Suzi Gablik, The Reenchantment of Art

Citation: Gablik, Suzi. The Reenchantment of Art. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1991. Print.

Summary:

Gablik’s book calls for a new approach to art making, one that dismantles the modernist approaches of art, like disengagement and the minimalist absence of narrative and content, and calls for something far and beyond: an engaged, empathetic, participatory, and socially responsible approach to art. She also calls for an artistic revival of the things in our lives that currently too often dismissed because of our rational modes of perceiving the world: things like the cosmos, myth, and magic, the mysteries of the subconscious, transcendental and visionary experiences, the things that constitute soul, the idea that we are all interconnected with one another and the earth as well. She illustrates this by claiming, “the sickness of our time [nihilism] is not the absence of mythic vision, which is ever present in the unconscious, but our cultures denial that it exists, or has any significance for modern life” (56). Her book is about completely reframing our contemporary approaches to art-making, which in summary become “ ‘practices of the self’ that do not separate the self from society and withdraw it from social responsibility’ ” (quote from David Michael Levin, 65). 

Response:

 I think this book is the most refreshing inspiring and insightful book we’ve read this semester, and the one I can relate to the most. I am truly compelled by the kind of art Gablik is encouraging in this book, for many reasons, and especially how she illustrates that nihilism and disengagement are no longer valid or realistic solutions for art or for life in general. I have been thinking of many facets of this book since we have begun reading it and how/if these come into play in my own art making practices, including:

• ·         The difference between the disengaged artist and the participatory artist
• ·         The difference between art as an “end” and art as a “means to an end”
• ·         The idea that we as artists have tremendous social responsibility and we need to embrace this
• ·         We as artists are responsible for bringing to light the  things that others won’t
• ·         The idea that everything is interconnected
• ·         The idea that “ ‘being too rational is a handicap’ ” (42).
• ·         Activism in the name of art
• ·         Illustrating a problem without an idea of what a solution for it could be is futile
• ·         Art about art is “endgame” art, and needs to be something more conceptual than this
• ·         The idea that art can be celebratory (something I questioned in our first weeks of class), yet it must retain some evidence of conceptual importance.

As far as our class discussion goes, it seemed that people either totally agreed with Gablik or totally disagreed. I do obviously agree with her more than I disagree, but some interesting points were brought up in class concerning her use of language. We seemed to agree that her idea of empathy as a completely feminine characteristic was problematic, which I agree with. Anyone, male or female, is capable of empathy. We need to realize she uses this terminology, however problematic, to combat the modernist mode of art making, which she considers to be patriarchal and masculine, in exchange for what she considers to be a feminine approach, one that encompasses “empathy and relatedness to others” (63). I liked Michelle Lassaline’s idea of replacing the word “feminine” with the word “human” or “humanistic.”

It was also interesting that so many people were so turned off by her language, especially in the chapter in which she calls for the re-mythologizing of art, and the re-introduction of things like magic, spirituality, and the mysterious. Someone even referred to this part of the book being “way too granola.” We discussed the idea that we, as now rational and scientific beings, are conditioned to dismiss this mystical language…something I found very interesting. Gablik brought up the idea that we live in a time that can be considered “ ‘ the age of embarrassment about God, about the numinous…embarrassment about owning to our inner world…’” (53). I am not a religious person, but I am somewhat spiritual and hope to become more so. I really appreciated and was excited to see language like this being used in what could be considered a scholarly book, and found the idea of us being conditioned to dismiss this language extremely compelling. 

It was also interesting to see that she referenced Allan McCollum in her book, who was one of the artists I did my midterm presentation on. She brought up some stimulating points about his work that I appreciated thinking about, and which I didn’t previously think about while researching him for my presentation. Speaking about the supposition that art (specifically minimalist and modernist) has lost its ability to be narrative Gablik claims, “Life presents itself, in our current society, as an endless accumulation of meaningless spectacles,” (31).  She continues by criticizing McCollum’s work Plaster Surrogates, which are plaster casts of black frames and empty white backgrounds, by saying, “And so it is that art survives its own disappearance” (35).  I thought this to be curious, because I believe this is the exact point that McCollum cleverly sets out to make...even simulations of conventional art objects (a painting in a frame) are now considered art because this idea of what constitutes art is so numbing and broadened. I guess this is the bigger idea that she is criticizing, that art has unfortunately come to this point of art about art being nothing of conceptual importance…art coming to the point in which meaninglessness is the meaning…which is McCollum’s concept.  

