Author: Paisley Shultz

When visiting the Jewish Museum, I was struck by the work in each exhibition, and I felt shocked that I had never been to the museum before given how much I liked the art on display. Particularly, I thought the Rachel Feinstein Show “Maiden, Mother, Crone” was really interesting and quite excellent. Not only was the technique Feinstein implemented into her work just exceptional but she also gave greater meaning to the work by creating dichotomies in her work. Each piece was very cohesive in nature, but certain elements of the works were contrasting. I think to antithesize these elements was very powerful, and it is what struck me most about her work. 

The piece I chose to analyze in greater depth is a portrait of an older woman dressed elegantly with a mirror as the background. This piece constitutes conceptual art because Feinstein uses it to comment on the issues women must face throughout their lives. As the blurb says, Feinstein’s work is meant to demonstrate three stages in a woman’s life, “maiden, mother, crone.” These stages signal a woman’s progression from youth to old age, and I believe this portrait is an amalgamation of all three stages. For instance, her fingers do not look like those of a human, and her skin isn’t life-like, which is where the “crone” identity comes in. At the same time, she is still dressed elegantly to maintain her poise and has many other feminine qualities. I think Feinstein is highlighting how women take on many identities throughout their lives and the fact that they are ever-changing causes a great deal of conflict. Moreover, the mirror in the background is a symbol meant to highlight the fact that vanity is fleeting in nature because the mirror is behind her as though her vanity is her past. 

This work is political in a way because it highlights the patriarchal structure of society that would force a woman to take on so many identities, which do cause conflict for a woman. I think having a mirror-like background is also interesting because it forces the viewer to see themselves in the piece of work. Consequently, the viewer is forced to put themselves in the shoes of the woman, or less figuratively, the viewer is forced to empathize with the woman. If the viewer is a man, the mirror juxtaposes the identity-conflict the painted woman is having with the man. If the viewer is a woman, however, the mirror would make the viewer reflect upon their own changing identity. For both genders, Feinstein wants the viewers to acknowledge the fact that women have to deal with this conflict, and therefore, confront the systemic issues that contribute to such. Universally, the acknowledgment of the unjust nature of society is the first step to then galvanizing people into action against these systemic issues.

What are we making? 

First, Kat and I have decided we want to focus on a particular area of the city. Currently, we are thinking that Washington Square Park should be our focus, given that there are many artists trying to sell their work as well as many people interacting with the artists and talking about their art. In this area, we would ask different people, artists and passersby, the following questions: How is New York City defined by art? How is art defined by New York City? Hopefully, these people could share the different perspectives they have in order to answer these questions. We would like to record these answers with our phones so that the tone of people’s actual voices are included. Moreover, the recordings would make the project more interactive in our opinion. With the recordings, we would also take pictures of these people, the artists’ work, and the surrounding area. Then we would take these photos and make a collage on a poster board. From there, we would try to create some kind of collective answer to our questions. In other words, a definition of art in terms of New York City/New York City in terms of art. 

How does our project relate to the themes and readings of the semester? 

This semester is literally about the arts of New York City, and our project would be a representation of the knowledge we have gained about both the arts and New York City. More specifically, this semester we talked about New York City as the subject of art as well as a space of displaying and consuming art. In the second blog post, for instance, we each took pictures of public art we found in the city. This was sort of a preliminary attempt to define this dichotomy of New York City being the art and being the space for art. With Washington Square Park, we have observed how New York City can be both. While we have learned about different artists’ perspectives about New York City and about art in class, we think it would be interesting to include the perspectives of people who are currently and actively engaging with both the arts and New York City. 

How do we imagine (at this point) displaying it at the STEAM festival? 

At the STEAM festival, we plan to create a poster to display along with edited recordings of people’s definitions of art in New York City. The poster would be a collage of all the photos we took of the people, different art, and the area (Washington Square Park). The recordings would be a collage on their own, edited together to give an auditory representation of what can be seen on the poster, which will provide more context to the viewer. Additionally, the poster will give a visual aid to the people interacting with our project. And consequently, the viewer may gain a new perspective on the complexity of New York City in relation to art. 

