Mail Art!

The form of mail art, though only mentioned briefly in today's lecture, really peaked my interest, both because I thought the performative element of it was really neat, and because I was curious about the kind of aesthetics and materials that might be involved in mail art. I looked it up online and was not surprised to find that mail artists often appropriate things like rubber and postage stamps, tickets, and other utilitarian 2D objects in their art. Something I think is cool though, is how mail artists have been known to design and create their own stamps (both rubber and postage)--I think that would be really could exercise to do sometime.

I was drawn to the the idea of mail art partially because of how it reminded me of zines and the zine community; zines are frequently sent through the mail, are often made by hand, or with low-tech tools, and they often (but not always) are meant to have an aesthetic appeal. Many zines contain pieces of art (especially on the cover), but I personally consider most of the zines that I've seen to be works of art in and of themselves. If you think of it this way, zines are like a form of mail art. Zines and mail art have other things in common too, such as the appropriation of other media (like utilitarian objects, and stuff from popular culture), low cost, lack of censorship, the use of copy art, and the opportunity for the development of friendships through these exchanges.

Work Cited

"Mail Art." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 22 Mar. 2013. Web. 23 Mar. 2013.

Reflections on "Birthday Suit with Scars and Defects"

This Tuesday, the piece that I found the most compelling that we looked at was "Birthday Suit with Scars and Defects" by Lisa Steele. I really liked how she treated her body like it was something she had been given at birth, and she was documenting the damages it had sustained since. When we look at a person, especially a young adult person, I find we tend to see them as they are in that moment, and think 'that is what this person looks like', without realizing that there were many years in which they looked like children (because they were children), and we don't realize that soon they will become older. Although Steele doesn't speculate about the future of her "birthday suit", as she documents the marks different stages of her childhood on her skin, we get a sense of the life of the body, particularly the skin.

The thing that struck me most about this work, however was how un-sexualized/sensualized it is. When the video begins, we see a naked female body, which immediately brings to mind sexuality or sensuality--we kind of assume that the video will address issues of the female body and female sexuality, but it doesn't do that in the ways one would think. Her body is not meant to be a sexual object. She documents her various scars and marks, as someone pointed out in class, kind of coldly and clinically, as if doing an autopsy. At the same time, though, I felt like it was kind of intimate, with the tone of her voice and the noises in the background and the slightly awkward way that she positioned herself in front of the camera. It manages to be intimate but completely non-sexual. After a while, though she is completely naked, and obviously female, I think the viewer sees Steele as simply a human being with a body, to which they can relate--having their own body, their own history, and their own scars.

I did a google search of the title of the piece, and I got this interesting video that someone else did; the description says "approximation of Lisa Steele's Birthday Suit with Scars and Defects." It's a lot shorter, and the woman is not completely nude. Strangely, the slip that that she has chosen to wear might give this video a tiny bit more of a sexual tone, I don't know. 

Also, it doesn't seem to have any sound when I watch it; my speakers seem to be working, and every other video on the website has sound accept this one, so maybe it just didn't upload correctly, or maybe it was deliberately. You can tell she's talking, but you can't tell what she's saying, although you can sometimes see her face and it is very expressive--more so than Steele's face was in her video. I don't want to make any assumptions, but certain aspects of the video, like the fact that this woman seems to be wearing a wig make me think there's a possibility that she might be transsexual or transgender--if so, the video being deliberately silent could be meant to express the refusal of society to talk about or legitimize trans* bodies. Again, I really don't know, I just thought it might be a possibility.

Christiane Pflug and My Claustrophobia-phobia

On Tuesday, continuing our section on painting, we looked at some work by Christiane Pflug, which I found really compelling. Although the subjects she paints (children, domestic setting, etc.) are not uncommon, or strange, the way that she paints them completely alters their effect--at least for me. It's just like Professor Kelly said in class, the sterile space of the house, looking out into the outdoors creates a real sense of claustrophobia, and adding to that the knowledge that she had a strict husband and really spend most of her time in the house increases that effect.

