VCS

Whew, that was a dense fifty pages. I don?t know what to say this week. I feel that the previous blogs have voiced my thoughts already. Like my fellow classmates I did come to some deeper understandings about art vs. culture. It is maybe an understanding that I already had, yet I needed to read the articulation before reaching the station. Before this section, I couldn?t understand why anyone could argue against Greenberg. I now can see where one might refute his "Art for art's sake theory. Like Blake and Franscina elude to, art does not happen in a bubble. The artist is only human, as is the critic, and both can not help but be effected and affected by the time and place that they are in. Even though hindsight is considered 20/20, the critic is probably more tied to paradigmatic thread than the artist. Even "Outsider Art" is influenced by context. Just the fact that it is called "outsider" indirectly eludes to something "inside".
When talking about 'modernity', I always get confused. It is impart because this abstract concept is infused with contradictions. and partly because of the varied areas in which modernity manifests itself. I was pleased to learn that Baudelaire felt the same way:
" For Baudelaire, modern life is so contradictory that such "modernity" can only be produced in "art", in representations . This is to suggest that forms of social consciousness, by which individuals construct their identity, can only be adequetly be expressed in modern life by means of metaphors, by representations".

I love this idea. This is why art, and poetry for that matter are so amazing. A painting can say so much more than our ears can hear. And a poem can paint a more vivid picture than or eyes can see.

While reading Blake and Frascina’s telling of Courbet and the few other artists, many thoughts came to my head. Mostly of how proud I am of Courbet and his doings. I usually have much respect for those that go against the norm to make a statement about people, in Courbet’s case, he makes his statement concerning the lesser class in the rural world, his family and those he grew up with. I have true admiration for Courbet and love what I have learned about him through this reading. Painting his family and those that he knows, he expresses his class in, I guess you could say, a “bourgeois” way. What I mean is he expresses them in a respected high manner, showing that they are as important and meaningful to the world and should expressed in that way. What I truly love about Courbet and his art is that he made the bourgeois question what was being represented in the paintings, at first glance they did not understand who was being represented and how. The paintings was done within the rules and standards of paintings of that time, they were in proper proportions and nothing abstract apart from the meaning. What a winner.

How awful of me to say that I hate when art that makes me feel dumb, yet I am happy that Courbet was able to make the bourgeois feel that way.

What makes me angry is that those, the bourgeois and the aristocrats, would feel that the lesser class are not important enough to be seen in a painting doing anything but working. Though the paintings of the lower class does show proof in that they worked hard and all the time, there is more to those people and I think that is what the art viewers were afraid to see. That is why this new scene is important, because it brings forth the truth, that all people eat, have fun or relax. I respect Courbet for bringing this reality front and center; bringing the art world to a modern way of seeing things.
For me personally, when art is more than an aesthetic piece, while still interesting to look at, and acts as a movement or social stance there is a great amount of importance in that artwork. This is true when anyone can provoke or enlighten within a set of rules and still be original, I feel that those that have, succeeded and won.

This reading was definitely intense(for me) - I'm looking forward to studying semiotics and cinema! But I did find Corbet's story interesting. I have a friend who is a student at NYU and her major is Art History. She went to France recently,and told me she cried when she saw some artworks in person. One artist she spoke of was Courbet. I had never heard of him. Now I understand her POV better! It's nice to put a "painting to a name." It was also interesting to see how art influenced politics and class, at that time. Blake and Frascina inform us that "The Courbets were a peasant family..." I always assumed that a 'peasant' was a poor, low-class citizen. But in this text a 'Peasant' is described as "...'one who lives off the land,' something which could be done in either wealth and comfort or in conditions of near destitution."
But through Courbet's art it seems politics and class were questioned and changed. That's pretty intense - that through painting you can question and change society. But I guess that happens today - it different ways, on a different scale. Through visuals, society and culture are questioned and people's POV's are changed all the time.

The words of Mayer Shapiro about production and consumption of art sang in the back of my head as I had breakfast at a restaurant last Sunday. Two women were sitting at the next table and, uhm, I couldn't help but listen to their interesting discussion. One of them was a painter, reading the art critic's verdict of her work out loud to her friend. They went through it sentence by sentence, and clearly, it wasn't all good. She said "maybe I should've used brighter colors in those large ones" etc. in response to the article. So how close is really the artist (in general, or this woman in particular) to the "pulse" of the society (re: yael) and who decides?

More fashionable than ever is the style of eclecticism, whether it be in clothing or interior design or other things you put together to a complete style. Blake and Frascina introduce us to "eclecticism" by explaining it as a process compounding the "best" contributions of all past thinking into a single new blend. Their axis is one that runs along history, but what about one that runs across the present? Did the eclectics constrain their mixing to drawing from the past only, is what I wonder. Also, I wonder if not the "spirit" of metropolitan life aims to something similar; variance, alternatives, preferences, simply a sampling of all your favorite things.

As much as I'd like to let Carl Andre go, I just have to mention, and recommend, the current exhibition at the Guggenheim. It's called "Singular Forms (sometimes repeated)" and is a very nice introduction to minimalism. And of course, there's the excellent opportunity to admire one or two of Andre's work - i.e. a "pile" of wooden logs.

The reading this week was pretty intense but well worth it. I was able to come to some really interesting thoughts that will help me complete the mid-term this week. The more that I study the goings on in France in the eighteen hundreds I can’t help but see the influence that it’s had in regard to so much of what’s going on in the world today.
Studying this time in Paris has particularly been of benefit in both the study of urban life and it’s development to the visual world especially in the ways the function together. These two topics have most defiantly formed a venue in the functioning of so many facets of art and creative expression from fashion, music, fine arts, and entertainment in general.


In the readings this week one of the first things that came to mind was that so many of the terms that we’ve studied can so easily be translated into the culture of today. As we discussed last week Flaneur = metro sexual, this week the name didn’t necessarily change but the persona of a bohemian is very much so a part of our culture today, predominantly youth culture. I found it fun to compare my personal visual image of the bohemian to the books origination of the term. Within reading “The Avant Garde and Experience of Modernity” I began to realize what an intricate role in the evolution of art and society as a whole the bohemian played. Come to think of it there are many theatrically inspired pieces from this movement such as the opera “La Boheme” and “Rent” the Broadway play based off the opera that was rewritten, translated, and transported to the East Village. This obviously wasn’t only picked up by painters and thespians but has also become comodified and picked up by the youth of today as a type of personality that’s in a way trendy.

I find myself continually amazed to see the striking similarities in our culture to this period; I am astounded by the brilliance of people such as Poe and Baudelaire the fact that these ideas were so revolutionary and progressive that to this day our civilization utilizes and literally revolves around them.

The aspect of this text that really resonated with me was the early argument about creating and viewing art in a social and political context. I understand Greenberg's argument about "art for art's sake" and how some avant-garde work can appear to be a complete departure from the cultural time in which it was created. It seems that is a sweeping generalization though, a little too easy, a little too dismissive. It is more interesting and more difficult to take into consideration every aspect of the world that exists for the artist and for the viewer and then view the piece and the intentions of the piece in that context. How can we do otherwise? Because an artist exists in the time period that he does, has lived his life, has experienced his culture, anything he creates will be a product of all that. The art is shaped by the specific artist, through his techniques, his training, and his decision about what to do with this piece of art. But of course all of that (training, technique, options) only exist for the artist because of his culture. And so it all comes back to experience and how an artist decides to create within the society that he lives. There are obviously many choices as to how to create. This text in particular discusses Courbet and Manet. Before the 1848 Revolution, Courbet was not political, but he decided to be politically active through his participation in the art world. Manet used his painting to break away from the immediate past and expectations of art in what was considered a subversive act. His painting The Old Musician is considered an icon of Modernism.

I agree with Meyer Schapiro in his connection between the practices of production and consumption. He basically says that not only is the making of art a result of social experience, but so is the viewing and purchasing of art. For this reason he believes that there is no "disinterest" in viewing art because the consumer cannot help but view from the context of social experience. In addition to that, Schapiro discusses the fact that artists do create with their audience (and their audience's experiences) in mind. Therefore how can any of it exist in the vacuum of "art for art's sake"? No one can escape their history or their present culture, neither the artists nor the consumers.

The last part of the reading was really interesting. I couldn't help but feel that there is a parallel between the development of Paris and the repercussions of that growth within the lower classes and the artisans, and our current economical situation here in America. I know, it's a pretty far-fetched parallel. But this morning as I was re-reading this selection on the subway I had a brief experience that tied things together for me. I was reading about Baron Haussmann's plans for expansion as my subway pulled up at the 181st St. stop. The doors opened behind me without my really noticing (as I was so engrossed in my reading) and right as I read the phrase "artisans were often in real distress" (p.99) I heard the sound of a subway musician on the platform behind me playing an accordion. I don't know. Accordions always sound Parisian to me and I couldn't help but feel the circular nature of capitalism and the strife of artists. And the dissent that accompanies these times of intense economic growth. Which just reassured me that very few people anymore are creating "art for art's sake" but are instead reacting to the social political culture which we have been thrust into.

Once more I have my qualms with Greenberg, luckily this time I can count on Franscina’s and Blake’s to support me in my opposition. Greenberg declares that the avant-garde’s artists purposely detached from society and created “art for art sake’.
Franscina and Blake believe that both the Bohemians artist and the avant-gardists criticized the bourgeois society and its capitalist organizational principals. The criticism though, was based on knowledge of the society they lived in, with the artists responding and informed by society. In fact the only social autonomous art I can think of is "Art Brut" (literal translation, raw art, also known as ‘Outsider Art’) which can be used in contrast and to highlight the characteristic of the art discussed in our assigned reading. "Art Brut" was defined in the 1940’s by the French painter Jean Dubuffet as:
"Works executed by those immune to artistic culture in which imitation has no role; in which their creators take all (subjects, materials, transposition, rhythm, style etc.) from their own individuality and not from the base of classical art or stylish trends".
The practitioners of "Art Brut” are mentally or socially marginal, solitary beings, patients of psychiatric hospitals or other institutions. People indeed removed from the constraints of cultural conditioning. Their work is conceived and executed outside of that which we normally regard as the domain of the ‘Arts’; that is to say, schools, galleries, museums, etc. Their works are, therefore, conceived without consideration of the usual consumer of artistic production - in fact, without consideration for a public or official recognition or claimed as art by its producer.
Like Franscina and Blake correctly assert this theory of ‘art for art sake’ and the notion of ‘aesthetic experience’ are used by Greenberg as eliminating standards for his chosen roster of artists. Personally I subscribe and want to believe that there is always some ethical judgment in the arts; as obvious as in Courbet’s realism and well concealed in Carl Andre’s minimalism. Jules-Antoine Castagnary, in his critic in 1863 expends the responsibility of the artist to be the extrovert interpreter of society’s moral or lack of them. The artists serve as society’s consciousness and mirror. From the mid-nineteenth-century, we are told that artist and his work can not be understood outside modern society. I believe most artists have their fingers on the pulse of society, present and past in order to affect changes in style, content, and meaning. Mayer Shapiro informs us that the production and consumption of art are mutually affected. What's more I think that artists are more than solely producers they are also vital consumers of the arts. The interdisciplinary exchange in the arts give rise to amazing results (Black Mountain College was one example among many). Even in a capitalist society that encourages individualism, and novelty, where art develop into a marketable commodity I still believe that artists fulfill their role in society. Artists are changing conventions, if it is the treatment of gender in society, the topic and how it is represented or shaking the rules of accepted materials and visual mediums, but at all time changing within the society they inhabit.

Wow! This was a lot of reading and I learned so much from it. I don't really have any theme or question regarding this reading. So, I decided I would just mention some things that were of interest to me.

Although we have begun to discuss society and its relationship to artists and their work, I don't think we have examined it as in depth as this chapter does. The reading takes a really deep look at the social structure of France in the 1800's and also discusses the political ideas (mainly Marx) that were being developed at the time. Then the reading informs us of how these ideas and structures affected the art of the time; both the artists and the viewers.

The reading begins with a look at the Avant-Garde and Bohemianism. These were groups that were against the current structures of society. In their work they attempted to have a deep political and social impact.

A little further in the reading, the "Salon" is discussed. I really enjoyed finding out what the "Salon" was. I heard it referred to in class and in a post of two, but really had no idea that it was a state sponsored annual exhibition in France. I found the history of the different Academies interesting as well.

The rest of the reading focused deeply on the work of Courbet and Manet. Blake and Frascina use Corbets' work as an example of "Realism" and Manets' as "Modern". We see how Courbets' life and political/social views influence his work. Also, we see how the rise of many lower class to having influence on society effect art of the day. Things that were not accepted or appreciated in the past are now being accepted by viewers with a different background. I sort of felt like the Manet part was a bit redundant as we have already examined his work in great detail. However, I did find something interesting in the section about Manet; his work with Thomas Couture. It described Couture's techniques which I found fascinating.

In short, what I took from the reading was really how the political and social landscape affected art. These conditions caused the creation of avant-garde and bohemian groups and their art (Realism and the Modern) were ways for them to express their thoughts.

I am really looking forward to viewing the movie, In Praise of Love. Based off the information about timeline, it may be a little like Memento.

This week and next our required reading focuses on the critical use of images and the question of how an avant-garde practice can be established and sustained as part of a larger cultural discourse. The reading is long but reasonably clear on the details of how a political avant-garde in painting emerged in mid-nineteenth century France.

To help us seque out of the distant past and into our present visual culture, I would like to complement the reading with some in-class material that draws on recent cinematic practices. I was originally planning to show some short clips from a number of different sources. But after reviewing the options this weekend, I decided that the most effective way to make the case for an analogous "contemporary avant-garde" would be to screen the best example I know of this week and discuss it the following week.

So that's the plan. The film is In Praise of Love by Jean-Luc Godard. It's approximately 98 minutes long, so please try to arrive on time. You need to see the entire film to piece it all together.

For those of you who have never seen a film by Godard, you're in for an experience. Godard once said, "Every story should have a beginning, a middle, and an end. But not necessarily in that order." Not only does he often mix up the chronology of the story, but he also believes that plot is not essential to or even desirable in a good film. You should also be prepared for the fact that the sound and the image are not always synchronized. This can be disconcerting to those accustomed to a heavy diet of mainstream Hollywood movies. We'll talk more about this after we've had a chance to see the film and think about it for awhile.

Finally, to give you a preview of the characters and the narrative, I've included excerpts below from Jonathan Rosenbaum's review, originally printed in the Chicago Reader. The link to the full article is here.


'[The film] opens with a young man, Edgar, planning a project called Eloge de l'amour that might be a film, a play, a novel, or an opera. (During the first hour of the film only two intertitles are used: "something" and "about love.")…

'Eloge de l'amour translates literally as "eulogy of love," but the funereal tone of the film might make "elegy" -- "a song or poem expressing sorrow or lamentation, especially for one who is dead" -- seem closer to the mark at first. The setting is Paris, and the stunning cinematography is in black and white, with some of the blackest nocturnal blacks imaginable….

'Edgar's project involves three couples (young, "adult," and old) and four "moments" of love (meeting, physical passion, separation, and reconciliation), and he begins by interviewing prospective members of the three couples. Yet the first two-thirds of the 94-minute film has less to do with love per se than with the lives of members of the French resistance during World War II and of poor and homeless Parisians in the present. Eventually we discover that Berthe -- a young woman Edgar met in Brittany two years earlier and particularly wants to include in his project, though she shows no interest in participating -- has killed hersel

'In the film's final section -- set two years earlier and shot in video with floridly oversaturated colors -- the themes of love and the French resistance finally become intertwined. Edgar arrives in Brittany to interview a historian, Jean Lacouture, about Catholics in the resistance, saying he's "composing a cantata for Simone Weil." This leads to his meeting an elderly couple, friends of Lacouture who fought in the resistance and have been together ever since -- even though the man, following the orders of his superiors, exposed the woman as a member of the underground during the war. The two are now negotiating with a representative of the American embassy in Paris to sell their story to a Hollywood studio, for a feature to be directed by Steven Spielberg and written by William Styron and to star Juliette Binoche (who's just won an Oscar for her part in The English Patient). The couple's granddaughter, a legal trainee who advises them on the contract, is Berthe, the woman who will kill herself two years later…

