Artist as Citizen

I found this on facebook:

Artist as Citizen

"The mission of Artist as Citizen is to encourage art students towards pragmatic social engagement; asking them to confront issues that will directly impact American society and their own lives."

Evolving Traditions : Artists Working in New Media

"Non-linear writing, interactive storytelling, immersive environments and virtual reality are words that are beginning to seep into our everyday vocabulary."

"Nevertheless, an important theme in "New Media" is the convergence of video, audio, text and interactivity in new and innovative ways."

"Artist Toni Dove finds "New Media" attractive because she doesn't have the artistic rules imposed on her by more traditional art mediums."

well, the article is only a free preview, but it's interesting and you can probably find the full text somewhere else on the internet.

Performing Revolution

From performingrevolution.org:

Performing Revolution in Central and Eastern Europe explores the contributions of the performing arts to the 1989 revolutions and resulting fall of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe. Presented by The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts in association with leading cultural organizations and academic institutions, the five-month festival features more than 25 events, including theater, music, and dance performances, exhibitions, film screenings, readings, and symposia.

With a focus on the performing arts in the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, the festival considers “revolution” not only within the framework of the era’s profound social and political changes, but also in terms of ongoing experiments within a particular genre. From revivals of significant works from the period to new projects that reflect upon the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Iron Curtain and beyond, Performing Revolution is a celebration of the transformative power of the arts and their potential to reshape political and cultural systems.

Performa '09: Noise Panel

Arto Lindsay, Tony Conrad, George Lewis, Brandon Joseph, Mark Beasley discussed noise and its relation to music. I found that my views on music already paralleled theirs, that is, the panel believes music is a subjective term since for some people it includes noises. According to the panel, noise is similar to an assault (noise pollution and prevention) and music is coordinated sounds, intended to be pleasant or rhythmic. However, they bring up examples such as free jazz and punk rock, both which are ingrained in our music lexicon, but utilize noise.
The panel is heavily influenced by John Cage who, although I'm unfamiliar with most of his work, sought to put music in a different light. His famous silent piece is an example of this, in which natural noises of the room and the audience highlight the absence of sound.
One of the panel members played a clip of what seemed to be just a girl screaming, but I think that even noise, whether confused as an assault or music, has some kind of rhythm to it. Human's naturally put things into logical order or invent explanations for things that don't make sense to them, and noise is no different. This doesn't mean that we necessarily like what we're listening to, but it certainly shows that every noise has the potential for music.
Another aspect of noise brought up was the cultural bias for or against music/noise. The panel discussed how some music has historically been interpreted as noise, or assaulting (specifically African-American slave music from the 19th century, and to a lesser extent, jazz music of the 20th century). I definitely agree with this, however, when it comes to noise of the 20th century, I tend to think that the youth's interest in alternative , oppressed and counter-cultures is what allowed noise to be more readily accepted, perhaps the reason why the panel was even discussing the fact that noise oppression is linked to racism.

This is a posthumous blogging about my process. These photos just relay a bit of my process, how I work(ed). I build the frames first (8'Hx4'W) using miter joints and biscuits. The goal was to make the frames seem as seemless as possible, while holding the integrity of the frames' "frameness" together. Keith had suggested a post-and-lintel design which would have been more efficient and easier to build, but looks a lot less "framy." Eric suggested in the crit that the frames could have been made out of molding, which actually is what I was going for, but never really thought of using that. I did think of manipulating the frame shape using the dado saw in some way, but it seemed complicated and I was still unsure if I wanted to go that far with frame decoration.

The anchors were installed second. My own theory behind this was that hte anchors would fit better if they were built according to the dimensions of the frame, which inevitably would be different from my plans due to human error. So rather than try to impose a set of angles, lengths, and widths, it was much easier to figure out the sizes of the anchor pieces more naturally.
Unfortunately however, they were also very unstable while they were assembled. The two parallel pieces on the front and back of the frame gave the whole thing stability, but had to be installed last so there was a lot of fluidity in the frames before they were put together (causing one of them to actually break, there were originally supposed to be a total of three).

The casters were installed last, for practical reasons since they would have been a nuisance to work with if I didn't need them on right away. After hours of trial-and-error on how to build the frames, it was quite gratifying and relieving when I set up the first finished frame after installing the casters! The mobility is perfect on both of them, no problems at all, except the second built frame one of the wheels is slightly elevated, probably due to an oversight when I was building the anchor.

Overall, I'm content with the aesthetics. The plywood looks great, and most if not all the joints are relatively hidden (as well as the screws). One aspect that was unplanned is the way the anchor supports the frame. Originally I wanted the support pieces to be flush with the very top of the frame, but I didn't take into account the total size of the frame and the longest pieces of wood I had available to me. That's why the support pieces lay lower than the top. Ultimately, I like this element of it, I feel if they reached the top it would be too large.

The string that runs through all these images is walls, but they all serve difference purposes. One is a work of art, another serves to corral people in a location, one for executing "degenerates," one for spiritual purposes, and the last image represents non-physical people.

Originally my idea was to create a wall, loosely based off the execution wall in Auschwitz-Birkenau (Poland). I had visited the site back in May and of all the disturbing, but placated things I saw, the execution wall seemed the most real for whatever reason. My wall however, would be loosely based off the wall in Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Mobility was also an important factor for this project. The wall had to be mobile so that it's own "site" could be readily transported to various locations efficiently. As I wrote in my plans for the project, mobility was important so that the audience would be confronted against their own will.








Tilted Arc, Richard Serra - New York


Western Wall - Jerusalem


Berlin Wall- Germany


Auschwitz Execution Wall - Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp, Poland


ID Cards - Holocaust Museum, Washington DC

I probably would have given a double-take if I was able to see myself wheeling around large frames through campus Friday afternoon. Some people complained about the "construction" obstructing their pathway to the next class (strange though, there are many pathways in the Arts quad that one could take...). Some gleefully skipped through the frames, some snapped pictures on their cell phones, others simply walked by unfazed by the obstructing frames. Generally, people walked through them if they were with friends, apparently it's a lot of fun. The vast majority of people walked around the frames. I suppose I would as well, you never know what they could be and walking through them might offend or piss someone off. Many understood it as a work of art, and I received some compliments, but mostly from fellow artists who appreciate the merit of altering habitual, routine habits with fanciful frames (painters seemed to like the frames)

I don't think public art should ever be permanent. Sometimes it becomes an integral aspect of the environment, but then it tends to be overlooked. Site-specific art work is unusual because on one hand, the art highlights the attributes of the site. On the other hand, because it is so well incorporated into the site, it eventually (or immediately) lacks novelty. What makes the art so unusual that people want to stop and look? Mobile frames don't fit into the landscape of SUNY New Paltz. They certainly stopped people, altered there thought process for even a few seconds to decide whether or not to walk through or around the frames. Altering and influencing someone's routine habits was an interesting aspect.

Maybe the lawsuit against Richard Serra for Tilted Arc has some merit to it. As artists, there's a natural tendency to want to preserve a work of art like Serra's, defend art against the uncultured masses! Well, most people would find Tilted Arc just a nuance on their way to work. The work wouldn't have it legendary status if not, ironically, for the lawsuit. Wouldn't it eventually lose it's novelty, and eventually sealed away in the cache of art history?

The Yes Men

The Yes Men Fix the World

à la Michael Moore, this muckraking indie film does three things for the audience: expose the problem of corporate greed and the flaws of capitalism that feed greed, provide a solution to problems via corporate responsibility, and lastly, challenge the audience to react.

Exposing the natural tendencies of corporate culture (the "gilded skeleton - may all your skeletons be gold") to react favorable to high profits at the expense of human life and decency. It was a bit frightening to know that there are people who invest and approve of Dow Chemical's acceptable risk management scheme (profiting is good if only a few people are hurt). The hoax highlights an interesting trend among "responsible" businesses, that they are hurt by their own responsibility to society. I think though, that there is a misleading anti-capitalist theme running through the film. While the mantra seems to be down-with-capitalism, the solution seems to be simply that corporations and government need to be responsible to the public and that the public will like them for that.

There's something missing from the film worth noting however, is that while government regulation is certainly helpful in protecting the consumer, corporate and government immunity from lawsuits is strange issue. Having the ability to sue a business or government for wronging someone should be allowed when there are injustices, but in today's society people sue each other for ridiculous thing (Coffee is apparently too hot to put between your legs while driving, and the public needs to be aware). With lawsuits assaulting the government and business left and right, no wonder they have to draw the line. It's partially a symptom of the public's greed that it's hard for those who are genuinely hurt by corporations to do anything about it. Strange lawsuits from greed individuals sets the precedent for immunity and when people collectively or individually are subject to injustice, it makes it difficult for them to do anything about it.

As for action, I have to agree with the film. It's too much to try to change the minds of millions of souls, especially in the US where there is everything but homogeneity. When part of our paychecks involuntarily fund Medicare and Medicaid and welfare for those who need it despite the opposition from conservatives, we know that in some way the government is taking care of us. Likewise, businesses need to do not what is not marketable or attractive, but responsible and necessary, and we will like for that.