Seminar 1: The Arts in NYC

Prof. Laura Kolb, Baruch College

Category: Blog Post 8 (Page 1 of 2)

Impaled

December 4, 2018 / / 0 Comments

Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge by El Lissitzky

El Lissitsky’s print of Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge served as a controversial piece of work during the Russian civil war because of the message it sent out to the public. Firstly, Lissitsky uses more constructed geometric shaped for his print, this is a new and unusual for artists at his time but he uses the geometric shapes to compliment his ideas about the political situation in Russia at the time. Another way Lissitsky’s print is avant-garde because it uses minimal ideas, to express his idea. Even in the painting regardless of the meaning, one could see Lissitsky utilized single Russian words which pushes the idea that Lissitkey wanted to use the least of visual stimuli to get a concept across.

Lissitskys work pushes boundaries of representation. His work is described as an example of an agitprop or Soviet political propaganda which seems ironic because political propaganda usually has a phrase or a limerick to make sure the person viewing it could remember the stance of the argument, but in Lissitskys work he simply writes the Russian words for what the viewer is seeing. Although his work could be classified as a mimesis in the sense that it represents the idea of a revolution which is something that occurs often in real life, I personally do believe his work is more abstract. The fact that Lissitsky uses colors like red and white and presents them with the connotation of winner and loser is somewhat interesting. In addition to the usage of color, Lissitsky’s choice of shapes to represent the two forces in the civil war is interesting as well. The wedge serves as the winning force because of its penetrative shape. At an immediate glance, one can think that the red wedge is infiltrating the white and when one looks at the shape of the wedge and the narrowness of the shape it looks as if it is impaling the white circle. In addition to impaling the circle, it seems as if the wedge reaches the exact center of the white circle, which for me means that the Russians have infiltrated the root of the Anti- Bolshevik forces. The political statement behind the art is described as the reds winning since the reds represent the Russian forces while the white is Anti- Bolshevicks. I think that in terms of style Lissitsky experimented with shapes and color more so than other artists that did during the century, the fact that the shapes and color were there for a symbolic purpose which was different from other painters who often manipulated the contents of their paintings for more emotional purposes.

67

December 4, 2018 / / 0 Comments

The work that I chose is titled “Anywhere out of the World”, painted by Marc Chagall from 1915 to 1919. In the description of the painting, it is said that this “may be a self-portrait.” More commonly, self-portrait art is depicted as a rather complete depiction (or imitation), but different in degree, depending on the artist in context. Why this work is experimental as art, is because in the art world, the general axiom is that art imitates life; the painting in context at first glance does not imitate life, since the painting depicts a man with his head split into two pieces, given that the pieces are depicted with two different colors, blue and purple… why?

Given the description next to the portrait, we can read that the pictorial strategy (method of illustration) “could be a rendition of the ‘luftmensch’, a Yiddish term used to describe a person who is concerned with intellectual pursuits rather than with the practicalities of life.” Historically, the time period we are dealing with is the early 20th century in Russia. During 1917, Russia had undergone the Russian Revolution, which had brought about major changes to not only Russian society, but also to Russian politics, and to the entire Russian economy. Surely, there was change in the region where Chagall worked as an artist. Politically, the message in Chagall’s painting was dissimilation: stepping out of the normal practicalities of life. Essentially, Chagall dealt with philosophical thought rather than the thoughts fed to him by the society around him. It is interesting to see how the changes that the time period in which Chagall lived are depicted in his painting.

Even at first glance, where the painting seems more abstract than a well-depicted imitation, looking deeper we eventually see how the painting indeed depicts the exact political situation of Russia, the country that Marc Chagall resides in during the Russian Revolution. It is obvious that this is depicted by Chagall through not only splitting the top portion of the figure’s (in the painting) head from the rest of the body leaving a “blank space there”, but also through the illustration of color, where the cool, calm, collective blue ways of society remains below, attached to the whole of the collective, while the intellectual, creative, pondering purple part of the collective, where massive change occurs from, is separated as the top part of the head. The intertwined intellectual, artistic and abstract ideas presented in the painting show how the work’s experimental style is indeed linked to its political message.

“As above the macrocosm bends, so below the microcosm corresponds.”

Point & Shoot

December 4, 2018 / / 0 Comments

*

Jewish museum

*Television static* During Eid prayer in the capital city of Kabul two car bombings were detonated killing four people and injuring twelve.

These are the images of Afghanistan the media presents to me: Bombing here, terrorist there, U.S. troops everywhere. I can only dream for a day, when I might be see the nation of my parents with my own eyes. For now, I can only view the images of horror on my 4k plasma screen television from safety of living room couch. Martha Rosler understand the hypocrisy of being outraged by images of war while still partaking in consumerism that caused them.

The medium the artist choose was a photographic collage. In total there are three photos overlapped on each other, the Iraqi street, a women and child, and some women in a white gown. Each picture carries their own meaning. In the image of the Iraqi street, The US troops are armed; they are covered in head to toe in full combat gear holding semi-automatic rifles standing atop a tank. This would be fine if they were in the middle of a war zone, however they are just in the city streets of Iraq. There are no enemies with rifles pointed back at the troops only little boys with rainbow covered kites. The streets are filled with freighted pedestrians holding their breaths on what the troops might do.  This leads into the second image of the women and child. The positioning of this picture right in the line of fire of the tank and rifles shows the aggressiveness of the troops. They are not facing criminals only old women and children; the colors of the child and women are muted perhaps indicting some poor fate they might be subjected to. Both of these photos combined take and anti-war stance. The artist herself has proclaimed her as an activist against the US’s position in Iraq and Afghanistan. Point and shoot refers to the troops holding rifles, but as well as the third image of a tall blond women holding a camera. Her camera can take pictures of this conflict and bring it home for all to view. The women herself is an idealization of the 1960’s American sociality expectations on women: blond, tall, pin rolled hair, thin, elegant dressed, with a calm demeanor. Martha Rosler hopes to convey that we, the American public, are equitable to those out in the middle east actively creating violence by our passiveness as witness who do not take action against these war crimes. The economic and political imperialism that has to the violence in this conflict is prolonged just as much as our consumerism and complacency to not take action as anything else.

 

The medium nor the content of the image is avant garde. For an artistic piece to be avant garde it must be pushing the forefront, creating a style that has never been seen or used before. However unfortunately for this artist, Photocollages have been around as long as there has been photography. As well, political commentary on the horrors of war through the medium photography have been used since the Vietnam war. Commentary on consumerism can been seen in Andy Warhol as well as the communist manifesto. Although none of these ideas are new, doesn’t mean this piece cannot be influential. The medium used shows real word events and horrors, which wake up the public from their complacency and desensitization by the media. Hopefully it wakes us up enough to take action and not allow Martha Rosler’s work go to waste.

 

Free the Nipple Before it Burns!!

December 4, 2018 / / 2 Comments

The Jewish Museum was nothing like I expected. Foolishly, I expected the Jewish Museum to be a large exhibit showcasing artifacts from the Holocaust and remnants from the places where Jews were held in captivity and murdered those many decades ago. However, this museum was delightfully the opposite. Featuring artwork from various artists, the Martha Rosler show was the most dynamic by far.

Martha Rosler, an American artist born in 1943, is most known for illustrating the world through various mediums, including photography, video, sculpture, performance, and more more. She tends to highlight the woman’s experience and does not shy away from expressing her political standpoint on various issues such as gender roles, war, inequality, gentrification, etc.

