Artist's Block

Destroyed Room

2012-07-04T14:32:00.002-07:00

by Jeff Wall

Depictions of Race in The Wire and The Boondocks

2012-04-13T15:50:00.001-07:00

     Media is a strong tool for shaping the public’s perception, depictions of race in the media are often cliche and stereotypical. The Wire and The Boondocks are two shows that aim to act as social commentary and work to breakdown these stereotypes. Each show takes place in relatively contemporary time in the State of Maryland, and have some similar themes. Race, class and social structures play a large role in each show but in very different ways. 
    The Wire discusses the drug war in inner city Baltimore in a post 9/11 world. It has multiple protagonists and shows multiple perspectives, from that of the police, to political institutions, to gang members in the drug trade. The Boondocks is about two young brothers from inner city Chicago, who go to live with their grandfather in a predominantly white suburb in Maryland. Race and racism play a big part in The Wire, but are not the primary focus, where as The Boondocks focuses on the construction of African-American identity today and what that means in context of the greater American society.
      The term racism implies that those who are treated with racial discrimination are victims, and therefore a straight forward opposition can be created between an oppressor and an oppressed. In this binary system, this will always place the oppressors as the dominant group and the oppressed as the subordinate group. A dominant ideology which presents one group as superior to another does not exist in opposition to the truth, but is just one form of discourse of truth along side other competing discourses. Truth is not a concrete absolute entity, it does not exist independently; it operates as a discourse of what is accepted to be truth at any given moment of time, from any perspective.

   The issue of understanding race can not be done in terms of a simple straight forward opposition of majority and minority of ethnic groups. In this binary system of presenting one group as a victim of another’s oppression, it fails to take into account the multiplicities of identities within either group, and also assumes the groups are united in their domination or victimization. Secondly the role of the subordinate group is often presented as oppressed, the notion of victim implies a degree of helplessness and innocence on the part of those who are being discriminated against. Yet, discourses of race can also be reinforced or legitimated by those who suffer as a result of such discourses. However, we understand that such a binary relationship does not actually exist; one’s position as either oppressor or oppressed is never absolute, individuals are caught up in a series of complex relationships which mean they they are never speaking or acting from a fixed position or perspective, but multiple perspectives.

   Race must be viewed as a social construction, meaning human interaction rather than natural genetic differentiation must be seen as the source and continued basis for racial categorization. Race is an amalgamation os competing societal forces, and a construction of the false-identity pushed onto a race by those outside of it, and it’s own search for identity of those who are that race. The formation of race is merely a fabrication of compiled truths, and is therefore ever-changing and infinitely complex.

       In both The Boondocks, and The Wire, they express the multiplicities present within both the oppressors and oppressed. The Wire dispels the mythical notion of a united ‘black community.’ The black politicians and police officers are just as guilty of forming the same prejudices and reinforcing the same stereotypes towards black youth as their white colleagues. The characters in The Wire are depicted as individuals defined in terms of a series of complex personal and social relationships, in which these relationships and social institutions define and structure their existence. Central to the development of characters on every level of the social hierarchy is the evident persistent struggle between individual moral responsibility, and the suffocating ubiquity of institutional structures of power.
      The Boondocks takes a more obvious approach in order to show the contradictions within the black community. The two main characters of the are young brothers, Huey, and Riley Freeman. Riley is the quintessential stock black character of the media today, he is highly impressionable by the media, and strives to live his life like the gangsta rappers he idolizes. He grew up with his brother on the south side of Chicago, but now resides in the predominantly white suburb of Woodcrest Maryland. He attends the third grade at a predominantly white middle-class school, but speaks with an over-the-top stereotypical simulacra of inner city ebonics, and uses the N-word multiple times per episode.
    Riley the deuteragonist, is a foil to his older brother Huey (named after Huey P Newton, one of the co-founders and leaders of the Black Panther Party.) Huey Freeman is the 10 year old founder of over 23 different radical leftist organizations, including Africans Fighting Racism and Oppression (or AFRO,) The Black Revolutionary Organization (or BRO,) and The Black Revolutionary Underground Heros (or BRUH.) He is misanthropic, cynical and pessimistic. He is highly intelligent and very aware of his subjectivity and place in history and culture. Throughout the show he regularly reflects upon current events as well as the plight of African Americans as it relates to a greater American society. He recognizes and detests the absurdities (both obvious and perceived) of the society in which he lives. His cynicism often touches upon subjects such as politics, religion, the media, businesses and corporations, African-American culture and American society, often heavily critiquing both sides of the oppressor/oppressed relationship.

