Site Specificity

     In conjunction with this class, I am also taking Philosophy of Art.  In that class, we covered Street Art at about the same time as we covered Street Art.  In that class we discussed site specificity and how and if that challenges the art autonomy theory.
     First off, we had to define what street art is.  The first idea was that a work of art is street art if, and only if, it is made in the street.  This doesn't work because then that would have to include any art that happens to be in the street.  This include those who set up an easel and canvas on sidewalks as well as art shows.  Nicholas Riggle proposes a far more acceptable definition: A work of art is street art if, and only if, its material use of the street is internal to its meaning.  I like this definition as it clearly defines that in order for a work of art to be street art, the site at which it has been placed in is also part of the meaning of the work.  Banksy has placed many works in places where what the meaning of that work is correlates with the surrounding area.  In the case where he painted what looks like a hole to paradise in the West Bank wall is both beautiful on its own and also a political statement.
     With regards to one of my images in my blog, "The World is Going Down the Drain," the use of the storm drain is internal to the meaning as the world is depicted as flowing down into it.  If this piece was taken and painted onto a canvas and placed within MOMA, it would would most likely be interpreted as though the world was melting and the true meaning of the work would be lost.  So, the site in which a work of street art is placed is both intentional and internal to the meaning of the work.

Immortal Picture Stories

     Amar Chitra Katha, or ACK for short, is a series of comic books that are extremely popular in India.  Printed in color, and mainly English at first, they tell stories of mythological figures and historical figures.  I found it really interesting the ways in which they told the stories.  The main problem I had with them is that all Muslim rulers were cast as villains, even Shah Jahan was cast differently than Hindu rulers.  Shah Jahan was depicted as old, feeble, and not much of a warrior, even though he had been earlier in life.  The cover of his issue shows him staring out of his cell at the monument he had made for his wife, the Taj Mahal.  Honestly, I didn't know that the Taj Mahal was built by a Muslim ruler.
     The fact that these comics became the authoritative way for Indians to learn the "root to their roots," kind of bothers me.  The issue is that these comic books are being read by children, who have yet to develop critical thinking skills and thus assume these to be true representations of history.  However, not all Indians truly see these as definitive sources of cultural identity.  A friend of mine, who grew up in the state of Kerala, enjoyed them when he was younger, but now sees them just as Chitra Katha's, or "Picture Stories."  However, many still believe that the stories depicted in ACK are in fact the true story, unclouded by any particular political agenda.
     Growing up in the Christian community, the Bible stories that I grew up learning were meant to be accepted as literally true.  The problem with a complete literal interpretation is that sometimes what occurs in both stories from the Christian and Hindu mythologies is that there are events that seem to defy natural laws.  How does one illustrate/explain something that is literally impossible such as Krishna lifting a mountain with one finger or the world being created in seven literal days?  With an increasing emphasis on science and technology, scientifically, these two events are impossible.
     Today so many people argue over literal and figurative interpretations.  In the end I think everyone must make a choice.  For Indians: Will you believe that Krishna really lifted that mountain with one finger or was it that he was credited with helping people to find respite from Indra? For Christians: Did God really create the universe in 7 literal days or was he using the number 7, which was considered the divine number, to establish his divinity?

Something Black In the Lentils

     How many times have we been swindled by what we thought was a good deal?  There are so many self-help books and hotlines promising this and that.  With the large amount that exists, how can we know what is really true and what is false?  Swamiji tells us a story of a disciple who stole.  When he was caught, the king had his nose cut off, and he began to dance around claiming that he can see God.  So he began to gather followers, cutting off their noses, and in turn they begin dancing and claiming to see God.  The story then takes us to a kingdom where the king is about to have the noses of his entire kingdom cut off.  The Prime Minister does not think this is a good idea, but is unable to sway the king.  The Prime Ministers grandfather then goes to the king warning him about the Nose Cutters, but the king only rebukes him saying, "What do you know?"  It is then decided that the grandfather will have his nose cut off first, and if he does in fact see God, then the whole kingdom will follow suit.  However, when the grandfather has his nose cut off, the disciple whispers in his ear that he will get laughed at if he does not say that he can see God, as by doing so he will earn a great amount of reverence and respect.  He returns to the king and says that he does not see God and is in a great amount of pain.  The Nose Cutters were rounded up and thrashed.  The story ends here saying that with only one king this group was caught and stopped.
     What I love about this story, and Indian stories in general, is that one can take more than jut one specific morale of the story.  Reverence for your elders, discernment, caution; these are some of the morale's to be extracted from the story.  We are supposed to understand that cutting off the nose, in this case, does nothing to increase our vision nor does it help us to see God.  Exercising caution and making sure you have all the facts before jumping in head first is a must.  Reverence for your elders, a cultural practice that is somewhat rare here in the United States, is very common in South Asian cultures.  So it is a very bad thing when the king says, "What do you know?", as it shows a disregard for the advice of those with many years.
     One of the other points that Swamiji made, although not within this particular story, was what he believed to be karma balancing itself.  Americans used to be slave holders, so now with so many Americans become slaves to these false gurus, it was to balance out our enslavement of African Americans.
     For me, caution was the main morale I took away from this story.  Now, whenever I am presented with something, I will check to see if there is "something black in the lentils."

Who the *#$% Is Jackson Pollock?

          I really enjoyed this film.  You had the art world vs. Teri Horton over a painting that, with evidence, can be strongly believed to be painted by Jackson Pollock.  Here is what I found a little ridiculous about the who situation: neither would budge on either it's authenticity (the art world) or it's value (Teri).  During the film, Teri hires Peter Paul Biro, a forensic art expert from Montreal, and he was able to establish evidence that included a fingerprint that matches those found in Jackson's studio, and that the paint used on the painting matched the paint used in Jackson's studio.  Even with all of this evidence, the art world still just would not budge.  As the movie continued on, we began to see the bigger issue: the elite vs. the working class.  Why would a woman, who never graduated high school, have a painting estimated at $50 million?  Why would it have ended up at a thrift store?  Certainly Jackson would never have let his paintings go to those kind of places.  Because of there snobby reaction, Teri herself also ended up at a place where should we just not budge on anything.  At the end of the film, we see that she turned down an offer from Saudi Arabia, which was $9 million, because she will only take the $50 million that is it's estimated value.
          If I was her, I would have taken the $9 million, although honestly with a lot of regret and only if that was the only hope of selling it.  The whole world of connoisseurs is a very strange world to me.  Why would you let a painting that has scientific evidence proving it's authenticity?  Why is provenance so important?  I think it's about being able to tell a good story.  Good stories have drama, suspense, action and so on.  The story of this painting, as far as they would see, is that a poor woman bought it at a thrift store, then discovered that it could be worth a lot of money, but lacked the paperwork to prove to them that it was a true Pollock.  For them, the forensic evidence is irrelevant, because it still doesn't establish the paintings history.  I really loved the story that she cooked up.  That kind of thing is probably what goes on in the art world today.  Also, I do think that maybe more actually thought it was a Pollock, but were afraid to say so because being a connoisseur means establishing a reputation.  Nick Carone, who actually believed it was a Pollock, was "advised" not to say so on camera.  After his death, his family came forward with that fact as well as the families own agreement on his view.

Cannibal Tours

          Cannibal Tours, a documentary made in 1988 by Dennis O'Rouke, was painful to watch.  It shows how wrong our view is of what we consider to be "primitive" people.  Also, we see one of the problems when an ideology is forced on them, destroying certain aspects of the people's lives.  While I am personally a Christian, I do not condone the eradication of an ideology and the objects that go with it.  As a human being, who am I to come in and say that my way is the only way and that all other things must be destroyed?  While I do believe that my faith is the only true faith, I will not discuss that here as it is not pertinent to this post.
          Watching the local people's reaction to the tourists, you can see that they really don't like it.  The best examples I saw were the interview with older woman who said, "Why do they have all the money and we don't?" and also the one man who as being interviewed and the elderly lady stepped into to frame to take a picture of the guy.  His facial expression was that of disgust, and I agree with him.  For them, this seems to be the only way for them to earn money so they can by "first-price" items in town.  The only problem is that the tourists, who can easily pay the first-price haggle for a second-price or a third-price.  As the one guy said, "We can't by first-price items with second-price money."
          Ethnocentrism is something I see running rampant here in the USA.  We believe that our way of life is the best way, when in reality, it is not.  We go in to places with stable societies that have existed for thousands of years and proclaim that our way is more modern and better.  I think of China, whose dynastic history goes back around 5,000 years.  Of course, communism, which took control of China in 1947, is not a good form of government, but the US has only been around for about 240 years, when China's existence is 21 times that!  If we began to educated our children how to identify and avoid ethnocentric thoughts and ideas, they would have a much more balanced view of the world.

Whose Art is It?

          I really enjoyed this book, although the entire controversy seemed  to focus solely on the fact that a white person was making art of black people.  His work was deemed as racist and confrontational by those outside of the community he was living in.  They viewed Raymond as a drug dealer, Corey as fat and unemployed, and Daleesha as a zombie instead of the real people that they were.  It seemed to me that they thought he was making bronzes of idealized figures instead of real people.  I love that despite the controversy, John is still making art in the South Bronx to this day.  His community respects him and vice versa.  No one in the community has stolen his artwork, nor have they defaced it.  They may have stolen money and batteries, but never his art.
         If the people who were so against the bronzes knew how much his community respected him, I believe the outcome would have been far better.  I feel like if they had taken the time to get to know John, instead of assuming that he is racist, the bronzes would still be there.  Some of the things pointed out by Mrs. Salgado are valid, but John is portraying the reality that is his community.  The problem does not lie with the drug dealers, the unemployed, or the "zombies," it is, in fact, the social construct that we have built that gives birth to these issues.  This is one the problems with a world that runs on money, not every person is going to have a decent amount of it.  Those who do, are able to acquire the best quality items to insure a healthy life, (of course, excluding the fact that many celebrities have drug problems as well...).  In order to get a good education, it takes a decent amount of money.  This is why Mrs. Salgado's point is somewhat valid.  As I see it, she has worked hard to insure a stable life for her children.  To have a daily reminder of the deplorable life that she has rescued her children from is of course not a good thing to be reminded of.  One must not take steps toward the future with eyes fixated on the past.
          Now, back to the issue of race.  Why is it bad that a white person is depicting black people?  It is seen as bad since there is an assumption that is made by, in my experience, many black people that all white people are racist and only want to oppress them.  This is of course, flawed, as the assumption itself is racist towards white people.  The experiences I have had are from working customer service.  For example, a black customer comes up and are either intentionally or unintentionally trying to do something that is against our policies.  I say no to whatever it is, and they immediately ask for the manager, who then tells them the same thing I just said and they are cordial and apologetic and smile and leave.  This is why I side more with John and the fact that there shouldn't have been a controversy to begin with.