Judith Miller on fri 27 dec 02
In my opinion: The person who placed the boxes in the subway had in any case not done much preparation before acting. One may place things in one's garden, or kitchen, without anyone else's permission; in someone else's with their permission; and in public spaces with "our" permission--that is, checking to see what the regs are.
The frightened/tired public employees removed the things & the artist who set them because that is how the system works. If you want to exhibit in public places you have to get public permission. Demanding placement of one's work without review or consent is simply silly. The act of having an idea as an artist does not relieve one of the constraints of everyday life.
If the fellow had secured whatever permisson was required ("owning" it as someone else has already said), I daresay the installation would be there still, garnering reaction, which was presumably the point of the exercise. So in the end his lack of foresight was the cause of the removal.
Demanding (or being given) special treatment because of being artists is one of the reasons artists were for so long deemed unstable and inconsequential--in the manner women were relegated to the kitchen, never the head office. We cannot expect to be taken seriously if we do not behave responsibly. That includes finding out how the game is played, not asking for a waiver as one of the 'weaker sex' or as an artist.
Judy in Idaho where a chinook wind is eating the snow. . .
Vince Pitelka on sat 28 dec 02
> An art piece, or act, that creates fear is not a piece of political art.
Fear
> is universial. Political art usually addresses a local, or national,
concern.
I was just going to let this pass, but it expresses such a complete
misunderstanding of the concept of political art that I could not.
You are defining art, and you cannot do that, because to define it is to
limit it, and that is precisely what you are doing. OF COURSE a piece of
art about fear is appropriate as political or social art because it
addresses a very real problem in our culture. In this case, the work
addresses issues that are LOADED with political and social implications.
This was a gutsy, appropriate, powerful installation, and the artist is to
be commended for that. At the same time, he certainly screwed up by
choosing such an inappropriate location for his installation.
You said: "An art piece, or act, that creates fear is not a piece of
political art. Fear is universal."
OF COURSE fear is universal. That is why it is such an incredibly powerful
tool in political art. Hey, come on here. Could anything be more obvious?
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
Vince Pitelka on sat 28 dec 02
- Earls post...
> Well, lets see Phil, I believe the area was evacuated, travel was
> disrupted possibly (it was a terminal after all), extra police were
> probably brought in, businesses in the area including artists and
> potters at a close proximity sale were affected.
Yes, Earl, and when you are talking about art and/or political disobedience
that honestly addresses societal ills and issues of social and political
injustice, the above are NOTHING, of NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER. Sometimes
artists and activists have to raise hell and shake things up, and thank god
they do, because we really need it.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
Craig Clark on sat 28 dec 02
Hey Jeffrey, so where is it written that "political art" cannot be about
some type of universal concern. I'm merely asking this to incite. Of course
a political piece may be about a universal. What type of jingoistic meathead
would necessarily limit a political statement to a provincial concern?
In the case of the "mad boxer" I interpret what has been done as a very
specific sort of criticism of our "powers that be." I believe that they, and
many of there fellow citizens are basically scared shitless. They don't want
to admit it, after all we do have the biggest you know what on the
playground, but there is a faceless threat out there that cannot be blasted
into oblivian without destroying the planet in the process. Even the least
informed of us realize this on an insticntual level. This is a raw, palpable
in your face fear that naws at the marrow of the society. THAT is the FEAR
the piece, in a blatantly sophomoric manner is refering to (whether the
author is aware of it or not.)
Could not resist anylonger
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 st
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey Francis Longtin
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: youthful arrogance/ black boxes/special treatment for artists
> Hey Vince,
> A quick response to your message.
> Your suggestion that this act is in some way an act of political art is
> inaccurate. To define this situation as such is to demean truely great
works
> of political art. I agree with you that great political art breaks the
rules
> and sometimes getting permits would be one such rule to break, however,
this
> was not an act of a political artist.
> Political Art is defined as art that makes a political statement "The
> government is bad", "So and so is corrupt", it actually MAKES a specific
> statement, either in words or images. Typically such work irrates the
powers
> that be because it makes a statement about THEM. If it is really good
> political art it actually makes a truthful statement about a specific
> situation that the powers that be REALLY don't want anyone to know about.