      In the episode The S-Word Riley is called a “nigga” by his white teacher. Riley and his grandfather see this as an opportunity to sue the white man. On the news Riley and Grandpa play the stereotypical victim role pretending to detest the word. When watching the segment Huey gets mad at them telling his grandpa, “You say nigger all the time! Riley thought that was his name till he was 3!” where grandpa replies, “after a lifetime of being treated like a nigger, now we can take it back!” They then cycle through various characters on the show, and other depictions of famous black celebrities to get their input on the use of the N-word. Each response being vastly different from the last. This episode perfectly describes how complex the social construction of race can be, and critiques all sides of the argument.
    The Wire does not directly discuss race in the same way the The Boondocks does. Instead it places racially-charged characters into different positions of power in a set social structure and allows the actions of each character to speak on the perception of race in society. Our identity, beliefs and actions are all determined by our position in the power hierarchy of society. Whether we obey or break the law, do something considered socially moral or immoral, we are all a part of the same system and therefore defined by it. In The Wire how each character chooses to compromise is based upon his or her understanding of this power structure, and their place in the hierarchy. Although this can mean institutions such as the hierarchy of a police force and chain of command, it also is apparent in the broader social sense of race and class.
    Due to this formula, the oppressed black community of the drug dealers are often placed in the helpless victim role, and even when they try to overcome their surroundings they often fail. For example, when D' Angelo gets an offer to start a new life, his mother visits him to talk him out of it. He explains his moral qualms with many aspects of the family business, and how much it has effected him psychologically. She asserts that drug dealing is what has kept their family together, and goes to far to say he will ruin his own son’s life if he doesn’t take the jail time and continue to keep quiet about what he knows. While in prison he becomes even more disgusted with his uncle Avon’s actions and declares he wants nothing more to do with his family. This results in his untimely murder, due to fear he would tell the authorities information about his family.

   Another example of this victimhood is in the character Wallace, just a child himself, he has been involved in the drug trade from a very young age. He uses the money to raise several young siblings in a very unhealthy environment. After his actions lead to the death of Omar’s boyfriend Brandon, Wallace cannot live with the guilt. He told the police of Stringer Bell’s involvement, which also eventually leads to his murder. The Wire depicts a social situation that is nearly impossible to escape. One that you must enter to survive, and once you are in its nearly impossible to get out.

   Critics for both shows argue that they perpetuate racial stereotypes. Critics of The Boondocks assert that they do not put enough emphasis on the social constraints, and make light of real discrimination. Critics of The Wire say it is too cynical and dismisses the parts of inner city life that is hopeful; it does not take into account the entire complexity of the community of inner city Baltimore and only looks at it from a middle-class white perspective.   

I disagree with these critiques as I feel both shows work to give a greater understanding of the complexities of race, and break down traditional black stereotypes we seen portrayed in the media. The Boondocks, although playing into these stereotypes is doing it in a satirical way, and through the character of Huey even has a critical discourse with many issues surrounding race and culture. Although The Wire has a pessimistic view on the ability to overcome social structures, this does not only pertain to the lower-class racial minorities on the show. Every character on the show is a victim to the hierarchy of power they are subjected too. Each power system as corrupted and ineffective as the others. In a 2007 survey by the Pew Research Center they included that two thirds of Americans believe that personal factors, rather than racial discrimination, explain why many African Americans have difficulty getting ahead in life; only 19% blame social constraints and discrimination. Nearly three quarters of U.S. whites (71%), a majority of Hispanics (59%), and even a slight majority of blacks (53%) “believe that blacks who have not gotten ahead in life are mainly responsible for their own situation.” The Wire effectively challenges this notion, showing how individuals are constrained by social structural barriers. Neither show encompasses the entirety or complexity of race, but they both step outside of the typical depictions of stock black characters and at least attempt to expose some of the multiplicities that exist within racial identity.

We call that a joint.

2012-04-11T15:37:00.001-07:00

Surreal Trees

2012-04-11T09:43:00.002-07:00

Australian artist Konstantin Dimopoulos uses environmentally safe pigments to paint the trunks and limbs of trees in urban areas to help raise awareness of the nearly 32 million acres of forests lost each year around the world.

