Saturday, 28 February 2015

Real or Illusion?


Modern philosophy and science are based on the idea that the world of appearances is an illusion that both reveals and conceals an underlying reality.

Today, not surprisingly, this idea is the dominant element in most fields of thought. In the social sciences, for example, psychoanalysis sees our conscious ideas as disguises that hide our true fears and desires. The sociologist Erving Goffman, who helped shape contemporary role theory and the study of social interaction, went further and viewed the self as an illusion in which we mistake the role we play for a substantive personal identity. Still other sociologists and social critics describe moral systems as social constructions -- fictions -- that pretend to be objective realities.

In the natural sciences, physics views the materiality of the world as a kind of mirage and describes microscopic and macroscopic realms in which nature loses many of the characteristics it has in the Newtonian world of everyday existence. For their part, the life sciences see the apparently simple world of plants and animals as a complex system of cells and chemical interactions, which are hidden from our everyday view.

In effect, these philosophies and disciplines assert that matter, life, society, cultural creations and mind aren't what they appear to be. Typically, they claim that there is a true reality "below" the surface, which consists of underlying components -- such as atoms, genes, narrative elements and drives -- as well as underlying "mechanisms" or rules, which generate the surface structure of reality. When we see only the surface, they say, we are victims of a kind of simulation confusion, taken in by false appearances.

The false appearances described by these philosophies fall into one of three categories. 

First, there are the false appearances of nature, which trick us because of our limited senses and knowledge. 

Second, there are the self-deceptions of the mind, the unconscious cover-ups that are described as forms of repression or defense. 

And third, there are the cover-ups of deliberately manipulated appearances and outright lies, such as those produced by politicians and con artists, and by the creators of deceptive simulations (as well as by the creators of more benign simulations intended to entertain.)

Whatever category they fall into, these philosophies typically offer the same prescription: we should look beneath appearances to discover the way things work, so we can control the world and not be controlled by it. The quest to expose illusions becomes an effort to extend rational, conscious, control in the face of the obduracy of the physical world, the irrational fears of the unconscious, and the corrupt machinations of society's deceivers, particularly those in power.

Collectively, these views make up what is often referred to as modernism: the belief that we can know the world; that we can use our knowledge to critique and analyze the way things are; and that we can create a better world, as a result. For modernism, knowledge bequeaths power, and when knowledge is guided by reason it can give us the power to create a world that is more humane. The physical and social sciences, Marxism, liberalism and most forms of psychotherapy, are based on this essentially modernist approach.

But in our own day, the ideas of modernism are being given a new postmodern twist, with the growing importance of a set of theories that explicitly describe many elements of the world not merely as deceptive appearances but as simulations. These theories usually have one or more of a number of basic elements. In one variation, represented by antifoundationalist philosophies, they claim that our belief that we can know reality is an illusion. In another, they describe the self, society or reality as a fiction, and use high-tech simulations, such as holography, computer games and virtual realities, as a model or metaphor to describe them. In their most extreme form, they may deny that there is any underlying reality at all -- its just fiction as far as the eye can see, and farther.

Some of these theories of postmodernism then take an additional step, arguing that since life (or much of life) is a fiction or since fiction is all we can know, we should join in the drama ourselves and live a life of play. In effect, they recommend that we treat life as a symbolic arena for the acting out of fantasies. In place of merely discovering that reality is a construction, they would have us consciously take over the process of creating it, inventing selves, subcultures and alternative "realities," as forms of social experimentation.
One of the places we can find these postmodern philosophies is in speculative physics, where physical reality is described as something that looks a lot like a simulation. An example can be seen in the work of the English physicist David Bohm, cofounder of a theory that holds, as one book describes it, that "the brain is a hologram, interpreting a holographic universe." Referring to Bohm's philosophy, the book says: "If the nature of reality is itself holographic, and the brain operates holographically, then the world is indeed, as the Eastern religions have said, maya, a magic show. Its concreteness is an illusion.... What we normally see...is rather like watching a movie."

Another variation on these postmodern ideas can be found in all the science fiction on television and in movies, which use the insights and speculations of physics and the technologies of computer animation and special effects, to portray a universe in which the physical world behaves a lot like a virtual reality. In the virtual universe imagined by the various Star Treks, characters travel in time; they jump vast distances by traveling through wormholes and are transformed into other shapes or into beings without physical existence. In effect, time, space, matter and causality are still portrayed as frames of existence, but the frame can be escaped and manipulated.