'"No other filmmaker has so consistently made me feel like a stupid ass," Manny Farber wrote of Godard 34 years ago. Today Godard is just as intimidating. I'm gratified that I caught some film references in In Praise of Love. The final line of dialogue in Robert Bresson's Pickpocket is cited by a man standing in line at a movie theater, who happens to be film critic Noel Simsolo. Another scene contains an admiring allusion to Samira Makhmalbaf's The Apple (the French poster for it is visible). There are also variants of lines from Roberto Rossellini ("Things are there. Why invent them?") and from John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance ("When the fact becomes legend, print the legend"), as well as a couple of songs from Jean Vigo's L'Atalante, nostalgically heard while a man and woman converse by the Seine. But I'm generally clueless when it comes to the literary quotations. The authors of a seemingly random ten of them are listed in the final credits, and though I recognize half of the names, I can't connect them to particular lines of dialogue. But I'm sure I'm not meant to. The trick when watching Godard is to catch the pitch of his poetics, savor the pleasure of his sounds and images, and ponder the historical, philosophical, and ethical issues that intersect with them. Catching specific references is at best a minor sport; much more important is catching the beauty of the argument as it sails past in diverse forms. ("Every thought should recall the debris of a smile" is one relevant remark.)'

As someone committed to social justice issues, I am drawn to the writings of Baudelaire and art historian Meyer Schapiro on ‘modernity’, as well as Courbet’s and Manet’s honest representations of realities, for acknowledging the tendencies of the bourgeoisie to avoid things they don’t want to see: ambiguities in the otherwise regarded ‘apolitical countryside’ (75), as described by Blake and Frascina, overarching feelings of displacement that would become an inevitable consequence – a very real fact - of modernization, and other references (or references to “the others’) that are critical of reality (103). So – what does this have to do with art? Honestly – as much as someone wants it to be.

However, I consider it a privilege, from a social/economic point of view, to compartmentalize social and political issues as if it can’t have anything to do with say – art. Can I and do I sometimes look at a painting such as Courbet’s Burial at Ornans and value only its treatment of formal properties such as composition, brush stroke, scale etc…? Yes. But- can I and do I, like a detective, look at the same painting for clues that would possibly tell me what these people were like and what values influenced the way they lived? Yes again. Art, for me, are all of these things.

There are distinctions within photography – fine art, documentary, and now digital. When I look at the Courbet, Delacroix, Manet paintings, I associate it more with what is called documentary photography because it’s representing social/political history and relationships. So, if we call these paintings documentary painting then will that make them more accepted and satisfactorily affirm the “this is not art so we’ll call it documentary” argument? Well, yes again – but I would resist that adoption of hierarchal thinking consistent with 19th C. Académie, and still consider it art.

Whether we like/want/are conscious of it or not – modernization, industrialization, capitalism, whatever we want to call it – has its benefits and its burdens. It seems natural for me for definitions and codes to change and more than likely – EXPAND in ways we don’t yet know because we haven’t experienced yet - as a way to keep up with all the changes and keep them in check. The Courbets, the Baudelaires, the Manets, and I want to say, although not really written about, [undoubtedly] some female bohemians out there respectably acknowledged the burdens, nevertheless realities, of modern life and trusted their questions enough to still do exactly what they were originally trained to do – depict reality. So, what does this have to do with art?

The answer to that question depends on how much a person wants to/is willing to/is able to see, perhaps, and to appreciate... art as BECOMING art. Our definitions of art will naturally change. Courbet's works may, as Blake and Frascina suggest, lose its 'aestheticism' as 'art for art's sake', but by representing coexisting political and social conditions, it gains an aesthetic authentic to humanity - one that is not concerned with categories of good, better, bad art - but one that cultivates and values 'art for Life's sake'.