We would need to have a poster board for the basis of our project. We could print the photos out using the color printers in the library, but we need scissors and glue sticks. Additionally, we will have some collection of words or a literal definition from the answers we receive on the poster board, and we will also be printing that out in the library. The recordings are going to be done on our phones initially, so we may present an edited collage of the recordings from the computer for viewers to listen to. 

My erasure poem:

The original pamphlet:

I watch the sunrise when nights are sleepless, 

But I am not the only one. 

The naive girl who thinks excessively, 

The distracted boy who plays violent videogames endlessly, 

The attentive father who cares for his newborn nightly, 

The artistic boy who awaits the sun curiously, 

The adorable baby who cries endlessly, 

The young couple who talk about everything and nothing excitedly,  

The sick child who squirms in bed restlessly, 

The teenage girls who gossip incessantly, 

The wealthy executive who should not have eaten that sushi willingly, 

The sad boy who neglects getting help stubbornly, 

The diligent student who procrastinates regularly, 

The young immigrant who makes an international call to his family eagerly, 

The caring mother who awaits her teenage son’s arrival anxiously, 

The old man who curses his loud neighbors aggressively, 

The college student who takes a picture for a class tiredly, 

Each watches the sunrise when nights are sleepless. 

The apartments differ and the people differ and the reasons differ, 

Yet the yellow and orange and red and blue reflect off every surface, 

And into the comforting homes behind each window, 

And we are all connected by one thing: 

We all watch the sunrise when nights are sleepless. 

“The screen… is not a frame but a hideout; the man or woman who emerges from it continues living: a “blind field” constantly doubles our partial vision…. When we define the Photograph as a motionless image, this does not mean only that the figures it represents do not move; it means that they do not emerge, do not leave… Yet once there is a punctum, a blind field is created” (57).

In this passage, Barthes compares photographs and films. The distinction, according to him, is the development of the “blind field”. Films are able to institute a greater story beyond what is simply shown on the screen, whereas photographs require the spectator to create their own secondary meaning. The “partial vision” is what is shown during the viewing of a film and the “blind field” is what parallels the “partial vision”, allowing the viewer to believe the story expands beyond solely what is represented on the screen. Since photographs are more static than films, Barthes argues there is no reason to believe the story extends beyond what is captured. Instead, the spectator must utilize the punctum to create their own “blind field,” and thus, assign the photograph a greater meaning.

I chose this passage because I thought the comparison was interesting and I wanted to focus on it in-depth in order to fully unpack what Barthes is claiming. The idea of a “blind field” is also interesting to me. I always thought of the intention of the artist (or the photographer, in this case) while viewing a piece of art and Barthes sort of argues against this way of thinking. The idea that the viewer/spectator contributes something to art by creating the “blind field” feels much more interactive. In other words, this notion makes me feel less detached as a viewer.

“The date belongs to the photograph: not because it denotes a style (this does not concern me), but because it makes me lift my head, allows me to compute life, death, the inexorable extinction of the generations…. Photography offers an immediate presence to the world—a co-presence…” (84).

I feel as though this passage reflects Barthes’s enduring goal in this novel, which is unraveling the intricacies of life and death. I also felt that this passage works well with the passage I focused on in Part One. By focusing on the punctum of time, Barthes describes what he finds to be a “co-presence”, which is not entirely dissimilar to the “blind field” idea. It is this secondary viewpoint the spectator creates that allows a photograph to have a greater meaning than what is simply captured.

Discuss question: When you take a picture, do you ever think about what the punctum of your piece could be for the general audience? Or instead of thinking about a greater meaning, do you focus solely on what’s in front of you?

