Planning revisions to my Visual Culture course, I find myself struggling around certain social issues because I want to include more about the rise of technology and artificial intelligence. Currently I have a week on race, on gender, on imperialism, on globalization, issues that continue to wreck havoc on our human interactions and respect for each other. In that sense they are important ideas to teach to future artists and designers. On the other hand, technology is changing us. Yes, it is racist and sexist. It is biased to those with power and access. It reiterates all kinds of socio-cultural divisions. The rise of technology for me, however, puts in question our valuing of these superficial constructs (race, gender, class, national identity) to bring forth a more fundamental question for all humans: do we matter? Or, is there any meaning to my existence?
I have always been rather fond of the notion that our existence is simply an extension of a massive war between single cell division and sexual reproduction. Both are fighting for domination. I am simply an artefact of the effort on behalf of sexual reproduction. The language around this idea talks about generation and reproduction in ways that I think limit our thinking about it. What if it is really simply, as I said before, about taking over: domination.
This argument emphasizes that humans exist to reproduce. This is where I begin to think something else. For some time, humans have been interested in not only biological reproduction but an abstract one through ideas. As Harold Bloom suggested stressed poets, and as I simply feel standing in front of a classroom, the creation and recreation with modifications (hopefully improvements, whatever those might be) of ideas is a different kind of battle flag. Let us suppose therefore that humans are simply a fallible endpoint of sexual reproduction and the starting point of abstract extension. From mathematics to philosophy to art we are computers. Now, we've made better faster ones.
How would those computers spread? Networks. Can we co-exist? Looking around, sexual reproduction as manifest in humans seems intent on destroying single cell production. With all the efforts of ecologists, we don't value plant life. Bacteria, viruses, etc terrify us and we are intent on producing an ever cleaner world. Why? Cleanliness is not ideal for us, but it would be for technology.
All this is a long way from my visual culture class, but I think about these things because I wonder to what degree I need them to think not about the wars of the past, but of the challenges to come as artificial intelligence is not only an extension of how we live (computers, internet, step trackers and the rest) but determines how we live for us. It doesn't seem that far anymore. Read Trevor Paglen's Invisible Images or watch Amber Case TED talk Everyone is a Cyborg now. From either of those, follow the suggested links on each site and see where you wound up. To what degree did you get yourself there? To what degree, did a computer decide what you would find interesting for you?
As my students prepare for careers in the various art and design fields, I don't want them to be racists, sexists, or unaware of the mass privilege they experience from living the lives of plenty that they have even as they struggle with student loans, jobs, and supporting families. On the other hand, they should think about how technology informs the choices they make, what they desire, what they observe, how they think, and therefore what they will want to make, be asked to produce, and need to create. Those social factors influence computing, but I can't help wondering for how long. A future where being human is common ground doesn't seem that far away. As soon as the networks of data become more powerful than we are, more informed than we can be, that's the day that we are dominated, wherever we are, whatever we look like. Will teaching about 18th-20th century imperialism help then?
Seeing Things
Neil Harris in his book on J. Carter Brown’s directorship of the National Gallery (Culture Capital) explains how our nation’s capital came to be appreciated through graphic and literary presentations. Samuel F.B. Morse painted Congressional proceedings, but cartoonists provided caricatures of politicians that encouraged interest in the “farcical as well as tragic features of government” (Harris 40).
Films and plays, however, really helped rally interest in the workings of government with themes “reflecting attitudes toward partisanship, corruption, power, and pretension” (Harris 41). Before television, government was a largely mysterious affair, occurring at a great distance from most every day lives. Films like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Born Yesterday, and State of the Union provided peeks into these places of power.
Television has changed some of that by providing us closer looks at Congress and the White House, but still we must remember how much we are influenced by what we see, or rather are given to see. There are parts of the world that I have never seen, but that I can describe because I have seen them in film and on television. We cringe at critical remarks in the 19th century about ‘exotic’ locales and people that are often derived from the Romantic imagery of the painters who visited, composed, and returned with canvases in hand. Art and stories do tell us something about a culture and a time, but sociological research also reveals those things that remained unacknowledged.