This is a really great example of work that is really feminist, although maybe the artist wouldn't have said so. It really gets across the restricted existence that women were obliged to live for centuries--and still are, in many parts of the world. In the painting, "Kitchen Door with Esther" I really get the sense (but it might just be me) that the way she has her daughter perched in the doorway like that--it's like she hopes for something better for her daughter, that her daughter won't be as trapped, or have to feel as claustrophobic. I don't doubt that many women at that time felt the same way about their daughters.
The couple of paintings we looked at in class really spoke to me, not only as a woman, but as a woman who sees some of those more traditional roles and traits as part of her identity, and as not mutually exclusive to being treated equally, getting an education, and being independent. As I looked through Pflug's eyes, and imagined how she must have felt, a conflict that I often encounter when I think of my future was brought to the forefront again. I know I want to be a mother someday, and that nurturing a family and working to create a home are things I want to accomplish in my life. I sometimes entertain the possibility of spending some time just as a homemaker if that one day becomes possible. However, I never want to experience that feeling that comes across in the paintings of Christiane Pflug. I never want to feel trapped or limited to the home, and I want to be treated with respect by my partner, and be considered equal. I can't be guaranteed that, that is possible, especially in today's society when that type of unpaid labor still isn't valued as much as it should be, and women are expected to have a paid career if they want to be seen as equal to men. I hope a balance can be achieved between the claustrophobia presented in these paintings, and the complete rejection of traditional "women's roles" altogether.

Monkey and Deer

On Thursday we looked at the art of animation, which is something I've never studied in the context of an art history class before. I especially loved Graeme Patterson's film "Monkey and Deer", not only because of the whole experience of watching the film, but because I felt like every part of the production fit together so perfectly to create something really cool and beautiful. The figures and setting are so realistic, unlike some of the other films we saw, which were more cartoon-like--not that there is anything at all wrong with that. The realism of "Monkey and Deer" keeps the "cuteness" (for lack of a better word) to a low enough degree that other elements like the setting, music, action, and general atmosphere become more prominent.
I was particularly struck by the music. When looking for the video link online I found out that Patterson himself created the music, and I'm not at all surprised, because to me it felt really important to the overall experience. I was thinking as I was watching the film that, combined with the nighttime setting and the realism of the figures, if the music had been any more unearthly sounding the film might have felt a lot more spooky, and had the music been any more playful it could have ended up feeling creepy in a whole other way. I thought the music was perfect though, and really made me feel immersed in the animation instead of like I was just sitting there staring at a screen taking something in (which is too often what I find myself doing).
Another thing I really liked was how Patterson set his film at night--it really contributes to the feeling that the setting is deserted accept for the two figures of the monkey and the deer. It also kind of seemed like the objects were glowing, which was cool.
I guess the whole film had kind of a surreal vibe to it, in a way, especially since a monkey and a deer are two animals that you would probably never see together. But I enjoyed it because it wasn't surreal in a disturbing   or uneasy way, which is what I've encountered most often.
More than anything, Patterson's film made be aware of all the different elements that come together to make a good animated film, which makes me really respect animation as an art form.

Thoughts on Painting

There are a number of thoughts that spring to my mind when I look back on last Thursday's lecture on painting. A lot of the paintings we looked at seemed to show a self-awareness of painting, like with Neil Jenney's Husband and Wife, and Ben Reeves work. Also, with Douglas Coupland, and with the Emma Lake  series by  Kim Dorland, the work is a reference back to art history, other artworks, and other aspects of the art world. Especially since I'm guessing most of the painting we looked at can be described as modernist, this really strongly reminds me of the modernist period in literature (surprise!). I've been working on a research paper which is partially about the modernist period, and when I made the connection, I was particularly thinking of how or anthology talks about modernist art and literature as having "turned inward", becoming self-referential, inter-textual, and cannibalistic (Damrosch 928). Of course it makes sense that art and literature from the same period would have similar things going on, it was just kind of a light-bulb moment for me.
Re-visiting a topic I wrote about a couple of blog posts ago, "what is art?", it's really interesting to compare modern or contemporary art with the art from, say the first half of the art history survey course. It seems like the function of art--painting specifically, has changed, or at least loosened to be used for so many more purposes. In the seventeen and eighteen hundreds it seems to me that painting was used for representation, for the sake of beauty, and often for political or religious purposes. In the modern period (and obviously this has something to do with the advent of photography) I feel like painting is also used for these purposes, but in so much of a broader sense and with such diverse and different approaches. Along with the rest of art, painting is accomplishing so much in such unique ways. The modern period is crazy.

 "The 21st Century. " Ed. Damrosch, David. The Longman Anthology of British Literature. 921-942.