The questions I am most asking myself at this point, a point in which my original intentions for wanting to make art are challenged, a point in which the carpet has been pulled from under me, are:

Gablik illustrates that art that is simply an artist’s “search for the self” (114) is no longer the answer, but for us as young aspiring artists in art school, shouldn’t this be the first thing we do in order to make art regarding issues we know we confidently care about??

For Gablik, can the element of self-expression still exist as a relevant factor to be considered or analyzed in the art making process? I believe that she would say it can, but it has to be taken beyond being simply this…social engagement and conceptual relevance are of more importance for Gablik.

Judith Richards, Inside the Studio

Citation: Richards, Judith Olch. Inside the Studio: Two Decades of Talks with Artists in New York. New York: Independent Curators International (ICI), 2004. Print.

Summary:

Inside the Studio: Two Decades of Talks with Artists in New York is an intimate collection of writings by artists functioning in New York during the 80’s and 90’s. It provides great insight of the personal opinions regarding art, art making, and the studio practices of some of the key artists working in New York at this time, and is a great companion text to have on hand for any young aspiring artists.

Response:

I think this book is effective in what it sets out to do. I enjoyed reading the first-hand accounts of the artists and prefer this format to an interview format, which the book could have easily been written in according to some agenda. Allowing the artists write in whatever format they choose allows for the greatest degree of originality and personal insight. However, Michelle Lassaline brought up a really interesting point in our class discussion, which I did not pay attention to while reading the book: each artist first has their work represented in a photo followed by a writing excerpt, and all the artists are represented in a photo after their respective writing samples. This format totally has the ability to alter our perceptions of the artists, and allows us as readers to disregard whatever the artists have written, and instead judge and formulate preconceptions of them by first looking at these photographic representations. I agree with her that I wish the artists had not been visually represented in the book, because there were some artists who I didn’t read about simply because I judged them by their artwork or by their personal image…which obviously isn’t a good thing! If the book consisted merely of the artists’ writing it could have been more effective, and would require more effort from the reader to dig and explore.  

As far as our presentation assignment goes, the three artists I have chosen to present are: Duane Michals, a photographer and writer, Amy Sillman, an abstract painter, and Allan McCollum, an artist who works with a variety of materials, whose work is prominently sculptural installations. I chose these artists because their art was relatively appealing to me at first glance, and also because I wanted to focus on artists who work with mediums that I am not personally very familiar with. Below are some brief notes and images taken from my PowerPoint presentation on these 3 artists.

Duane Michals:  

Duane Michals has influenced me a great deal as an artist. From what I’ve read about him from Inside the Studio, interviews, and other books, I can agree with a lot of what he thinks regarding art, art making, and life in general.

• ·         He is a photographer most known for confronting, challenging, and overcoming  the conventions, limitations, and expectations of photography in a variety of ways.

• ·         What seemingly most fascinates Michals is the belief that because of its democratic and documentary nature, the camera and the photograph are representative of reality, with the ability to capture what one sees with one’s own eyes. However, and agreeably so, to Michals reality is much more complex than the physical world we are presented with: reality lies within us as human beings, and to Michals photography is a way to make visual the intangible things we feel and experience on the inside.

• ·         Michals also challenges the conventions of photography by adding written text on or alongside his photographs, believing that the photograph itself is not always sufficient in communicating the photographer’s intent. By doing this, he adds a dimension of poetic intimacy, mortality, and humanity, as the text seems to be personalized to each individual viewer, and reveals a sense of vulnerability while voicing emotions that are too often pent-up.  