I feel compelled to mention this here because I am such an advocate for the role of poems and stories in encouraging interest in art and artists. I really do think we can use them to tell us about responses to certain works and movements over the years, why and how they have continued to appeal. There is a place in the history of art for the stories of art. BUT, all that being said, we must also remember that these are fictional accounts. They have dramatic requirements that allow them to warp evidence to the contrary. After all, as I’ve said before, why ruin a good story for want of a few facts?
A good story is a good story and over wine or on a Sunday night before a busy week ahead, that is what I want. I want drama! Give me House of Cards! But, Monday morning, don’t expect me to believe it. A peek into a place of power is not a good solid look. That requires more than sitting on the couch. It requires the hard work of investigative journalism, whose tales are far longer and more warped than any novel or film, and which we often ignore until it becomes entertainment…
All the President’s Men, Lincoln, The Butler, Selma.
These are fictions. But if well done, they might just make us wonder about what we’ve seen, what we think we see, what we might see if we looked more carefully.
Films and plays, however, really helped rally interest in the workings of government with themes “reflecting attitudes toward partisanship, corruption, power, and pretension” (Harris 41). Before television, government was a largely mysterious affair, occurring at a great distance from most every day lives. Films like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Born Yesterday, and State of the Union provided peeks into these places of power.
Television has changed some of that by providing us closer looks at Congress and the White House, but still we must remember how much we are influenced by what we see, or rather are given to see. There are parts of the world that I have never seen, but that I can describe because I have seen them in film and on television. We cringe at critical remarks in the 19th century about ‘exotic’ locales and people that are often derived from the Romantic imagery of the painters who visited, composed, and returned with canvases in hand. Art and stories do tell us something about a culture and a time, but sociological research also reveals those things that remained unacknowledged.
I feel compelled to mention this here because I am such an advocate for the role of poems and stories in encouraging interest in art and artists. I really do think we can use them to tell us about responses to certain works and movements over the years, why and how they have continued to appeal. There is a place in the history of art for the stories of art. BUT, all that being said, we must also remember that these are fictional accounts. They have dramatic requirements that allow them to warp evidence to the contrary. After all, as I’ve said before, why ruin a good story for want of a few facts?
A good story is a good story and over wine or on a Sunday night before a busy week ahead, that is what I want. I want drama! Give me House of Cards! But, Monday morning, don’t expect me to believe it. A peek into a place of power is not a good solid look. That requires more than sitting on the couch. It requires the hard work of investigative journalism, whose tales are far longer and more warped than any novel or film, and which we often ignore until it becomes entertainment…
All the President’s Men, Lincoln, The Butler, Selma.
These are fictions. But if well done, they might just make us wonder about what we’ve seen, what we think we see, what we might see if we looked more carefully.
Book Review: Capital Culture, J.Carter Brown, The National Gallery, and the Reinvention of the Museum Experience by Neil Harris
Capital Culture is a detailed account of J. Carter Brown’s influence as Director of the United States National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C., but Neil Harris’ fifteen chapters also offer a view of the changes that occurred in museum culture during the 23 years of his tenure. The book centers on the changes that Brown was able to impose during his time at the National Gallery, by using specific shows and internal situations as case studies for the transformations that helped turn the gallery into a world class museum. The blockbuster exhibitions that Brown spearheaded were often met with disapproval despite their public success. Harris is even-handed in presenting critical declamations, both aesthetic and political, alongside his archival research into the driving reasons for the National Gallery’s efforts into these shows.
The emphasis on museums as sites of cultural education rather than excited engagement stems in part from the origins of survey museums arising out of princely collections. Brown’s move away from this pedagogical tradition incited much criticism, and though such departures have grown common place, they are still treated with hesitation, attitudes which may not serve to encourage contemporary audiences who increasingly arise out of a culture of choice rather than instruction. J. Carter Brown was an innovator and the book argues on behalf of his successes, despite any failures, for making the National Gallery an important cultural center. Harris convincingly claims that Brown’s vision transformed the museum stage and readers will likely find inspiration in Brown’s dynamic belief in art for all.