Martha Rosler’s exhibit at the Jewish Museum was full of art of all shapes, sizes, and kinds; all unique and with their own message. In a small dark room, accompanied by a video screening of what appeared to be a woman having a gynecology consultation by a doctor and a host of nurses/observers taking notes, were a few photomontages of female body parts pasted onto everyday appliances. The picture that caught my attention the most was the image called “Hot Meat”. In this image, we see a side profile of a naked woman’s breast area plastered on to a stove/oven. In this series of photos (entitled Body Beautiful, or Beauty Knows No Pain), Rosler uses female body parts placed on everyday items to depict the role of women in society at the time and domesticity. Women during this time were seen as only staying in the home to cook, clean, and care for her family. They were not seen as independent beings outside of their marriages or households and were not respected as much as their male counterparts. Since the woman is naked, this adds an extra layer of vulnerability to the woman, as well as calls out the men in society. Men often objectify women and this is the perfect example of that. This asks him to rethink how he looks at a woman.

In placing these body parts on things that we would normally not see them nor associate them with, it forces the viewer to reconsider how we view women in society and their respective roles. Rosler wanted to change the way in which we see women on an everyday basis, and alter our socially constructed preconceptions on gender as a whole. This picture was created in the late 60s, and yet we still have a long way to go when it comes to seeing women as equals.

Body Beautiful or Beauty Knows No Pain, Hot Meat by Martha Rosler

GOOOOD MORNING VIETNAM

December 3, 2018 / / 2 Comments

In this exhibit, Martha Rosler takes 5 pictures that Americans would have considered to be normal or very ordinary. It is visible that there are portions of the pieces that are in color and other portions that are in black and white. Rosler’s first piece is titled “Cleaning the Drapes” and it depicts a woman cleaning her drapes with a vacuum and the woman, drapes, and vacuum are all in color, however what is outside the window is in black and white. This is very experimental because it combines two types of photography within the same medium: black and white vs color. This experimentation is purposely attracting attention to the differences between the two styles of photographs. In the second photo it is easier to see because it shows a kitchen with countertop and regular household necessities such as bowls, cups, and dishes. All of the kitchen objects are pictured in bright colors such as white and red and in the background there is even a red and white stripe across the wall. However, upon further investigation, there are two men depicted in dark colors such as green and grey, suggesting that they do not belong. This is shown in the next three photos as well where there are people in settings of a regular American household, however it is a combination of normal and abnormal. In most of Rosler’s pieces, the “regular” American life is depicted in color while the background depicts a darker image that obviously doesn’t belong. This is how Rosler’s exhibit of “House Beautiful” is considered experimental and avant-garde.

Martha Rosler’s collection of “House Beautiful” was compiled over 6 years and used as propaganda to influence Americans’ views against the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War was considered the “first living-room war” because there were reporters and journalists and video cameras in Vietnam reporting back to the home front. This is important because it gave the American people a direct look into what was happening overseas and allow them to think they were apart of the war themselves. Rosler takes this idea and amplifies it by taking uncensored images of soldiers and natives in Vietnam. In the first photo, a woman is cleaning her drapes, but outside the window, there are men stationed in barracks made of sandbags and armed with guns. The second photo shows two men searching for something in the background of a kitchen, and suggests that they are searching for hidden bombs or landmines. In the third photo, two parents are playing with their kid on a bed but the walls around them are destroyed and the windows are boarded up from what was assumed to be an explosion. The fourth and fifth photos in the exhibit might be the most disturbing. In the fourth photo, it shows a woman in yellow in her very colorful and luxurious living room however, in a picture frame above the fire place, there seems to be a young woman in a great deal of pain. It even seems as if she was hurt multiple times in her torso either from a knife or from gunshots. In the fifth and final photo, Rosler takes a different view than from her previous photos. Instead of having a distinct colorful forefront and then the disturbing image in the background, she flips the idea. The forefront has a Vietnamese man holding his baby, who is injured and has blood dripping from its neck. It is obvious that these 5 photographs are purposely political against the Vietnam War because Rosler is placing serious and disturbing images in pictures that Americans believe to be “safe”. By combining these two pictures, Rosler creates medium that challenges the support of the Vietnam War.

