In case anyone has the idea that all the really great art is only happening outside the US, I give you Aliza Shvarts.
She may not have learned anything about art, but she has devloped a thorough command of pomo cant:
This piece -- in its textual and sculptural forms -- is meant to call into question the relationship between form and function as they converge on the body. The artwork exists as the verbal narrative you see above, as an installation that will take place in Green Hall, as a time-based performance, as a independent concept, as a myth and as a public discourse.
It creates an ambiguity that isolates the locus of ontology to an act of readership. An intentional ambiguity pervades both the act and the objects I produced in relation to it. The performance exists only as I chose to represent it. For me, the most poignant aspect of this representation -- the part most meaningful in terms of its political agenda (and, incidentally, the aspect that has not been discussed thus far) -- is the impossibility of accurately identifying the resulting blood. Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether the there was ever a fertilized ovum or not. The reality of the pregnancy, both for myself and for the audience, is a matter of reading.
This ambivalence makes obvious how the act of identification or naming -- the act of ascribing a word to something physical -- is at its heart an ideological act, an act that literally has the power to construct bodies. In a sense, the act of conception occurs when the viewer assigns the term "miscarriage" or "period" to that blood.
In some sense, neither term is exactly accurate or inaccurate; the ambiguity is not merely a matter of context, but is embodied in the physicality of the object. This central ambiguity defies a clear definition of the act. The reality of miscarriage is very much a linguistic and political reality, an act of reading constructed by an act of naming -- an authorial act.
It is the intention of this piece to destabilize the locus of that authorial act, and in doing so, reclaim it from the heteronormative structures that seek to naturalize it.
I would say it's impossible to have an informed opinion without seeing the pieces. When Giuliani was mayor of NYC, he condemned the Sensation exhibit when he heard that there was a painting of the Virgin Mary with pieces of elephant dung. Yet, he had not actually seen the painting before choosing to condemn it. Having seen Chris Ofili's work, I don't see anything offensive about it. However, when one reads about it, it seems very offensive.
There are artists whose work has no artistic merit, no consideration of either craft nor theory of art, nor does it offer any different approach to visualizing the world besides a momentary sensationalism. Tracy Emin is the artist who always pops to mind when I think of an artist whose work has no merit beyond a sensationalized approach to her own sex life.
On the other hand, there are also contemporary artist who creates pretty and acceptable pieces but whose work is nothing beyond the ornamental.
Even though I haven't seen the piece, I am intrigued by what Vargas says. Why is it that there are starving dogs that nobody stops to protest but when it's an art exhibit, there's a petition? We could consider this in human life as well. If a homeless man was put on exhibit without food, how many people would protest this as inhumane and demeaning to the man? Yet, everyday I pass by homeless people without giving them a penny nor food. Perhaps Vargas is right; perhaps it is hypocritical. So many of us like to talk in a grand manner about the value of life, but can we live up to it? It could be a question worth posing.
I also think the context of the piece with the singing and the drugs probably ties in the dog with the value of human life in Nicaragua.
6
 4
|
Re: Words, not art
Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:38:22 PM EST
5.00 (astute, interesting)
|
Why is it that there are starving dogs that nobody stops to protest but when it's an art exhibit, there's a petition?
Agency implies responsibility. Starving dogs in the streets of Honduras are likely ownerless, and are therefore part of the same class as all other ownerless animals. They can hunt and scavenge just like every other animal did prior to civilization.
But that dog in the exhibit? That took work. A human being had to get the dog, chain it up, then deliberately place food out of its reach. This is deliberate cruelty, and would warrant a call to the police and Animal Control in the US.
And while we're on the subject -- any society rich enough does protest on behalf of starving animals on the street. Anyone who's seriously considered getting a pet has likely run into "spay/neuter your pet" advice and advocates for unwanted pet adoption. So maybe the real issue is, "why does Latin America suck?"
Hmm. Maybe we should chain up a starving artist for a few months, with food just out of his reach, to call attention to the matter.
7
6
|
Re: Words, not art
Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:53:55 PM EST
|
Agency implies responsibility. Starving dogs in the streets of Honduras are likely ownerless, and are therefore part of the same class as all other ownerless animals. They can hunt and scavenge just like every other animal did prior to civilization.
Somewhere in the chain, a human being decided to abandon a pet.
And while we're on the subject -- any society rich enough does protest on behalf of starving animals on the street.
In the U.S., it depends on which group gets hold of the animal. If it's a nonprofit group dedicated to keeping cats and dogs alive regardless of cost, the animal will live. If it's animal control, the animal will be put to sleep.
So maybe the real issue is, "why does Latin America suck?"
Or maybe the question is: which countries are rich enough to afford pets? When I had a cat, my parents were baffled that I would choose to spend money to feed an animal. As people who were children during a war and then lived during times when children died on the streets from starvation, I don't think that pets are a big priority to them.
Maybe we should chain up a starving artist for a few months, with food just out of his reach, to call attention to the matter.
There are often homeless people in NY who consider themselves singers and artists because they consider that their main job. Not many people in NY seem to pay attention to them.
10
7
|
Re: Words, not art
Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:31:40 PM EST
|
Or maybe the question is: which countries are rich enough to afford pets?
To my mind, any country not rich enough for the average family to afford a dependent sucks by definition.
39
10
|
Re: Words, not art
Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:06:21 PM EST
4.00 (interesting)
|
To my mind, any country not rich enough for the average family to afford a dependent sucks by definition.
Maybe if the U.S. hadn't sucked so much of Latin America's natural resources by going in with multinational corporations, Latin America wouldn't suck so much.
8
6
|
Answering your own question
Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:55:19 PM EST
|
"why does Latin America suck?"
Because the people there are generally less fair of hue than you? I mean, isn't that the standard answer?
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine
9
8
|
Re: Answering your own question
Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:25:56 PM EST
|
My standard answer is, "Latin America sucks because of a combination of unfair and productivity-killing Old World land tenancy traditions, and similarly unfair and unworkable socialist policies." I don't know who you've been talking to.
11
9
|
Re: Answering your own question
Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:26:21 PM EST
|
Sorry...I must have missed the billboard that spells out your standard "Latin America Sucks" clarification.
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine
How about we tie Rush up on a street corner in the Castro with a pile of Oxy just out of reach.
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine
