Author: katrynnaj

“Personas”, a sculpture by George Segal, presents a conceptualization of the events at Kent State University in 1970. This work would be considered conceptual art as it emphasizes the idea of generational struggle through the use of biblical figures. The sculpture expresses the power that older people have over the younger generations, specifically “the power of life and death over their children to exercise love, compassion, and restraint.” The positioning of Abraham and Isaac is in service of this concept as a restrained Isaac is kneeling to Abraham, in which Abraham has power over him with a weapon in hand. This artwork creates innovations in the connection between the art itself and the reason for its production. Looking at the Kent State situation from the perspective of generational power creates a new dynamic between the students protesting the Vietnam War and the military’s response. The piece itself is a mimesis, as it was based on an episode from the Hebrew Bible.

This work is political in the sense of its opposition to the Vietnam War. It clearly expresses that the military response projects this idea of generational power, something that is not depicted as positive by the sculpture. The sculpture portrays the message that the older generations have this power over the younger generations, especially in terms of life and death. During the events at Kent State, four people were killed and nine others were wounded. Segal used this biblical allegory to materialize his opposition. I think this piece attempts to effect a change in the world by conveying this striking scene from the Hebrew Bible, showing that this same demand for obedience and faith in which the scene holds and which took place at Kent State is intrinsically toxic; no one should lose their life because it is in another’s power to take it.

Segal’s expression through this sculpture is an effective way of communicating with the world. The positioning of the people emphasizes his message while also evokes a sense of emotion from the viewer, something that may not have been as effective if the artwork was depicted solely on paper. The sheer size of the sculpture puts the events into perspective, making it more realistic and therefore connecting the viewer to the art as well as the time, even though it was created in 1970. The message is universal to all periods, as generational power still holds in some ways.

Our Podcast’s Central Concept: Defining The Arts and New York City 

Our project is centered around New York City. More specifically, paisley and I chose to look at Washington Square Park for an inquiry of how art and New York City define one another. Thus, we propose “Washington Square Art”, an auditory project that focuses on the perspective of New Yorkers in relation to art. New York City is known for its artistic expression, serving as a cultural mecca. This leaves us with the driving question of how New York City defines art and how art defines New York City. We plan to make a podcast, recording the responses of New Yorkers and artists selling their work in Washington Square Park, to then analyze their different viewpoints. Paisley and I will be discussing the driving idea behind this project; that New York has a unique relationship with art. 

The Relationship of Our Podcast to Defining the Arts and New York City 

The material form of this project is a podcast which will discuss the role of art in its relation to New York City. The concept of the definitions of what art means to this city specifically highlights its relationship to the material form of the podcast. The podcast is a mix of a production of art and an analysis of art, presenting recordings of the interviews as well as our own take on the idea. Our podcast will allow us to explore the different realms of answers that we will be presented with. It gives an auditory break down of the different perspectives, whether coming from someone buying art, selling art, or just existing with the art. The podcast embodies this central idea in that it is creating another perspective. New York has so many different lifestyles and ideas. The presentation of a podcast with the element of these different perspectives leads us to a collective definition that is inspired by our own encounters. 

Communicating the Definitions of the Arts and New York City to the Audience 

We hope to communicate our ideas through the medium of podcasting. Kat and I will be guiding listeners through the experience we had of answering our thesis questions: How does New York City inform how people define art? How does art inform how people define New York City? First, we will introduce these questions and how IDC engendered them. Then, we will discuss the conversations we had with artists and viewers of art about these questions. Depending on what snippets we collect from people on the street, we will also be including the recordings of the conversations we had. Throughout the podcast, we will be talking about how these conversations, as well as what we have learned from class, have helped us answer these questions. We will then be concluding the podcast with our actual answers, or more specifically our definitions for art in terms of New York City and New York City in terms of art. The reason we chose podcasting as our medium is that answering this question, or defining these things, necessitates a conversation between New Yorkers, including those who are just residents and also those who are artists. Thus, a podcast properly conveys how people’s definitions may differ and it is the amalgamation of everyone’s experiences with the arts and New York City that allows us to answer these questions. 

The Audience’s Takeaways from the Podcast and the Definitions 

This first Macaulay Honors College seminar is literally called the Arts in New York City, a class in which we have learned about various art forms interacting with New York City. Through our exposure to the arts as we explore and learn about the city, we began to understand how interconnected the two things are. In other words, New York City would not be what it is without the arts and the arts in New York City would not be what they are without being centered in this spectacular city. Without this course, we are not entirely sure we would have understood the symbiotic relationship between the two. Thus, this podcast is meant to inform others about what we have learned. After encountering our podcast, we hope people will better understand this relationship and also continue to appreciate how each one has bettered the other. Hopefully, listening to this podcast will make listeners think about how the arts has informed their experiences in New York City as well as how New York City has informed their experiences with the arts. 

Our Inspiration for Washington Square Art

Meeting an artist at Washington Square Park inspired us to create this podcast.

Original: Baruch College Undergraduate Survival Guide

I see Earth changing, the varied beauty I see,

Those of the beach, each one changing visions as it should be quiet and serene,

The forest changing it’s vision as its trees are taken from them or us,

The ice cap changing it’s vision as the ice melts, or we melt the ice,

The land changing it’s vision as the town floods or the animals suffer,

The politicians changing what belongs to them in the world, the people changing from the land below.

The ignorant changing from their seats, the motivated changing as they take to the streets,

The butcher’s vision, the Earth butchered as we pollute its feats,

The old vision, the kid’s on their way to the beach, or the woods or the north pole,

The broken vision, the environment changing or breaking as time moves on,

The forgotten vision, the scientists warning and preaching, with no help given,

The enchanting changing of the mother nature, or of the adults doing nothing, or of the kids standing up,

Each changing what is important to him or her and to none else,

The Earth what belongs to the Earth – one day the party of the politicians, careless, passioned,

Changing with hopeless plans their untimely changes.

Barthes, the author of Camera Lucida, provides a unique perspective on photography, contributing a philosophical lens on what exactly photography is through its essence. From the first part of the book, the passage that touches on the history of the photograph seemed important in the process of understanding Barthes’ argument at first. On page twelve, Barthes defines the history through how one sees themself; “To see oneself (differently from in a mirror): on the scale of History, this action is recent, the painted, drawn, or miniaturized portrait having been, until the spread of Photography, a limited possession, intended moreover to advertise a social and financial status-and in any case, a painted portrait, however close the resemblance (this is what I am trying to prove) is not a photograph” (Barthes, 12). Barthes then describes the photograph as “…the advent of myself as other: a cunning dissociation of consciousness from identity”(Barthes, 12). I interpreted this specific passage as Barthes’ way of saying that photographs do not necessarily capture the true identity, or essence of what was occurring in a photograph. This passage seemed to help me better understand his overall argument that we cannot identify ourself or others through photographs, as that does not genuinely reflect the person, especially with the passage of time.  

In the second part of Camera Lucida, Barthes’ delves further into his analysis. Stating that “The Photograph does not necessarily say what is no longer, but only and for certain what has been,” emphasizes the idea that the photograph does not reflect its object accurately with the passage of time (Barthes, 85). This particular statement allowed me to grasp the idea Barthes was trying to argue: that the essence of photography itself is its past events and the ways in which the photograph is presented, “its testimony bears not on the object but on the time” and “The choice is mine: to subject its spectacle to the civilized code of perfect illusions, or to confront in it the wakening of intractable reality”(Barthes, 89-119). I chose these statements as they are integral in understanding his final argument.

A strong discussion question in relation to Barthes’ argument would be “How do you relate to photographs as the Spectator as defined by Barthes?”

There are numerous factors that can affect a viewer’s experience when in an art gallery. Lighting, spacing, and the setup of the pieces of art all play a role in this. A sleek, typical white cube draws the audience to examine the artwork in a minimally invasive setting, whereas a gallery with colored walls, or windows, may alter this focused outlook. Teresa Burga and Ishiuchi Miyako present two contrasting galleries, not only in their different forms of art but in their different presentations of it. Miyako’s photographs and Burga’s sketches and sculptures are contrasted by their differing mediums as well as these outside factors. 

Teresa Burga’s gallery, presented at Alexander Gray Associates on 510 West 26 Street, contained artwork of different natures, but related in their outcome. This gallery was set up with sketches hung around the room, leaving the only two sculptures in the middle of the floor. At first glance the pieces may seem to have no relation, but when examined more closely, the sketches dictate what the other pieces were to become. Burga’s setup of the room affects the viewer’s experience with her work, as it grabs their attention, forcing them to reexamine the artwork once this connection is made, thus intriguing the viewer to discover more similarities in the other pieces. One of the pieces in the installation, “Serie Máquinas Inutiles” depicts a pen on paper sketch of the featured sculpture, “Serie Máquinas Inutiles, Lámpara”. The intended purpose of this being a series rather than a stand alone sketch, along with the setup of the room, begs the viewer to go between the artwork on the wall and the sculptures on the floor. This affects their experience as they are now drawing comparisons between the pieces and feel a connection within the confines of the room. Additionally, the room’s use of the “white cube” setup brings the focus to only the artwork and the connections within the artwork, giving no direct correlation from the art to the room but rather connecting the art to the other works of art.

Not all galleries utilize the “white cube” aesthetic that is described by O’Doherty. Ishiuchi Miyako’s gallery, presented at Fergus McCaffrey on 514 West 26th Street, uses both her artwork and the space in which it is presented to enhance the viewer’s experience. This gallery uses painted walls to connect with the photographs. The gallery first opens with a black wall that holds black and white photographs, such as “Yokosuka”, and then transitions to grey, pink, and blue walls, along with photographs that contain a relative color scheme. Miyako’s use of the gallery space affects the viewer’s experience as it gives them a sense of separation from the different related works, as the bodies of work have similarities to the ones they are grouped together with, but contrast more with the works of art on a different colored wall. The use of colored walls also allows the viewer to see the photograph past its original boundaries. The photograph is no longer constrained to its frame, but can now bleed into the outside world. “Yokosuska” in relation to the wall is examined differently than “Innocence #77” on its grey wall, as the aesthetics of the whole room shift to adapt to the altered theme and evoke different emotions out of the viewer. 