This portrait of a malleable universe finds its ultimate expression in all those advanced beings in Star Trek, who are no longer limited by the physical universe, but use it as medium that can be shaped for their own ends. These characters are the culture of postmodernism's ideal model for our relationship to physical reality, in which humanity appropriates all the possibilities offered by the world, and controls them, in place of being controlled by them, turning the objective world into a kind of computer game.

Still another expression of these ideas can be seen in the poststructuralist view that texts are a mere play of appearances, which can only create the illusion that they refer to some underlying meaning or objective reality. For the poststructuralist Roland Barthes, the text that claims to open a window onto the world is false. In reality, the text is merely a play of signs, a surface without depth, which is there to be explored, toyed with, and expanded on, in the act of reading.
For some of poststructuralism's high-tech successors in postmodernism, electronic images and simulations replace the text as the primary focus of attention. But these, along with the self and reality, end up being described a lot like Barthian texts, as merely a surface and play of fictions, which no longer refer to any underlying reality.

A particularly noteworthy version of these ideas is the postmodern philosophy of Jean Baudrillard, who claimed that contemporary society is now all simulation, although, unlike some other philosophers of postmodernism, this is not a state of affairs he finds particularly appealing. The simulations of this society, which are exemplified in such American creations as television and Disney World, are representations that no longer represent anything -- they are a self-generating realm of images, an endless surface with no underlying reality.

Reconstruction of fiction and facts

Reconstruction of fiction
Fact and fiction has often been intertwined in art. The 
strategy can be either to create something that never 
existed based on the artist's imagination or   to recreate something that existed but is missing or lost now.
Museum of Innocence was an exhibition by Turkish Nobel Laureate for Literature, Orhan Pamuk and his book was meant to be a catalogue for this exhibition. It was an exercise to present real objects of a fictional story of the same name. The narrative and the museum offered to look into upper- class Istanbul life from the 1970s to the early 2000s. The novel is the story of Kemal, a wealthy citizen of Istanbul who falls in love with his poorer cousin. The museum displayed the artifacts of their love story. The museum was not real. The thousand objects displayed in cabinets there did not belong to the people that the inscriptions said they did; the house did not have the history that was claimed for it; even the audio tour, asserting that the curator (the author himself) worked with an imaginary character, was threaded with fiction. Pamuk started collecting a multitude of everyday objects including photographs, kitchen equipment like saltshakers and quince graters, beds, chairs, cigarettes stubs and built his novel and characters around these objects to make the fiction more "real". The novel was set in the 20th century and the objects were deemed to be those, which the characters wore or used or dreamed of. There was a striking blend of objects chosen for both historical merit and emotional resonance, creating a surrealist twist. That blending of diverse objects, of course, was the idea. Nothing was more important than anything else. Every detail and memory mattered. And the fictional was authentic; the authentic, fictional.



Reconstruction of FactsThe invisible enemy should not exist by Micheal Rakowitz unfolded as an intricate narrative about the artifacts stolen from the National Museum of Iraq, Baghdad, in the aftermath of the US invasion of April 2003; the current status of their whereabouts; and the series of events surrounding the invasion, the plundering and related protagonists. The centerpiece of the project was an ongoing series of sculptures that represented an attempt to reconstruct the looted archaeological artifacts.

The reconstructions are made from the packaging of Middle Eastern foodstuffs and local Arabic newspapers, moments of cultural visibility found in cities across the United States. The cardboard objects were created by the artist together with a team of assistants using the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute database, as well as information posted on Interpol’s website. This exhibition represented the incipient stage of an ongoing commitment to recuperate the over 7,000 objects that remain missing.

A museum label with factual details  about the lost object was placed next to each reconstructed object. 








Christine Borland 's work, is informed by archaeology and forensics, focuses on the very real facts and horrors of human existence: life, violence, abuse, and death. Although her installations are direct and realistic, their formal elegance and beauty balance the frequently disturbing subject matter.She has questioned how we identify truth, or objective, scientific fact and fused traditional, conventional forms and materials of art  such as the use of bronze or ceramics-with advanced new technologies.Her work is always mindful of the fact that how we look affects what and how we understand. Her work From Life was a record of her forensic reconstruction of a missing Asian woman. This started with a skeleton and concluded with a bronze cast of the head. The concern of the artist was with issues of depersonalisation of the individual that take place with medical establishments. Her rebuilding of a missing person was a process of re-personalisation.

Friday, 20 February 2015

Task 2 MA 2: Provocations-Beauty in Art: a Debate

ART DOES NOT NEED BEAUTY

Does art have to be beautiful?Of course not, the major works of  
art especially in the twentieth and twenty first centuries are ugly.


