lots of work, little time

I was in the studio from right after art seminar until about 10pm on thursday and from about 830 to about 10 pm on Saturday. I was so super exhausted on Saturday, but had to write my Art History paper. So I had no time in the studio on Saturday, AAAH! See you Sunday!

reflection 3

Radicant was an interesting article that discussed the globalized cultural diffusion that has occured in the US, and continues to occur in other nations throughout the world; and as a result of that diffusion the feeling of unrootedness. Interestingly, discussions between Judy and I expressed the unrootedness Americans feel. We discussed that Americans will often answer with their cultural heritage when they are asked 'what are you?.' While in other countries, the people we encounter will say the country in which they live, no matter what their cultural heritage looks like. In my own family these issues are prevelant, even though they are not really spoken of. We carry on many of the cultural traditions that my parents were taught. Yet, we also have taken on the American traditions/roles. This relates back to Exile in the AlterModern article, and the idea of globalized art language or content; globalized themes that many artists are dealing with and using in their work. This also occurs through travel and education when we learn, embrace and (in terms of corporations) leave behind, cultural facets of a community. Is it so important that we embrace these issues in our artwork, and I wonder how many people even think of it as an issue at all.

AlterModern and Margins

The alter modern article was difficult to wrap my brain around. However, it raised questions about the type of work that is being created today, and answered many questions as to why this type of work is being created. In some of my other classes, we are discussing "contemporary" works of art that were made in the 1970s-1990s. Many fall under the postmodern concepts and themes. Interestingly, there is somewhat of a progression into what Bourriaud considers altermodern.
During the discussion people brought up some good points on how difficult it is to see a historical movement when you're living it. The themes appear quite general, and It seems like most art that is being created today can fit the requirements.
The works at the New Museum (Rivane Neuenschwander) and the works of the Starn Brothers at the MET seem to fit the concepts of altermodern nicely. They feel nostalgic: Big Bambu is reminiscent of childhood, while Neuenschwander uses cultural traditions, popular/classic films, and literature. Neuenschwander works with the ideas under the exile theme as well. What do you think?
I am drawn to works of art created in this way and that sort of fall under altermodernism. However, i think Bourriaud loses me at the globalization of artists. I believe when things are pushed to be globalized, there is always someone not being reached. Even in the "technologically
savvy" world that we supposedly live in, there are entire countries who have not caught up to even what we now perceive as dated. For me personally, the concepts of Altermodern are lost there.

Reflection

The Miwon Kwon and Glen Adamson articles touched home with issues dealing with art, craft, and the changing definitions of art and site specificity from the mid 20th century to now. In relation to my own work, I find it difficult to make personal connections to conceptual art without craftsmanship or aesthetic value. However, when viewing art in a gallery setting, I am often drawn to conceptual works of art and I don't necessarily care if the work follows aesthetic art frameworks. I especially feel this way when viewing works that are meant to be funny or derisive. After reading some reflective postings, I realize that many of us are struggling with similar issues. We have sort of separated our work from the work that we view in the galleries that we visit, and maybe we have forgotten to ask ourselves if our art "fits" with the art that's being made today, or if we even care to. I certainly have forgotten and even now as I write this I'm not sure of how I would answer those questions. I think this is especially difficult for artists who work 2 dimensionally, where such artists now work outside of their medium or have turned to social and political works (activist art). Much of the work that is shown in emerging galleries deal with interactive art, video, and installation which (I feel) more easily lends itself to 3D works. The biggest change that I have personally seen in the last ten years is that it's no longer acceptable to ask if you care if the viewer relates to your work. Ten years ago I was asked this at almost every critique and it was OK to say "no I don't give a sh*t" I don't think that we have those luxuries anymore. I know that artists have been dealing with these issues for much longer, It just seems more defined now. The big questions that have emerged from the readings and discussion are: Where does my work fit into the art that's being created today? Is my work self-indulgent? What am I trying to say to my viewer? How can I allow the viewer to feel connected to my work? Can I link the aesthetic qualities of my work with more conceptual themes?

I figured it out... hooray

It wasn't very difficult. Thank You for the demo Patti.