"Through my work I am striving to address global issues and provide a visual platform to effect change. So many universal concerns seem larger than an individual’s power of influence and I want to evoke in people the idea that we can all contribute to change in a positive way."

Dimopoulos has painted trees in Melbourne, and Virginia and even Vancouver for the 2011 Biennale.

PAY FOR SOUP / BUILD A FORT / SET IT ON FIRE

2012-04-10T17:51:00.001-07:00

I have a soft spot in my heart for text-based art. When done right it subverts textual language into a visual language and tends to play with meaning in a very interesting and profound way. Some of my favourites.

Barbara Kruger:

Samo (Basquiat):

Jenny Holzer:

Chris Wool:

Raymond Boisjoly:

Binary Gender, and Dimorphic Sexed Bodies; A Critique of the Natural

2012-04-10T16:41:00.002-07:00

“In our everyday lives we do not treat gender as problematic, do not treat biology as constructed, and sometimes even continue to believe in genitals as essential defining feature. In other words the natural attitude has not changed.” - Kessler, 2000 

Post-structural feminist theory proposed the now-accepted differentiation between sex and gender, both having traditionally dichotomous associations. The assumption being that the binary structure of gender (although socially constructed,) mimics that of sex and thusly nature. Is sex naturally dualistic, or is that assumption socially constructed as well? Why do we feel the need for sex and gender to have such an impact on the construction of our identities? If neither sex nor gender are dichotomous, could there be a genderless society? 

Sex and gender are both terms that have a long history of dualistic and binary associations, and at one time both were thought to be biological certainties. According to this concept, each human was born either man or women and therefore would embody the hetero-normative essence of either masculine or feminine. However, post-sctructurlist theory questions these binaries; in her essay Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory, Judith Butler asserts that “...gender is instituted through the stylization of the body, and hence, must be understood as the mundane way in which bodily gestures, movements, and enactments of various kinds constitute the illusion of an abiding gendered self.“ (Butler, 1)

These bodily gestures, movements and enactments that she refers to are a performance caused by the ideology of hetero-normative. They are the only socially acceptable sexual orientation and “lifestyle.” In The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir argues “one is not born, but rather, becomes a
women,” (De Beauvoir 4) she is arguing the idea that gender is not a solid part in the construction of one’s identity, but rather a socially constructed way of identifying people. Gender is not something you are born with as an inner essence; gender is a condition learned through social construction and tradition.  

        Sex on the other hand is biological. Sex is how we describe the biological reproductive structure of a human being. In society today we see sex as a binary that is undoubtedly natural. This dualistic idea of male and female is often used as the excuse for the creation of the socially constructed gender binaries. But the assumption that sex is dimorphic proves false, as is the idea of “normal” physical attributes as the descriptive feature of female and male.  
    The genetic structure of a human being is made up of chromosome pairings, theoretically one from each parent. The mother provides an X chromosome, where as the father provides either an X or a Y chromosome. An XY chromosome pairing resulting an a male, and an XX chromosome pairing resulting in a female. However abnormalities exist in which an extra chromosome is present, resulting in either an XXX, XXY, or XYY chromosome combination. The percentages of people born with this third chromosome is higher than one might expect; 1 in 2000 people is born with the extra chromosome, making them intersex; the same amount of people born with red hair and freckles.
    The reproductive organs of intersex people vary greatly. On one end of the spectrum there are intersexual people whose genitals and reproductive organs resemble that of a medically deemed “normal” male or female, to mosaic hermaphrodites who have fully functioning reproductive organs and genitals of both males and females, and everything in between. The category of intersexual goes beyond chromosomes, for example, children born with XY chromosomes and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome have genitals that look pretty typically female, and some children born with XX chromosomes and congenital adrenal hyperplasia are born with genitals that look thoroughly male. Yet nearly all medical professionals agree that these kinds of conditions are also intersex.  