In
> such an instance it would silence the artist if he or she were to get a
> permit before they udertook their act of self-expression.
> An art piece, or act, that creates fear is not a piece of political art.
Fear
> is universial. Political art usually addresses a local, or national,
concern.
> Jeff Longtin
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Vince Pitelka on sat 28 dec 02
You wrote:
"The frightened/tired public employees removed the things & the artist who
set them because that is how the system works. If you want to exhibit in
public places you have to get public permission. Demanding placement of
one's work without review or consent is simply silly. The act of having an
idea as an artist does not relieve one of the constraints of everyday life."
This is precisely why artists SHOULD sometimes install works without getting
permission. This is precisely why getting a good idea often DOES release
the artist from the constraints of everyday life. Face it, it is GOOD to
shake up the public, to raise the hackles of the apathetic and oblivious, to
challenge our expectations and traditions and even our laws. Remember that
we are talking about freedom of expression.
But of course artists DO have to take responsibility for their actions. If
they place an installation in a private or public space without getting
permission, especially if they commit an illegal act or create a dangerous
situation in doing so, then they must face the consequences. But for god's
sake, saying that artists must always get permission before they place
artwork sounds like some petty and arbitrary schoolyard rule, and it demeans
the whole concept of public art. It would be impossible to apply such a
concept with fairness or equity. In many cases it is the act of installing
public artwork WITHOUT permission that brings such power to the work.
As I said in my previous post, if the authorities had been doing their jobs,
we wouldn't be having this conversation, because this installation would
never have been completed. The mere fact that this young artist was able to
install and complete this work without anyone questioning or stopping him
shows exactly how lax and inefficient the security must be. I hope they get
the message.
This artist perhaps showed too much youthful hubris and a shortage of common
sense, but otherwise I say he deserves credit for a gutsy installation that
pointed out the severely flawed security at this location. He deserved that
"A."
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
Earl Brunner on sat 28 dec 02
I've been thinking (there's a shocker) and I think that if he fulfilled
the requirements for an "A" he should have received an "A". He also
should have received everything else that he deserved, up to and
including jail time. You said he should be held responsible for his
natural consequences. (at least that's what I think I read you as saying).
I have no problem with performance art if the artist is willing to pay
the consequences. To expect to be excused from those consequences in
the name of "art" I think is stupid though. Heck, the terrorist's that
brought down the Towers were just expressing themselves (and for
something a lot more substantial than "art"). My son when he was young
threw a bowling ball out the window of a moving car (to see what it
would do). Fortunately he didn''t hurt anyone nor cause property
damage, but other people have done equally stupid things with varying
results up to and including killing people. Where do we draw the line?
Sincerely,
Earl
Vince Pitelka wrote:
>
> This artist perhaps showed too much youthful hubris and a shortage of common
> sense, but otherwise I say he deserves credit for a gutsy installation that
> pointed out the severely flawed security at this location. He deserved that
> "A."
> Best wishes -
> - Vince
>
Jeffrey Francis Longtin on sat 28 dec 02
Hey Vince,
A quick response to your message.
Your suggestion that this act is in some way an act of political art is
inaccurate. To define this situation as such is to demean truely great works
of political art. I agree with you that great political art breaks the rules
and sometimes getting permits would be one such rule to break, however, this
was not an act of a political artist.
Political Art is defined as art that makes a political statement "The
government is bad", "So and so is corrupt", it actually MAKES a specific
statement, either in words or images. Typically such work irrates the powers
that be because it makes a statement about THEM. If it is really good
political art it actually makes a truthful statement about a specific
situation that the powers that be REALLY don't want anyone to know about. In
such an instance it would silence the artist if he or she were to get a
permit before they udertook their act of self-expression.
An art piece, or act, that creates fear is not a piece of political art. Fear
is universial. Political art usually addresses a local, or national, concern.
Jeff Longtin
Craig Clark on sun 29 dec 02
Jeff, while I agree that you have a working definition of "political
art" I will repectfully disagree that it is the definition. I believe there
are as many definitions of what is political as there are political
creatures. You know, us.