 

House Beautiful c. 1967-72 Artist- Martha Rosler

War in My Back Garden

December 2, 2018 / / 2 Comments

 

American artist, Martha Rosler, examined social issues of gender, war, and injustice throughout her career, as her artwork criticized the ill-conceived Afghanistan and Iraq wars in the early 2000’s. Rosler’s photomontages from her House Beautiful: Bringing the War Home, New Series, is able to stir emotions of discomfort and comfort, and experiment with the fine line between facade and reality.

In 2004, Rosler’s avant-garde Back Garden, had placed images of war into the American backyard quite literally. Photographs of soldiers standing over slaughtered bodies, muslim women (from what I assume to be from American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) fleeing in terror, all while an American assembly line of fashion models strut down the back garden towards the viewer, are depicted within the work. Taking Rosler’s criticism of war into consideration, her conglomeration of photos is extremely political, and exudes a harsh contrast between the war torn individuals, and the stone faced runway models. This odd and uncomfortable combination, forces a sense of realization and guilt, as one begins to compare the life created at home, and the life created abroad in wars that Americans have started. By specifically choosing images of war and images of runway models (individuals that are highly portrayed within the media), Rosler asks viewers to pay attention to what is happening in the world, even if it is not occurring within our own environments; she also demands the world consider the role that the media possesses in controlling how we perceive world events.

Although, Back Garden is nearly an accurate mimesis of people through photos, the piece itself is avant-garde as these depictions of people are not normally sized or put together in this way in real life. Normally, when an object is up close it is larger to the human eye, and when it is far away it is smaller. But within Back Garden, Rosler intentionally sized the runway models in an unconventional and unrealistic way. Although, physically they are bigger than the American soldier, dead bodies, and fleeing women in the background, the runway models appear to be much smaller than what real life would depict. Their size is odd and slightly uncomfortable especially as you go down the line. The fleeing women and American soldier standing over dead bodies are more realistically sized compared to their counterparts within the front of the back garden. This experimental choice in sizing, and the emotion this strategy employs, ultimately makes this piece avant-garde.

Back Garden pushes the boundaries not only within the artwork, but within the controversial message and feelings it conveys. Rosler makes the viewer uncomfortable by bringing a war, usually out of sight and out of mind, into their serene back garden. She makes the viewer uncomfortable by comparing a life of attention focused almost irrelevant matters like high fashion, with lives of war, murder, and terror. She then deepens our discomfort by unrealistically sizing her subjects, in a way that the human eye is not accustomed to. This feeling of discomfort helps Rosler bring conversations of war into light, making it both an avant-garde and highly political piece of work.

 

“Over Vitebsk”

