I meant to post this back a few weeks ago when Quintan Wikswo came to speak with us, but I kept this in my archives to edit, and I forgot about posting it.

I’m ambivalent towards the use of shock value in art. On one hand, I wasn’t particularly fond of what Wikswo called “performance art” which was mainly her sitting on a field writing on her typewriter. I definitely appreciated her efforts and her intentions to make a statement, but I’m still skeptical to believe what she does is “performance art.” When she showed some of the pictures and videos she had taken, I wasn’t very impressed with the aesthetic qualities, I saw some technical flaws, sometimes the camera was shaky and the foreground was blurry, but I couldn’t tell if that was intentional or not. The worst part is that I hate to admit that I don’t enjoy looking at her types of art and it feels wrong to repulsed by her acts of shock value because there’s a supposed statement underneath it. Similarly, when we were looking at the article about the man who nailed his scrotum to the ground, it felt wrong to label it as art because it felt like a cheap act of shock value, even though it was an act of protest.

I’m just very conflicted about how I feel about the use of shock value in art because it feels like using shock value gives artists a “free pass” to call whatever they’re doing as art. It’s also very difficult to critique because you can’t really say anything bad about it. I do think the concept that Wikswo was talking about was interesting, the fact that her art is supposed to look grotesque and unpleasing because that’s what captures people’s attentions and highlights the statement behind it. But does that excuse the fact that it looks bad and do people have a right to call it good art?

For example, take this new video that Lily Allen just put out, called “Hard Out Here” which is supposed to be satire on how women are portrayed in the media.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0CazRHB0so>

I actually love this song and the message behind it, but looking at it from the flip side, I can see that some people dislike it because she features many women of color twerking in the video, despite that she is condoning against it. Many other people would say that she’s making fun of the situation by showing how ridiculous twerking looks. I understand Allen’s message and I would agree with the latter opinion, but the people who might not understand the sarcasm would think that she’s being hypocritical. Although it is satire, her video is still sexually explicit and raunchy, (and based off visuals only) looks exactly like the rap and hip-hop videos she is against. Is it still satire if you’re contributing towards the thing you’re parodying? How do you know those other rap videos from the likes of Flo Rida or Pitbull (*shudder) which CONSISTENTLY feature scantily clad women aren’t also types of satire? What if there are deeper messages in those hedonist and self-indulgent videos? (Ugh, I feel disgusted by even the thought of these sleaze balls trying to have a meaning) WHAT IF BLURRED LINES IS ACTUALLY SATIRE AND A SUBTLE PRO-FEMINIST ANTHEM??? The lyrics suggest otherwise, but hey, artists can try to BS any type of justification they want as disguise it as their “artist’s intent.” This is where things get problematic.

This brings up the question, should the message underneath overshadow the actual aesthetic content? I could literally do anything, like commit a crime, and try to justify it by saying “it was my kind of performance art in which I’m trying to address the deteriorating state of the inner-city consciousness, etc etc etc” but that doesn’t excuse the fact that my action had hurt some people.

What do you guys think about the use of satire and shock value in art? It definitely has its merits in conveying certain ideas with stronger messages, but it seems to give artists easy justifications if their work isn’t very visually appealing.

Last week in class when we were discussing different types of religious arts, you could notice how there were very significant distinctions in the art styles in each different religion. For example, Christian art–as sponsored by the church–seemed to focus on portraying the biblical figures in a very high esteemed and spiritual light. All the biblical figures were sure to be exaggerated in size, color and shape to guarantee that they would be the center of attention. Artists had to portray the biblical figures in the best way as possible, and it was blasphemous to paint them even remotely similar to regular humans. Similarly, other religions also portrayed their godly figures as larger, more vibrant and more outer-worldly than they would with humans. It made sense, given how in all these religious cultures took worshipping their god(s) very seriously, and thus their art was used to visually illustrate the significance and dominance of the deities.

However, when we went onto talking about Islamic art, I noticed several of the artworks placed more of an emphasis on shapes, patterns and geometric figures rather than a monopoly of godly paintings. This reminded me of a section in Plato’s The Republic in which Socrates discusses the “theory of the forms”. I can’t quote verbatim since I don’t have my copy of the book with me, but you can try searching it up or skimming through this link to get the gist of it.

I’ll try to summarize my interpretation of his theory, which is that there are several levels of enlightenment, the level of copies (representation or replications of objects, like art), the level of the material world (the physical objects around us), and the level of the forms (which is made up of abstract ideas and concepts) and we must ascend these levels in order to achieve “the good”. Each level is superior to the level under it. For example, it would be more enlightening to be in the subject, the scenery, or the moment rather than just look at a photograph of it, which makes sense; it is better to experience a landscape rather than just look at a picture of one. That is how the level of the material world is better than the level of replication.