A full review will be available at the Journal of Curatorial Studies in the summer of 2015.
CAPITAL CULTURE: J. CARTER BROWN, THE NATIONAL GALLERY, AND THE REINVENTION OF THE MUSEUM EXPERIENCE, NEIL HARRIS
Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press (2013), 616 pp., Hardcover, ISBN: 978-0-226-06770-4, US$35.00
The emphasis on museums as sites of cultural education rather than excited engagement stems in part from the origins of survey museums arising out of princely collections. Brown’s move away from this pedagogical tradition incited much criticism, and though such departures have grown common place, they are still treated with hesitation, attitudes which may not serve to encourage contemporary audiences who increasingly arise out of a culture of choice rather than instruction. J. Carter Brown was an innovator and the book argues on behalf of his successes, despite any failures, for making the National Gallery an important cultural center. Harris convincingly claims that Brown’s vision transformed the museum stage and readers will likely find inspiration in Brown’s dynamic belief in art for all.
A full review will be available at the Journal of Curatorial Studies in the summer of 2015.
CAPITAL CULTURE: J. CARTER BROWN, THE NATIONAL GALLERY, AND THE REINVENTION OF THE MUSEUM EXPERIENCE, NEIL HARRIS
Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press (2013), 616 pp., Hardcover, ISBN: 978-0-226-06770-4, US$35.00
Fashion in the Museum
I know that there are some who think that fashion doesn't belong in the museum and that there are others who mostly go to museums to see the fashions, whether on mannequins or in paintings.
The Boston MFA has placed costumes from Hollywood’s Golden Age on display with a wall showing clips from the films where the costumes were worn. The costumes appear remarkably different in person from the screen. In person, I noticed the dresses’ beadwork and color, but saw them for their structure and movement in the black and white films. If museums serve to help us become more visually aware, then this show reminds us that what we see on screens, film, television, or computer, may not be what we would experience in person.
No bad thing in that.
As I attend a talk at the National Arts Club (tonight, Friday 1/23 7pm) on the fashion designer Bill Halston, I will also confront the club’s own uncertainty about the committee. They often organize some of the more popular events, and yet they are derided as a “light” committee, unconcerned with real art. Almost all the clothes that we wear do not constitute art, but I would be hard pressed to reject all fashion across time as having no place in a discussion of art.
Fashion is intimate and it most obviously accepts our superimposed desires, but is that truly reason to dismiss it? Hasn't other art done the same?
The Boston MFA has placed costumes from Hollywood’s Golden Age on display with a wall showing clips from the films where the costumes were worn. The costumes appear remarkably different in person from the screen. In person, I noticed the dresses’ beadwork and color, but saw them for their structure and movement in the black and white films. If museums serve to help us become more visually aware, then this show reminds us that what we see on screens, film, television, or computer, may not be what we would experience in person.
No bad thing in that.
As I attend a talk at the National Arts Club (tonight, Friday 1/23 7pm) on the fashion designer Bill Halston, I will also confront the club’s own uncertainty about the committee. They often organize some of the more popular events, and yet they are derided as a “light” committee, unconcerned with real art. Almost all the clothes that we wear do not constitute art, but I would be hard pressed to reject all fashion across time as having no place in a discussion of art.
Fashion is intimate and it most obviously accepts our superimposed desires, but is that truly reason to dismiss it? Hasn't other art done the same?
What Do You See?
Charles Sheeler’s View of New York (1931) is obviously not a view of New York City.
It is an interior painting of his studio, with a window through which we see a blue sky outside. Inside, an empty chair, an unlit lamp, and a covered camera are not only signs of the artist not working, but are made dismal by the gray walls and tone that cover the main body of the painting. The covered camera was indicative of Sheeler’s work as a photographer, though he was switching to painting. I am amused by the window centerpiece with the blue sky outside because of the fact that artists so often sense that their worlds trapped inside a studio are gray and lifeless, where outside, where they cannot be, is full of color and vibrancy. Those of us on the outside might not always agree, but Sheeler’s painting highlights that narrative to an amusing degree.