December 2, 2018 / / 2 Comments

Over Vitebsk-Marc Chagall

This painting was made by Marc Chagall in 1915-20. It is an oil painting on canvas. It’s hung in The Jewish Museum on 92nd Street and 5th Ave. The painting is both abstract and carries a political message. Chagall was a Hasidic Jew who grew up in Russia. He moved out of Russia for a while, but returned to bring his remaining belongings and his wife to Paris, where he had been living. He ended up getting stuck in Russia due to the Revolution, but he remained because he was finally granted rights and full citizenship. Chagall did not always have rights like he did after the Revolution, and this can be depicted in his painting. The name of the painting is “Over Vitebsk.” Featured in the painting is a Hasidic Jew flying over what seems to be Chagall’s hometown in Russia. The painting represents the idea of the  “Wandering Jew,” lost without a homeland. The Jew in the picture is depicting the thousands of Jews who had left Russia and Eastern Europe in the days of Chagall’s childhood. Although this painting is abstract and may not be so clear, when I first saw it I knew right away that it had a message. After a few additional minutes of observing it, and reading the placard next to the painting, I was able to see what the message was. Before entering The Jewish Museum I read a brief article about Chagall, “An Art School Started by Marc Chagall that Became a Modernist Wasteland.” From this I knew that life in Eastern Europe was hard for Jews in Chagall’s early years. This helped me create an inference about what the painting was trying to say. I felt that the painting was trying to show how the Jews in Eastern Europe felt, like they didn’t belong. The Jews weren’t always granted equal citizenship, and the painting displays this. The image of the Hasidic Jew fleeing Russia shows that they felt like they didn’t have a place to live; they didn’t have a home. This work is very experimental, because it is sending a major message. It is addressing the issue of the way Jews were being treated in Eastern Europe. I feel that this painting is both a mimesis and abstract. It’s a mimesis in the way that it depicts the Hasidic Jew. I was able to tell right away that the floating figure was a Jew, and I was able to understand what the Jew was representing. Although the painting is a mimesis, it is also abstract because the land is painted in a way that isn’t so clear. I was able infer that the land was Chagall’s hometown in Russia because of the knowledge I had read before, but one wouldn’t be able to tell right away that area the Jew is flying over is in Russia. For me, this painting evoked a lot of emotion. I was able to see that the Hasidic Jew took all of his belongings, got up, and was leaving the place that he grew up in, leaving his home with no destination in mind. I felt upset, sad, and angry that this happens so often in the world. People are constantly being kicked out of their homes, and are being forced to move. This painting was able to send a clear, strong message. I really enjoyed the museum and this piece.

 

The Power of Revolutionary Art

December 2, 2018 / / 3 Comments

Art is incredibly vital to any political movement. It is used to motivate people to join a cause and it is used to show the reasons for a revolution. At the Jewish Museum, we saw two different exhibits showing revolutionary art; art criticizing government and art that moved people emotionally to take part in a revolution. In the exhibit regarding Russian Avant-Garde from 1918 to 1922, I found a piece by David Yakerson named “Red Guards”. It grabbed my attention because it reminded me of the art that my peers create and put on signs when it comes time to organize our communities. It was a simple piece of art. There were 3 basic colors on it, red, blue and yellow, but that is all you need to capture someone’s attention. The foreground of the painting is very symmetrical and repetitive, and the background shows an image of a factory.
I was very intrigued by this art that I even went home to learn more afterward, but it was difficult to find out more, there were not many articles about it and there was only 1 photo of the piece online when you typed the title and artist name into the search engine—I have never had this happen before. It was painted in 1918 and it was designed to be on a banner for the first anniversary of the October revolution according to the blurb alongside the painting. Marc Chagall approved of this painting and even wrote on the back how many copies he needed and how large they had to be.
This art is considered experimental for various reasons. The minimalism of the art is interesting, it isn’t clear as to what is going on—all you know is that there’s a factory along with red soldiers carrying guns. It took a bit more research to understand that art of red army soldiers were common symbols of the revolution and was intended to reflect the issue of class struggle. It is a mimesis of the revolution—people arming themselves and fighting back is a common theme in any movement that demands action from the people. The art is minimalist, there is not a lot of details but it is enough to catch your attention and somehow it also is able to evoke emotion without seeing many details.
This painting is demanding your attention without overworking your senses. It is remembering the October revolution with life and passion. The way that the soldiers march together and are a reflection of each other show the unity of the people who want change; they could not remain silent in a situation where they are unequal. This type of art greatly influenced the political banners and posters of today. As I am writing this post, I look up at my bedroom wall and see all the posters I have used at protests and see the resemblance. Although they are not the same, Yakerson’s work and the work of other revolutionary artists have helped pave the way for artists use their art to demand liberation.

To the Potty or to the Battlefield?