    Intersex is a socially constructed category that reflects real biological variation. The differentiation between male, intersex, and female is not however biologically given, or obvious. What defines intersex is not natural, it is also socially constructed in my research I have found that doctors’ opinions about what should count as “intersex” vary substantially. Some propose you must have “ambiguous genitalia” to count as intersex; some think your brain has to be exposed to an unusual mix of hormones prenatally to count as intersex—so that even if you’re born with atypical genitalia; you’re not intersex unless your brain experienced atypical development; and some believe you have to have both ovarian and testicular tissue to count as intersex. 
    Virtually all academic writing on sex and gender refers to a case first described by sexologist John Money in 1972. John Money’s argument was that gender is a social construct, and therefore can be constructed by human intervention. He saw intersexed children as perfect test subjects for his theories. John Money and Anke Ehrhard published their research paper in 1972, which outlined a generic medical protocol for the treatment of infants who displayed sexual ambiguity. A general protocol which many surgeons still adhere to. Money’s argument is filled with many unexamined, and deeply conservative underlying assumptions. In Suzanne Kessler’s book Lessons From the Intersex she outlines the assumptions in Money’s argument: 

1 Genitals are naturally dimorphic; there is nothing socially constructed about the two categories.  

2 Those genitals that blur the dimorphism belonging to the occasion intersexed person can be and should be successfully altered by surgery.

3 Gender is necessarily dichotomous (even if socially constructed) because genitals are dimorphic.

4 Dimorphic Genitals are the essential markers of dichotomous gender.  

5 Physicians and psychologists have legitimate authority to define the relationship between gender, and genitals.  (Kessler 9) 

    Money also had an extreme belief in the necessity of any human being to be assigned their gender role of male or female within their first 18 months of infancy, in order to develop a psychologically healthy identity. Money proposed in order to achieve this, children born with ambiguous genitalia should be deemed “a medical emergency” (Money & Ehrhardt, 1972) and aesthetically “perfect” genitalia was said to be achievable with little scar tissue if performed as early as possible. This treatment protocol supported his rationale that there was a need for an infant’s gender identity to be fixed as male or female very early in there life, and was malleable in these early stages. He also believed however that ambiguity later in life was pathological. Money also suggested that it was just as important for the parents to believe in this fixed identity of their child in order to validate their child’s identity. (Money 148) 

Money’s recommendation of sexual-reassignment surgery was a dangerous one; it presumes that intersexuality is an abnormality and these individual should have become either male or female. Even though Money and Ehrhardt studied hermaphrodites, they only did it in order to prove their ideas on “normal development” (Kessler, 46) They never once questioned their fundamental assumption that there are only two sexes. 
All of Money’s research was greatly supported by his famous case study of two twins born biologically male, often referred to as the Joan/ John case. John was born male and lost his penis at 7 month of age after a circumcision accident. Using his theory of intersexuality John Money suggested the child should be raised a female and surgically altered to fit this new status. Now referred to as Joan, Money asserted that Joan’s twin brother would be a great control of this study. 

Money’s hypothesis was that if Joan and her brother each achieved their gender identification successfully, and became happy “normal” adults, then his protocol for inetersexualy could be deemed as moral and successful. He famously quoted the twins’ mother in support that Joan embraced her femininity “she just loves to have her hair set.” (Money, 144) This quote enforced his theory that ‘nurture’ can overcome ‘nature.’ He deemed this study as a success and it began being cited as such extensively throughout subsequent decades. 

However, contrary to the evidence Money presented, it transpired thirty years later that this was not the case. Joan/John himself made public his discontentment about the entire process of sex-reassignment. His real name was David Reimer, born Bruce Reimer, and at the age of 21 months after his testicles were removed, they changed his name to Brenda. They enforced a hyper-feminine stereotype upon their now-daughter , Brenda, as well as a hyper-masculine role projected on Bryan, her twin brother.
Brenda did not however, enjoy her hair set. He mother recalls her ripping off her frilly dresses, and often getting angry and violent when unable to play outside with her brother. By the time Brenda turned nine, the Reimer family was having serious doubts about their decision. It was around this time that Money published this study claiming it’s resounding success. Money even wrote “The child’s behavior is so clearly that of an active little girl and so different from the boyish ways of her twin brother”

  By the time Brenda reached puberty it became increasingly clear that Money’s experiment was not working. Brenda started developing male-associated physical attributes. It was during this time Money was pressuring Brenda and the Reimers to follow though with the final step and create a vagina for Brenda.

