As usual, I wasn't impressed

Esotericism and Incoherence

“Master of Fine Arts Thesis Exhibition.” The WSU Museum of Art website (http://museum.wsu.edu/exhibitions.html) turns this phrase to attract the unsuspecting visitors. The Palouse art enthusiast. The visiting high school student who has lost his or her way. The WSU student hoping to salvage his or her grade with extra credit. The Honors College student who truly cares and wants to learn more about art. Each individual arrives with his or her own background and biases, but it is safe to bet that everyone expects to be pleased and impressed by what they see. The awarding of a Master’s Degree implies that the receiver is an expert in his or her field, and other evidence speaks to this standard as well; one of the exhibitioners, Tobias Walther, has even received a prestigious Fulbright grant back in the 2007-2008 year (http://www.tobiaswalther.com/). Although the artists presenting their work had not yet received their degrees, the expectation was that this would happen soon. The extraordinary talent and mind-blowing qualities inferred by the presentation’s title were undetectable for this observer.
Unlike the previous Chris Jordan exhibit, there was no advertised theme for the current arrangement. If this observer were to provide a title, it would be “Esotericism and Incoherence,” for only a few seemed to have the potential to understand such a presentation. The exhibit also consisted of several disparate components, ranging from Brad Dinsmore’s “Epistemological Notebooks” mixed media to Walther’s confusing “Sailor” film. Elements of the titles could sometimes be observed in the work itself, such as in Lauren McCleary’s piece (s) composed of mixed media: “Elephant Splat/Between Being/Walk Wonder.”. Although it was unclear to this reviewer if these three titles were for one artwork or three, the “Walk Wonder” element was intuitive; since the creation was an installation, one was required to physically move from one end to the other while enduring intense confusion as to what the message, point, or even materials were. Elephants were present throughout the work, and that particular corner of the room left this observer beside herself, possibly “Between Being?”
Another piece possessing this clandestine meaning was the unoriginally titled “Untitled” artwork by Dustin Price, which consisted of white pillows surrounding a real tree that was decorated by white Buddha-like statues. While it possessed aesthetic quality, the meaning was completely open to interpretation, so it could be argued to be nonexistent. This characteristic alone seems to suggest that Hickey, who argued that beauty trumped meaning, would appreciate this piece. The best and worst examples of this principle were also created by Price, who presented a series of very complex constructions, one of which was entitled “We Are Just Fine.” Most of these artworks consisted of several elements carefully arranged around a wooden box protruding from the wall. They were so complicated that they had a repelling effect on this observer; perhaps too much symbolism and meaning is possible. These artworks could not possibly satisfy Tolstoy’s beliefs; if the observer does not know what he or she is looking at or supposed to be feeling, the artist’s desired communication could not possibly come across.
The Master of Fine Arts Thesis Exhibition failed to satisfy this observer’s expectations. The artists are no doubt skilled, but very little of this was obvious in the display. They would have earned much more respect from the museum visitors if a synopsis of their written work was available for perusal before the presentation was taken in. Brad Dinsmore and Heather Losey McGeachy took a step in this direction by showcasing technical skill (self-portrait) and creating a digital example of a classic art piece (digital painting), respectively. Perhaps if the other students had followed in their footsteps, they would appear to be better prepared to face the cold and critical art world that no doubt awaits them.

