're constantly raging against. Your "outsider" stance is tired, wrongheaded, and misinformed. I'm not saying this to piss you off, but to sincerely let you know that your "us vs. them" arguments are just getting in the way of things.
I'm glad the WANGA experience has been positive for you, and I'm not suggesting that anyone should feel guilty about taking part in it. What I am advocating is that any real criticism of WANGA's problematic format isn't just dismissed as "hating," "elitist," "insider," or "snob" talk.
As an artist and teacher (and reality-show watcher!), it's important for me to address WANGA in a genuinely thoughtful way. I agree with you completely that art should be made available, but I can't say that "I'll support anything that makes it more available" or "fun," because the formats that make art "available" aren't always in the best interests of art and artists - and I strongly feel that WANGA is an example of this.
Erik Johnson: Hahaha! I'm certainly not trying to change your mind about anything.. If everyone agreed with me, then I'd never get to have an interesting conversation... And whether my "outsider" deal is tired or whatever, really isn't any of my business. I'm not defending Jerry, he's a big boy with some VERY thick skin... I think what makes him different is the fact that he is interested in getting people to talk about art. Getting people who normally would think they can't have an opinion about art to realize that they can and do... Seriously (I know I'm opening myself up for some insults from some people here) I have a hard time even calling myself an artist most of the time. I'm just a guy who likes to make stuff and be creative. I'm not talking about your post when insatiable this but I have read some really nasty shit about myself lately from the insider art snobs. Some of it is kinda funny, some of it is pretty mean. I really just can't understand what the fuss is about. If your problem is with the format, then that's a "television" issue not an "art issue" When I dislike something THAT much I just refrain from watching it, I don't put ANY of my energy into it.
Anyway, I could go on and on, but I'm not trying to debate this, or change your mind. But I would like to know what could possibly be the WORST thing that can happen from this show?
Jesse Patrick Martin: @Erik: The "worst" thing that could happen has already happened, and has been happening for some time: the total folding of art into the world of sheer advertising, entertainment, commercialism, fashion, design, etc.
WANGA is merely a symptom of this type of banal and continued assimilation of art into these realms, and the translation always seems to leave art/artists at the narrow but precise whims of marketing rather than allowing it/them to exist without such strictures.
I'm not promoting a "pure," idealistic prescription for how art/artists should operate, but I am saying that there are bad-marriages between art & commercialism that ultimately work to water-down and mass-distribute an *idea* of art, artists, and the "art world" that only further denigrates actual art/artists.
WANGA Sprouts
Jerry Saltz has been writing WANGA recaps for New York Magazine following each show, and since I can't comment on his thoughts via Facebook, I responded to his latest article on the magazine's website (linking to and posting all of my comments to my Facebook wall, of course). Saltz is very good about responding to comments, and I appreciate him taking the time to engage with his audience.
Still, we're clearly not in agreement about all things WANGA. I encourage you to read Saltz's article and the comments, but have posted our exchange below.
(Post title "WANGA Sprouts" courtesy of artist Molly Porter)
JESSE_P_MARTIN: It's interesting that nearly everyone involved in this show feels the need to apologize or "set the record straight" after every episode and/or news blip. Clearly the format of WANGA is *extremely* problematic, primarily because it is entirely beholden to naked commercialism, period (not to mention the major imperfections of drama-hungry, effects-laden, edit-happy reality-t.v. conventions). Does WANGA even have commercials for museums, art-schools, galleries, or anything remotely related to the arts? No: there are ads with Kelly Ripa hawking washing machines, ads for other Bravo shows, ads for home-improvement crap, etc.
I appreciate that Saltz is being "self-critical" and becoming more aware of how grossly misrepresentative this show/format is, but I'm not entirely convinced that the burgeoning guilt and regret he's articulating in his "recaps" reflect a genuine ethical conflict as much as it does his need to save-face in order to remain a likable fellow for his general readership.
JERRYSALTZCRITIC: Dear Jesse_P_Martin;
Thank you for your commnets.
You write, "...I appreciate that Saltz is being "self-critical" and becoming more aware of how grossly misrepresentative this show/format is..."
JPM: While I think that the words "grossly misrepresentative" are a bit much, I was aware going in that Bravo would edit this show anyway that they wanted to, and that I would be made a "character" on the show.
To me the format is NOT a Reality TV show. It is a game show. There are asignmnets, contestants, time restrictions, material restrictions, snarky judges; someone gets 'voted off."
You write, "...I'm not entirely convinced that the burgeoning guilt and regret he's articulating in his "recaps" reflect a genuine ethical conflict..."
Three things JPM;
1. I do not feel any sense of "guilt" about being on this TV show. At all. I LOVED doing it. I would do it again (fat chance that a show this odd could ever go into a second season - but stranger thangs have happened.)
2. "Regret" comes with almost everything I do. So perhaps you are right; I often read what I have written and want a do-over or a chance to change or fix something. In that sense I "regret." I often look at the show and find myself thinking, "What am I doing there?" Hah!
3. I am sorry that if these reecaps seem like I am just trying to "save-face in order to remain a likable fellow." That is not what they feel like to me. That means I am not doing a good enough job.
4. To me you are wrong: I have no "genuine ethical conflict" about being on the Bravo show. None at all. I would do it again. I am sure that only makes you think I am all the more, in your words, "grossly misrepresentative."
Thank you for your comments.
Jerry Saltz
JESSE_P_MARTIN: @JerrySaltz: It lightens things to call WANGA a "game show," though the characteristics you've mentioned (i.e., snarky judges, getting voted-off, etc.) would be more accurately defined as "reality show" conventions. Reality shows like WANGA often have a carrot-dangling "prize" and "challenges" to elicit conflict/competition, but unlike actual game shows (or games), there are no clear, objectively correct answers or rules to winning. Reality shows are more akin to pageantry contests like "Miss America" and its ilk, because we're asked to assess "contestants" based on our subjective, emotional responses to their actions, not determine a "winner" based on them actually getting an answer right ("The Great Race" would seem like a closer reality-show/game-show hybrid than "American Idol"). Though WANGA has certainly taken on the clear and crass game-show conventions of product-hawking that makes being sold crap feel so entertaining (instead of "Barker's Beauties" caressing salad-sets, we've got China Chow giving Pepsi-sponsored "recaps" w/soda bottle prominently displayed near her glamorous persona).
Why all of this hair-splitting? Because WANGA is conflating so much under the auspices of it being "about/for art" when it's all really "about advertising," and your humanistic "recaps" are just another diversion away from these glaring "realities." Yes, let's discuss how "real" Judith is and the finer points of why Trong was/wasn't given a fair shake. By "deepening" the already false emotional ties that people are developing to WANGA, you're merely perpetuating greater mystification and turning away from genuinely considering and questioning what this show is really about. Your mention of the museum trustee's departure is a start. Otherwise, it's hard for me not to see any reflections, comments, and "criticisms" of WANGA by its participants as being anything but the distracting blather of shills (and the lack of awareness by WANGA's participants that they are unwittingly acting as shills doesn't make it any better!).