     Brenda protested this greatly, and went as far as threatening suicide if she was forced to see Money again. This cry for help is when Brenda’s parents revealed everything to her. After finding out the truth Brenda tried to commit suicide several times, the third, an overdose of pills, leaving her in a coma. But after recovering she decided the only way to be happy was to become a man. Leaving his Brenda identity behind, Bruce Reimer decided to identify once again as male and changed his name David Reimer. This loss of identity perpetuated by this life change in his brother’s life, caused David’s twin brother Brian to become very angry. He became depressed in his adult life and, unable to cope with this situation and eventually committed suicide. Within two years of his brothers suicide, David also ended his life. 
    Meanwhile Money continued to deem his study as a success and the idea of enforced gender by human intervention was being practiced widespread on intersexed individuals and individuals with ambiguous genitalia. But what is really at risk in pursuit of aesthetically normal genitalia?

    Aside from the psychological effects of sexual reassignment surgery the physical effects are often horrendous. Many children have to go through years of rigorous evasive surgery, often to have genitalia that is built up of scar tissue, and lacks proper function. Many are unable to achieve orgasm, due to their mutilation, and many have had to have reconstructive surgery as adults. Some patients were uninformed about their own medical care, there are several cases of patients who were depressed from their repeated surgical procedures and stopped taking hormone replacement therapy—critical after gonadectomy—and wound up with life-threatening osteoporosis at an early age. (ISNA) 

    When a child is born with ambiguous genitalia the process of their sexual reassignment is one often forced on to parents, and in some cases not even discussed with the parents. Parents are not fully informed about the evidence of alternatives theories available to them, about the risks associated with surgeries, or about the theoretical problems underlying the “optimum gender of rearing” approach. For example, they are typically not told the theories that gender identity may emerge to an important degree from prenatal hormonal actions on the brain—and thus, that you can’t enforce a child to maintain a particular gender identity in the long term by doing surgery on him or her in infancy. This process is a lengthy commitment for the parents, as it involves years of hormone therapy and often counseling, as well as a strict regiment for them to follow when raising their child, in order to convince them of their gender.  
    Many doctors and surgeons believe(d) that this was a moral act. They felt that by helping the child appear more like their peers they were allowing them fit in, be socially acceptable and thus, happier. Money believed that sexual gendered identity of either man or women was an integral part of identity and any ambiguity would be incredibly detrimental. This commitment to a standardized binary of sex model that underlies any medical intervention is still in existence despite recent studies suggesting there are as many as 1.7% of intersexed births. (ISNA)  

     Kessler questions this practice with a outlined critique:  

1 How dimorphic are genitals?  

2 How successful are genital surgeries?  

3 Is gender necessarily dichotomous; should it be socially constructed to be trichotomous at least?  

4 Must genitals be the marker of gender?

5 How does the medical profession use its authority to manage a particular version of gender? (Kessler 7)

    In recent decades there has been a backlash from intersex adults who had surgery performed on them as infants, referring to it as Infant Genital Mutilation or IGM. They have formed very outspoken support groups pleading with medical professionals to reconsider this procedure. Cheryl Chase, founder and long-time president of the Intersex Society of North America, propositioned for the medical community to produce even one case of a happy successful adult who had had this treatment, and they did not comply by finding even one, or at least one who was willing to speak on their behalf even anonymously.  

The ISNA and similar organizations propose that the surgery not be performed on infants, and if a child is born intersex to be raised as such. Then when he child is older they decide for themselves how they want to identify and if they want surgery. According to the INSA website “There is no evidence that children who grow up with intersex genitals are worse off psychologically than those who are altered. In fact, there is evidence that children who grow up with intersex genitals do well psychologically. In other words, these surgeries happen before the age of assent or consent without real cause. “Ambiguous” genitalia are not diseased, nor do they cause disease; they just look funny to some people” (ISNA) 

   They even go as far to say, that if you feel the necessity to assign a gender to the child, this does not mean you must perform evasive surgery or hormone treatments until the child is old enough to decide for themselves. (ISNA) But is gender dichotomous?
    Kessler proposes it could be made trichotomous, but grouping the entire spectrum of sexes into man, women, and intersex has its own issues. In this grouping is is creating a groups of “normative male” and “normative female” causing all others to fall into the category of intersex, as means of “othering” them. Not to mention the confusion of where the boundaries exist between female, intersex and male.
    In her essay Cyborg Manifesto Donna Haraway describes “imagining a world without gender, which is perhaps a world without genesis, but maybe also a world without end. The cyborg incarnation is outside salvation history.” (Haraway 150) She uses the metaphor of the cyborg to describe the paradigm shifts that are occurring due to advancements in technology.  