Having grown up around the arts, it would be difficult for me not to be critical about the curation of a show. While most people may enter a gallery and solely see the art pieces themselves, I instinctually take note of the way the art was hung, how the lighting affects each work, and the placement of the works in comparison to one another. All these components are meant to appear effortless as the entire ambiance of space affects the way art is consumed by the viewer. Any variation from the “white cube” notion of exhibition space, therefore, alters the consumption of the art, ideally to suit the curators’ and artists’ intent. 

Alexander Gray Associates at 520 West 26th Street, the first gallery we located, exemplifies the “white cube” idea of a gallery space. All the walls, except one, are polished white with small pieces of work hanging and a few pieces of sculpture in the middle of the room. One wall, however, has an abstraction of buildings stenciled onto it directly. The wall itself seems to be an enlarged version of the small piece “Insomnia (10)” framed on the wall to the left of the “Insomnia (10) Wall Drawing”.  There is an ease of cohesiveness in the space due to the uniform placement of the works as well as the fact that there is solely one artist Teresa Burga on display. While the white, clean appearance lends to attracting the viewer to the art in that it doesn’t distract him or her, enlarging “Insomnia (10)” onto the actual gallery wall has the same effect. Personally, I quickly scanned the smaller pieces on the wall before making my way towards “Insomnia (10) Wall Drawing”, and thereafter went back to each of the smaller pieces once realizing it had been duplicated. Therefore, the inclusion of the larger piece served to get the viewer to consider how all the works work together. Overall, the “white cube” asserts that the art is solely meant to interact with the art, thus creating a semblance of cohesiveness. 

Next, the group and I entered a very different space at 514 West 26th Street, Fergus McCaffrey. Whereas the previous gallery had completely white walls with a goal of parallelism in its curation, artists Ishiuchi Miyako went for a contrasting effect. On the bottom floor, the walls are black, grey, and dark blue, and the works are all framed differently as well as hung irregularly. I believe the intent as to why these works were curated this way is because each work demonstrates some type of imperfection, therefore the way the works are displayed should maintain that as well. For instance, “Scars #31” can be found on the grey wall to the right of three other framed photographs, each displaying the body of someone with some sort of abnormality. While there are two pieces hung parallel to each other, “Scars #31” is hung slightly lower as to coincide with this notion of imperfection. Additionally, the fact the walls are each colored differently and none are white adds to its imperfection because having plain, white walls would be too pristine for the nature of the show. Conclusively, the gallery space was deliberately manipulated so that it would interact with the art, producing this theme of abnormality. 

Although one may first notice the large mural on the side of a building, I decided to pay greater attention to the blown-up photograph hooked onto a fence surrounding the said building. This black and white photograph displays dozens of people lined up in the middle of a New York City street. In each of these four lines, the people appear militant, dressed in warm clothes with caps and badges. With their mouths open as if they are chanting and their right arms lifted in unison, it is evident these people are protesting but unclear what commonality brought them all to this place. In the background of the photograph, there is a large banner being held in the center of two lines of people. Unfortunately, I was unable to discern what the words say on the banner, but there is a bearded man’s face displayed to the left of the words. With the help of a small sign next to the photograph, I learned this photograph was taken by Hiram Maristnay, a member and photographer of the Young Lords in East Harlem. The Young Lords were an impactful organization of Puerto Rican activists who “were committed to the liberation of all oppressed people… with an emphasis on issues of health, food, housing, and education” during the late 1960s and 1970s. Miwon Kwon would agree this work would fit the paradigm of new genre public art as its intent is socially conscious in that it acknowledges the impact the Young Lords had on the neighborhood. Moreover, the placement of the photograph is certainly deliberate because the Spanish Methodist Church across the stress was occupied by the Young Lords and used to provide a variety of services to the community, such as clothing drives and cultural programming. The site of the work, therefore, emphasizes the significance of the art because the Young Lords helped shape that area. Moreover, the placement of the work and use of the description next to it help educate the larger community about the mission and impact of the Young Lords. While the artist’s identity is certainly significant because the photographer was a member of the Young Lords, the funding body El Museo del Barrio is also significant because it is lauded for recognizing the works of Hispanic artists.