JERRYSALTZCRITIC: Dear Jesse_P_Martin;
Thank you for all of your comments.
In your first comments I was not sure was WANGA was.
Then I saw you use it again.
In your last comment I figured out that when you say WANGA you mean the show, 'Work of Art." Just wanted to clarify for people.
You write, "...it's hard for me not to see any reflections, comments, and "criticisms" of WANGA by its participants as being anything but the distracting blather of shills (and the lack of awareness by WANGA's participants that they are unwittingly acting as shills doesn't make it any better!)."
Wow! You REALLY don't like this show. I can understand that.
Mr. or Ms. Jesse_P_Martin: You may be right.
Thank you.
Jerry Saltz
JESSE_P_MARTIN: @JerrySaltz: WANGA is the naturally-occurring acronym for "Work of Art: the Next Great Artist," and has other unfortunate meanings as well (http://bit.ly/cFVQZP). I am a Mr., though my name often confuses people. And I try to give equal attention to the things I don't like as I do to the things that I do like - it seems only fair, and it's a good way to keep one's critical-facilities sharp. Even if my opinions do veer more towards the unforgiving and acerbic, my calling the participants "unwitting shills" feels all the more appropriate given that the following was the result of last night's challenge (link courtesy victor/shill John Parot, via Facebook): http://bit.ly/baT1Wc
p.s.- And I like Parot's work, but that's beside the point!
Note: Saltz's response to my response to his response is most satisfying, not because he's unsure of whether I'm a Mr. or Ms., or because he says that I "may be right" about one of my points, but BECAUSE HE ADOPTS THE ACRONYM "WANGA" FOUR TIMES DURING HIS COMMENT (and also writes briefly about his initial confusion with the term). Other commenters are now using the term, AFC (which has a great new look!) is archiving all WANGA posts as "WANGA," and Judith L. Butler is calling it WANGA, too, over at Two Coats of Paint. Wowza! Did I start a meme? I can now die a happy man!
Still, we're clearly not in agreement about all things WANGA. I encourage you to read Saltz's article and the comments, but have posted our exchange below.
(Post title "WANGA Sprouts" courtesy of artist Molly Porter)
JESSE_P_MARTIN: It's interesting that nearly everyone involved in this show feels the need to apologize or "set the record straight" after every episode and/or news blip. Clearly the format of WANGA is *extremely* problematic, primarily because it is entirely beholden to naked commercialism, period (not to mention the major imperfections of drama-hungry, effects-laden, edit-happy reality-t.v. conventions). Does WANGA even have commercials for museums, art-schools, galleries, or anything remotely related to the arts? No: there are ads with Kelly Ripa hawking washing machines, ads for other Bravo shows, ads for home-improvement crap, etc.
I appreciate that Saltz is being "self-critical" and becoming more aware of how grossly misrepresentative this show/format is, but I'm not entirely convinced that the burgeoning guilt and regret he's articulating in his "recaps" reflect a genuine ethical conflict as much as it does his need to save-face in order to remain a likable fellow for his general readership.
JERRYSALTZCRITIC: Dear Jesse_P_Martin;
Thank you for your commnets.
You write, "...I appreciate that Saltz is being "self-critical" and becoming more aware of how grossly misrepresentative this show/format is..."
JPM: While I think that the words "grossly misrepresentative" are a bit much, I was aware going in that Bravo would edit this show anyway that they wanted to, and that I would be made a "character" on the show.
To me the format is NOT a Reality TV show. It is a game show. There are asignmnets, contestants, time restrictions, material restrictions, snarky judges; someone gets 'voted off."
You write, "...I'm not entirely convinced that the burgeoning guilt and regret he's articulating in his "recaps" reflect a genuine ethical conflict..."
Three things JPM;
1. I do not feel any sense of "guilt" about being on this TV show. At all. I LOVED doing it. I would do it again (fat chance that a show this odd could ever go into a second season - but stranger thangs have happened.)
2. "Regret" comes with almost everything I do. So perhaps you are right; I often read what I have written and want a do-over or a chance to change or fix something. In that sense I "regret." I often look at the show and find myself thinking, "What am I doing there?" Hah!
3. I am sorry that if these reecaps seem like I am just trying to "save-face in order to remain a likable fellow." That is not what they feel like to me. That means I am not doing a good enough job.
4. To me you are wrong: I have no "genuine ethical conflict" about being on the Bravo show. None at all. I would do it again. I am sure that only makes you think I am all the more, in your words, "grossly misrepresentative."
Thank you for your comments.
Jerry Saltz
JESSE_P_MARTIN: @JerrySaltz: It lightens things to call WANGA a "game show," though the characteristics you've mentioned (i.e., snarky judges, getting voted-off, etc.) would be more accurately defined as "reality show" conventions. Reality shows like WANGA often have a carrot-dangling "prize" and "challenges" to elicit conflict/competition, but unlike actual game shows (or games), there are no clear, objectively correct answers or rules to winning. Reality shows are more akin to pageantry contests like "Miss America" and its ilk, because we're asked to assess "contestants" based on our subjective, emotional responses to their actions, not determine a "winner" based on them actually getting an answer right ("The Great Race" would seem like a closer reality-show/game-show hybrid than "American Idol"). Though WANGA has certainly taken on the clear and crass game-show conventions of product-hawking that makes being sold crap feel so entertaining (instead of "Barker's Beauties" caressing salad-sets, we've got China Chow giving Pepsi-sponsored "recaps" w/soda bottle prominently displayed near her glamorous persona).
Why all of this hair-splitting? Because WANGA is conflating so much under the auspices of it being "about/for art" when it's all really "about advertising," and your humanistic "recaps" are just another diversion away from these glaring "realities." Yes, let's discuss how "real" Judith is and the finer points of why Trong was/wasn't given a fair shake. By "deepening" the already false emotional ties that people are developing to WANGA, you're merely perpetuating greater mystification and turning away from genuinely considering and questioning what this show is really about. Your mention of the museum trustee's departure is a start. Otherwise, it's hard for me not to see any reflections, comments, and "criticisms" of WANGA by its participants as being anything but the distracting blather of shills (and the lack of awareness by WANGA's participants that they are unwittingly acting as shills doesn't make it any better!).
JERRYSALTZCRITIC: Dear Jesse_P_Martin;
Thank you for all of your comments.
In your first comments I was not sure was WANGA was.
Then I saw you use it again.
In your last comment I figured out that when you say WANGA you mean the show, 'Work of Art." Just wanted to clarify for people.