December 2, 2018 / / 2 Comments

 

Diaper Pattern, 1973

In 1973, Martha Rosler created a famous piece of art known as the “Diaper Pattern.” The artwork appears as a simple attachment of many white cloths into a grid. However, these are no ordinary white cloths, they are the diapers of her young son. On each diaper she has written a slogan or a quote relating to the Vietnam war. This art work is not only avant- garde physically, in that no one has spoken out against war through art on their children’s diapers. Rather it is also avant garde in its message. Being a mother in a domestic household, Martha Rosler used her art to challenge the female role in a household. She uses the diapers, which are normally seen around young children, as a way to hold powerful messages about war. This artwork pushes boundaries of art in the way it is designed: a grid of diapers. It also tests the limits of the female role in society and pushes the boundaries of feminism as well.

Martha Rosler uses her son’s diapers as a medium in speaking out against war. Diapers represent the household and domestic life many women spend living. It symbolizes “motherhood” as women are often portrayed as people who stay home and take care of children. By writing violent sayings across diapers, it is no longer just a piece of art work that speaks out against war but also one that speaks out against feminism. The entire work of art is political and encourages controversial discussion. Rosler is bringing the viewer out of their head and forcing them to look at reality; the reality of women and the reality of war. By using diapers to carry her messages, she pushes against the boundaries placed around women, wives, and mothers everywhere.

While Martha Rosler wrote many different messages on the diapers, they all shared a common theme: protesting against the Vietnam War. The word “Gooks” appears over and over on multiple diapers and Martha Rosler is calling attention to this derogatory term and the effects of war. Martha Rosler has placed the diapers in a grid which is ironic since a grid has structure and organization and war is total chaos. The artwork is abstract as it isn’t an obvious mimesis of war or feminism, rather it is a complex composition of ideas. It can be seen as a mimisis of a protest or of war in its violent words and controversial messages, however, the fact that it is organized into a grid contradicts this. I think it is a mimesis of multiple different ideas and not just one idea. Overall, Martha Rosler used her sons diapers as a platform to speak out against war and the traditional domesticity as she brings the two themes together.

Plane or Elaborate

December 2, 2018 / / 2 Comments

Martha Rosler’s show at the Jewish Museum called “Irrespective'” is full of avant-garde and political art. Each of her pieces pushes boundaries and is politically charged, however what stood out to me most were the selections from her work called “Airfare”. Projected on a small digital screen that is mounted on the wall is a slideshow of pictures that show different meals given to different passengers who travel on planes. The pictures show that first-class passengers are served meals that include salmon, wine, pasta, and even creme brulee, while economy passengers receive nuts, water, jam, pizza and bagged snacks. The contrast between these different meal plans is apparent at first glance and makes a statement in different ways.

This piece is an example of avant garde art because it pushes boundaries. It is art that forces the viewers to look at a very present hierarchical difference right in the face. It does not shy away from issues or hard conversations, but rather encourages these conversations, which is not typical of regular paintings that hang in museums. It is forward-looking by inciting these types of dialogues. Therefore, this piece is not only avant garde, but is also political. There is an important message being made. As the blurb next to the digital screen in the museum writes, this “offers a pointed comment on the hierarchies of privilege in that system of mass movement.” These photos clearly show the class differences in society that manifest themselves in many ways. Martha Rosler herself is critiquing this disparity and is trying to send the message to her viewers to take a closer look at the disparity as well.

The art work’s experimentalism is related to its political content because Martha Rosler attempts to convey her political message subtly, as there are no words or verbal critiques. However, she still manages to make her point very effectively, and perhaps it is even because of the medium she choses for the work of art. By using a television screen very non-traditionally, it causes those who see it to be taken aback. This wakes them up and tells them to dissect America’s prevalent issues. There is nothing plastered on a huge white wall, nor is there anything hanging from the ceiling, like some of Martha Rosler’s other works of art. Rather, there is just a small black screen with eight to ten pictures on repeat that each show for no more that six seconds. But this innovative way of presenting the pictures causes viewers to become fixed on the photos, and therefore helps make her political message very clear.

« Older posts

Authors

© 2024 Seminar 1: The Arts in NYC

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