    In Rosi Braidotti’s Essay Body-Images and the Pornography of Representation, she discusses philosopher Michael Foucault and his writings about “...the medicalization process, or rather of the simultaneous objectivity and the knowing subject sexualization and medicalization of the body, in a new configuration of power which he describes as ‘bio-power’ —the power of normativity over the living organism.” (Braidotti, 17) She relates this to feminism in her discussion of the fantasy of self generation and the paradigm shift “...the split between sexuality and reproduction, as far as women are concerned, has quite a history. I would sum it up by saying that, with chemical contraceptive techniques (the pill) we could have sexuality without reproduction— sex without babies. With the latest reproductive techniques, especially in vitro fertilization, we can have reproduction without sexuality—babies without sex.” (Braidotti, 19) 
    This paradigm shift also fits into Haraway’s metaphor of the cyborg. The use of technology as an extension of our lives in way that it greatly alters our lives. The creation of this paradigm shift of the split between sexuality and reproduction marks the possibility of a genderless society.  
    In Judith Butler’s work Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory, she discusses the idea of hetero-compulsion. The idea of “an ostensibly “natural” attraction to the opposing sex/gender..” as an “...unnatural conjection of cultural constructs in the service of reproductive interests.” (Butler 5) She asserts that “it is primarily political interests which create the social phenomena of gender itself, and that without radical critique of gender constitution feminist theory fails to take stock of the way in which oppression structures the ontological categories in which gender is conceived.” (Butler, 8) 
    This social construction of our gender is interpellated in though everything from media, to fiction, to children's toys. We have created a world that equates gender strongly with identity, and traditional nuclear family values. This binary version of gender and hetero-compulsion aids greatly in the continued tradition of the patriarchal social structures.
    So in a world where sex and reproduction are no longer synonymous, the idea of this hetero-compulsion is less practical. The advancements in technology from bio-medical, to social-networking have allowed these concepts of gender and sex binaries to be critiqued and discussed on a vast level. Haraway believes that technology is a necessary part in the advancement of humanity and breaking down binary thinking of all kinds is an integral part of this advancement.
    However the utopian concept of a genderless society, or at least one in which gender is irrelevant is a radical one. A more obtainable goal is the constant and persistent critique, evaluation and revaluation of the set structures, as well as acknowledging the complexities that exists within society and culture.
    In regards to gender and sexual binaries, we are already on he road of progress; in September of this year Australia was the first country to add a box for intersexual on their government documents including passports, and the Olympic Committee in 2008 changed their requirements to allow for transgendered and intersexual people to take part in their games, but only under strict regulations.
    The social construct of gender binaries is one that is assumed to be natural; not only is it socially constructed but it does not actually reflect nature. Nature is complex, and there is an entire spectrum of variations within nature, including natural sexed bodies. The assiduous critique and examination of preexisting structures and their origins and histories, is the only way to break down dualistic thinking and opposed binaries that are dangerous to human society. Sexuality are gender do not have a dimorphic existence , they are immensely complex and should be treated as such.

Some Disordered Interior Geometries

2012-04-09T12:16:00.001-07:00

One of my favourite photographers, Francesca Woodman (April 3, 1958 - January 19, 1981) Employed self-portraits obscuring herself with her surroundings, so expressive it's insane. She had a very interesting short-life i suggest you read The Woodman's to find out more.

Vivian Mairer II

2011-05-08T13:08:00.000-07:00

A street photographer with an interesting story...previously blogged about: mysterious-street-photographer/nanny

and I'm wishing my legs away

2011-05-08T12:42:00.000-07:00

Van Gogh:

Kiki Smith:

Pat Steir:

Edvard Munch:

Georgia O'Keeffe

Young Canadian Talent; Fashion Design

2011-05-05T13:10:00.000-07:00

Two young designers that stood out at Toronto Fashion week. Angela Chen has an astounding affinity for knitwear. She uses knits in the most stunning and unexpected ways, I especially love the knit bustier:

Heather Lawton's all-black collection is edgy, powerful and incredibly sexy. I love her styling especially the use of the long platinum wigs:

Mysterious Street Photographer/Nanny

2011-05-05T11:49:00.000-07:00

Vivian Mairer was an incredible photographer as well an interesting story. A nanny from Chicago, Mairer was virtually unknown when she passed away in 2009 at the age of 83. Her work was discovered in a storage auction, more than 100, 000 negatives and undeveloped rolls of film. Her work spans from the 1950's to the 1970's, not much is known about the images, although some had a date and/or location specified. Her work has the obvious feeling of nostalgia but her style seems incredibly modern, this juxtaposition is incredible and almost impossible to reproduce. I am completely in love with her work, expect another post soon...

the very heart of the world

2011-05-03T13:31:00.000-07:00

Made of wire, tissue, glue, acrylic paint and glycerine, my sculpture final lights up an beats synchronized with a creepy racing heart sound scape I created...I will try to take video footage and upload soon:

A Home for the Homeless

2011-05-03T13:21:00.000-07:00

This installation was one of my final projects for my sculpture class, I think the conceptual aspects speak for themselves:

Monday Meme: Karate Kyle

2011-05-02T17:10:00.000-07:00

Agenda Suicide

2011-04-24T23:57:00.000-07:00

Frank Magnotta:

Kim Dulaney:

Jessica Labatte

MoCA

2011-04-23T20:20:00.000-07:00

I've been accepted to show in the most prestigious of art galleries; The Coco MoCA, the museum of conan art:

Check it Out

instinct blues

2011-04-23T19:46:00.000-07:00

John Baizley:

Stina Persson:

420

2011-04-20T16:11:00.001-07:00

Abstracted Entropy ||

2011-04-18T16:15:00.000-07:00

Furthering my exploration of abstracted entropy. Made with so many things, wood, newspaper, tape (3 kinds!) burlap, plaster, yarn, ink, ink jet inks, black paint. I feel it lies between a sculpture, and alternative drawing.

Traditional drawing study:

Aurora

2011-04-14T15:33:00.000-07:00

This piece I've been working on was inspired by the film Night Mayor by Guy Maddin:

Regrets

2011-04-14T15:10:00.000-07:00

Thinking about memory in regards to regrets, forgiveness and coming to terms. Furthermore exploring personal relationships and the associations connections we create within our memories, investigating different ways of how one would express that, some ideas:

Louise Bourgeois:

Louise Bourgeois in collaboration with Alex Van Gelder:

Kimberly Waite:

Eva Hesse:

Marvelous Things

2011-04-12T23:34:00.000-07:00

I feel like all these works, including the song have an essence of beauty and sad innocence; a feeling as if the naivety and innocence is just a facade for a dark gritty under-laying truth. A glimpse of what childhood should be, balanced with what it is.

Eisley - Marvelous Things

Oskar Korsar:

Peregrine Honig:

Significant Form

2011-04-12T22:50:00.000-07:00

"Art transports us from the world of a mans activity to a world of aesthetic exaltation. for a moment we are shut off from human interests our anticipations and memories are arrested; we are lifted above the stream of life."-Clive Bell

In Bell’s essay “The Aesthetic Hypothesis” he takes a formalist approach to his interpretation of the aesthetic experience. He argues that it is the formal qualities in the work that create a masterpiece, not the concept or context in which the work is produced. This is not to say he believes that a piece must be rid of semiotic or iconographic qualities, but that these qualities are not what move us in the most significant way.
Bell argues that aesthetic experience is one that differs from any other. It is a visual epiphany that nourishes the mind while also allowing it to rest. It does not rely on a cognitive analysis of the work, nor does it rely on an understanding of the artists intention. It relies purely on the elements of design present in the work; lines, plains, and forms. The combination of which these elements are placed, coupled with the use of colour within these elements is what causes a work of art to be successful or unsuccessful in producing an aesthetic experience in the viewer.

     An aesthetic experience is one that removes us from the context of our lives. It allows us to transport from our reality to one that consists purely of aesthetic ecstasy. It shuts off our sensitivity to anything outside of the work that is the object of our captivation. One dives into the work, swims through the colours, feels the textures on their skin, and revels in the rhythms created. It is an intimate moment shared between the work and the viewer; one that is solely theirs.
    Aesthetic experience, is caused by these combinations of lines, plains, and forms. This combination is what Bell refers to as significant form. Significant form does not exclude any of the elements of design; colour, tone, rhythm, balance, etc, all of these elements exist within the placement of these lines, plains, and forms. Significant form also does not exclude any form of visual art, for all two dimensional and three dimensional works must include lines, plains, or forms. However, that is not to say that every piece of art has significant form. Significant form must have the ability to move the viewer to have an aesthetic experience. Therefore the only way to evoke an aesthetic experience is through significant form.
    Bell also argues that although having an aesthetic experience is usually upon the instant of viewing a work, that in some cases if involves deeper contemplation of a work before one can truly see the significant form. He asserts that a good critic may be able to make one realize the significant form is present in a work by continually pointing out the parts which unite in combination to produce it. However, one cannot evoke an aesthetic experience in another by just telling them there is significant form, they must allow them to come to the realization for themselves. 