You write, "...it's hard for me not to see any reflections, comments, and "criticisms" of WANGA by its participants as being anything but the distracting blather of shills (and the lack of awareness by WANGA's participants that they are unwittingly acting as shills doesn't make it any better!)."
Wow! You REALLY don't like this show. I can understand that.
Mr. or Ms. Jesse_P_Martin: You may be right.
Thank you.
Jerry Saltz
JESSE_P_MARTIN: @JerrySaltz: WANGA is the naturally-occurring acronym for "Work of Art: the Next Great Artist," and has other unfortunate meanings as well (http://bit.ly/cFVQZP). I am a Mr., though my name often confuses people. And I try to give equal attention to the things I don't like as I do to the things that I do like - it seems only fair, and it's a good way to keep one's critical-facilities sharp. Even if my opinions do veer more towards the unforgiving and acerbic, my calling the participants "unwitting shills" feels all the more appropriate given that the following was the result of last night's challenge (link courtesy victor/shill John Parot, via Facebook): http://bit.ly/baT1Wc
p.s.- And I like Parot's work, but that's beside the point!
Note: Saltz's response to my response to his response is most satisfying, not because he's unsure of whether I'm a Mr. or Ms., or because he says that I "may be right" about one of my points, but BECAUSE HE ADOPTS THE ACRONYM "WANGA" FOUR TIMES DURING HIS COMMENT (and also writes briefly about his initial confusion with the term). Other commenters are now using the term, AFC (which has a great new look!) is archiving all WANGA posts as "WANGA," and Judith L. Butler is calling it WANGA, too, over at Two Coats of Paint. Wowza! Did I start a meme? I can now die a happy man!
Monday, June 21, 2010
Wasteland
This paragraph can be reached from no place in the whole adventure. We know who you are, and we will get you for reading this paragraph. Expect it most when you expect it least. (Wasteland, Paragraph 145)Wasteland was a computer game that I played when my father brought it home in the late '80s. I had never experienced anything like it. It became one of those distractions that I'd daydream about returning to as I sat through Catholic-school math class. Wasteland was violent, dark, and "adult" (there were prostitutes, bars, drugs, and gambling), but it was also funny, mysterious, challenging, and thoroughly entertaining. Besides sporting a Legend of Zelda-style, bird's-eye-view interface, the game was incredibly immersive and even somewhat literary (though I'm sure the nine-year-old me wouldn't have described it in those particular terms).
The latter trait owed a great deal to Wasteland's inclusion of a "paragraphs" book: a separate, physical pamphlet that a player had to refer to at various points throughout the game. The "paragraphs" weren't a rule-book or technical guide; they were an archive of one hundred and sixty-two numbered entries which, although organized logically from 1-162, were not meant to be read in a linear fashion. Instead, a player was prompted at various times throughout the game to refer to a particular paragraph number. Though the "paragraphs" were likely intended as a primitive copy-protection (many of the entries were red herrings) and way for the programmers to circumvent text-heavy passages within the game, they also made for an intriguing stand-alone document.
While no where near as gorgeously sprawling, copious, and fiercely, rigorously intellectual as Walter Benjamin's fractious, talismanic Arcades Project, Wasteland's "paragraphs" were, for a nine-year-old me, a kind of ur-form of modular narratives, hypertext, and intertextuality. I knew that the "correct" way to "use" the "paragraphs" was to faithfully play the game and obediently wait to read the appropriate entry when I was told. Still, there was a guilty pleasure in sneaking peeks at random entries, even though I knew that such indiscretions could qualify as cheating, lead to game "spoilers," or even expose me to gross misinformation. Funny enough, it was like reading a "choose your own adventure" book from cover-to-cover (as if it were a conventional book) rather than following the jumpy-but-linear "path" that your "decisions" brought you to. Promiscuous, unrestrained reading had its consequences, but it also held rewards.
There are, thankfully and of course, other manners of interpreting my childhood experience and adult interpretation of Wasteland. Is it significant that, by turning away from my Catholic-school studies for a post-nuclear-fallout computer game, I was simply trading one escapist eschatology for a more entertaining one? And what is the Bible but a hallowed, venerable, multi-authored, chronologically-dubious intertext? Surely, Sister Theodosia would bludgeon my knuckles to the bone.
Supplementary Reading
Review of Wasteland at Abandonia (you can download it there for DOSBox)
More shameless fanboy love of Wasteland (with stills of Wasteland's denizens at the bottom of the article)
Animations of Wasteland's denizens
Highly-flawed, in-screen simulation of Wasteland
Highly-flawed animated GIF of a Wasteland "Desert Dweller" by yours truly
Wasteland decrypted
The Waste Land deconstructed
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Rhetoric as Magic
I was recently gifted a small cache of Critical Inquiry periodicals from the '70s and '80s (which you can access online via JSTOR if you have the proper institutional affiliations). There's a lot of writing about "deconstruction," as well as formal-yet-impassioned essays that attempt to debunk, elevate, comprehend, and/or assess what was the "new" theoretical thrust in contrast/comparison with the "classic" canonical texts that these meddling (predominantly French-theory inspired) texts were (in)directly putting under siege.
Like the proceeding sentence, many of the Critical Inquiry essays are convoluted, problematic, and glibly referential. But they also make excellent arguments as to why such loosey-goosey characteristics are unavoidable:
I also enjoy the "panoply of figures" that Miller cites above, which Leitch "uses to describe (Miller) and (his) criticism." These phantasmagorical "figures" describe Miller - and any deconstructivist - as magical entities who are alternately destructive, creative, violent, and gentle in their chameleonic incarnations. As dubbed by Leitch, Miller is a "doubled fairy godmother," "magician-godmother," "nihilistic magician," "underworld fairy godmother," "bull-deconstructer," and finally, a "lamb."
The web allows for us to shift identities in an equally "magical" way, and since we're dealing primarily with text and image, the shapeshifter's approach is most fitting. Whether we're being magician-poachers, Virgils, scatological Borgesian illustrators, or even "noble trolls," we're wonderfully, inescapably trapped in the "prison-house" of our own makings.