I'm aware of the powerful imagery of the artists that you cited. There
are also quite a few others whose work does not literally depict a
particular event. Illusion, allegory, metaphor are not easily definable
techniques that are often enlisted in political art.
Satire, for example, is a form of political art that is period specific
and will sometimes lack a specific reference. The movie, the Wizard of Oz is
a highly charged political piece. How many people are aware of this?
There was a performing troupe of women in the Houston area back in the
80's that refered to themselves as the Guerilla Girls. They were highly
charged politically but would sometimes make oblique rather than direct
references.
Pablo Picasso's Guernica is one of the greatest and most famous
political pieces in art history. It is full of symbolism. Not direct literal
references, outside the name of course.
Peace
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 st
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey Francis Longtin
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: youthful arrogance/ black boxes/special treatment for artists
> Craig,
> That which touches our emtions can be called art just don't call it
Political
> Art. Political Art usually attributes a SOURCE to that fear in an attempt
to
> eliminate it. That is why great Political Art is so great and these black
> boxes are not.
> Two examples:
> Francisco(?) Goya was a great artist who drew/painted powerful images that
> showed human emotions like pain and suffering. If I'm not mistaken (I may
be)
> Goya drew images from the Spanish(?) War. Very intimate images of human
> hardship. That made it great art. However, it was the people he chose to
> paint that made it political. He drew images of soldiers on the
battlefield.
> By depicting the human hardship suffered by soldiers he very much made
work
> that was critical of THAT war and critical of the powers that be that put
> them there, i.e. Political Art.
> Had he chosen to depict soldiers from another period or country it would
have
> simply been considered great art, but by showing the pain and suffering of
> soldiers of his country, during his lifetime, he made a very strong
political
> statement.
> Diego Rivera also created some strong works of Political Art if I'm not
> mistaken. If I'm not mistaken some of his pieces depicted the mistreatment
of
> migrant workers, or peasants, by the powers that be. Didn't his great
mural,
> the one that was painted over, depict capitalism in a bad light and made
> communism appear to be more sympathetic to the poor and working classes?
It
> was painted over because it was too obvious, it too clearly expressed his
> political point of view. It was not vague.
> Black boxes are too vague to be called Political Art.
> Jeff Longtin
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Jeffrey Francis Longtin on sun 29 dec 02
Craig,
That which touches our emtions can be called art just don't call it Political
Art. Political Art usually attributes a SOURCE to that fear in an attempt to
eliminate it. That is why great Political Art is so great and these black
boxes are not.
Two examples:
Francisco(?) Goya was a great artist who drew/painted powerful images that
showed human emotions like pain and suffering. If I'm not mistaken (I may be)
Goya drew images from the Spanish(?) War. Very intimate images of human
hardship. That made it great art. However, it was the people he chose to
paint that made it political. He drew images of soldiers on the battlefield.
By depicting the human hardship suffered by soldiers he very much made work
that was critical of THAT war and critical of the powers that be that put
them there, i.e. Political Art.
Had he chosen to depict soldiers from another period or country it would have
simply been considered great art, but by showing the pain and suffering of
soldiers of his country, during his lifetime, he made a very strong political
statement.
Diego Rivera also created some strong works of Political Art if I'm not
mistaken. If I'm not mistaken some of his pieces depicted the mistreatment of
migrant workers, or peasants, by the powers that be. Didn't his great mural,
the one that was painted over, depict capitalism in a bad light and made
communism appear to be more sympathetic to the poor and working classes? It
was painted over because it was too obvious, it too clearly expressed his
political point of view. It was not vague.
Black boxes are too vague to be called Political Art.
Jeff Longtin
Rare - Earth - Design on sun 29 dec 02
Jeffrey,
You are talking the greatest load of nonsense ever.
Some of the greatest political art is current and maybe it does stir fear in
you, but it is certainly meant to create fear in those it is directed
towards.
Ask the Basque Seperatist Movement for some of their literature, it has
fabulous art work. As does both the Republican and Loyalist factions here
in Ireland and, whether you like it or not, they are POLITICAL.