However, the level of the forms is a bit tricky. Think about a triangle. What really is a triangle? You can draw a three sided figure on the board and that would be a representation of a triangle, but ultimately that is inferior to the idea of a triangle. All the properties of a triangle, such as the angles summing up to 180 degrees or the lines being perfectly straight are captured with the IDEA of a triangle, but no matter how much you try to draw a triangle in the material world, there will always be slight imperfections (line is crooked or not entirely straight, etc.) and thus the CONCEPT of a triangle is always better than any other “triangle”. Similarly, within the level of forms, Plato also thinks highly of the world of numbers and mathematics. Think about the concept of three; you probably picture three objects, but that’s not really what the definition or concept of three is, isn’t it? That only mimics the form of three, but isn’t three itself. What is the concept of “three-ness”? Does three-ness exist within the material world?  There really isn’t a definition of three, it’s an abstract concept. This can be applied to many ideas and fields; what is color? Isn’t it comprised of different wavelengths that are constantly changing? Yet we try to delude ourselves into thinking that the concept of color exists in our world, when in reality, we don’t really have an idea what color really is.

Basically to sum up, Plato thinks that the abstract world of ideas and concepts is superior to the physical world, and to strive to achieve the “good”, you must think more abstractly and about the concepts of objects rather than what they appear to be. This was a long tangent, but looking at the pictures of Islamic art of colorful patterns and shapes just made me think about this theory. Honestly, I don’t really like how many religions portray their gods in art, like they’re trying to portray a concept in which they don’t really know what they actually look like. Instead, I’m more fascinated by the geometry used in Islamic art, and I’m enthralled by how they focus more on the beauty, the symmetry, the natural harmony of patterns of shapes. Perhaps how these cultures portray these geometric figures and patterns mirror how they value them more than they do with deities, and this allows them to see the natural patterns in the world and understand abstract concepts, for example, calculus. Again, no representation of concepts can ever be as good as the concept itself, and I have no idea whether the Islamic people knew anything about Plato’s the Theory of the forms, but it is interesting to see the correlation that the eastern cultures that are focused on shapes, forms and abstract figures in their art are the same ones that are responsible for many of the famous discoveries in science and mathematics throughout history.

She clay-ed in like a wrecking ball. I’ve never been hit so hard with art.

All she wanted was to be a doll. All you can ever do is… judge me…

While I was browsing BuzzFeed, I stumbled upon a quiz that asked to identify whether a piece of artwork was painted by a famous Modern artist or a toddler. I remember that we had a similar exercise in class, (one of the quiz questions uses the same example we saw!) so I was tempted to take the quiz. However, as I barely got half of them correct, it made me think about how there isn’t a concrete distinction between any of the paintings aesthetically. It’s a bit bewildering and disheartening to think about how a several million dollar painting hanging at the MoMa could look exactly the same as a fingerpainting project a kindergartener completed.

I also remember what was hilarious was that there were praises about the intense brushstrokes and vivid colors that were given for a modern art painting that was actually completed by a toddler and the critic had no idea himself. It makes me think about how a lot of art isn’t just about the content, but the brand. If you stumbled upon these paintings in a museum, you might make a snarky remark about your little brother could have painted this in 5 minutes, but if you noticed that the placard said “Willem de Kooning” you might change your mind entirely and think it’s a brilliant and thought-provoking piece. Do you think we would focus and appreciate the aesthetic qualities of art more if we didn’t know who painted it or how much it’s worth? Would you give a second thought about the Mona Lisa if it wasn’t famous at all? Sure, it would still look pretty and enigmatic, but it wouldn’t be the most recognized or renowned pieces of art ever?

These two photos were probably the most peculiar out of the ones I’ve taken. I just noticed the garbage can as we were leaving the demented-virtual-computer-obsessed gallery and I just wondered whether that overflowing garbage can was just due to the laziness of the front desk staff to empty the trash, or was it actually part of the exhibit itself? The same thing happened when we were leaving the exhibit with the shattered coffee table and the aftermath of the black fabric storm. I heard someone remark about how there was a shoe print on the fabric. While everyone else was panicking whether he or she had been the unfortunate one who had stepped on it, I also stopped to wonder if the shoe print was part of the artpiece. Sure it sounds strange, but given how the gallery revolved around robberies (I think, it seemed like a recurring theme), having a random shoe print on the fabric definitely helped to add even more new layers of dimensionality and reality to the artwork. Same with the garbage can, it may have been left there unintentionally by lethargic gallery secretaries glued to their macs, but it definitely felt like it could have belonged with the rest of the gallery. It would even emphasize the abandonment of daily life as the gamer drowns in internet addiction.

But should a shoe print or an abandoned garbage really be considered as art? This is what has always frustrated me about interpretation of art. I think art should have an intention; it should be an attempt to establish an intimate, emotional connection between the artist and audience. I’m not really sure how I feel about the shoe-print or the garbage can. Usually professional artists are extremely meticulous with the tiniest details in their artwork, and I guess with these two examples, the artists were either not really that meticulous, OR REALLY METICULOUS.

What should we think about a gallery that might be “improved” unintentionally?