Like the proceeding sentence, many of the Critical Inquiry essays are convoluted, problematic, and glibly referential. But they also make excellent arguments as to why such loosey-goosey characteristics are unavoidable:
To track down every single source and influence in a work to its precise point of origin is manifestly impossible. (Only the force of desire or the existence of hypotheses without truth-value allows us to think otherwise.) The actual place of inauguration of any word, concept, idea, or myth is indeterminate. Thus, the critical concepts of "origin" and "unity" are undermined by the inescapable operations of intertexuality as well as by the ubiquitous forces of difference. (Vincent B. Leitch, from The Lateral Dance: The Deconstructive Criticism of J. Hillis Miller)Adopting these tactics have continued to be vehemently criticized even today, although the appearance of these assails within the "prison-house" of the internet strikes me as wholly ironic (though this contextual irony seems lost on these critics). Leitch invokes the panoptic phrase later in his same article:
Language in the (prison) house is differential as well as referential. The disturbing discontinuous aspect of language comes about because words are really figures - substitutions or displacements - which stand for something. Necessarily, language is not simply referential but rhetorical. Insofar as language is rhetorical, our world is text. Such rhetoricity and textuality are irreducible.Of course, Leitch wasn't referring to the internet, though his article (and other deconstructivist texts) read as uncannily, presciently relevant to the (ir)rationale of the web. Following Leitch's article is a response by J. Hillis Miller (whose essay Leitch was responding to in the first place), and one can't help but see how their scholarly retorts are fantastically proto-blog:
Leitch speaks of his procedure with my work as employing an "abrupt asyndetic format" and as being "a metonymic montage in which themes and citations are playfully and copiously combined." One form of this playfulness is the panoply of figures he uses to describe me and my criticism. The need to use figures for this is interesting, as is their incoherence, though the figures can be shown to fall into a rough antithetical pattern. (J. Hillis Miller, from Theory and Practice: Response to Vincent Leitch)While Miller is speaking solely about words (text), "abrupt asyndetic format" and "metonymic montage" are semantical phrases that could easily be applied to the rhizomatic link-logic routinely employed on the internet.
I also enjoy the "panoply of figures" that Miller cites above, which Leitch "uses to describe (Miller) and (his) criticism." These phantasmagorical "figures" describe Miller - and any deconstructivist - as magical entities who are alternately destructive, creative, violent, and gentle in their chameleonic incarnations. As dubbed by Leitch, Miller is a "doubled fairy godmother," "magician-godmother," "nihilistic magician," "underworld fairy godmother," "bull-deconstructer," and finally, a "lamb."
The web allows for us to shift identities in an equally "magical" way, and since we're dealing primarily with text and image, the shapeshifter's approach is most fitting. Whether we're being magician-poachers, Virgils, scatological Borgesian illustrators, or even "noble trolls," we're wonderfully, inescapably trapped in the "prison-house" of our own makings.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Baroque Penises, etc.
The insane, otherworldly penises/mating-habits of certain lifeforms are grotesquely inspiring and remind me that aliens probably do exist (and that many have already landed here on Earth). These clips are less like nature-porn and more like sci-fi movies:
I now regard my cats with newfound horror/respect.
This is how nature's hermaphrodites roll (it's called apophallation). If Sir David Attenborough doesn't do it for you, maybe this narration is more your style.
From the second narrator of the leopard slug clip, this groping beastie reaffirms my hypotheses that Australia either A) doesn't exist or B) harbors a gateway to the underworld.
Parasites need love, too. Haters.
I now regard my cats with newfound horror/respect.
This is how nature's hermaphrodites roll (it's called apophallation). If Sir David Attenborough doesn't do it for you, maybe this narration is more your style.
From the second narrator of the leopard slug clip, this groping beastie reaffirms my hypotheses that Australia either A) doesn't exist or B) harbors a gateway to the underworld.
Parasites need love, too. Haters.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Ecstasy of Link(s)
With Cézanne's paintings, boredom does become interesting. But it requires an effort on the part of the viewer - the cynical postmodern viewer who is conditioned by the fast zip of the cathode-ray stuttering and blinking constantly in front of our visual field. (Robert C. Morgan, from "The Boredom of Cézanne")Morgan's essay begins with him describing his manifold experiences with Cézanne's Mont Sainte-Victoire, which range from seeing a reproduction of the painting in a book sold at a sidewalk sale, to viewing the actual scene depicted in the painting from Cézanne's studio in Aix-en-Provence, to seeing the painting itself in various museums. Morgan makes a case for "building one's personal experience with the work," which he likens to the Zen exercise of "build(ing) mountains of the mind." Presence, depth of experience, and meditation are reaffirmed as crucial means by which one should approach Cézanne's paintings, "to get to the(ir) core."
I try to hang with artworks and broaden my experiences with them, but I'm definitely one of those who's been blitzed by the cathode-ray. Is there any "depth of experience" to the images experienced solely in this "stuttering and blinking," ostensibly "distracted" format?
I grew up with television, video games, computers, and the internet. I also drew, read, and wrote a lot. I still like playing video games and going to museums and drawing and writing and reading (from convoluted theory to ultra-light fare). I think I suffer from the same lack of focus and general contradictions as anyone else. I'm smart and stupid, depending on when you catch me.
That having been said, I think that there's way more stupid going around than smart, and not always in a bad way. Stupid can be smart, and vice-versa. I think that the internet is stupid-smart, though most people treat it like it's stupid-stupid while a special few treat it like it's smart-smart.
I've mentioned dump.fm before, and have since spent a lot more time there than I had thought I would. There's something about it that appeals to, I think, the cathode-ray-junkie part of my brain. I like scintillating, spinning, morphing, throbbing, and otherwise seizure-inducing shapes and patterns. I like mindless repetition - sometimes I think that I can better "meditate" through distraction.
While the following image-links have been "curated" by my removing them from the gif-waterfall that is dump.fm (they've also been taken slightly out of the chronology that I "dumped" or "favved" them). But this sort of out-of-sync, out-of-time quality seems true to how we experience (art and images on) the web, so maybe all of this throat-clearing preamble is, uh, extraneous.
But let it be known that the succession of images - which I found to be pretty inspiring - all started with "the fast zip of the cathode-ray stuttering and blinking," somewhat literally, by my "dumping" the following:
Green "cathode-ray"
Spinning, triumphant Link
Link-Blink-Link (linked and dumped by ahem)
Small spinning Triforce
Medium spinning Triforce
Large spinning Triforce
Racing Triforce teselation
Heaving bit-Pyramid
Monday, June 14, 2010
Spontaneous Curation IV
Hole in Your Fuckin Head by Christopher Wool
Shit Pile by Paul McCarthy
Untitled by Cindy Sherman
Ushering in Banality by Jeff Koons
1980 DNC by Karl Haendel
Study for Johnny Mnemonic - Johnny in Download Helmet by Robert Longo
Update: Curiously, there's a link to a good Saltz article on the bottom of the Wool link (one that Saltz should probably reread for himself).
Update Update: It appears that any link I make to Robert Longo's official website will inevitably be removed, so I've linked to a smaller image of his Study for Johnny Mnemonic. Funny that someone whose entire career is based on grabbing other people's images has such an efficient way of removing other people's attempts to grab his (and it's even funnier that I'm having trouble grabbing an image based on his "cyber-hacker-virtual-reality-intraweb" movie).
Shit Pile by Paul McCarthy
Untitled by Cindy Sherman
Ushering in Banality by Jeff Koons
1980 DNC by Karl Haendel
Study for Johnny Mnemonic - Johnny in Download Helmet by Robert Longo
Update: Curiously, there's a link to a good Saltz article on the bottom of the Wool link (one that Saltz should probably reread for himself).