Personally I agree with his notion of the aesthetic experience, for I too have be moved in this way by many works of art, not only visual. When creating work for myself, It doesn't feel complete until I can be completely consumed by the work. It produces a fluttering in my chest comparable to that of a first kiss, or the feeling one gets while being applauded after a performance. It’s as if nothing else matters than that moment. When I view a work that moves me I am instantly awed by it, I feel like a newborn discovering the world for the first time. I lose any concept of time and space in my reality and transport into the image. Not in a literal way such as viewing myself walking around in the painting, but more in the way that I am the painting, or at least the painting is a manifestation of me. I can relate to it, have a dialogue with it, all within moments. When I turn away from the work; it now feels like an old friend I may not know every secret and detail, but I understand it’s personality.

     Although I agree with Bell’s ideas on what aesthetic emotion is, I don’t agree with how he believes it arises. His idea of sigifigant form, is what I interpret as formal qualities; or the elements of design. I believe that these elements play a great part in the success of a work, but are not the only thing that allows one to achieve aesthetic ecstasy. I also disagree with his notion that aesthetic emotion differs than that of emotion causes by beauty in nature. I receive the same feeling from a painting that moves me as I do when I see aurora borealis, or when I am in a remote place far from any light pollution and I can almost taste the creaminess of the milky way.
         Bell agues that art that is representational often relies on human emotions that already exist to move people, not on significant form to create an aesthetic emotion. I see this idea as flawed, because if aesthetic emotion is one that is had by humans, does that not make it a human emotion? I believe aesthetic emotion is a human emotion that is on a higher level than most; but this is not to say that the idea of other emotions being brought on by a work of art aren’t different than an aesthetic one. I believe that understanding a conceptual aspect of a work and elevate it to an aesthetic emotion, that these emotions do not conflict with each other, but instead work together creating something the feeds both the right and left sides of the brain.
    An example of this is Josef Albers’ Homage to the Square. Both hard edge painting and minimalism are usually formally based, and seem to be very unobtainable to the general public. I once had the pleasure of explaining the significance of Albers’ work to a friend of mine that, although intellectual, was quite ignorant to the visual art world. Once I explained the colour theory behind the work to him, as well the vast number of these paintings that would be viewed all within the same room he began to see not only the importance of the work, but simplistic beauty of it. He no longer discredited the work because he didn’t understand it, but actually viewed the work and connected with it.

  I too have fallen victim to not being able to full appreciate the work aesthetically until I understood it conceptually; in the case of Louise Bourgeois, although I always appreciated her artwork aesthetically; it was not until I heard her discuss where the work was coming from on a personal level that I too could be succumb to it. Although I could feel her emotions of pain and anger towards her father, as well as the feelings of protection she felt from her mother, I was also elevated to an aesthetic experience that was not confined by this world. It’s almost as if because I could relate to the intention of the artist I could view the body of work as if I was within her mind, while also being within my own.

  Bell’s theories on aesthetics are that of a modernist. I agree with the notion that formal qualities alone can produce an aesthetic experience, but I don’t believe they are the only quality that aids in doing so. Art is not simple. Thus how we experience art is not simple. There are many internal reactions one has to take into account when viewing a work of art, both emotional and intellectual. The forces work together in our response to the work, and allow one to be moved to the point of aesthetic experience. 

-Kirsten

Kimsooja

2011-04-12T22:45:00.000-07:00

Kimsooja's artwork speaks about space, and place in context with culture, and cultural social problems in a delicate sentimental and subtle way. Her installation in Palacio Cristal in Madrid involved covering each window with a filter that refracts light prismatically creating a series of rainbows.

Symphony of Science

2011-04-10T23:25:00.000-07:00