Sowing Victory
Mostly from the United States, the posters also include some from France, England, Russia and Germany. They urge citizens to buy bonds in support of the war cause, but some also encourage men to enlist, often using guilt to pressure. A picture of a father with children on his lap and a caption that reads “Daddy, what did you do in the war?” or a picture of several hats (fedora, straw, ad so forth) with a navy cap in the center and the question “Which hat will you wear?”
Most intriguing to me, however, were the posters about rationing, and self-subsistence by planting “Victory” gardens. Somehow, support of the country has shifted away from the notion that we be careful about our consumption. Since Ford decided to recall troops from Vietnam in TK to suggest the end of the war there, even though United States presence continued for a while, as a nation we have been adverse to military engagement unless quick and easy. This is understandable, but it means we delude ourselves that we are not at war, as say our continued military engagement in Iraq for over a decade should be considered. Since we are not at war, we do not think of ourselves as having to minimize or economize as if we were at war. Our economy depends on excess spending, I understand that, but unfortunately, it makes us wasteful and inconsiderate of the real costs of sustained success. You an’t win a war you aren’t fighting. You can’t avoid waste if a surplus is assumed. We are at war, and I’m struck by the ease with which we live our lives. I’m not sure that planting gardens, or rationing meat and flour and sugar, would do anything for our troops or the military, but these posters did make me note how the two were once linked.
The Change You Want To See In The World
In the Gordon Parks: Back to Fort Scott exhibit currently at the MFA, through September 13, 2015, I heard a woman my age explaining to a little girl, maybe around six years old, that these pictures depict a time when kids of different color had to go to separate schools.
"Separate schools?" Incredulity mingled with confusion as the adult sighed, "Yes."
But the little girl looked perplexed rather than upset, and I was glad that she found it odd and attached no personal significance to this fact.
She was the change that many in the exhibit had hoped for. Elderly couples walked hand in hand looking at the photographs that Gordon Parks took in his hometown of Fort Scott, Kansas, in 1950. They show the way racism and segregation still quietly defined the life of those he knew. That would change soon, but not soon enough. The photographs were supposed to be published in Life magazine in 1951, but were suspended. The 42 photographs on display have never been seen before. The exhibit includes examples of his typewritten pages from his novel, The Learning Tree (1963). Parks confronted racism at every stage of his career, working in Chicago, but then also during his fellowship for the Farm Security Administration in segregated Washington DC, no better at the war office, and certainly not once he left those bureaucracies and tried fashion photography, though he was able to get freelance work from Vogue.
His work is an implied indictment of racism by showing the humanity of those so rudely dismissed. Given the racism the United States that still confuses the United States, the show could not come at a better time.
"Separate schools?" Incredulity mingled with confusion as the adult sighed, "Yes."
But the little girl looked perplexed rather than upset, and I was glad that she found it odd and attached no personal significance to this fact.
She was the change that many in the exhibit had hoped for. Elderly couples walked hand in hand looking at the photographs that Gordon Parks took in his hometown of Fort Scott, Kansas, in 1950. They show the way racism and segregation still quietly defined the life of those he knew. That would change soon, but not soon enough. The photographs were supposed to be published in Life magazine in 1951, but were suspended. The 42 photographs on display have never been seen before. The exhibit includes examples of his typewritten pages from his novel, The Learning Tree (1963). Parks confronted racism at every stage of his career, working in Chicago, but then also during his fellowship for the Farm Security Administration in segregated Washington DC, no better at the war office, and certainly not once he left those bureaucracies and tried fashion photography, though he was able to get freelance work from Vogue.
His work is an implied indictment of racism by showing the humanity of those so rudely dismissed. Given the racism the United States that still confuses the United States, the show could not come at a better time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)