I do not know what motivated this young man to make his statement, but
I can guess as every time we turn on the television all I see from the main
American news channels are paranoid people telling the rest of America to
be paranoid also, perhaps he was pointing out what this powerful media
was doing to you all. I also see the problem when art, which is supposed to
make one think, is seen by people incapable of thinking.
I will go with Vince on this one and Philip Pobourka's great letter.
Regards,
Bob Hollis,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Francis Longtin"
> Hey Vince,
> A quick response to your message.
> Your suggestion that this act is in some way an act of political art is
> inaccurate. To define this situation as such is to demean truely great
works
> of political art. I agree with you that great political art breaks the
rules
> and sometimes getting permits would be one such rule to break, however,
this
> was not an act of a political artist.
> Political Art is defined as art that makes a political statement "The
> government is bad", "So and so is corrupt", it actually MAKES a specific
> statement, either in words or images. Typically such work irrates the
powers
> that be because it makes a statement about THEM. If it is really good
> political art it actually makes a truthful statement about a specific
> situation that the powers that be REALLY don't want anyone to know about.
In
> such an instance it would silence the artist if he or she were to get a
> permit before they udertook their act of self-expression.
> An art piece, or act, that creates fear is not a piece of political art.
Fear
> is universial. Political art usually addresses a local, or national,
concern.
> Jeff Longtin
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>
Carol Ross on sun 29 dec 02
> Black boxes are too vague to be called Political Art.
> Jeff Longtin
I think we're talking about two different things here. By vague, I think
you mean that the boxes are "conceptual". The Black boxes are conceptual
art AND political art. They are not mutually exclusive. Diego Rivera, Goya
- painters who realistically depicted the suffering of war and despots - are
political artists, but their work is not necessarily conceptual art by
today's standards. If you prefer your political statements spelled out,
that's fine - but it doesn't mean that less obvious work is not political!
I don't want to speak for the artist, but imo, the boxes COULD easily be
speaking about our government, among other institutions, that is attempting
to make us afraid. A gov't that issued terrorist alerts without including
any information about the type of action expected; that made a color chart
of "alert statuses" but never informed the citizenry of the steps to take
for each color. A gov't that has locked up its citizens and legal visitors
- not unlike the Japanese internment in WWII - or the Disappeared of South
America. THESE things make me afraid and they are very political.
Political:
b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the
administration of governmental policy (Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
refdesk.com)
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
Ronny Dahline on sun 29 dec 02
Good grief, get back to clay!!
GET BACK TO CLAY!!
Center
Vince Pitelka on mon 30 dec 02
> That which touches our emtions can be called art just don't call it
Political
> Art. Political Art usually attributes a SOURCE to that fear in an attempt
to
> eliminate it. That is why great Political Art is so great and these black
> boxes are not.
Jeff -
I'm afraid you are missing the point here. Whether or not the black boxes
are great political art has nothing to do with it. It is true that
Francisco de Goya produced some great political art about Napoleon's
invasion of Spain, and he did so in an active painterly style that was quite
revolutionary for his time. Diego Rivera, the great Mexican muralist,
created amazing social-realist political art, strongly influenced by
European Modernism, specifically Cubism. They are two examples drawn from a
continuous evolution of artists whose work could be considered political in
an innovative or even revolutionary way for their time. But you come across
as extremely provincial and conservative when you imply that the above
examples are more valid as political art than contemporary interpretations
such as the black boxes.
Art can be anything that creates the narrative or experiential content to
get the desired message across, and only time will tell whether or not it is
great art. Remember, you do not have to be a great artist or even a good
artist to be an artist. You just have to make art, and the mere designation
of artist or art contains no qualitative value at all. The guy that made
the black boxes was an artist, and the work he created was a work of art.
We can argue indefinitely as to whether or not it is good art, but that
wouldn't accomplish much. As I said, only time will tell.
It is pretty pointless to imply that the black boxes are not political art,
because the mere fact that this protracted and emotional discussion has
taken place on Clayart supports the political nature of the installation,
and that it was damn effective as political art.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
| |
|