Another analysis of Pollock

I feel that Paul Jackson Pollock is a prime example of both Sigmund Freud’s and Foucalt’s main arguments.
Freud’s discussion on daydreams and art stated that an artist’s creation is a representation of his or her unconscious wishes. Pollock’s abstract expressionist work seems to me to be the best at supporting this theory. He has been quoted as saying “The method of painting is the natural growth out of a need. I want to express my feelings rather than illustrate them.” Although Pollock, in his frequent state of intoxication, may have not been able to nail down exactly what he was experiencing, at least for me, his paintings possess some sort of strong emotional undercurrent. It could also be argued that his earlier work also satisfies this theory, since much of it depicts “realistic” scenes with a twist in the interpretation. The unconscious of Pollock may have accounted for the “twist” in these earlier works.
The famous artist also embodies (quite well, I might add) the take-away point from Foucalt’s theory, in which he used Velazquez as an example of pushing boundaries and choosing to buck widely accepted norms. The style of abstract expressionism, which Pollock is known for, breaks quite a few “rules” about art that the common folk who are not privileged members of the “art world” tend to hold dear. These include; art should represent something, perhaps a familiar object, it should be pleasing to the eye, and it should require talent. An abstract expressionistic Pollock, to the layman, appears to satisfy none of these. However, it is painting in this style that made Pollock famous and allowed one of his paintings to sell for the obscene amount of $140,000,000 just three years ago. I feel that Foucalt admires this, which is why he focused his discussion in the text on Las Meninas, which rejected both social and art norms of the time (aka offering different perspectives and focusing on the king and queen, as they were the most powerful people in the land). I do not know if this painting caused Velazquez any strife at the time, but I would assume that it would. Oh well. It got him some academic praise and perhaps some Pollock-esque fame and approval.

Heidi's Chronicle

The Heidi Chronicles is no doubt a well-written piece, and was skillfully represented both in Jones Theatre and in the Honors Lounge for our class the next day. The problem I have with the play is the same problem that the great philosopher Aristotle would have had, noted in his quote that “Of simple Plots and actions episodic are the worst” (Art and its Significance, pg. 74). I do not mind the episodic nature when it appears in a TV sitcom, because that is just simple entertainment, but in this particular play, it made the story seem very lacking. Quite a bit of speculation is required, which may have been intended and desired by Wasserstein, but by doing this, I feel that her influence as the playwright is greatly diminished. So much of Heidi’s life is missing, and not much attention is given to her accomplishments (of which there are many, especially in the academic realm). Most of the reasons for what the characters do are hidden from the viewer, as well as the reader.
I feel that the two paintings on the main blog page defy the description of the selection of women’s art (as compared to men’s art) made by Heidi at the beginning of the play. As you recall, Heidi said that the women in the displayed works seemed to be observers instead of participators. In the painting by Caravaggio, Judith seems to be shrinking back from the center of action, which is ironic, because she is the main action character; she is the one beheading Holofernes. In contrast, the painting by the female artist, Gentileschi, has Judith much closer to Holofernes, displaying no timidity at all. Perhaps she was demonstrating her hostility toward the opposite sex in this creation; who knows?
Overall, I do not feel that gender “determines” art, but it can definitely wield a substantial influence over it. Freeland stated that great female artists did not have anything uniquely common about their artistic style that separated them from the male artists, but the example of Judy Chicago was also provided. Her artwork, “The Dinner Party,” provided a woman’s answer to the representations of women by men in various media in our society (Freeland, 141), and in this case, I consider it highly motivated by gender. Gender has also determined art in the past, when female artists were not recognized or chose not to pursue a career in art, because of social roles. Overall, I do not believe there is a definite answer to this question; it depends on the artist and the circumstance.

Image: Judith with the head of Holofernes: Christofano Allori, 1613
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.classicartrepro.com/data/large/Allori_Christofano/Judith_with_the_Head_of_Holofernes_Pitti_1613.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.classicartrepro.com/painting.iml%3Fpainting%3D2865&h=388&w=319&sz=22&tbnid=I3NV2Tm1EqZcuM::&tbnh=123&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djudith%2Bwith%2Bthe%2Bhead%2Bof%2Bholofernes&hl=en&usg=__F-iC2IhPkZrriYVcnrEe8TEAdGw=&ei=4NTXSdyxBJXqtQOt5a2zCg&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image

Paul Jackson Pollock

Having had the opportunity to research Pollock rather extensively, I find him more legitimate than I otherwise would have. My first impression of him and his more famous work in the style of abstract expressionism was in line with a quote mentioned in the presentation; that it was “a joke in bad taste” (from a Reynold’s News headline in 1959). When my untrained eye saw the interwoven swirling colors on the canvas, I thought a five-year-old could create something just as good. I would still like to raise the question; “Even though no one can correctly reproduce a Pollock, should his work still qualify as great art?” I am under the impression that his tumultuous life greatly contributed to his incredible fame; even the film presented in class revealed that there were many Pollock imitators that were much less well-known. I did not begin to “approve” of Pollock as an artist deserving of any kind of recognition until I saw his earlier work; specifically, “Going West” from 1934. The figures represented in the piece are recognizable from real life, and are painted in a way that bends reality, demonstrating that talent was required to create this work. In my humble opinion, since Pollock had first “proved” himself as possessing actual talent before creating his later, much better-known work, he had the right to make anything he wanted and call it “art.”
Danto seems to be the most applicable theorist to Pollock’s art, because of his comment that art is not art until someone says that it is. I am referring to his later work when I say this. If I saw a bunch of squiggles on a canvas, no matter how “controlled” they were, I would never call it art. However, our society works in such a way that if an influential person in a field (or someone who is simply good at promoting their work) says that something is art, or “genius,” on numerous enough occasions, the lemmings will follow, and follow we did, spending $140,000,000 on Number 5 as we went.

Image: http://www.nga.gov/feature/pollock/artist4.shtm

On Nietzsche's and Tolstoy's ability to compose a theory

After reading both Nietzsche and Tolstoy, I have come to the conclusion that the “collapse of principium individuationis” (p.164) and the infection of art could be argued to be either one and the same or completely different, where the flaws in each one of these elements are exposed. Bean counter that I am, I have chosen to nitpick details and argue that these concepts are completely different.
When Nietzsche discusses the principle of individuation in Ross’s anthology, he uses the words of Schopenhauer in Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, speaking of the “man wrapped in the veil of maya” (p. 164). He references a section (I, p. 416) that states that “in the midst of a world of torments the individual human being sits quietly, supported by and trusting in the principium individuationis…” I interpret this section as referring to the one absolute truth that Nietzsche searches for in all of his early writings; the person in the storm mentioned before this quote believes in the social psychology concept of a just world, and in this just world, he or she will be protected because he or she is somehow deserving of this, most often because of a belief in him or herself as a “good person;” and bad things do not happen to good people, right? Of course not (pardon my sarcasm).
Sparknotes tells me that this belief (in P. I.) includes boundaries between men (more specifically between the order of Apollonian and Dionysian realms), which is where this concept begins travelling in the complete opposite direction of Tolstoy’s “infection” of emotion through the medium of art. Tolstoy even goes so far as to say that art that does not accomplish this does not qualify as art. However, we discussed in class the many circumstances in which this cannot happen; how are we as viewers of art to know what the artist truly meant to communicate when he or she created the work? What if he or she, like Warhol, was probably lying when questioned about the meaning of the art? This limits true art to a few pieces where the meaning is either very clear, or when the viewer, by chance alone, happens to feel the same emotion or gather the same idea that the artist experienced while creating the piece. Since it is not an all-encompassing theory, and actually only works for a select few situations, it loses most of its credibility in my eyes. The principle of individuation actually makes sense, making it an acceptable theory. One solid argument and essentially, one non-argument, cannot be discussing the same thing.

"Faking It": From Sacramento, California to the big, sophisticated city of Pullman

The last discussion in the “Faking It” video was very interesting to me. One of the art critics said that the “faker’s” art did not speak to him because there was an explanation concerning the creator’s background accompanying it. I have gathered the impression from our discussions and readings in this course that art does not need any explanation; like the female mentor in the film said, the viewer will project their own meaning, or speculations onto the piece of art before them. I felt like the presenter did not need to add the background story of our “faker’s” experience when he was younger; the painting could speak for itself. I’m not sure how much the man who made that comment deserves to be a part of the “art world” himself if he does not understand or accept that concept.

The episode of the program we saw today was very neat and contrived. The main character was from a working-class type of upbringing, with not much education, and even had a slightly different accent than the art experts, who spent their time in upscale London and had no doubt spent many years educating themselves, both generally and in the world of art. He has been and will continue to be trained by experts; he has even been given a new look, to make the transformation even more real to him. His greatest weakness seems to be his small vocabulary, since he dropped out of school at the age of 16. I am confident that he can be taught some jargon to use while discussing his art, but other aspects of the higher-class culture will be difficult for him. He has been to a few art exhibits, but there are many others that he does not know exist. If he is asked about one of those, he is in trouble, because an up-and-coming artist certainly has done his or her homework about everything that is present in the art world, as well as other artists’ work.

