The MoMA, The Bomb and the Abstract Expressionists reading illustrates how the US government used the Abstract Expressionist movement as a cultural front in its war against Communism. The fact the US used an art movement to achieve a political goal surprised, intrigued, and, somewhat, irritated me. I had previously not recognized that art could be used to bring about change on a global scale.
Of course, the US used art as a form of propaganda during both World Wars. However, while that art was created by designated government offices, the art used to combat Communism during the Cold War was appropriated from unaffiliated artists. These artists were "individualistic, autonomous, exuding despair, anxiety, and fear of atomic annihilation" (Shark). They were sickened by the atrocities of the war and by America's imperialist behavior. Their art, consequently, could be deemed "anti-government," or even "anti-American." Yet the CIA interpreted it as "anti-Communist" and proceeded to sell it as such. The US misappropriated Abstract Expressionist art and used it to perpetuate means of effective world domination antithetical to the ideals of the very artists whose work it exploited. The article shows how powerful a tool, as well as a weapon, art can be and how it can be used to orchestrate political change. I've always thought that street painting was really cool. While browsing the web, I came across the website of Manfred Stader, a German street painter who's been creating optical illusions since the 1980s. When viewed from a certain angle, his paintings seem to bring objects out of the very ground. With their excellent application of color theory, they exhibit uncanny realism. Truly, Stader takes trompe l'oeil to a whole new level. I appreciate his work because it demonstrates his incredible skill at conveying a sense of depth. Although it's arguable whether work that simply "shows off" one's artistic prowess can be classified as art (especially if it doesn't seem to hold any particular meaning), I believe that Stader's paintings are certainly art because they engage and even deceive the viewer.
Check out Manfred Stader's work at: http://www.3d-street-art.com/ I really like the work of Ryan McGinness. I think it's cool how he appropriates commercial and industrial imagery to make art. I can loosely identify with him because I enjoy surfing and skateboarding, so at least the subject matter is somewhat familiar to me. However, what I really admire about McGinness is that he sees the artistic potential in mundane commercial images and transmits them in an original way through another medium so that others may see them as art instead of just merchandise. I also like how his work catches the eye with its vivid colors and unusual shapes and how it exhibits a dynamic between a sense of depth created through overlapping images and a dull flatness emblematic of the commercial source from which he draws his subject matter.
Check out Ryan McGinness' work at: http://www.ryanmcginness.com/ I've gotten a lot done since my last process picture. In fact, I made most of this progress in a single class period. My mark's looking really good, and I seem to have gotten the hang of creating a sense of depth with the charcoal using subtlety of value. The leg and knee look great, and the back and shoulders look even better. This surprises me because I had no idea how to use my mark - Rubens' mark, that is - to depict the musculature of the subject's back. I experimented with it, and I think I nailed it. This is really starting to come together. I notice that as I follow my progress in a clockwise direction, the image begins to both convey a much better sense of depth and mirror Rubens's actual mark. I know that I'm only halfway done at best and that we don't have many studio days left, but I think my getting the hang of working with charcoal will expedite the process and allow me to finish before the nine weeks are up. The class went to see Bob Trotman's exhibit Business As Usual at the Visual Arts Center. I was impressed (and a little creeped out) by the realism of his wooden sculptures, and I was intrigued at how the face of each sculpture was different from that of the next. I also found his pieces rather meaningful, as I share with him some of the same sentiments about corporate America. However, while his viewpoint has the duality of criticism and sympathy, as he expresses in his artist's statement, mine tends to lean towards cynicism with regard to the corporation and big business. I enjoyed seeing Trotman's work; the concept was completely new to me, and I think that a statement such as his needed to be made.
_ Although the first three readings (Whistler vs. Ruskin, Gilbert Stuart, and The Chinese Art Explosion) did not seem to me to be very similar to each other, they each raised important questions. They made me question the definition and value of art and the role of the artist, three topics I have not often considered.
I found Whistler vs. Ruskin somewhat amusing. It seemed silly to me for the mentally unstable Ruskin to attack Whistler's work and for Whistler to then file suit against his critic. This is what made me consider what art is, for Ruskin did not recognize Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket as art. He astutely interpreted it as a challenge to the established norms of the art world, something that would revolutionize modern art. Why he saw this as a threat escapes me. Ruskin himself, anything but conservative, justified Turner's work by using detached metaphors and analogies, not even returning to the actual work; if anything, he should have supported Whistler. But who was he to question the authenticity of Whistler's Nocturne? Furthermore, who is anyone to do so? This brings the role of the critic into play as well, because it is largely up to the art critic to set the standard for what can be called "art." In any case, the deranged Ruskin could not have hoped to quell the coming modernist movement. The art changed with the times, and pieces such as those of Whistler, which were formerly considered heretical, came to define the popular idea of what constituted art. The Gilbert Stuart reading left me a little confused. To begin with, my first impression of Stuart's reduplication of his original portrait of Washington seemed inauthentic. In reproducing the image so many times and selling off the copies for quick money, Stuart lessened the relative value of his original piece. In addition, he created a multitude of future unknowns by distributing so many versions of the same portrait, not the least of which include the identity and intended recipient of each painting and the order in which the paintings were created. But why would Stuart impugn a piece attributed to him? Modern forensic analyses and extensive research virtually nullify his claim. This brings into question the role of the artist, about which I have begun to formulate strong opinions. I don't think that an artist should be able to disown his own work. Once he has made for himself a business of making art, he cannot simply renounce responsibility. Art is not a means of making profit; it is a statement. A statement cannot hold credibility in anonymity; therefore, the artist must stand behind his work. I think Stuart's repudiation of that one portrait was cowardly and represented on his part a fundamental lack of understanding and respect for his trade. Finally, The Chinese Art Explosion made me think about how society values art and the extent to which people will go to gain social standing. I was shocked at the exorbitant prices that people are paying for others' work. In the simplest sense, the price of a good or service reflects its intrinsic value - or rather, how much others are willing to pay for it. These prices are artificial, however; in this corrupted Chinese art market of auctions, the highest bidder sets the price of the piece. So buyers can boast of their accomplishments upon acquiring pieces of art that fetch such high prices. And for what? Prestige? I repeat, art is a statement. And the Chinese, of all people, should take this seriously, as visual art is basically the only form of expression not censored by their government. That's why artists like Ai Weiwei take advantage of it. Despite the rapid and recent growth of the market, there have been signs that the market is reaching maturity. In other words, it's a stock market of art speculation that's in imminent danger of crashing. These readings |
Ian FraserArt III student at Maggie Walker Governor's School for Government and International Studies Archives
June 2015
Categories |