What is Ugly art?Art that flout traditionally established conventions of aesthetics, perspective, compositions,colour .These are not aesthetically appealing are often provocative,offensive,grotesque, grim ,trivial or art that looks so simple that it can be replicated by a 5 year old.


Let us start with examples of not so beautiful art.Renaissance painter Caravaggio in the 17th century.He was said to “paint from life” because he used models and because he did not, in most cases, idealize human figures in the way Renaissance painters did. His paintings could also be called naturalistic for another reason: He had a penchant for street settings and for focusing on the ordinary, poor denizens of cities. His Madonnas lacked halos and saints had dirty feet. His tempestuous paintings depicted the drama of his turbulent life.


Michelangelo Da Caravaggio, Judith Beheading Holofernes,
 Oil on Canvas, 1598-1599

Francis Bacon ,"Painting", Oil on Linen 1946

English artist Francis Bacon is best known for his post-World War II paintings, in which he represented the human face and figure in an expressive, often grotesque style.Most of his paintings from the 1940s to '60s depict the human figure, in scenes that suggest alienation, violence and suffering. Bacon's provocative, expressive work is considered some of the most important art of the postwar era.
Tracy Emin, "My Bed", Bed, Mattress, Objects 1998
Tracey Emin reveals intimate details from her life to engage the viewer with her expressions of universal emotions.Her ability to integrate her work and personal life enables Emin to establish an intimacy with the viewer.Tracey shows us her own bed, in all its embarassing glory.Empty alcohol bottles, cigarette butts, stained sheets, undergarments, the bloody aftermath of a nervous breakdown.By presenting her bed as art, Tracey Emin shares her most personal space,revealing herself as insecure as the rest of the world.

Damien Hirst -The Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living , tiger shark corpse in formaldehyde,vitrine, 2004

Contemporary artist Damien Hirst's work depicts his fascination for dead animals, medical paraphernalia and such grim images of human mortality and those pleasures (gothic, prurient, sublime and verging on disgust) are sustainable across a body of work most renowned for its ‘shock value’.A Thousand Years, one of Hirst's most provocative and engaging works, contains an actual life cycle. Maggots hatch inside a white minimal box, turn into flies, then feed on a bloody, severed cow's head on the floor of a claustrophobic glass vitrine. Above, hatched flies buzz around in the closed space. Many meet a violent end in an insect-o-cutor; others survive to continue the cycle.

For a long time critics of modern and postmodern art have relied on the "Isn't that disgusting" strategy. By that I mean the strategy of pointing out that given works of art are ugly, trivial, or in bad taste, that "a five-year-old could have made them," and so on. And they have mostly left it at that. The points have often been true, but they have also been tiresome and unconvincing—and the art world has been entirely unmoved. Of course, the major works of the twentieth-century art world are ugly. Of course, many are offensive. Of course, a five-year old could in many cases have made an indistinguishable product. Those points are not arguable—and they are entirely beside the main question. The important question is: Why has the art world of the twentieth-century adopted the ugly and the offensive? Why has it poured its creative energies and cleverness into the trivial and the self-proclaimedly meaningless?



Art has a purpose

The purpose of art is not only to entertain and decorate.Art informs, educates, makes people aware of what is occurring in the society and political system and can move the audience to take action.
Today, beauty is no longer about what's pretty, symmetrical, or harmonious. It's about what stirs the viewer to grapple with the world as it really is. Art is not a cosmetic to prettify reality or provide escapist pleasure but a hammer to smash our complacency.The philosopher George Santayana described beauty as "a living presence or an aching absence." In contemporary art, it's quite often an aching presence. As Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa pointed out, "Contemporary aesthetics has established the beauty of ugliness, reclaiming for art everything in human experience that artistic representation had previously rejected"
No wonder starting from Goya's etchings on war to today's art reflects an unsettling sense of disturbance.  Anselm Kiefer's charred landscapes or monumental emotionally charged sculptures. Or Lucian Freud's clotted canvases grotesquely exaggerating each crease and fleshly flaw in his models. It shouts: What a broken, saggy, ruined piece of work is man! If we don't want to be blind to reality, it behooves us to look at contemporary art, think about it, register its message, and understand its origins.


Francisco Goya, From the series Disasters of War, etching on paper 1810-1820




Anselm Keifer ,Sternenfall(Chute d' etoiles),Cast Concrete, Lead Mesh, Human Hair.2004 

Lucian Freud -Benefits Supervisor Sleep, Oil on Canvas, 2008


This challenge to convention reflects artists' "I cannot tell a lie" honesty. After the savagery of World War I, art turned to the dark side with wrenching paintings of brutality by German Expressionists such as George Grosz, Otto Dix, and Max Beckmann. "We had found in the war," the Dada artist Richard Huelsenbeck said in 1917, "that Goethe and Schiller and beauty added up to killing and bloodshed and murder." After World War II, Theodor Adorno said that "to write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric."