Center and Margin in Art and Culture

Last Tuesday's panel, "The Center and the Margin" was really thought provoking. I thought it was really great that we got a different conceptions of center and margin from each panelist. It's a little hard to pin-point what each of them actually covers; I find myself wondering if the more common public views of art count as being in the margin because they are less educated and experienced in the art world, or whether the more contemporary, new perspectives on art count as being in the margin because one often has to be involved or specifically interested in the art world in order to know about/appreciate them and the majority of the population isn't.
I think it's interesting to look at the center and the margin in art in terms of  what is less accepted both in the art world and in society and how that manifests itself in art or in art movements, as well as how those manifestations seek to implement changes in society and the art world, and how those changes in alter what is marginalized in the future. I know that was a giant run-on sentence, but I hope it made at least a little sense.
Anyway, I'm just thinking about how a lot of cultural movements have had marginalization, or rebellion against the center as an integral part of their meaning. I'm not super culturally or historically educated, but the punk movement comes to mind. Hipsters are also defined by there lack of relationship to the center (although I think hipsters are dubbed hipsters by those who are more at the center, and do not refer to themselves as hipsters--who are hipsters anyway?). Again, I don't have a nuanced enough cultural education to articulate my point well enough, but I feel like there many cultural--or, actually I should say sub-cultural movements grow out of the margins and partially define themselves with that marginalization--I think this is true of several movements in art as well, especially those that are strictly anti-corporation, street art, maybe dadaism?
I thought one of the most compelling ideas that I heard during the panel was about how being on the margin can create communities, and a sense of belonging. I thought that was a really cool point, and it's one of those things that I feel like I've definitely seen but have never heard articulated before. Of course, this was in reference to artistic communities, which is really neat to look at, but I know for sure that it must happen just in society and culture in general. I'm thinking especially of the type of close-knit communities and unique cultures that seem to sometimes be created by marginalized groups in our society. These communities--from my very limited experience--can have very rich and complex cultural stuff going on, but a lot of it may not necessarily be accessible to those of us in the center (or in completely different marginal groups, as it were). Of course these cultures are frequently expressed through art, so it kind of comes full circle.

Thoughts on Tagny Duff's "Elephantiasis Ears"

After having watched Tagny Duff's performance art piece, "Elephantiasis Ears", in which she wandered around in a mall, naked accept for a pair of huge years hooked up to some kind of audio equipment. This piece stirred up a lot of discussion in the classroom both Tuesday and Thursday when there was a panel discussion in which it was brought up. People expressed diverse reactions to the piece, many of them very critical. I didn't really participate in the discussion on either of those days, even though I had stuff to say...so, I'm going to say that stuff here instead.
Concerns were brought up about the fact that she was naked out in public, and touching people, both of which might make people uncomfortable, and there were some concerns about children possibly seeing the performance, and the effect that this might have.

As to the nakedness; I agree that it likely made some people uncomfortable, and a naked woman wandering around a mall is not something you see everyday--I wouldn't want to dismiss anyone at the mall who was upset at this. I also won't deny that such a sight might trigger some questions from any child that might happen to be in the audience. However, art often makes people uncomfortable, and this very discomfort is what a lot of art is really about. Not only that, but how traumatizing is the site of a naked woman anyway? And if it is traumatizing--how much of that trauma is social constructed, rather than inherent in the nakedness itself? As far as children go, I would be much more concerned about my children (and I am weary of making this statement, since I have none yet) viewing thousands of images of almost-naked, or provocatively dressed women who have been starving themselves or have been digitally altered to be unrealistic--I would be more concerned about them viewing these images and not asking any questions, than I would about them seeing a real naked woman in a mall, and asking a few questions than I bet wouldn't be too hard to answer if you can be a little creative.
As far as the touching goes, I think it's really important to distinguish between different types of touching; Duff was not grabbing anyone, or touching them in any inappropriate places--in fact, I think in the clip we saw, she was mostly just offering them handshakes, though she did lay her hand on a few people's shoulders. I acknowledge that her being naked would definitely alter this experience for people, and I admit that if I were preforming "Elephantiasis Ears" (and I wish I had the ovaries it took to do something like that) I would probably decide to just stick with the offering of the handshakes and only touch those who extended their hands in return, because it's probably a little scary to be touched by a naked person without your permission--I guess that's where I draw the line. Again, though, she wasn't being violent or sexual about the touching, and I think that's important to note.
Of course, it is true that this being outside of the gallery setting, with the audience (or crowd) unprepared for anything but a shopping trip, and unaware of the nature of the performance makes the situation quite a bit different than one in an art gallery, but I think that's completely the point of the art work, and I don't think Duff would have accomplished what she clearly wanted to accomplish as effectively in the traditional setting. Questions were raised about whether or not this counts as art, or if it is good art. I would just like to contribute to that discussion by saying that in my completely subjective, and insufficiently educated opinion, it is; it seems to  me that Tagny Duff was trying to say something about connection, and about social norms, and possibly also about intimacy, and I think she did it very well and it if you disagree with everything else that I have said in this blog post, then you still have to admit that it took guts, and you wish you had guts like that when it came to doing things that are important to you, and maybe you do--in which case, congratulations.
...obviously I should have written my essay on this instead.