Update Update: It appears that any link I make to Robert Longo's official website will inevitably be removed, so I've linked to a smaller image of his Study for Johnny Mnemonic. Funny that someone whose entire career is based on grabbing other people's images has such an efficient way of removing other people's attempts to grab his (and it's even funnier that I'm having trouble grabbing an image based on his "cyber-hacker-virtual-reality-intraweb" movie).
Friday, June 11, 2010
Brain Drain
Out of sheer (and regrettable) obligation, I watched the premiere episode of WANGA. I don't have cable - actually, I don't even get basic television - so I had to ride my bike to Pratt to view it on one of their dorm-lobby televisions (my partner has a studio in one of their "mixed-use" MFA-studio/dormitory buildings). It started to downpour while I was halfway there, so I ended up getting completely soaked. I changed into an over-sized pair of pants that I had to keep from falling down with a "belt" made from a piece of twine.
The episode started after the finale of a chef-show, so I caught the last five minutes of this competition. Even though I had absolutely no prior knowledge or investment in the chef-contestants, I got caught up in the drama. What beautiful plating! What discerning judges! Then I remembered that I couldn't care less, and had a few freezer-aisle chimichangas for dinner.
WANGA finally came on. It was terrible. And not in a "good bad" way. It was simply bad television. I was bored and felt like there were way too many commercials (mostly Kelly Ripa hawking washing machines). The artist-contestants were irritating, and the judges came off as astoundingly dumb for such "industry luminaries." Do we blame editing? Bravo? The "characters" themselves? There's so much filter and remove that it's like trying to discern something through a windshield smeared with bugs and bird shit. Maybe that's why the coverage of WANGA from art-blogs, newspapers, and other "art-worlders" is so thoroughly laced with such trite, shallow praise. It all seems suspiciously like industry brown-nosing - as if justifying this crap show will somehow earn them brownie-points in the future. And as if the "industry" really gives a shit.
What's also troubling is that many art writers and critics - in regards to WANGA and other "marquee" media-whoring "art events" - are starting to sound like they really believe the things they're saying. Take my exchange in AFC's comment thread with Jill Conner (arts-writer and head editor of NY Arts Magazine) regarding the Abramovic after-party. As in our AFC exchange, she also invokes the term "conspicuous consumption" in her review of the Tim Burton show that ran concurrently to the Abramovic affair:
And check out this AFC headline - I sincerely thought that it was referring to WANGA (or Abramovic), but I was mistaken. Still, I think it's a perfect title for the thesis paper that I hope a few MFA students are putting together at this very moment...
Oh, and Abramovic has a feature-length documentary coming soon! Whoopee! No "conspicuous consumption" here, folks - just more thought-provoking, deeply spiritual asceticism from a rising bodhisattva.
I popped into the MoMA this afternoon and was thrilled that the artist was no longer present. Ground-zero for the telepathic-soul-licker's severely under-publicized retrospective was in the middle of a routine scene change. Beyond the stanchions, the only visible work was one of Kara Walker's silhouette panoramas - an artwork that expressly embodies non-presence through the representations of shadows, a chorus of precisely-cut nightmares screaming silently on the MoMA's freshly whitewashed walls.
After Abramovic's suffocatingly extended "presence" and now the extended poison-bubblegum chew of WANGA, I'm getting sick of seeing artists, established or otherwise. It's too Hollywood, too "celebrity-culture," too like everything else. Maybe "art" doesn't translate into these forums very well for a reason (just like the epic downpour that punished me for endeavoring to watch WANGA probably happened for a reason, too). The artist has left the building, so let's try to get back to the art.
The episode started after the finale of a chef-show, so I caught the last five minutes of this competition. Even though I had absolutely no prior knowledge or investment in the chef-contestants, I got caught up in the drama. What beautiful plating! What discerning judges! Then I remembered that I couldn't care less, and had a few freezer-aisle chimichangas for dinner.
WANGA finally came on. It was terrible. And not in a "good bad" way. It was simply bad television. I was bored and felt like there were way too many commercials (mostly Kelly Ripa hawking washing machines). The artist-contestants were irritating, and the judges came off as astoundingly dumb for such "industry luminaries." Do we blame editing? Bravo? The "characters" themselves? There's so much filter and remove that it's like trying to discern something through a windshield smeared with bugs and bird shit. Maybe that's why the coverage of WANGA from art-blogs, newspapers, and other "art-worlders" is so thoroughly laced with such trite, shallow praise. It all seems suspiciously like industry brown-nosing - as if justifying this crap show will somehow earn them brownie-points in the future. And as if the "industry" really gives a shit.
What's also troubling is that many art writers and critics - in regards to WANGA and other "marquee" media-whoring "art events" - are starting to sound like they really believe the things they're saying. Take my exchange in AFC's comment thread with Jill Conner (arts-writer and head editor of NY Arts Magazine) regarding the Abramovic after-party. As in our AFC exchange, she also invokes the term "conspicuous consumption" in her review of the Tim Burton show that ran concurrently to the Abramovic affair:
The trick of contemporary art is appealing to the general public while remaining above the fray of conspicuous consumption. Despite the fact that Burton’s first museum visit took place at Hollywood’s Wax Museum, his work can easily be categorized as fine art through the sheer quality of randomness, especially when combined with the director’s own personal habit of not analyzing previous projects.Interesting that Burton's show is considered by Conner to be "above the fray of conspicuous consumption," although she neglected to mention in her article that the exhibit included a "Family Activity Guide" (FAG, an acronym nearly as good as WANGA) and was sponsored by SyFy (oh, and did I mention that it was a Tim Burton exhibition?). And now it appears that something qualifies as "fine art" by being the product of "sheer randomness," and an "artist" is someone who chooses not to look back and think about the work they've done. Well, WANGA sure seems to fit this noble new criteria (and, like Burton's show, is also in bed with a cable network, to boot!). Looks like the Parsons-MFA/Oprah thing was just another incarnation of this exciting new art-world zeitgeist...
And check out this AFC headline - I sincerely thought that it was referring to WANGA (or Abramovic), but I was mistaken. Still, I think it's a perfect title for the thesis paper that I hope a few MFA students are putting together at this very moment...
Oh, and Abramovic has a feature-length documentary coming soon! Whoopee! No "conspicuous consumption" here, folks - just more thought-provoking, deeply spiritual asceticism from a rising bodhisattva.
I popped into the MoMA this afternoon and was thrilled that the artist was no longer present. Ground-zero for the telepathic-soul-licker's severely under-publicized retrospective was in the middle of a routine scene change. Beyond the stanchions, the only visible work was one of Kara Walker's silhouette panoramas - an artwork that expressly embodies non-presence through the representations of shadows, a chorus of precisely-cut nightmares screaming silently on the MoMA's freshly whitewashed walls.