George Grostz, Pillars of Society , Oil on Canvas, 1926
Anything new is considered ugly 




If some ancient Greek sculptors were awoken from a frozen state and presented with a Henry Moore, what would they make of it? Their likely bafflement should not give rise to a criticism either of their judgments or of ours, because Henry Moore’s works (only) make sense within the context of the history of sculpture. This context illustrates his reasons for the way he moulds his figures.


Impressionism, now beloved, was considered an assault on beauty when first exhibited in the 1860s. Critics scoffed that the paintings were sloppy, stupid, and meaningless Matisses Blue Nude and Picasso's Les Demoiselles de Avinon shocked audiences when they first saw them in early 1900s because they were a departure from their notions of beauty.– the same complaints one often hears about art today. As art critic Clement Greenberg famously said, "All profoundly original art looks ugly at first." 


Curator Kimberly Orcutt says about Henri Mattise's Blue Nude which was presented for the first time in the Armoury show in New York, 1907 -The reclining female nude was a traditional subject, but it was presented in a "distorted" way: "With blue shadows, with colors that didn't have to do with the representation of nature. And some people considered this sort of a backwards step in cultural progress ... to challenge the very foundations of western civilization. ... She was seen as being very primitive, a threat to the progress they felt that they were making in the United States.



Heri Mattise, Blue Nude, Oil on Canvas 1907
 

Art exists within a broader cultural framework
Despite ol logic, but those themes are almost never generated from within the world of art

Until the enccasional invocations of "Art for art's sake" and attempts to withdraw from life, art has always been significant, probing the same issues about the human condition that all forms of cultural life probe. Artists are thinking and feeling human beings, and they think and feel intensely about the same important things that all intelligent and passionate humans do. Even when some artists claim that their work has no significance or reference or meaning, those claims are always significant, referential, and meaningful claims. What counts as a significant cultural claim, however, depends on what is going on in the broader intellectual and cultural framework. The world of art is not hermetically sealed—its themes can have an internal developmentad of the nineteenth century, art was a vehicle of sensuousness, meaning, and passion. Its goals were beauty and originality. The artist was a skilled master of his craft. Such masters were able to create original representations with human significance and universal appeal. Combining skill and vision, artists were exalted beings capable of creating objects that in turn had an awesome power to exalt the senses, the intellects, and the passions of those who experience them.


The reason for the break way are many.
 The rise of philosophical theories of skepticism and irrationalism led many to distrust their cognitive faculties of perception and reason. 


A.The development of scientific theories of evolution and entropy brought with them pessimistic accounts of human nature and the destiny of the world. 



B.The spread of liberalism and free markets caused their opponents on the political Left, many of whom were members of the artistic avant garde, to see political developments as a series of deep disappointments.



C. The technological revolutions spurred by the combination of science and capitalism led many to project a future in which mankind would be dehumanized or destroyed by the very machines that were supposed to improve its lot.




By the beginning of the twentieth century, the nineteenth-century intellectual world's sense of disquiet had become a full-blown anxiety. The artists responded, exploring in their works the implications of a world in which reason, dignity, optimism, and beauty seemed to have disappeared.



The new theme was: Art must be a quest for truth, however brutal, and not a quest for beauty. So the question became: What is the truth of art?

The first major claim of modernism is a content claim: a demand for a recognition of the truth that the world is not beautiful. The world is fractured, decaying, horrifying, depressing, empty, and ultimately unintelligible.




Some past artists had believed the world to be ugly and horrible but they had used the traditional realistic forms of perspective and color to say this. The innovation of the early modernists was to assert that form must match content. Art should not use the traditional realistic forms of perspective and color because those forms presuppose an orderly, integrated, and knowable reality.



Edvard Munch got there first . If the truth is that reality is a horrifying, disintegrating swirl, then both form and content should express the feeling.
Edvard Munch ,The Scream, 1892


Pablo Picasso got there second. If the truth is that reality is fractured and empty, then both form and content must express that. 
Pablo Picasso, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon ,Oil on Canvas 1907

Salvador Dali's surrealist paintings go a step further: If the truth is that reality is unintelligible, then art can teach this lesson by using realistic forms against the idea that we can distinguish objective reality from irrational, subjective dreams.