Also in Harlem, I found the work of Naomi Lawrence “La Flor De Mi Madre”. This installation is also attached to a fence; however, it is not a photograph. Bright and colorful, Lawrence knit yarn through the fence in a multitude of flowers. To the left, there are small, red flowers with yellow middles and green leaves. Directly to the right of those small ones, there is a huge red and pink flower with each of its petals varying in color. Above the large flower, there are medium-sized, white flowers. To the right of all the previous flowers, there is a large, white orchid with pink around its edges and a large yellow middle. Preceding the large orange orchid to the right of the white one, there are smaller pink and white flowers. Finally, there is a collection of small, pink flowers outlined in black at the very right of all the other flowers. Although the flowers vary in color, size, and shape, the work appears cohesive and interesting to the eye. Interestingly, the description of the plaque next to the work solely provides thanks to the funding body, the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs and the New York State Council on the Arts. This fact was interesting to me because before going to the mural, I actually read an article online about the meaning behind the piece. According to “GothamToGo”, the artist made the deliberate decision of representing different national flowers. Even though they appear as a random collection of flowers, the different ones represent Mexico, Columbia, the Dominican Republic, and more. If I had not known this, I would believe the work fits the paradigm of “art in places”, but the work is in fact “new genre public art” because Lawrence’s work represents the different ethnicities of people living in Harlem. The art seemingly does not interact with the site very much, but considering the diversity of the area, I believe the site contributes to the meaning of the piece. Since this art appeals to the pride people have for their home countries, this art certainly interacts with the local community. However, the art does not interact with the larger community who are unaware that the flowers are connected to specific countries. The artist’s identity is presumably Hispanic, and while that is significant given the meaning behind the work, the plaque would suggest the funding body is more significant to the integrity of the piece. In my opinion, the plaque should have been more informative about the importance of the artwork itself. 

For both works of art, I decided it would be best to explore the area of Harlem since I live nearby and I had yet to explore the area. While walking through this neighborhood, I found the art to be much more abundant than on the Upper East Side where I live. Moreover, the artwork was generally centered around different ethnic groups, thus fitting categorically with “new genre public art”. The two works I focused on differed, however, in that they were created to represent minority groups at different periods in history. While the photograph acknowledged the impact the Young Lords had on Harlem in the past, the knitted flowers served to acknowledge the people of varying nationalities who are contributing to the community of Harlem today. While they are meant to represent the community at different periods, both make the point of interacting with the community and site in very deliberate ways. Consequently, both works contribute to the pride of many communities in Harlem. 

Work Cited 

Afinelyne. “’Naomi Lawrence: La Flor De Mi Madre’ to Unveil in East Harlem.” GothamToGo, 4 July 2019, gothamtogo.com/naomi-lawrence-la-flor-de-mi-madre-to-unveil-in-east-harlem/.

This striking, bronze sculpture “A Lion Attacking a Horse” from the Frick Collection was likely created between 1630 and 1640 by Italian artist Giovanni Francesco Susini. The first thing I noticed when I saw the sculpture was the size of it: it is actually quite small. Lions are meant to be these large, powerful creatures, yet Susini chose to reduce the scale of his work. Moreover, the smaller size of this sculpture does not minimize the power exerted by the lion. For instance, Susini put a great deal of effort into the grip of the lion on the horse’s body. There are distinct marks on the body of the horse near the lion’s front legs and mouth, showing the intensity to which the lion is attacking the horse. Also, the lion seemingly has one of its back legs gripping the horse’s tail. Even though it is unrealistic that a lion could grab hold of a tail, I think Susini wanted to depict that the horse had been truly overpowered and would not be escaping the lion. Although this assignment is about the mimesis of a lion, the most powerful aspect of the sculpture is the facial expression of the horse, which truly encompasses the fear and pain that would be experienced in reality. Additionally, there is a certain elegance about the piece’s smooth texture and rounded structure, perhaps exemplifying that nature can be simultaneously gruesome and beautiful.