Burga and Miyako both present artwork that is in someway connected, yet they present their galleries in much different ways. Burga’s use of the classic white cube as compared to Miyako’s use of colored walls creates a different environment for the viewer, and therefore a different experience. Burga’s artwork in relation to its setting may urge the viewer to focus on the bare aspects of her sketches whereas Miyako’s artwork leads the viewer to see it in a different setting, connecting the emotions that are evoked from the photograph to the emotions that are related to those colors.

The “Alamo” sculpture resembles a rubix cube in its shape. The geometric parts do not align perfectly with circles interrupting the flow of the box. When looked at from different angles, the faces of the sides are different. It appears as though it is a puzzle, all sides being different. The sculpture stands on one corner of the cube, making it appear as though it is balancing. It is also a moving sculpture, allowing people to physically push it in a circle, however it is not light in weight. The entire piece is black, made of painted steel, and rests on a small black platform.

The “World Pride Mural Project” is a painted mural with a vast black background. The mural reads “today your love, tomorrow the world”. In terms of the writing, the phrase is in all capitals. The mural also depicts two hands holding the world. Rather than holding a typical globe, the countries are represented within a rainbow heart. The arms lead off of the wall, only truly showing the hands. Both the writing and the countries are in white, while the heart and hands are the only colorful components in this piece. The mural is large in size reaching from the top of the wall to the bottom of the wall, however the artwork does not extend as far out to the sides in comparison.

Kwon’s definition of art in public places is representative of the “Alamo” sculpture. This sculpture is both abstract and acts as a decoration. It is not a typical sculpture and it seems to be there for art and interaction. The sculpture best fits this area of Kwon’s three paradigms as the sculpture is not part of the site nor is it based off of a social issue for awareness. The artwork interacts with its site as its capability to be moved invites people to physically touch the piece and change the way it is facing, also allowing for a mental interaction. The sculpture is across from the 6 subway in a public area untouched by its surroundings. The piece is indifferent to the space as it could be placed anywhere and still serve the same purpose. The artwork interacts with the people as it occupies a relatively empty space, inviting people to both touch it and wonder about it. The artist’s identity is not extremely important in the presentation of the piece nor is the funding body as the sculpture does not promote this information at first glance. The information it provides is on a plaque similar in color on the platform of the sculpture. 

The mural could be considered as art in the public interest under the relative guidelines of Kwon’s paradigms. The piece incites the public to consider social issues, specifically calling on the people to spread love, not hate, in order to better the future of our world. The artwork is placed on a solid black wall within a gap between stores, making it indifferent to the site, as it could be placed elsewhere and still spread the same message. The work of art interacts with the community of SoHo, allowing its message to reach those who may be more fortunate and able to help others. The vastness of the artwork allows it to also interact with the individual as the large space forces one’s eyes to it. The artist’s identity does not necessarily matter here, however the funding body matters as it is a global pride initiative. The information on the funding body is available, but it is placed in the corner of the mural so as not to detract from the message itself.   

The two pieces, the “Alamo” and the “World Pride” mural project differ immensely in terms of their paradigm in relation to Kwon, their meaning, and the medium in which they are expressed. The artwork and space differ in terms of their relation to the public. The sculpture did not serve an inherent purpose, it served more as a decoration, whereas the mural’s intent was a call to the public to spread love within the pride community. The site of the mural in SoHo insinuates the message is intended for the privileged. Unlike the mural, the sculpture’s location in Astor Place leaves the artwork for the enjoyment of the overall community. These two pieces are alike however in their role as public art, serving the public and also being accepted by the communities they are in. Despite being two completely different mediums, they each serve their own purpose in the art world.

Title: The Repast of the Lion

Artist: Henri Rousseau

Origin: France

Medium: Oil on canvas

The lion’s eyes are very striking, looking straight forward at the audience as it is eating what appears to be another animal. The lion is more realistic than abstract with a life-like color scheme. In comparison to the painting as a whole, the lion is not emphasized to the extent it could have been, which shows the audience it’s frightening subtlety. The lion is painted in relation to the nature surrounding it, playing a key role in analyzing the meaning of the work. The overall depiction of the lion and its surroundings allow me to connect the idea of the painting to society as a whole. When looking at the placement of all the subjects in the painting, the juxtaposition of nature and the lion is prominent. The beautiful flowers and trees along with the sunset paint a lovely, almost serene picture, until the eye is drawn down to the lion. Depicted with a bloody animal in its mouth, it could be seen that this represents a conception in the painter’s mind of the overarching beauty of nature, having within it a small component of intrinsic violence. From a distance, everything seems to be harmonious, however when looked at closely, individual manifestations of power that are intrinsic violations of boundary bespeak a power-over dynamic that exists within the larger framework of society. This piece of artwork seems to be making a statement about perceived and actual reality and relations.