After Abramovic's suffocatingly extended "presence" and now the extended poison-bubblegum chew of WANGA, I'm getting sick of seeing artists, established or otherwise. It's too Hollywood, too "celebrity-culture," too like everything else. Maybe "art" doesn't translate into these forums very well for a reason (just like the epic downpour that punished me for endeavoring to watch WANGA probably happened for a reason, too). The artist has left the building, so let's try to get back to the art.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Corpse-Feeding & Horse-Kicking
Mean is back. Even before its debut episode, the sheer anticipation of WANGA has sent the "art world" atwitter (in all manners of the word). Artists, professors, critics, and dealers have all broken-down and chimed-in to the burgeoning "conversation."
And the contestants on WANGA certainly haven't kept quiet, though one must keep in mind that they're still beholden to confidentiality agreements (hence the whiff of "restraint" in many of their interweb-utterances).
In an act of, I guess, giddy nihilism, I've even had some brief exchanges with some of the contestants (or commented on their Facebook postings, or their comments on AFC's comment-threads that connected to WANGA-centric posts). My most recent comments have been in response to mean-spirited "portraits" and/or comments posted by some of the contestants towards AFC's editor, Paddy Johnson. Their sophomoric revenge was prompted by AFC's dishy posting of a WANGA "Supplementary Program Guide" (which was, for the record, not entirely written by Paddy herself). This "guide," if anything, served to tautologically re-present the easy stereotypes that will undoubtedly be perpetuated by WANGA itself. Still, there is some fairly damning evidence included in the "guide" that may lend credence to these stereotypes.
And before you get the idea that I'm jockeying for moral high ground, let me make it clear that I've engaged in the acerbic bile-swap as well. I've taken unwarranted, unfounded, ad hominem jabs at the contestants, too. Reality television is bloodsport, and social-media provides the means for us all to be participants in the new coliseum - and to further hone our meanness.
But there's a difference between this schoolyard name-calling and unmitigated criticism. In regards to WANGA, attempts at the latter will have to fight against some already muddied waters. Art criticism, however, can benefit greatly from privileging the shrewd over the lewd, especially in a wasteland where popular critics regularly substitute punchy-praise and style for substance.
As hard as it might be to be on the receiving end of such lashings, good harsh criticism is still good criticism. Christian Viveros-Fauné's review of Greater New York 2010 pulls no punches (Ed Winkleman lauds the article as "Blood Sport," as well). A similarly vitriolic piece was recently written by Regina Hackett on the Robert Davis/Michael Langlois show. Both articles are unforgiving in their judgments, but to have such reproach so well-articulated should be taken by artists as growth-spurring tough-love.
And maybe I will climb up that moral-mountain a bit and re-post what I put in response to one of the WANGA wankers. Contestant Ryan Shultz posted pictures of AFC-editor Paddy Johnson on other WANGA contestant Erik Johnson's Facebook page. The photos were labeled "Paddy Johnson is UGLY!!!" with the following comment by Shultz:
And the contestants on WANGA certainly haven't kept quiet, though one must keep in mind that they're still beholden to confidentiality agreements (hence the whiff of "restraint" in many of their interweb-utterances).
In an act of, I guess, giddy nihilism, I've even had some brief exchanges with some of the contestants (or commented on their Facebook postings, or their comments on AFC's comment-threads that connected to WANGA-centric posts). My most recent comments have been in response to mean-spirited "portraits" and/or comments posted by some of the contestants towards AFC's editor, Paddy Johnson. Their sophomoric revenge was prompted by AFC's dishy posting of a WANGA "Supplementary Program Guide" (which was, for the record, not entirely written by Paddy herself). This "guide," if anything, served to tautologically re-present the easy stereotypes that will undoubtedly be perpetuated by WANGA itself. Still, there is some fairly damning evidence included in the "guide" that may lend credence to these stereotypes.
And before you get the idea that I'm jockeying for moral high ground, let me make it clear that I've engaged in the acerbic bile-swap as well. I've taken unwarranted, unfounded, ad hominem jabs at the contestants, too. Reality television is bloodsport, and social-media provides the means for us all to be participants in the new coliseum - and to further hone our meanness.
But there's a difference between this schoolyard name-calling and unmitigated criticism. In regards to WANGA, attempts at the latter will have to fight against some already muddied waters. Art criticism, however, can benefit greatly from privileging the shrewd over the lewd, especially in a wasteland where popular critics regularly substitute punchy-praise and style for substance.
As hard as it might be to be on the receiving end of such lashings, good harsh criticism is still good criticism. Christian Viveros-Fauné's review of Greater New York 2010 pulls no punches (Ed Winkleman lauds the article as "Blood Sport," as well). A similarly vitriolic piece was recently written by Regina Hackett on the Robert Davis/Michael Langlois show. Both articles are unforgiving in their judgments, but to have such reproach so well-articulated should be taken by artists as growth-spurring tough-love.
And maybe I will climb up that moral-mountain a bit and re-post what I put in response to one of the WANGA wankers. Contestant Ryan Shultz posted pictures of AFC-editor Paddy Johnson on other WANGA contestant Erik Johnson's Facebook page. The photos were labeled "Paddy Johnson is UGLY!!!" with the following comment by Shultz:
Don't you dream of woman like this? From a conceptual standpoint, she is quite beautiful.My response was as follows (and I should mention that my response has since been removed, and that Shultz has "defriended" me on Facebook):
Wonder how "conceptually beautiful" your painstakingly-rendered, tragically-hip drug-pals will be in, say, five years? Kudos for showing how deep your waters run, pretty-boy.So THERE! Guess I am still throwing sticks-and-stones in the schoolyard after all.
The New Tangentialism
From The Internet Is Making You Smarter! by Maria Bustillos (in response to Is Google Making Us Stupid? by Nicholas Carr):
Hyperlinks, the proliferation of which Mr. Carr largely blames for his mental infirmity, are in no way different from footnotes. Footnotes, too, demand “microseconds of decision-making attention.” Just as a footnote does, a hyperlink beckons you away from the main text in order to examine tangentially-related but relevant material. Exactly like a hyperlink, a footnote often has the effect of sending you down a series of rabbit holes, from which you emerge hours later, armed with a dozen other books—that is, if you want to investigate the subject in fine detail. If you don’t, then by all means, you can skip the footnotes.If this sort of thing interests you, than Roger Ebert's recent essay The Quest For Frisson should, too (at least visit the post to see the video at its end).
So do footnotes also “sap cognitive power from the reading process”?