• ·         Michals realized the potential of a camera to record a false appearance of reality… “a tool for invention rather than a straightforward recorder of appearances” …and that appearances should not be taken as representative of truth. At the same time he realizes that we place a huge importance on the camera for the purpose of verifying reality.

 

 In context, Michals’ work related to ideas we have explored in the class such as those in Ways of Seeing by Berger. When Michals adds accompanying text to his images, he challenges our preconceptions of that image and tinkers with the belief that photographs are representative of truth, when in fact they are just simulations of reality. What we see is affected by what we want to see…what we see is affected by what we read…there may exist tension between the two, and the words that are written on Michals’ photographs may clash with what we see/want to see/saw before reading these words.

Amy Sillman:

• ·         It was difficult to find much information on her beside her website and reviews from art critics who only talk about the formal and aesthetic qualities of her abstract work, having to do with color, balance, line weight, gesture, etc. It is difficult to contextualize her artwork because of this. A lot of what she says her artwork is about does not translate for me unless I read her statements or titles telling viewers what it is they’re seeing. It’s not that I don’t like her work, but to me it isn’t much more than a bunch of colors energetically painted on to canvas…I feel bad saying this for some reason, but f I had to tell someone what her wrtwork was really about I would be at a loss for words.

• ·         For me this brings up the questions of: in a time that majorly emphasizes a shift toward the conceptual importance of artwork, concept being something that is becoming more important than the art product itself, what are the challenges that abstract artists face? Can they default on their choice of making abstract work in the sense that form can outweigh concept? Is abstract art a more true form of art in the sense that it heavily relies on emotion, feeling, and subjectivity?

Allan McCollum:

• ·         Applying strategies of mass production to handmade objects, McCollum’s labor-intensive practice questions the value of the unique work of art.

• ·         Although his art may be easily dismissed with the notion that his installations default on a shock factor---because of the dizzying quantities produced for each exhibition—I believe their remains a specialness in the sense that everything is unique and is made by hand although it appears to be mechanically produces…there remains a human element that at first appears unfathomable, but that exists as the driving force of his artwork nevertheless.

• ·         He embraces the notion of individuality among the masses, and that although the individual may easily be lost or overlooked in the context of the whole, the individual reigns supreme, although its status may be challenged or trivialized. 

In context, McCollum’s work relates to the idea of mechanization and the resulting loss of individuality because of it…Walter Benjamin and The Work of Art in the Mechanical Age of Reproduction. Although McCollum works in a "mechanized" way, each of his pieces, are made by hand and each are unique although they do not appear to be at first glance.

 

E.M. Forster, The Machine Stops

Citation: Forster, E.M. “The Machine Stops.” The Oxford and Cambridge Review, 1909. Print.

Summary: 

“The Machine Stops” is an ominous short story that illustrates the downfall of a future dystopia. Civilization is located under the earth, and is one in which humans reside in isolation in hexagonal-shaped rooms, where everything of concern—which isn’t much—is at their disposal at the press of a button. Everything in this world is controlled by and revolves around the omnipresent Machine, including the cycle of night and day and the very air they all breath. This is the story of something rare within this world—a dissenter—named Kuno, who finds his own individual way (considered heresy) to venture to the surface of the Earth, and thereafter predicts the downfall of the Machine to his mother, who like everyone else, is an oblivious worshipper of this man-made contrivance that eventually malfunctions and brings about the demise of civilization. This demise is what in reality will pave the way for the start of a new and more pure humanity, a heaven of sorts, exemplified as Kuno claims “ ‘I have seen them, spoken to them, loved them. They are hiding in the midst and the ferns until our civilization stops. Today they are the Homeless [meaning the deceased]- Tomorrow…’”  

 

Response:

First off, I was surprised that I had never read or even heard about this short story until now…it is something that everyone in my generation should be paying attention to…not to mention it would make a terrific movie if done effectively. Secondly, I thought this story was a great dovetail to all the theory and criticism we have been recently been reading about technology. It is rather prophetic in the sense that although it was written before everything we have read about technology thus far, it creatively illustrates all the fears and hesitancies theorized in the other readings that were all written in the past 30 years: the fear of obsolescence, the absence of direct experience, the inability to formulate original ideas…in a sense, the loss of what it means to be truly fulfilled as a human. This story references something that was brought up in Carr’s The Shallows: “You know that we have lost the sense of space. We say space is annihilated, but we have annihilated not space, but the sense thereof. We have lost part of ourselves.” I have already ranted about this fear of obsolescence and the loss of sensitivity to even realize what we have lost in exchange for what we have created, and although I am not going to rant about it again I will just say that it is something that I find very compelling, very unnerving, and something that’s worth a great deal of investigation.

Sherry Turkel, Alone Together

Citation: Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together : Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other. New York: Basic Books, 2011. Print.

Summary: 

Turkle’s book explores pretty much that which is stated in the title, which is how our lives and interactions with one another have greatly changed with the technology we currently have available to us, namely the internet and the virtual world of various social media, and smartphones, our little handheld portals to these virtual worlds. She presents information and personal examples that aren’t incredibly surprising or prophetic in a time when these interactions have become the norm (I kept thinking how interesting it would be if she were able to tell someone from 40 or 50 years ago that this would be the course our lives were to take). However, she does present a few key elements that are worth further consideration, including the simple fact that because this trend of interacting in the real world as well as in a virtual world has become the norm and something we don’t question, further investigation is required of why it has become this way and what that means for us from here on out, for we live in a time in which there exists an “erosion of the boundaries between the real and the virtual” (xi).

Response: 

As stated in the summary, I didn’t feel that much of what Turkle presents in the text is anything incredibly insightful, but the fact that I was numb to her observations is something of consideration.  For example, her statistics of how many texts people send per year or how many hours are spent on the internet per week seem plausible…we are living in a digital age and much of our time spent living is spent in front of some sort of screen, whether it is the screen of a smartphone, computer, or television. The fact that this doesn’t surprise me doesn’t mean that I don’t care about it however. I do agree that we spend way too much time in front of these screens, and that these virtual worlds are impacting our lives to an incredible extent. She brings up the fact that when we interact on social networking sites like Facebook and Second Life, we experience and partake in a detachment of who we are in “real-life” versus who we are in our virtual existences: “people reflect on who they [are] in the mirror of the machine…through the prism of technology [exists] a shift in how we create and experience our own identities” (xi). In these virtual worlds people can live out their fantasies…who they want to be rather than who they are. Again, this is nothing surprising, but I think that dangers exist when people are no longer able nor willing to make the distinctions between the two. She also brought up a point that we’ve read about in our previous texts in this module on media. That is, the idea of this detached involvement, how we are increasingly becoming more alone and isolated yet believing that we are more together, more connected…all interacting at the time and in the same “place” on sites like Facebook, yet doing it alone as separate units, believing these reflections we interact with to be truth, the real deal… “Networked, we are together, but so lessened are our experiences of each other that we can feel utterly alone. And there is the risk that we come to see others as objects to be accessed—and only for the parts we find useful, comforting, or amusing” (154). 

She brings up another valid concept, something I have been thinking a lot about recently, and that is “what [is] special about being a person” (x) and the “essence of personhood” (xvii)…it’s interesting to think that we should even have to defend this idea, but I believe we need to increasingly do so when computers, the internet, smartphones, the mass media, television, and machines have completely changed, and will continue to change, our ways of being.  It’s going to come to the point where being a person means to have these interactions with machines...it already has. Like John Berger states, in Ways of Seeing: “the car is an extension of the foot.” Now, the computer is the extension of what we consider to be reality. The day will come when we won’t be able to be defined without considering and defining these machines. 

Yet, what I want to know is what defines a person when these machines are disregarded, if they can be disregarded? What is it that we are all searching for at the end of the day? There exists more fulfillment than that which we find in these machines, but I fear that one day we won’t venture to find this fulfillment in any place beside the machines...this is something that drives my art making practices, the fulfillment we all need.