Despite our hero’s disadvantages, I predict that two out of the final three will accept him as an artist. There are a few reasons for this. First, since this is a TV show, the odds are that successes will be shown. Viewers expect happy endings, and if networks fail to deliver, they will stop watching, and the shows of that network will eventually be cancelled. My second reason is that the world of art has become so broad, that it seems that “anything goes.” Anything, except, say, the “middle-class values” that Thomas Kinkade and his fans represent will be acknowledged in this supposedly liberal (all-accepting?) environment. Since so many different techniques and levels of skill and attractiveness are present in “legitimate” art, it will be extremely difficult for the judges to tell who is real and who is not. If I am correct, any average Joe could be taken from their neighborhood and trained to be an “artist.” You might ask; is this a good thing?

I wrote this while listening to my country-western music cd and watching Phantom of the Opera: The Movie

The article “…Down at the Pawnshop” by Allen Salkin reveals a little-known aspect of the world of art collectors and the artists themselves. It is something we can all relate to; financial difficulties. What do you do when you can no longer pay your bills, or lack the funds to purchase something you want (like Evan Tawil, an art collector who wanted to buy even more art)? Well, you can follow suit with the famous photographer, Annie Leibovitz, and essentially get a mortgage on your art, as many people do at pawnshops for various items. However, these mortgages start at $500,000 and carry interest rates of up to 24%, at least for a company called ArtLoan, which Salkin mentions in this article. Indicating the controversy surrounding these artistic pawnshops, at least one lawsuit has been brought against such companies, also mentioned in this discussion, over whether a patron had fulfilled his end of the bargain.

The worth that can be siphoned from art cannot be better exemplified than in Thomas Kinkade’s multimillion dollar (billion?) empire that he compares to Walt Disney’s domain in the presentation by 60 Minutes. He has used some very good marketing skills to sell record numbers of his prints, as well as several other products, including snow globes, trinkets, and even houses, which all carry the “Kinkade” brand.

These two phenomena are possible because of the capitalistic society that we live in, and in my opinion, no one can blame people like Leibovitz and Kinkade for taking advantage of it. As was brought up in class, Andy Warhol did incredibly similar things with his art, much of it not even designed by himself (for example, the Brillo boxes, which already existed; they were merely larger copies). At the very least, Thomas Kinkade hand-paints the original piece of art before it is mass-produced; even if people do not consider him an “artist,” it cannot be argued that he possesses artistic talent.


You may have gathered that I have a problem with those who criticize Kinkade. Perhaps I am doing as was quoted in either Freeland’s or Ross’s text, and “speaking to reveal my class,” but so be it. I do not know how anyone can find anything wrong with Kinkade’s “empire” when some drips and swirls on a canvas (i.e., Jackson Pollock, the topic of my future presentation) can sell for ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY MILLION DOLLARS. I believe that it would be difficult to find someone who finds Kinkade’s work unattractive, however redundant and predictable. Is it so bad to like pretty things? I also take issue with how everyone in the 60 Minutes presentation was portrayed, like lemmings with no class and no mind of their own, following the Pied Piper Kinkade off the edge of the cliff. All of the people in the film simply enjoy comfort and familiar things. Also, the $150,000 that the couple with 138 Kinkade paintings spent shows that they are at least members of the upper middle class. They have the means to spend over $1,000 per piece of art, an amount that many people would never be able to accomplish.
Kinkade mentioned his “cultural identity” as a key component in his business. He includes family and God in his values, and whether he believes in these two or not, his audience does. It was also mentioned in class that he paints according to what he knows pleases this audience, but I do not find anything wrong with that either. Warhol said that he did not intend his art for anyone in particular, but he was obviously a self-promoter whose goal was to become rich and famous. If Kinkade wants the same thing, who is to judge him?


Al Capp said this about abstract art, but perhaps it applies to other kinds; “A product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered.” Does Warhol apply? Kinkade? You be the judge, but you now have my opinion.


The image used in this blog is from http://www.kinkadecentral.com/paintings/tk97-01.htm
It is from 1997 and is entitled "Tea Cup Cottage."