Heavily annotated works have been useful for centuries to students of every discipline we’ve got, and their distraction-potential, though clear, is completely eclipsed by the invaluable advantage of access to a ton of carefully-signposted material that can greatly ease the conduct of serious study. It’s well worth the extra effort of concentration; if you want the goods, you’ll put up with the cost.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Excessive Updates
I've added some updates/addendums to the ends of these recent entries:
No Exit
Self-Referential Addendum Addendum
Spontaneous Curation III
Grey Goo
No Exit
Self-Referential Addendum Addendum
Spontaneous Curation III
Grey Goo
Grey Goo
I thought I had typed "Google" and somehow I found myself here instead. A semiotic and pictorial freefall ensued.
The internet gets a lot of flack about "giving people exactly what they want" instead of providing those serendipitous moments of "getting lost" that libraries are frequently romanticized as supplying. But I'm always getting lost on the internet, and I don't think that it's all that different from getting lost anywhere else. Maybe you don't have that whole scent-of-old-noble-tomes spiel going on, but there are a whole bunch of new ways that one can be unexpectedly rewarded for "wrong turns" on the internet. It's just that we're too busy building our myths and nostalgia over libraries to articulate the new labyrinth that we're presently losing ourselves in.
Update: The fallibility of Wikipedia withstanding, it's disturbing that this entry brought me to knowledge of the word "ecophagy," and that the "Grey Goo" entry includes this prescient citation (though it, regrettably, is marked as "citation needed"):
The internet gets a lot of flack about "giving people exactly what they want" instead of providing those serendipitous moments of "getting lost" that libraries are frequently romanticized as supplying. But I'm always getting lost on the internet, and I don't think that it's all that different from getting lost anywhere else. Maybe you don't have that whole scent-of-old-noble-tomes spiel going on, but there are a whole bunch of new ways that one can be unexpectedly rewarded for "wrong turns" on the internet. It's just that we're too busy building our myths and nostalgia over libraries to articulate the new labyrinth that we're presently losing ourselves in.
Update: The fallibility of Wikipedia withstanding, it's disturbing that this entry brought me to knowledge of the word "ecophagy," and that the "Grey Goo" entry includes this prescient citation (though it, regrettably, is marked as "citation needed"):
In a History Channel broadcast, grey goo is referred to in a futuristic doomsday scenario: "In a common practice, billions of nanobots are released to clean up an oil spill off the coast of Louisiana. However, due to a programming error, the nanobots devour all carbon based objects, instead of just the hydrocarbons of the oil. The nanobots destroy everything, all the while, replicating themselves. Within days, the planet is turned to dust."
Monday, June 7, 2010
Spontaneous Curation III
Rattenkönig (Rat King) by Katharina Fritsch
Power Party by Inka Essenhigh
The Watchtower by Jules de Balincourt
Alterations by Amy Cutler
Organization by Ian Davis
The Artist is Present by Marina Abramović
Dance (I) by Henri Matisse
Update: Mysterious commenter Irene Watts suggested this animation to accompany the above works, and it's perfect. I also ask Watts to consider this and this work by Katharina Fritsch (the first artist listed above) in regards to Les Processus.
Power Party by Inka Essenhigh
The Watchtower by Jules de Balincourt
Alterations by Amy Cutler
Organization by Ian Davis
The Artist is Present by Marina Abramović
Dance (I) by Henri Matisse
Update: Mysterious commenter Irene Watts suggested this animation to accompany the above works, and it's perfect. I also ask Watts to consider this and this work by Katharina Fritsch (the first artist listed above) in regards to Les Processus.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Self-Referential Addendum Addendum
In response to EAGEAGEAG's political-cartoon-esque post about the sycophancy of art (which has since been deleted), I've submitted the following comment (which I'm posting here not only to bring attention to it, but to bring attention to myself, and to knowingly engage in the very "circle jerk/fingering" that he's criticizing):
What you're satirizing (somewhat crudely/cruelly, but I guess that's indigenous to the form) is also, I think, part-and-parcel of not only what "art blogging" is, but what the "art world" is, not to mention what much of the headliner exhibits/events have seemed to be about as well. Examples:
The Koons-curated "Skin Fruit" has been roundly criticized for its oligarchical, closed-circuit leanings. But the name of the show is clearly a euphemism for "cock," so my dubbing it "institutional reach-around" is just elaborating a fact that has already been acknowledged by those involved in its making.
Abramovic's show, for all of its hyping of "presence" and "accessibility," has culminated in a kind of uniform, extended laudatory gush by everyone who endeavored to sit with, write about, blog about, or otherwise take part in what Abramovic recently summarized as a means to "brand" her work and that of other performance artists (this is partly why I've titled my postings about the exhibition "No Exit" and "Self-Referential"). It's also no surprise that the rumor about a reperformer sporting an erection became nearly as big tabloid-fodder as speculations about how Abramovic was whizzing.
WANGA (a naturally-occurring acronym), like "Skin Fruit," is also a euphemism for "big dick." Because so many judges/contestants have already posted on AFC, I inquired if the blog was becoming part of the "horrendous WANGA circle-jerk."
I guess you're trying to criticize the conspicuously, if not explicitly, cliquish leanings of "art bloggers." But I think it's also clear that this trend is being reinforced, criticized, and otherwise enacted/addressed by the "art world" itself, however imperfectly. Maybe it's the new zeitgeist! Either way, let me cap off this longest-ever comment with one of my favorite lines from Italo Calvino's "Invisible Cities":
What you're satirizing (somewhat crudely/cruelly, but I guess that's indigenous to the form) is also, I think, part-and-parcel of not only what "art blogging" is, but what the "art world" is, not to mention what much of the headliner exhibits/events have seemed to be about as well. Examples:
The Koons-curated "Skin Fruit" has been roundly criticized for its oligarchical, closed-circuit leanings. But the name of the show is clearly a euphemism for "cock," so my dubbing it "institutional reach-around" is just elaborating a fact that has already been acknowledged by those involved in its making.
Abramovic's show, for all of its hyping of "presence" and "accessibility," has culminated in a kind of uniform, extended laudatory gush by everyone who endeavored to sit with, write about, blog about, or otherwise take part in what Abramovic recently summarized as a means to "brand" her work and that of other performance artists (this is partly why I've titled my postings about the exhibition "No Exit" and "Self-Referential"). It's also no surprise that the rumor about a reperformer sporting an erection became nearly as big tabloid-fodder as speculations about how Abramovic was whizzing.
WANGA (a naturally-occurring acronym), like "Skin Fruit," is also a euphemism for "big dick." Because so many judges/contestants have already posted on AFC, I inquired if the blog was becoming part of the "horrendous WANGA circle-jerk."
I guess you're trying to criticize the conspicuously, if not explicitly, cliquish leanings of "art bloggers." But I think it's also clear that this trend is being reinforced, criticized, and otherwise enacted/addressed by the "art world" itself, however imperfectly. Maybe it's the new zeitgeist! Either way, let me cap off this longest-ever comment with one of my favorite lines from Italo Calvino's "Invisible Cities":
The inferno of the living is not something that will be; if there is one, it is what is already here, the inferno where we live every day, that we form by being together. There are two ways to escape suffering it. The first is easy for many: accept the inferno and become such a part of it that you can no longer see it. The second is risky and demands constant vigilance and apprehension: seek and learn to recognize who and what, in the midst of the inferno, are not inferno, then make them endure, give them space."Addendum Addendum" Addendum: All vulgarities aside, I should stress that the interdependence of "art-worlders" is by no means a (necessarily) bad thing. But these relationships (relational aesthetics?) are also what cause many of its participants to feel alienated from and malcontented with its workings. Are "institutional" and "Marxist" critiques of power-structures still relevant and/or effective? If so, why? And if these structures are so corrupt, what can be done to establish an alternative?
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Self-Referential Addendum
Kim Cattrall (a.k.a. P.R. diva Samantha Jones) faces Abramovic and is overwhelmed by the convolution of it all.
Aura Schmaura
Is it necessary to view an artwork in person? Can you have a valid experience - or make valid criticisms - on an artwork based on jpegs, press releases, articles, etc.? To up the ante: can you have a more objective, perhaps greater experience with these "supplementary" components than if you experienced the work firsthand?
This is an old conversation, but given the ubiquity and integration of (social) media and the arts, it's worth reconsidering. For example: I'm not sure that you had to go to the Abramovic show to experience her work in the "correct" way. In fact, I feel that sitting with her was the best way to limit your understanding of her work (as demonstrated by the general uniformity of the sitters' responses). In regards to WANGA (which I hesitate to call a "work of art," or even "about artists"), I similarily feel that watching the show is the absolute worst way to experience the artists and their work.
This is an old conversation, but given the ubiquity and integration of (social) media and the arts, it's worth reconsidering. For example: I'm not sure that you had to go to the Abramovic show to experience her work in the "correct" way. In fact, I feel that sitting with her was the best way to limit your understanding of her work (as demonstrated by the general uniformity of the sitters' responses). In regards to WANGA (which I hesitate to call a "work of art," or even "about artists"), I similarily feel that watching the show is the absolute worst way to experience the artists and their work.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
If You Can't Beat 'Em, WANGA
Homorazzi has already done this, but here's an easier list of the contestants (click on a name to see their work) on "Work of Art: The Next Great Artist." Like with this list, I've contracted the show's title into the much easier acronym "WANGA," which I will be using from here on in. I encourage everyone else to use it as well (though it appears that WANGA already has some unfortunate meanings attributed to it).
Judith Braun
Jaclyn Santos
John Parot
Erik Johnson
Abdi Farah
Nao Bustamante
Mark Velasquez
Peregrine Honig
Amanda Williams
Ryan Shultz
Trong G. Nguyen
Nicole Nadeau
Miles Mendenhall
Jaime Lynn Henderson
Judith Braun
Jaclyn Santos
John Parot
Erik Johnson
Abdi Farah
Nao Bustamante
Mark Velasquez
Peregrine Honig
Amanda Williams
Ryan Shultz
Trong G. Nguyen
Nicole Nadeau
Miles Mendenhall
Jaime Lynn Henderson
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
No Exit
Like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, Marina Abramovic was rescued from her deathlike stasis by a hero's kiss. In Abramovic's case, the reanimating smooch was granted by MoMA's Chief Curator at Large Klaus Biesenbach. One could say that Biesenbach, like Prince Charming, had a kind of imperial reign over the/his "kindgom" of The Artist is Present, and if we're sticking with Disney-logic here (which I'm sure that Baudrillard would find fitting), only his royal kiss could break the damsel's spell.
Since I'm working cartoon connections (glibly folding the real into the unreal, the sitter with the simulacra), why not drift back to an episode of Sex and the City where a prince-seeking Carrie Bradshaw (played by Sarah Jessica Parker) first meets her new artist-beau (played by the real dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov). The episode begins with Carrie and former-gallerist friend Charlotte attending a fictional "reperformance" clearly modeled after Abramovic's The House with the Ocean View (with Abramovic played by - can it be? - a goth-looking Jennifer Aniston).
If you're still following, let's try and return to the present day. Abramovic completed her performance, and the second installment of the Sex and the City movie has just opened in theaters. We're also anticipating the first episode of Bravo's new art reality show, Work of Art: The Next Great Artist, which was co-produced by Sarah Jessica Parker.
I'm sure that poor Baudrillard is somersaulting in his grave, and that some will try to trace Mark-Lombardian conspiracy theories from the miasma of our culture's roiling spectacles. But in the end, it's probably best that we just grin and bear it.
Update: Not to stroke myself, but I think that my Biesenbach/Prince Charming analogy should get some bonus points given what went down at Abramovic's ascetic, spiritual after-party (a focus on the party's money-shot and further snark here).
Since I'm working cartoon connections (glibly folding the real into the unreal, the sitter with the simulacra), why not drift back to an episode of Sex and the City where a prince-seeking Carrie Bradshaw (played by Sarah Jessica Parker) first meets her new artist-beau (played by the real dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov). The episode begins with Carrie and former-gallerist friend Charlotte attending a fictional "reperformance" clearly modeled after Abramovic's The House with the Ocean View (with Abramovic played by - can it be? - a goth-looking Jennifer Aniston).
If you're still following, let's try and return to the present day. Abramovic completed her performance, and the second installment of the Sex and the City movie has just opened in theaters. We're also anticipating the first episode of Bravo's new art reality show, Work of Art: The Next Great Artist, which was co-produced by Sarah Jessica Parker.
I'm sure that poor Baudrillard is somersaulting in his grave, and that some will try to trace Mark-Lombardian conspiracy theories from the miasma of our culture's roiling spectacles. But in the end, it's probably best that we just grin and bear it.
Update: Not to stroke myself, but I think that my Biesenbach/Prince Charming analogy should get some bonus points given what went down at Abramovic's ascetic, spiritual after-party (a focus on the party's money-shot and further snark here).
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Arch(ives) of Hysteria
My favorite Louise Bourgeois sculpture
Things to "Watch Instantly" on Netflix:
The Cosmos
Jim Henson's the Storyteller
Examined Life
Antichrist
High-quality, regularly updated scans of incredible book art
An entire English translation of À rebours
An illustrated/animated lecture about time
Animation loop one
Animation loop two
Pretty much every computer game I've ever played, for free
I recommend repeatedly clicking "Random Card"
Things to "Watch Instantly" on Netflix:
The Cosmos
Jim Henson's the Storyteller
Examined Life
Antichrist
High-quality, regularly updated scans of incredible book art
An entire English translation of À rebours
An illustrated/animated lecture about time
Animation loop one
Animation loop two
Pretty much every computer game I've ever played, for free
I recommend repeatedly clicking "Random Card"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)