Salvador Dali, The Persistence of Memory, Oil on Canvas,1931


In modernism, art becomes a philosophical enterprise rather than an artistic one.This led to the rise of a parallel movement Reductionism.Reductionism asserts that to see the truth, eliminate what can be eliminated then see if it still can survive.

The driving purpose of modernism is not to do art but to find out what art is. We have eliminated —is it still art? Now we have eliminated Y —is it still art? The point of the objects was not aesthetic experience; rather the works are symbols representing a stage in the evolution of a philosophical experiment. In most cases, the discussions about the works are much more interesting than the works themselves. That means that we keep the works in museums and archives and we look at them not for their own sake, but for the same reason scientists keep lab notes—as a record of their thinking at various stages. Or, to use a different analogy, the purpose of art objects is like that road signs along the highway—not as objects of contemplation in their own right but as markers to tell us how far we have traveled down a given road.


Colour and composition
If, traditionally, skill in painting requires a mastery of composition, then, as Jackson Pollock's pieces famously illustrate, we can eliminate careful composition for randomness.




Jackson Pollock, Lucifer, Drip Painting gloss enamel on canvas, 1947

 Or if, traditionally, skill in painting is a mastery of color range and color differentiation, then we can eliminate color differentiation. Early in the twentieth century, Kasimir Malevich's White on White(1918) was a whitish square painted on a white background. Ad Reinhardt's Abstract Painting (1960-66) brought this line of development to a close by showing a very, very black cross painted on a very, very, very black background.A D Reinhardt is best known for his so-called "black" paintings of the 1960s, which appear at first glance to be simply canvases painted black but are actually composed of black and nearly black shades. Among many other suggestions, these paintings ask if there can be such a thing as an absolute, even in black, which some viewers may not consider a color at all.

A D Reinhart Abstract Paintings , Oil on Canvas 1960-66

Mass Production if traditionally the art object is a special and unique artifact, then we can eliminate the art object's special status by making art works that are reproductions of excruciatingly ordinary objects. Andy Warhol's paintings of soup cans and reproductions of tomato juice cartons have just that result. Or in a variation on that theme and sneaking in some cultural criticism, we can show that what art and capitalism do is take objects that are in fact special and unique—such as Marilyn Monroe—and reduce them to two-dimensional mass-produced commodities .



Andy Warhol, Silk Screen Painting, Marylin Three Times 1962.



Conceptual Art If art traditionally is sensuous and perceptually embodied, then we can eliminate the sensuous and perceptual altogether, as in conceptual art. Joseph Kosuth waged an attack against conventional aesthetics.He sought to demonstrate that the “art” component is not located in the object itself but rather in the idea or concept of the work.


Joseph Kosuth, What Does this Mean, yellow neon on wall, 2009




Readymades With his urinal, Duchamp offered presciently a summary statement. He wished to de -deify art.The artist is not a great creator—Duchamp went shopping at a plumbing store. The artwork is not a special object—it was mass-produced in a factory. The experience of art is not exciting and ennobling—it is puzzling and leaves one with a sense of distaste. But over and above that, Duchamp did not select just any ready-made object to display. He could have selected a sink or a door-knob. In selecting the urinal, his message was clear: Art can be a readymade object even a lowly object.The urinal is not art—it is a device used as part of an intellectual exercise in figuring out why it is not art.


Fountain, Marcel Duchamp, Readymade Urinal, 1917


Beauty is not the artist's ultimate goal. Art is often intended to appeal to and connect with human emotion. Artists may express something so that their audience is stimulated in some way--creating feelings, religious faith, curiosity, interest, identification with a group, memories, thoughts, or creativity. For example, performance art often does not aim to please the audience but instead evokes feelings, reactions, conversations, or questions from the people observing. In these cases, aesthetics may be an irrelevant measure of "beautiful" art. Art may be considered an exploration of the human condition, what it means to be human.



"If you look at the street art of Jean-Michel Basquiat or younger artists like Dash Snow or Barry McGee, their work is about the grit and grime of reality," says Susan Davidson, senior curator at the Guggenheim Museum. "There is beauty in it but it's harsher, rough, and in your face."

Jean Michel Basquiat Fishing, Graffitti, 1981
Morley Safer, who covers art for CBS's "Sunday Morning," says, "It's clear beauty has no place in contemporary art." He suggests substituting "emotional and intellectual impact" as the criterion to judge quality.

To assess quality in today's art, don't rely on superficial beauty. Unlike a vapid Breck-girl image, good art has got to have punch to shake us up, wake us up, and – above all – make us sit up and take notice.